Realm Reborn = downgrade?

[Kiote]

I don't play FFXIV to experience the oh so awesome way we all run around and kill a certain amount of mobs. I play it for the amazing world and character design, the animation, the music, the aesthetics.

While I personally do play Final Fantasy for the way we all run around and kill a certain amount of mobs, I would prefer they did whatever they had to do to make it feel like I was doing that in a Final Fantasy game. FFXIV should not sacrifice it's style for more simplified MMO mechanics. It certainly shouldn't undo 20 years of advancement in Character Model movement animations and replace them with the horrible movements of Western Wow-like MMOs.

The simple Fact is the way our characters move and interact with the world will have a very significant impact on the aesthetics and the game play. Not properly maintaining a Final Fantasy level of detail in character movement will have negative consequences. They are choosing to focus solely on combat and ui interaction. It is not that they cannot do it, they just mistakenly believe it will not have an impact. But they are wrong.

[Nemy]

This, I never understand till this day why ppl look at tree's and grass and shit in a game before game play etc.

Putting movement animation on the same tier as "trees and grass and shit".

Yeah no.

[SwordCoheir]

Who told you how we use TP or any other gameplay issue, is a bigger part of gameplay than the way our character moves through the map?

This is a subjective issue, let others judge it individually.

To me, movement animations play a big part, especially in an mmo, where the majority of time we see a character running around. I can deal with an unfortunate change in the battle system, but character movement is a big deal.

What part of Animations actually affect gameplay? 1.0 was the only exception to this rule because Animation Lock was an enforced gameplay mechanic to help make up for the server latency. In ARR they're removing Animation Lock so even IF they made all the movements aesthetically pleasing and smooth you would constantly be canceling your animations from WS spams, running side to side to combo, and using JA's, so there wouldn't be a smooth transition unless they re-implemented Animation Lock.

The only thing Animations actually do to affect gameplay is potentially blogging down your graphics card trying to make the game aesthetically eye catching and appealing, which can be a bad thing on lower end Video Cards when your trying to compensate smooth transitional elements for 50+ people in a little area like Ul'dah.

[HiirNoivl]

The only thing Animations actually do to affect gameplay is potentially blogging down your graphics card trying to make the game aesthetically eye catching and appealing, which can be a bad thing on lower end Video Cards when your trying to compensate smooth transitional elements for 50+ people in a little area like Ul'dah.

We have a winner. Thanks for your insight. /thread.

[Nemy]

What part of Animations actually affect gameplay? 1.0 was the only exception to this rule because Animation Lock was an enforced gameplay mechanic to help make up for the server latency. In ARR they're removing Animation Lock so even IF they made all the movements aesthetically pleasing and smooth you would constantly be canceling your animations from WS spams, running side to side to combo, and using JA's, so there wouldn't be a smooth transition unless they re-implemented Animation Lock.

The only thing Animations actually do to affect gameplay is potentially blogging down your graphics card trying to make the game aesthetically eye catching and appealing, which can be a bad thing on lower end Video Cards when your trying to compensate smooth transitional elements for 50+ people in a little area like Ul'dah.

I didn't say affect, i said they are part of the gameplay.

What i perceive as gameplay, includes movement animation. We just have different definitions of gameplay.

As for blogging down the graphics card, here's an idea : Why don't we make the whole game sprites, so that everyone can run it on 1337 frames per second?

[Scratches]

We just have different definitions of gameplay.

May I suggest reading a dictionary then, as that might help. There is only one concrete definition of gameplay, and, succinctly, that is how the game plays (hence, "gameplay"). But to help you out, here's the verbose definition, right out of the Oxford English Dictionary, too: "the plot of a computer or video game or the way that it is played, as distinct from the graphics and sound effects". Emphasis is mine, of course.

Now, to help solidify that definition and disprove your silly notion that animation detail is either part of, affects, or just plain is gameplay (can't tell which you really believe, as you've danced between all three over your past 150 posts in this thread), here's an example: Super Mario Bros. (NES) vs New Super Mario Bros. (Wii).
The gameplay is the exact same in both versions: a 2-dimensional platformer in which the player (playing as either Mario, Luigi, or whomever) runs and jumps over (or on top of, in the case of koopas and goombas) obstacles with the aim of making it to the end of the stage as fast as possible and without dying, collecting various power-ups along the way to aid in that goal.
Graphics fidelity and smoothness of animation have absolutely no bearing on gameplay, else the NES version (and, dare I say, every other game on the platform as well) would have been an absolute, total failure because of "crap gameplay", due to the almost complete lack of lifelike animation. Just because Mario now looks at the player, twirls, winks, smiles, and throws up the peace sign when you complete a level, does a mid-air twist every third jump, or has a propeller-hat that actually spins now, does not mean the gameplay is improved.
Sure, in New Super Mario Bros., the fluid, lifelike animations give you better feedback as to what's going on ("Oh, he really must be on the edge of that platform, because he's swaying on one foot like he's about to lose his balance!" ...Wait, no, that's Sonic.), but that still does not change the gameplay -- the developers' intent is still a race to the end via platforming, not dance around all day.

Apologies if someone already covered the common sense, dictionary, or example approaches within the 10-20 pages that followed Nemy's above comment, but... I had to edumacate.

here's an idea : Why don't we make the whole game sprites, so that everyone can[...]

BRILLIANT IDEA! Then we wouldn't have to listen to people whine about 10% less animation! I loved IV and VI... bring it on.

Fuck this, I'm out.

Bye /wave

Can I have your stuff?

~~~~~~~~~~~

In regards to the team's decision to (temporarily?) forgo overly detailed animations in favor of polished gameplay mechanics, I support their decision. It's one of the (many?) ideals the original plan got wrong/went astray on, and the critical reception, Tanaka-san's subsequent stepping down (anyone know if he's doing any better, btw?), and the fact that ARR even exists supports it.
Sure, it looks amazing, and is probably an RPers wet-dream-come-true, but as many other games and MMOs can attest to, gameplay trumps visual fidelity... Every time. Just ask Ultima Online, DAoC, Everquest, World of Warcraft, or, for non-MMOs, League of Legends, Minecraft, or Words with Friends.
Three out of four of those MMOs still have not gone free2play and Everquest only very recently did, after almost a 15-year run, and all four of those games had nowhere near the insane amount of detail (even during their time) that Crystal Tools affords XIV.
League of Legends, while its graphics are quite "meh", boasts over 32 Million users.
Minecraft has over 40 Million users, almost 7.5 Million of which have bought the game.
Lastly, Words with Friends -- yes, f'ing Scrabble -- has been downloaded over 60 Million times on mobile platforms alone.

Do I think they could do well by further developing their animations or blending techniques? Of course, but is it more important than gameplay? Not a chance. I'm perfectly satisfied with the Gamescom footage (horrible grass and all *eyeroll*), if it means better, more meaningful, more engaging gameplay.

-- Apologies for the long-ish post, everyone

[Starlord]

May I suggest reading a dictionary then, as that might help. There is only one concrete definition of gameplay, and, succinctly, that is how the game plays (hence, "gameplay"). But to help you out, here's the verbose definition, right out of the Oxford English Dictionary, too: "the plot of a computer or video game or the way that it is played, as distinct from the graphics and sound effects". Emphasis is mine, of course.

Now, to help solidify that definition and disprove your silly notion that animation detail is either part of, affects, or just plain is gameplay (can't tell which you really believe, as you've danced between all three over your past 150 posts in this thread), here's an example: Super Mario Bros. (NES) vs New Super Mario Bros. (Wii).
The gameplay is the exact same in both versions: a 2-dimensional platformer in which the player (playing as either Mario, Luigi, or whomever) runs and jumps over (or on top of, in the case of koopas and goombas) obstacles with the aim of making it to the end of the stage as fast as possible and without dying, collecting various power-ups along the way to aid in that goal.
Graphics fidelity and smoothness of animation have absolutely no bearing on gameplay, else the NES version (and, dare I say, every other game on the platform as well) would have been an absolute, total failure because of "crap gameplay", due to the almost complete lack of lifelike animation. Just because Mario now looks at the player, twirls, winks, smiles, and throws up the peace sign when you complete a level, does a mid-air twist every third jump, or has a propeller-hat that actually spins now, does not mean the gameplay is improved.
Sure, in New Super Mario Bros., the fluid, lifelike animations give you better feedback as to what's going on ("Oh, he really must be on the edge of that platform, because he's swaying on one foot like he's about to lose his balance!" ...Wait, no, that's Sonic.), but that still does not change the gameplay -- the developers' intent is still a race to the end via platforming, not dance around all day.

Apologies if someone already covered the common sense, dictionary, or example approaches within the 10-20 pages that followed Nemy's above comment, but... I had to edumacate.


BRILLIANT IDEA! Then we wouldn't have to listen to people whine about 10% less animation! I loved IV and VI... bring it on.


Bye /wave

Can I have your stuff?

~~~~~~~~~~~

In regards to the team's decision to (temporarily?) forgo overly detailed animations in favor of polished gameplay mechanics, I support their decision. It's one of the (many?) ideals the original plan got wrong/went astray on, and the critical reception, Tanaka-san's subsequent stepping down (anyone know if he's doing any better, btw?), and the fact that ARR even exists supports it.
Sure, it looks amazing, and is probably an RPers wet-dream-come-true, but as many other games and MMOs can attest to, gameplay trumps visual fidelity... Every time. Just ask Ultima Online, DAoC, Everquest, World of Warcraft, or, for non-MMOs, League of Legends, Minecraft, or Words with Friends.
Three out of four of those MMOs still have not gone free2play and Everquest only very recently did, after almost a 15-year run, and all four of those games had nowhere near the insane amount of detail (even during their time) that Crystal Tools affords XIV.
League of Legends, while its graphics are quite "meh", boasts over 32 Million users.
Minecraft has over 40 Million users, almost 7.5 Million of which have bought the game.
Lastly, Words with Friends -- yes, f'ing Scrabble -- has been downloaded over 60 Million times on mobile platforms alone.

Do I think they could do well by further developing their animations or blending techniques? Of course, but is it more important than gameplay? Not a chance. I'm perfectly satisfied with the Gamescom footage (horrible grass and all *eyeroll*), if it means better, more meaningful, more engaging gameplay.

-- Apologies for the long-ish post, everyone

Your the best man! Couldn't have said it any better myself!

[Elexia]

That's why I played XI, it had the attention to design and detail pretty much no other MMO has done back in 2002-2007 era, even now few MMOs pay attention to small world design detail.

[EdenArchangel]

I haven't been keeping a close eye on this thread. Is back-pedaling and strafing confirmed as the new animation, or have they only stated that the current animations aren't staying which still leaves room for somewhat aesthetic possibility?

[Kiote]

I haven't been keeping a close eye on this thread. Is back-pedaling and strafing confirmed as the new animation, or have they only stated that the current animations aren't staying which still leaves room for somewhat aesthetic possibility?

Unfortunately they have not confirmed or denied backpedaling and strafing. They are simply blatant in the pre-alpha Video. It is very obvious that they have implemented "Standard" Western MMO controls which will mean A turns left it stead of runs left and D does the same to the right. S will backpedal instead of turn around and the Camera will have basicly no manual control.