Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




Last Active
  • Square Enix Bringing a Bit of FFIII to Players with Forbidden Land of Eureka - Final Fantasy XIV -

    exile01 said:
    incoming FF14 rebranding from ff14: a realm reborn to ff14: all stars
    I've been saying the game should be called Final Fantasy Universe for a while now. It's too much of a mash-up of fan-service and nostalgia treatment to be its own stand-alone title. Back when I first said it, though, I was concerned that it seemed to be starting to head in that direction.

    Now? It's pretty much a design imperative for the game.

    And also, I can't help but laugh how, after failing to create compelling original content *twice* with Diadem, and that short-lived one-trick-pony PoTD... Yoshida retreats to yet more throw-back fan-service with Eureka.

    The man is creatively bankrupt. They really need to get someone in that role with some actual originality and creativity, and the willingness to go through with it. This is a series whose designers have reinvented in so many new and interesting ways, dreaming up epic, original worlds, from one game to the next. They created some of the most compelling stories during FFXI (Chains of Promathia, not least of which), and *never* had to rely on previous games in the series beyond the staples like Cid, Chocobos, airships, etc..

    And now the best SE has for FFXIV is Yoshida. Sad. So so sad.
  • Don’t buy it.

    ZOS must be doing very well with this game for all the posts I see from people actively and aggressively, perhaps desperately, trying to convince people not to play it.

    There's someone on Reddit who is literally copying and pasting the same post into every thread they find on ESO, telling everyone they're doing so to discourage people from playing it.

    That said, I tried it in Beta and wasn't crazy about it. Tried it around launch and wasn't crazy about it. Came back again a month or two before the switch to B2P and ended up enjoying it, and I've loved it ever since.


    Dvora said:
    Yep ESO has been garbage from day one.  Like several people have said, there is something you just cannot put your finger on that is missing.  IMO it's lots of little things, both missing and what should be missing.  

    One thing that stood out to me, other than the obvious bad combat, was how much the world looked more like a diorama of a world than than a world...  I dunno hard to explain I guess.  Bits and pieces and good elements of what a fantasy world should have but all kinda just thrown in haphazardly with no soul, and no proper sense of scale.
    This is why opinions can be as unique as the people sharing them, and interesting to read. I couldn't feel more opposite of you if I tried. Especially the world design part.

    I've not seen a MMO whose world was so richly detailed and "lived-in" since FFXI or Lineage 2. I've not seen one more "alive" and storied, with little bits of story-telling scattered all over, tucked away from any main routes. Often they have no tie to any quest or activity, but add more life and history to the world, to be discovered (or not) by passers-by. Something about the amount of detail ESO's designers put into its world impresses me every time I play. It's one of my favorite parts of the game.

    Meanwhile, the way you describe ESO's world is exactly how I feel about FFXIV's world and game design; a colorful and 'pretty' but ultimately hollow series of dioramas. And there's fans of that game who would utterly disagree with me on that point.


    Nope.  ZoS fails in balance in several ways, the biggest is they design content around the meta that emerges instead of addressing the core of the problem.

    The whole point of getting to higher levels of power is greater challenges.  If you have to conform to a meta in order to complete that content then there is no real build freedom. 

    You can blame the players all you want, but ZoS is the one designing around meta stats.
    Then every single MMO in existence has a lack of build freedom, it's never the players' fault, and always the devs'.

    Every single MMORPG in existence has meta. Every single one of them has people whom, like you, insist that the meta is THE one and only way to play the game, that you would be excluded from the content if you didn't follow it strictly, and that it's the 'devs fault'; not the players restricting themselves.

    I was excluded from end-game content in FFXIV because "I didn't have the right build" (aka I wasn't following "the meta"), even while others who didn't follow the meta but put in the time and effort were clearing that content.

    I was excluded from content even well before end-game in FFXI. CoP content, BCNMs and so forth.. I was unable to participate in those because "I didn't have the right job/build" (aka I wasn't following "the meta").

    I was excluded from content in WoW because "I didn't have the right builds and, further, wasn't using the correct "required" addons".

    I was excluded from Nightmare content in The Secret World if I didn't have "the right build" (aka I wasn't following "the meta").

    And on and on and on.

    Every single MMORPG I've played, or even just casually followed over the last decade+ has had that same group of people at end game, with that same mentality, and they all "blamed the devs" for it.

    Yet, in each of those games, other groups would get together with "non-meta" setups, and somehow clear the content, by adapting and changing their strategies to fit the build they had, rather than trying to adhere to the one dictated by the latest "guide du jour". And, like you, people in those games would never acknowledge this. They would never admit that the "meta"was not the only way to clear that content, until someone found something that worked better (faster clear time, etc)... Then they quickly adopted *that* approach as being "the meta", and insisted that was the "only way to clear the content", and continued to blame the devs for "making it so limited".

    You can keep beating that drum all you like, claiming the problem is somehow "uniquely bad" in ESO, and that it's "the devs fault" that players refuse to go with anything but what they've deemed "the right way to play". This has been the case for as long as such a thing as "end game meta" has existed.

    But, by all means, do provide a break-down of every other build people may feasibly try in said content, for each role, and break down why they absolutely could not work, in any scenario. Demonstrate why only the ones defined by the current "meta" could ever possibly be successful in said content. Show us the math, parse the parser data from all other possible configurations, and demonstrate that you actually know the game well enough to back up your claims.

    Show us that all your bluster isn't just you regurgitating what you've read/heard others say about it, and you aren't only asserting it so fervently because you really want to bash on ESO and "end game meta" is the particular hill you've chosen to die on.

    Demonstrate why anyone should take your word for it, that you know what you're talking about moreso than Iselin or others in these forums who have already disagreed with you and provided explanations why.

    Golelorn said:

    You can level in ESO in less than 2 days hard play to 50. Of course, a new player can't do that - you need resources. But what game can a new player level to max quickly? And... I do agree with you. Leveling faster should be an option in ESO. I do find it tiresome. Buts its the genre.. not the game.

    Also, do not forget. Once at 50 you do not have to regrind CP.

    And if you think a max CP toon should be had quickly.... wow. CP is better than gear in ESO. A naked 660 CP toon is stronger than a max gear CP 160 toon.
    I don't agree that it "should be an option".

    But here's a question to that end: Why?

    What is it about getting to the end, especially in a genre that's decidedly about the adventure (~90% of the game takes place before the end and contains the vast, vast majority of the content), that makes people feel they have to race to get there?

    I'm sincerely curious about this, because it seems to me people are just stunting and undermining their own experience by playing this way. Time and again, they race to the end, skipping through cutscenes/dialogue, avoiding content that "isn't worth the reward" and generally tracking the "most efficient path to level cap". Then they burn through the end-game content in a few weeks, and are left bored with "nothing to do" because they just raced past/through all of it.

    People will dismiss everything pre-level cap by saying "it's just a tutorial", or "it's just filler", or "it's just there to slow you down so you'll have to play longer". There's a boat load of problems with that last one in particular, especially for as often as I see it argued; of course they want you to stick around as long as possible.. it's at the heart of the business and the design. MMORPGs are long-term hobbies. They're services. They aren't intended to be something you just shoot through, finish, and put down. You can. But that's not what they're designed as. This is why they continually add new content... to give you more to do and more reason to keep playing.

    But here's the catch to that which people never seem to consider... they have to make sure you're entertained enough to stick around at all in the first place. If they can't keep you engaged and wanting to log in to begin with, then the rest doesn't matter.

    It baffles me how people literally complain about a game which, by design, is intended to keep them engaged for a long time... because it provides content which keeps them playing for a long time. It's like complaining that motorcycles "only have 2 wheels and no side windows to keep the air out". It completely misses the point of the design.

    To my mind, it's the most counter-intuitive approach you can take to playing a game at all, much less one specifically designed around on-going adventure; unless it's specifically a racing game where getting to a finish line the fastest is the goal.

    Racing to the end in a MMORPG results only in on-going lay-overs and holding patterns, as players wait for the next batch of end-game content to roll in, so they can race through that and find themselves right back in the same position. That doesn't sound fun to me at all... and from all the complaints of "boredom" I see from such people across the genre, it's clearly not. So why do people obsessively and repeatedly engage in that kind of playstyle? That whole "definition of insanity" thing comes to mind. Why race toward what is ultimately going to be nothing but extended stretches of boredom, punctuated by shorter periods of entertainment?

    Another common thing I see said is "I don't have enough time, and it takes too long to do "x" in -insert game here-". This is another statement that sounds valid on its face, but rather falls apart when you think about it further. Of course you have the time to play the game... you're playing it. The problem isn't a "lack of time", it's that you want to be able to obtain/achieve something in a quicker time-frame than your available time allows. This is where the whole "I have a career and family and can't spend hours playing MMOs like I used to. Therefor MMOs should change to fit my schedule/lifestyle better" type of arguments come from.

    People find it unfair that someone with more time to play can achieve things "more quickly" than they can. It's perfectly fair. At the end of the day, you're both going to be facing the same challenges and obstacles, and probably the same overall amount of in-game time played (not "real world time" - important distinction there) to achieve that goal. The difference is in how that time is distributed. Is it across one 10 hour session, five 2 hour sessions, or some other breakdown?

    What people are really saying when they say "I don't have the time" is, "I don't have the time to sit and achieve that goal in a single session like someone with 10 hours to play does, and I don't like that". Then, they expect the game devs to change the design so they can have that goal in a single session. It's a completely self-entitled mentality. The game developer is not responsible for their players' life decisions. The players are. Devs are responsible for producing a product that people will want to stick around and play. They are not responsible for catering to every individual's life circumstances.

    Rather than saying "I have more limited time to play so here's what the devs should do", the responsible, reasonable thing to say, I think, is "I have more limited play time, how should I re-prioritize and plan my play sessions to achieve my goals accordingly?". It's what people did back in the "old school days" - yes, there were people playing EQ1 and DAoC and UO and all those games who balanced playtime with careers and families and such as well. They adapted to their situation. They didn't demand or expect that the developers do so. Big difference.

    Long rant there... lol. But it's pretty much what goes through my mind when ever I see posts where people talk about how it "takes too long" or "should be faster". There's so much behind such statements.