Letter from the Producer, XXIX (06/04/2012)

[Croy]

Anyone know if SE even has a booth at E3? Only thing I've seen from them is Tomb Raider.

They are in the South Hall, have a booth about the same size as Disney and EA according to E3's site. All the big hardware companies (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft etc.) are in the West Hall. SE is basically showing mostly their Eidos based studios at E3 this year with a little Kingdom Hearts 3D and FF Theater Rythym.

[Alkar]

Is the Lodestone down for anyone else or is it just me?

[Tidane]

Is the Lodestone down for anyone else or is it just me?

I was able to access it without issue.

Exactly, that's one of the problems with this game. Listening to your fanbase is pretty much suicide since they'll defend any bullshit decision you make.

Honestly, I hope this game the best. Between them going into the "need a PT for everything" mindset, the horrible drop rates and repetitive nature of endgame, and the community, I have no faith in this game any more.

The "party everywhere" issue is something that players will be divided on, but I'm hoping that this is just a symptom of the previous system and not a design goal going forward. They already have some content that can be soloed (random quests, leves) and some content that requires you be solo, so it isn't as though they didn't consider it (in fact, I recall one of their goals being the casual solo audience). Hopefully as they add more content, they'll add more that can be done quickly without assistance with a reasonable reward for doing so.

Once again, I do think that they recognize the bias in the current subscribers vs what the opinion of the general populace is. As long as they're not focusing only on the people who already think the game is perfect, I believe that 2.0 will certainly be a vast improvement and, if they continue to monitor feedback, they'll be able to continue to improve.

[Sephiroth]

"Since the login to FINAL FANTASY XIV in the last 30 days could not be confirmed, you are not allowed to log in to the official FINAL FANTASY XIV forums."

It's weird how I can't use the forums even though my account is active, just because I've not played in the past month.

I wonder if I will lose my legacy status if I cancel my account and re-activate when V2 is released.

[Tomino]

The "party everywhere" issue is something that players will be divided on, but I'm hoping that this is just a symptom of the previous system and not a design goal going forward.

I'd be happy with the following:
- Solo level to the cap + Quests + Job quests (not last ones, maybe)
- Endgame solo content on daily basis. Something like Campaign would be great, for example. Or a proper GC farm method, unlike Totorak spam.
- Group content for anything endgame, accessible via Group Finder.

I know it really sounds like WoW but.. it simply works.

[vadre]

Having played GW2 I really would prefer games to drop party restrictions with open world content, it just felt much more fun to get stuck in with other people and not feel like you're intruding or anything. I also think random events in the open world would suit FFXIV better than any other game due to multiple classes per character. Doing the same boring ass fetch quests over and over (I imagine they'd have to be dailies like guild leves, horrible) is not something I'm prepared to pay for anymore, at least GW2 is able to keep it fresh and interesting.

Edit: I'm really interested in the group finder thing, that gives an opportunity for things like small-scale random scenarios and things which could be added, it doesn't necessarily have to be limited to 4 or 8 person groups.

I also think they need to take another look at the grand companies, they could really turn them into the heart of the game with a unified currency being used for all kinds of different events such as campaign, PVP involvement, open world HNM kills, crafting, and dungeons. This could give people an opportunity to gear up in whatever way they'd like.

[Corrderio]

The "party everywhere" issue is something that players will be divided on, but I'm hoping that this is just a symptom of the previous system and not a design goal going forward. They already have some content that can be soloed (random quests, leves) and some content that requires you be solo, so it isn't as though they didn't consider it (in fact, I recall one of their goals being the casual solo audience). Hopefully as they add more content, they'll add more that can be done quickly without assistance with a reasonable reward for doing so.

We'll see. My general view on content is if it's something that only benefits you or has extremely low replayability (storyline quests) it should be solo content. We've seen the pattern with one-time party based quests/storyline missions in XI where after about a week nobody does it any more and getting help for them is slim to none. The same thing happened for AF quests.

I'm not against group content in any way, but if it gets to the point where I'm going to have a more difficult time finding people for a fight than the fight itself. Something is wrong.

[Niiro]

Things like main story, AF, side quests, etc. should all be solo content.

Story is more engaging when done at your own pace and leisure and being able to watch cutscenes not interspersed with pt chat (or having to skip them or speed read because something else it coming up) goes a long way.

AF/job quests should be soloable because the gear is meant to be a base line to start from and by making them solo they can be uniquely tailored in terms of difficulty and the nature of the fights themselves such that they highlight and give a bit of a crash course in the use of the job's skills. Because the devs know what job and what level you will be when completing them they'd be easy to balance. More importantly these quests give vital job skills that you simply can't do without and it's not fair to have to round up 7 people just to allow you to perform your job's basic functions/have a basic set of equipment.

Side quests don't have to be solo really as they're seldom terribly important in terms of gameplay or rewards but they're more often just that- side-quests. Little bits of story and lore with some monster fighting and a bit of exp/gil at the end.

[Corrderio]

Your side quest thing is the perfect example I'd love to see happen for the main scenarios. From start to finish it's pretty much solo with strategy involved (keeping key NPCs alive, using the environment to your advantage, etc.) however once you reach a certain "flag" you can unlock an extra fight that's based around a group for that area. Sorta like ENMs in a way.

[Lucavi]

There's no decision to make here. You should rarely, if ever, listen to your fans/players. Tanaka's vision bombed because Tanaka is an idiot, not because doing what you think is best (as a dev) is a bad idea.

If devs never listened to the playerbase, I wouldn't have had my mechanohog as a personal mount, which was fucking badass. I'd agree that devs shouldn't knee-jerk based on what people complain about and whine for on forums, but I don't agree that devs should blindly charge forward without taking into account any imput from others.

Sure, we can pull the "Tanaka is an idiot" card, and we'd be right, but more often than not, you have either idiots working as the devs or idiots working as the impaitent shareholders who push games out long before they're ready. Often times once a game flops out of the start, the devs have to start listening quickly to the fans about what they'd like to see in the game to keep the subs rolling in.

Its give-and-take: SE is just really bad at implimenting things that people want, because they always twist the desires of the players. Someone asks for a strawberry milkshake and receives a strawberry-flavored milkshit instead.

[Elcura]

If devs never listened to the playerbase, I wouldn't have had my mechanohog as a personal mount, which was fucking badass. I'd agree that devs shouldn't knee-jerk based on what people complain about and whine for on forums, but I don't agree that devs should blindly charge forward without taking into account any imput from others.

Sure, we can pull the "Tanaka is an idiot" card, and we'd be right, but more often than not, you have either idiots working as the devs or idiots working as the impaitent shareholders who push games out long before they're ready. Often times once a game flops out of the start, the devs have to start listening quickly to the fans about what they'd like to see in the game to keep the subs rolling in.

Its give-and-take: SE is just really bad at implimenting things that people want, because they always twist the desires of the players. Someone asks for a strawberry milkshake and receives a strawberry-flavored milkshit instead.

You can take advice, but most of the time it will be bad advice. Very, very bad advice. The only time you should take advice from players is if it reinforces what you (as a dev) already want to do. What players want is everything they ever dreamed of, but that doesn't make for a good game. You can see what players want and cater to it, but most of the time this will be risky as well. There are idiots and impatient assholes all around the games industry, you can't stop that (and go figure the majority of bad advice - player or shareholder - comes from people who don't make games.) The most you can do is limit the damage they want to cause, and not taking every players true heart's desires is the step in the right direction.

Ultimately, if you need the player base to help fix your game, quit being a game dev.

[Lucavi]

I think a lot of people should have quit being a dev, across a wide range of games. I wonder if the gaming industry is like others, though, where bad people aren't fired, just shipped from building to building.

[Eagleheart]

I think a lot of people should have quit being a dev, across a wide range of games. I wonder if the gaming industry is like others, though, where bad people aren't fired, just shipped from building to building.

<_<

>_>

Tanaka. ._.

[Hiruke]

You can take advice, but most of the time it will be bad advice. Very, very bad advice. The only time you should take advice from players is if it reinforces what you (as a dev) already want to do. What players want is everything they ever dreamed of, but that doesn't make for a good game. You can see what players want and cater to it, but most of the time this will be risky as well. There are idiots and impatient assholes all around the games industry, you can't stop that (and go figure the majority of bad advice - player or shareholder - comes from people who don't make games.) The most you can do is limit the damage they want to cause, and not taking every players true heart's desires is the step in the right direction.

Ultimately, if you need the player base to help fix your game, quit being a game dev.

I seriously doubt anyone here would suggest that any dev listen to all, or even most, of what their player base says. Most people, in general, are idiots, so it follows that most of what is said by those people is also stupid.

Suggesting that devs should plug up their ear holes and proceed without taking into account anything that is said that doesn't affirm their own beliefs is... crazy. If people hate your game, you're screwed. Period.

Similarly, implying that "people who make games" are necessarily good at it is also a bit misleading. You can absolutely get good advice from people who "don't make games". You just have to have the sense to determine what would be good, and what wouldn't. If you don't know that, you're screwed already. It has nothing to do with who you listen to, it has to do with whether or not you can intelligently dissect what you heard and reasonably select what are actually good ideas.

To capitalize on the first sentence in the preceding paragraph, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but most people who make video games fucking suck at it. There's a reason I don't buy every game I've ever seen. They're fucking bad. And don't give me "some business guy made them make it shitty". I actually work in the video game industry, and I've been on tons of projects where the devs think their game is absolutely awesome. Very often, after releasing their "totally badass AAA" game, the company folds shortly thereafter. Why? Because they don't know how to make a good game, period. Maybe they should have listened to someone when they were told their game sucks?

[Raldo]

In summary: Do what blizzard does (or at least claims to do). Listen to your fans, try to figure out the core reasoning behind their complaints, and make adjustments from your own judgement based on that feedback rather than the knee-jerk adjustments suggested from fans.

Of course, if you're Tanaka, you're screwed either way because your judgement is equally trash.

[Elcura]

Suggesting that devs should plug up their ear holes and proceed without taking into account anything that is said that doesn't affirm their own beliefs is... crazy. If people hate your game, you're screwed. Period.

That's not what I'm saying. Most games are made completely in the dark, the only time you get feedback is after you've finished. Sometimes there are good, valid points that should be taken into consideration. These are mostly criticisms of the game, they tell you what they hate, perhaps why they hate it.

My point is, don't listen to these people on how to fix it. You can see and hear what sucks, but in the end it's up to the devs to fix it or fall. Listening to your players on how to fix the game is a bad idea, not ignoring all that's wrong with the game.

Similarly, implying that "people who make games" are necessarily good at it is also a bit misleading. You can absolutely get good advice from people who "don't make games". You just have to have the sense to determine what would be good, and what wouldn't. If you don't know that, you're screwed already. It has nothing to do with who you listen to, it has to do with whether or not you can intelligently dissect what you heard and reasonably select what are actually good ideas.

Which goes to what I said earlier about reaffirming your beliefs and ideas as a game dev. You see a suggestion, you decide whether it's good or bad based on your experience. That said, the majority of valid ideas are not going to come from your player base. That's not to say that none are. If you can't figure how to fix the game by yourself or with the aide of those around you (who are also likely to be experienced designers) then you will fail. Listening to your player base doesn't change this, and you run the risk of being led astray to cater to idiots.

I'm not saying people who make games are good at it, but they're in a much better environment to decide than a random guy sitting in his room typing away. Not only are they more familiar about what can and can't be done, but also what is realistic and possible. A random player isn't going to have any clue about that, so a game dev is automatically in a better position.

To capitalize on the first sentence in the preceding paragraph, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but most people who make video games fucking suck at it. There's a reason I don't buy every game I've ever seen. They're fucking bad. And don't give me "some business guy made them make it shitty". I actually work in the video game industry, and I've been on tons of projects where the devs think their game is absolutely awesome. Very often, after releasing their "totally badass AAA" game, the company folds shortly thereafter. Why? Because they don't know how to make a good game, period. Maybe they should have listened to someone when they were told their game sucks?

The games industry is like every other industry, there are the good and bad. Music, TV, movies, hell, everything in the world is like that. Shockingly, I work in the games industry too and I've seen a lot of devs who know their game is average or could be better, but there are a LOT of forces working together to make a game which could easily spoil it.

Incoming bitching:

Spoiler: show

Lead programmer doesn't want to implement or try new things because the production guys decided we have 4 months to make a game (or hell, just cause he wants to be lazy or doesn't want the pure stress of bug finding and fixing). Or maybe the lead designer doesn't want anything complex or interesting because it's harder to implement so the level design or mechanic design falters. Sometimes the big boss comes in and says "we want it to be like this!" then they walk away to leave others to figure out the mess (which ultimately doesn't work but who wants to get fired for not doing it?) Sometimes they just overwork the staff so much that there's not a lot of enthusiasm or motivation to make anything new or interesting because who has the time/energy for that when you're already working 14 hour days for weeks? Sometimes they switch staff around so people who started the game aren't the ones who finished it. And some people just work in the industry because it's a job, not because they absolutely love making games, so they're not trying to do anything but finish their workload and go home to their families.

That isn't to say that everyone who works at the company doesn't know what makes a good game, but often those people aren't the ones in charge of the actual game. I'll say it again, those in the industry are in a much better position and are far more knowledgeable about what it takes to actually make a game than those who just criticise it from afar.