Final Fantasy XIV @ gamescom 2009 (Updated)

[Lothiden]

I guess my idea of "instanced" is a more broad scense of the word, rather than the WoW deffinition.

Like they said, people not in the guildleve will not be able to kill the mobs that were generated for the players that are in it. So at that specific time, an NM was generated for only that group to kill, and no one else. I would consider that to be "instanced".

I don't think you have to be in a zone created only for you, for it to be an "instance".

The fact that there can't be any outside interference (i.e taking your mob), in my mind is categorized as being "instanced".

At that instant, that mob was created for you, for your guildleve. And no one else can interfere.

[Celeras]

I wouldnt mind that if it takes place in the open world, so long as their was other content as well(thinking of it as an open world assault in the scope of ffxi).

Though it'd be a little weird watching the different groupss fight the same thing in the place.. or even worse having to wait on line until they finish ala some of the BCs in XI. So hopefully they can figure out a way to make it a bit more dynamic than that.

[Kachi]

I don't see the logic of saying that being able to change abilities in the field is not equivalent to customization. In fact, that could be seen as making characters extremely flexible and customizable. Bear in mind that we do not know what these abilities are, nor do we know what can be macroed. I do not believe that these are necessarily going to be things like sneak attack vs. trick attack, but instead an ability saying "thief special attacks" that will then allow you to select special attacks depending upon your skill level.

That strikes me as considering the 20 macros you're given in FFXI as customization. I suppose that it technically is, though there is really no substance to it. The point of customization in this case is not pointless flexibility, but to bring a sense of uniqueness to the character. If everyone can and will switch freely among the same ability sets within the game, that element becomes desperately lacking.

It's not necessarily about the flexibility v. rigidness of the character, but of the developmental paths that they can take. Will there be a hundred paths, or a million? The latter is wholly doable these days, so why go with the former?

It was just a guess. But, if there were no gear progression and contribution, it would be a major deficiency in the game. Imagine going 1-75 and not being able to wear anything except vagabond gear and not being able to differentiate a capped out player from someone who just lost their red question mark.

I'm sure there will be some gear progression. Probably not as much as in XI (where I would argue there was far too much of it); however, if you're going to take customization from an area, then you absolutely should add it to another. So far we've yet to see how this will happen.

That was in no way an accurate mathematical equation. It was just one of many ways of representing the point of view that the weapon alone does not fully define the character. Weapons choice will define the character the way the length of one side contributes to the area of a polygon.

I hope you're right, I really do. But based on what's been touted so far, I kind of doubt it. Though it really hasn't helped that no one has bothered to ask.

[Jotaru]

Entirely instanced end-game content sucks. May as well be playing a single player lobby game because nobody is going to see eachother outside of a town.

QFT. As fun as Diablo II was, I hated that there was no real 'massively' element to the multiplayer component... sure, you could play with other people, but you were never really immersed in the world. I felt the exact same way about Guild Wars as well as Hellgate: London... you weren't all engaged in the same open world, and it just felt bleh.

Somehow not having an open world to go out and fight monsters in (which I guess you'll probably still be able to, if you aren't doing guildleves...) doesn't appeal to me. I didnt like in Guild Wars how you NEVER SAW ANYONE except people you knew or met in town... I hated it, actually. I really hope this doesn't go down that path, which, honestly, is feasible, considering so many people love the idea of turning MMO's into single player games.

[arus2001]

The whole HNM leve system reminds me of how Miser Murphy would pop for a RDM on that leg of the AF quest. No complaints there, really, and since it sounds like they want people to be able to join in leves and presumably get credit despite the progress of the leve at the time, it more or less allows for people to call for help if an (H)NM is too much for them. So yeah, I can live without spamming my best claim macro in Aery, and you can probably assume they'll have cooldown timers on such leves so people don't max gear for the LS or equivalent group within a day of implementation. Hell, this system can pretty much mirror Assault depending on how creative they're feeling, and some of the crappy missions aside, I think that's one of the more liked systems in XI aside from maybe the tag dependency.

[BRP]

"MMO" is far too overrated. It is not even a genre. Hopefully people start adapting Demon's Souls PvP system(for everything) for those who feel they need to bump into other players.

[viperlasson]

Has there been any gameplay videos of the Miqo'te race by any chance?

[Cadsuane]

"MMO" is far too overrated. It is not even a genre. Hopefully people start adapting Demon's Souls PvP system(for everything) for those who feel they need to bump into other players.

Sure it is. Any game with a persistent session of gameplay plus whatever you'd consider to be a large residence of semi-permanent PCs.

Actually nevermind; we've already had this conversation.

[BRP]

Sure it is. Any game with a persistent session of gameplay plus whatever you'd consider to be a large residence of semi-permanent PCs.

Actually nevermind; we've already had this conversation.

And yet it seems you've learned nothing since then. How unfortunate.

[McGoonagle]

That strikes me as considering the 20 macros you're given in FFXI as customization. I suppose that it technically is, though there is really no substance to it. The point of customization in this case is not pointless flexibility, but to bring a sense of uniqueness to the character. If everyone can and will switch freely among the same ability sets within the game, that element becomes desperately lacking.

Actually, it's a couple of hundred macros FFXI.

The only real problem here is that you over-interpreting very limited data. We don't know, for example, what goes in those ability slots. We do know that there are four basic starter classes, but we don't know if they are the only jobs. Will the fighter class include sword vs. axe vs. knife classes and how significant will the differences be?

It's not necessarily about the flexibility v. rigidness of the character, but of the developmental paths that they can take. Will there be a hundred paths, or a million? The latter is wholly doable these days, so why go with the former?

What evidence do you have that FFXIV is going with the former?

I'm sure there will be some gear progression. Probably not as much as in XI (where I would argue there was far too much of it); however, if you're going to take customization from an area, then you absolutely should add it to another. So far we've yet to see how this will happen.

Again, where is your evidence?

I hope you're right, I really do. But based on what's been touted so far, I kind of doubt it. Though it really hasn't helped that no one has bothered to ask.

I'm not right, I'm just being cautious about what I do know.

[Cadsuane]

And yet it seems you've learned nothing since then. How unfortunate.

Have too! I even figured you had a good points, like about achievements vs. real content/gameplay etc., but I still can't see why to dump game contemporary genre jargon since as long as it stratifies games somehow it's doing its job.

[BRP]

Well, why? That is an easy question.

People are discriminating games(or concept of games in this case) on smaller and smaller priorities. "MMO" is just another case. Someone might feel some sort of retard's pride by thinking "My game is a MMO! Ha!" when in reality their game is hardly any different than Guild Wars and such(or even Diablo.) The difference between these games lie far away from what is making them fun in the first place. Far away from what defines them.

People can't even define MMO without contradicting themselves, as you've shown in the post before your previous one. Priorities need to be straighten the hell out. Unfortunately to explain myself any further I would have to perform an encore of the previous argument, so I won't. But the issue does lie in how people don't understand the differences between games and no one will be able to understand why MMO isn't a genre until they consider that(but they won't because people swallow bullshit genres right up without thinking what they are consuming.)

[Cadsuane]

Well, why? That is an easy question.

People are discriminating games(or concept of games in this case) on smaller and smaller priorities. "MMO" is just another case. Someone might feel some sort of retard's pride by thinking "My game is a MMO! Ha!" when in reality their game is hardly any different than Guild Wars and such(or even Diablo.) The difference between these games lie far away from what is making them fun in the first place. Far away from what defines them.

Hah, well yeah, I see what you're saying. The only salient difference is how the peristence of the MMO session gives players more opportunities for (in)direct competition and cock-measuring by comparing their gear and accomplishments. The game itself is unchanged, but people are compelled to play it differently because of how peer interaction has been engineered.

People can't even define MMO without contradicting themselves, as you've shown in the post before your previous one. Priorities need to be straighten the hell out. Unfortunately to explain myself any further I would have to perform an encore of the previous argument, so I won't. But the issue does lie in how people don't understand the differences between games and no one will be able to understand why MMO isn't a genre until they consider that(but they won't because people swallow bullshit genres right up without thinking what they are consuming.)

Did I contradict something I said in the last thread?

[Vintaru]

By chance has anyone heard of a possible release date yet?

[Lurking Badger]

You can expect news like that to be given plenty of attention.

[ringthree]

Well, why? That is an easy question.

People are discriminating games(or concept of games in this case) on smaller and smaller priorities. "MMO" is just another case. Someone might feel some sort of retard's pride by thinking "My game is a MMO! Ha!" when in reality their game is hardly any different than Guild Wars and such(or even Diablo.) The difference between these games lie far away from what is making them fun in the first place. Far away from what defines them.

People can't even define MMO without contradicting themselves, as you've shown in the post before your previous one. Priorities need to be straighten the hell out. Unfortunately to explain myself any further I would have to perform an encore of the previous argument, so I won't. But the issue does lie in how people don't understand the differences between games and no one will be able to understand why MMO isn't a genre until they consider that(but they won't because people swallow bullshit genres right up without thinking what they are consuming.)

I have no idea how you can sound so completely pretentious while at the same time being completely vacuous.

[Null]

Well its BRP.

[Cadsuane]

Just to add, I know that your whole position is basically that the whole game should be genrefied and defined by the actual game as opposed to the architecture of its achievements or even anything that isn't part of the gameplay mechanism, and that the latter is a vicarious focus by being an artless substitute for actual content. I can't but acknowledge that yeah, this sort of achievement driven paradigm taken ad absurdum will if it hasn't already result in some very shitty games. My only come back is really that since it's the case that cheap edification for in game achievements makes it so games get played more, isn't it interesting that it can result in more players reaching some percieved benchmark of excellence as described by an xbox achievement or parser log? I think for example that it's pretty evident that all the talk about 30k/hr merit parties in FFXI was at least partially responsible for the average community conscious melee to feel that he had to meet this standard or at least try to.

At any rate I've gotta admit, this shit should probably stay dead and buried in the first thread it was discussed in, so if you don't reply I won't feel too bad about it.

[BRP]

At any rate I've gotta admit, this shit should probably stay dead and buried in the first thread it was discussed in, so if you don't reply I won't feel too bad about it.

Good idea.

I have no idea how you can sound so completely pretentious while at the same time being completely vacuous.

BUZZWORD BUZZWORD I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD, LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!

[Valkrish]

BUZZWORD BUZZWORD I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD, LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!

Reverse trolled \(`A')b

I only play what i enjoy, if i don't enjoy it why bother ~ _~

You'll see me in 14, just as eager to play as i did in 11, and if i enjoy it i'll play it, if not then i won't bother.