Originally posted by XAleX360

I'm very surprised, but they just did it.

http://www.worldsfactory.net/2013/06/19/microsoft-surrenders-to-gamers-drm-is-no-more

Aye, very smart move on their part.

They've actually been reversing quite a few of their decisions, DRM of course being the largest one.

Originally posted by FlawSGI

 I don't believe a payment model makes a game better or worse TBH. A lot of people appear to have the notion that F2P advocates are cheap and it is the $15 that they complain about, but if you actually stop attacking and listen to the arguments it's really about what they feel their money is worth and not the price of the sub. I don't like subs for the simple fact that few game have really been worth it to me. Then again, I detest the cash grabs that some F2P's use when making their cash shop decisions and limitations on gameplay. I'd rather pay a sub over the alternative.

 

While I like the article, I don't buy that steady revenue = better planning and more content. It sounds like a great justification for having a sub, but I haven't seen that it equates to a better overall product. WoW, IMO, was an outstanding game for years, yet they have managed to butcher that game and their updates don't come out any faster or any better than other games I have played. I know this is a very subjective example but this is my opinion on why I don't see sub equating to a better product. I will say that FFXI had some of the best bang for their buck when it came to expansions though. 

This ^

It's refreshing to see people who don't have their head in the sand.

There is literally no evidence to support the popular assumption that business model determines game quality. None. There have been great games in every business model, though p2p has a much larger pool to pull examples from. There's also been some crappy games in each business model.

Regardless of how the article tries to spin this business decision, the truth is that SE doesn't have much of a choice. They took a massive financial risk in rebooting FFXIV. So far it looks like it might pay off, but they literally cannot afford another massive gamble by making it free2play. The best they can do in that regard is to have public betas (like they are doing now), and use that as a method to have people experience the new game. However, once it's actually launched, they'll need to start recooping expenses ASAP.

If anything, the game might actually be more at risk to making lackluster / unfavorable changes, because Sony will be looking to make up the money it's lost. If it doesn't, things could go very badly for this game.

Originally posted by Lienhart

I've clocked an absurdly high amount of hours into MMOs from WoW to Final Fantasy XI. After recently switching to a much more expensive hobby (supersport track days), I'm feeling the need to slap my face for wasting so much time on a hobby that amounts to having nothing to show for in the real world.

Anyone else ever feel the same way?

You....are just figuring this out now?

All games are a massive waste of time, lol. There's a reason it's called a pass-time. It's something people do to pass the time. The only games that are not wastes of time are those that either earn you some kind of real life tangible reward (ie. money), or educate you.

Originally posted by Scalpless
The less you know, the better it looks.

Pretty much this ^.

Rule #1 to making things look good. Hide as much as possible.

Originally posted by Komandor

The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.

 

If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.

 

They basically need to make a better Darkfall.

Right, because you're crowd has done such a fine job of ensuring the successes of..... what games exactly?

Every. single. last. game. that has been catered to you people has failed, and usually failed horribly. The way things are going DF:UW doesn't seem far behind either.

If you're going to try and keep playing that card, and least stick to your guns and actually support these games, instead of whining like children.

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

1.  How active is the new combat system?

It feels much more active than FFXI was, but is still somewhat similar. The pacing is very much dictated by global cooldowns, but there are a good amount of skills that involve proper positioning. There are also skills that require you to move out of the way if you don't want to get hit.

2. How good are the stories?

This is hard to say. For the most part they seem the same as before Reborn, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of differences. Being beta, I'm trying to avoid paying too much attention to the story, so I can appreciate it more at launch. Parts of it do feel fairly epic, while other parts leave you going 'wtf did i just watch!?'.

3. Is there any kind of open world feeling?

The world feels big, but as for 'open world' this really depends on what that means to you. It's a lot like how FFXI was, if that helps. Lots of zone separations, and dungeon / storyline instances, but everyone is in the same zones.

4. Is there a lot of grinding required to level.. (yes with default quests, questing can be boring and feel like a grind to)?

Depends. Sometimes it can feel like a grind. There are a lot of quests, there are also leves / monster hunting missions. If you plan on lvling a lot of jobs, you can run into situations where you literally run out of quests in an area. When that happens you may have to resort to camping mobs for exp via EXP Chains. That said, lvling is fairly fast. Especially if you're in a group.

5. How is PvP?

I haven't experienced any pvp in this game. I'm not even sure if it's available. Final Fantasy games aren't really known for PvP, so if that's a big deal for you I'd look elsewhere.

6. How lively does the world feel out of combat?

The world feels pretty alive whether fighting or not. The towns feel very active, and there's also people crafting, traveling, etc.

7. How good is NPC AI, will they continously surprise with their actions?

Don't expect enemies like Last of Us. The enemies in FF are fairly predictable and have very scripted attacks. Some fights can be pretty challenging, though.

8. Are the main storie quests voice over?

For the most part, no.

9. What hardware is needed to run max settings with 30-40 fps at full HD?

10. How much team play and cooperation is needed?

Early on, not much. It does get a lot harder as you lvl up, though.

Answers above.

Basically, expect a game very similar to FFXI in a  lot of ways, with better UI, better graphics, and a slightly updated / streamlined combat system. It's a very fun game, but don't expect a game that blows every other game out of the water in every aspect. It's a beautiful game, but mechanics wise it's kinda like a simplified version of FFXI.

Threads like these, when games literally have zero information about them (other then 'this will exist at some point'), are the very reason so many of you guys 'fall victim to the hype train'. You're building up your own hype with assumptions like these, and I wouldn't be surprised if you also blame the game developer when they don't live up to them.

Stop chasing / looking for the WoW killer. Start paying attention to what are and are not good games, and support the ones you think you'll enjoy. This whole king of the hill MMO mentallity is mostly marketting bs.

Please don't try and put that mantle on this game.

Warhammer games have always kinda been their own thing. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they kinda suck. It's a warhammer game, wait to see if it's any good and try and enjoy it for what it is. If you're going to start looking for the next big innovative game in this title now, you're going to set yourself up for dissapointment.

Simply put, it's far too early to start talking about such things, and warhammer games rarely ever impress the gaming world. They're mostly enjoyed by fans of the IP and few else.

Originally posted by flizzer
I have to agree I usually don't like playing humans and feel surprised when they are actually the most played races in these games usually.  I figure it is fantasy so lets play some oddball characters , maybe characters neither male or female, etc...  But we seem to always fall back on the tried and true. 

Humans are actually almost always the most popular race (because it's the race most similar to ourselves). Elves are a close second, though, usually.

I have gotta say, though, I like how the races are handled in this new XIV. I had originally planned to go Taru (or w/e they're called now), but I ended up going a human mage instead. I couldn't get passed the mannered proportions of the Elvaan, and I've never been a big fan of the galka or mithra. My opinions may change at launch, though. Tough to say.

This thread screams of an XBOX PR guy trying to convert a few peeps on the internet.

Nothing mentioned in the OP is new, and it still skirts ALL of the main issues people have with the current info on the XBOX one. The whole 'always-on' '24 hr checkin' part of the OP illustrates this quite clearly. Furthermore the way microsoft is implementing cloud computing is not a strength, it's a weakness. PS4 is giving users the option to download digitally or own a  hard copy. Xbox isn't.

It's pretty clear that Microsoft (just like EA) did not learn from Steam's success correctly. They only see the dollar signs, and don't seem to actually understand why Steam is so successful. Steam has offline mode, it has constant sales to keep people interested. Furthermore, Steam had a fairly large backlash when it came out. And this was at a time when it literally had no competition. If it didn't have some fairly major titles carrying the distrubution platform (TF2, HL2, CS:Source, etc. etc.) it likely wouldn't still be around to evolve into what it is today.

Cloud gaming will indeed likely be the future, but it's got to evolve over time. Trying to cram it down gamers throats all at once is about as effective as trying to feed a vegan a 12 course steak dinner. Companies need to be very careful about how they proceed with such technology, and they need to do it in bite sized amounts. Microsoft should learn from Sony. Sony has features that are also moving in that direction, but they are taking steps to ensure it's as user friendly as possible.

Originally posted by Kajidourden
So...as the title states I'm a bit disenheartened by everything I've heard about the combat so far.  The ONE thing I was hoping they would keep mostly intact has (it seems) been perverted into a dumbed down hotbar click fest.  EVERY single other element of the game has changed for the better immensely from what i've gathered, which makes me extremely happy as a legacy player, dont get me wrong.  I suppose I will be playing the game for everything BUT the combat unless it changes....which I don't see happening.  I realize that with good changes usually come changes you'e not going to like.....but I can live with it knowing that the overwhelming majority of everything has been changed for the better.

Did you not play FFXI or FFXIV?

Both games have always been hotbar click fests. The difference? Before you had to macro everything. Now you don't. I guess that's enough to totally ruin combat in your eyes.

That's not to say that some things haven't been dumbed down. For one I'm pretty annoyed they seem to have removed the whole renkai system. I really hope they bring that back, instead of this '1 limit break fits all' approach. Other than that, the combat is fairly enjoyable so far. They definitely simplified certain aspects of it, but they also added others. It's a different game, so there will be some give & take.

Originally posted by Thodra

Originally posted by Maggon
What error you getting, if any ?

No errors, just won't let me press register. Instead of  a arrow, it gives me a stop sign, when i hover over register. 

Wierd..

I just did it in firefox no problems (make sure you check both boxes at the bottom).

It might be an issue w/ your browser.

Originally posted by rubydragon5

The skills and the weapons, and using certain weapons for certain skills?

In Gw1 I could go and get a choice of a few out of hundreds of skills to use, making my character the way I wanted it to be.

Guild wars 2 with skills feels like im being told what I can use, and im not getting much of a choice.

I wanted a DoT casting character and picked necromancer which I assumed would be heavy damage over time spells but each weapon seems to give me a few difference types of spells, in all it looks like a small fraction of my gw1 choices

Am I missing something?

It's a different game.

In terms of the sheer number of skills, if you do the math both games actually have a very similar amount of skills (comparing GW1's core campaign, to GW2 now). However, they did get rid of multi-class customization, which was a huge part of what made GW1 so customizable. The combat is simplified in some ways (less skill types, ie. there are no longer things like hexes), but it's more complex in other ways (combat now has combos, stats play a much larger role in build customization, as do traits).

As for necromancer, you absolutely can do a DoT heavy caster. The traits are setup similar to how the attributes were from GW1:

Spite: Focuses on your direct damage attacks

Curses: Focuses on conditions (your damage over time spells)

Death: Focuses on durability & minions

Blood: Focuses on wells, healing, lifeleech, and support

Soul Reaping: This is your class utility traitline

If you want to make a purely offensive DoT-based necromancer, then put most of your points into the Spite & Curses traitlines. Use Scepter/Dagger for your main weapon set, and staff for your 2ndary weapon. You will be throwing around insane amounts of conditions, and once you get epidemic they get even more potent & deadly.

Also, I'd recommend checking out this guys' videos for Necromancer tips: IamoneandIamlegion

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by Arcticnoon

Meanwhile, instead of showcasing same ol' same ol' quest hubs and bad control layout choices, FFXIV ARR allowed their crowd to team up in parties and defeat one of the tougher bosses in game. Of course they watered down the encounter quite a bit but people still wiped. Victores walked away with some long coveted prizes.

Maybe this approuch is why FFXIV ARR won best MMO of E3.

http://t.co/99zLs35SHG

As an open minded gamer, until I can read something more, my opinion of FFIV and Wildstar has flipped to where i'm looking forward to one more than the other now. I thought that INfrit fight ws real impressive. I saw lots of movement, no "supertanks". 

No offense, but until you start focusing on the right things (learning what to look for when it comes to game demos), you're going to be in for a lot of let downs.

Final Fantasy is a good example of this. Final Fantasy games have ALWAYS had good graphics. It's their staple. And yet people continue, to this day, to focus on how good the graphics look while ignoring the gameplay. It's one of the reasons so many people got burned by FFXIV. They focused on how pretty the graphics were, only to be surprised when the game mechanics were anything but.

ARR looks good, but I'd hold off on your expectations until we see more practical gameplay footage (if they ever release that).

As for Wildstar, there is really only one thing to take away from that interview. At this time, the default controls either suck, or the journalist completely failed to learn how to use them properly. The talk about the game having similar quests to most MMOs I don't think should be a shocker to anyone. It's basically WoW-like gameplay, with some new features and combat.

- It's a press demo at E3. It's hard to take anyone too seriously who spends the bulk of their article complaining about how restrictive a press demo at E3 was. It's frikkin' E3, that conference hasn't provided good hands-on gameplay for years now. There's a reason most people go to conferences like PAX instead, E3 is mostly about networking & kissing ass, much less so about games.

Originally posted by Purutzil

... Yeah... give credit to GW2 for something they didn't do... you do realize that it was made popular a lot by games like Rift right. GW2 all they did was jump on the band wagon, most the games you see at E3 were in development much longer then how long GW2 has been out for. 

/facepalm.

smh.

GW2 has been pushing DEs for years now, yes years. They were advertising them far before the actual release of the game. And yes, they did popularize them, and make the first game that was really built around them.

Rift, while a good game, had events as more of a side-mechanic. They were fun, and yes the game is called 'rift', but the game wasn't oriented around them as events. Most of the questing, PvP, and dungeons ignored that feature of the game completely. It's one of the reasons those events became less and less popular to go after.

If you don't understand the appeal of GW2, that's one thing. But to think that GW2 has had no impact on how games approach DEs nowadays, you're blinded. Prior GW2's launch, events were a risky thing only a couple games actually attempted to do. After GW2's success, nearly every online multiplayer game is trying to include such systems in some fashion. Defiance, Wildstar, TESO, Firefall... before GW2 we had what? WAR and Rift.

Originally posted by Piechunks

Like 2000-1998ish stale. So fucking stale that you could break your teeth on it and it crumbles in your mouth with a bland aftertaste. 

The recent games, like GW2, TSW and friends have combat that is bland and boring if you've been playing MMOs since EQ/UO, or even before (NWN).

The latter games sort of mask that fact by making quests a lot more interesting, adding platforming elements, but ... at the end of the day the activity you engage in most in those games is COMBAT.

It's almost a paradox: Why is the combat, the activity you do the most, the weakest? I know it's not easy to implement something really nifty like Chivalry without putting a lot client-side and leaving it vulnerable to hacks. To keep using that as an excuse and adding all of the bells and whistles that TSW and GW2 boast just doesn't seem to make any sense.. to me at least. 

Is it really that much cheaper to just add more things/tools to spice things up than actually innovate, and/or do people simply not care that much about combat?

That is the question on my mind that I wish to discuss. So what is your take on the issue, or is there even an issue in your book?

Do yourself a favor.

Replay the games like GW2, NWN, Tera, etc. (TSW's combat is actually quite bad in a lot of ways). Then go back and actually play an MMO from 2000/1998. If you can't see the difference you need to turn off the computer and go outside.

I've also been playing MMOs since UO, and there has been quite a big jump between the MMOs today and the ones back then. Combat has gotten MUCH more active (good luck trying to dodge in UO), it's also gotten more complex in many ways. There's been a pretty huge shift away from passives-oriented combat. Furthermore quite a few games nowadays feature more combo-oriented combat. A trend that was start in FFXI with the renkei system.

I had a lot of fun with the games from 2000, but when it comes to MMOs especially I realize that many of those games are just archaic by today's standards. Not only would the combat not hold up at all, but many of the mechanics would just feel bland compared to today's games. It's the nostalgia telling you differently.

Originally posted by saurus123

no they are not

if you dont have internet access then you are living on north pole

ohh wait they have internet access there :D

A lot of people (especially those of us in america) take this assumption for granted. However, there are quite a lot of people on the planet who either don't have, or don't have reliable internet. One big demographic to consider are soldiers on tour. Many of them play games (mostly Xbox), and have questionable internet depending on where they are stationed.

Furthermore, even in the first world internet providers can be finnicky. You also don't always want to be forced to run internet all over your house just to enjoy a console you play for (what should be) offline games.

The feature to patch into the internet and provide content is indeed a good one. To not allow for the option to not have it, is exceedingly moronic.

Originally posted by tkreep

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by Battlerock

 

Our very own beloved mmorpg forums have many questioning why they should own a pc. I think Wildstar is the only reason to even consider it. There are also articles on pc world about the coming pc apocalyptical days.

Sorry, I asked myself the reverse, why should I own a console when every good game is coming out on PC, and the ones that aren't are really not that crazy good looking to be worth the money.

PC's are still very much the standard, and will remain so.

Name me one PC exclusive thats coming that looks better than these

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/a0v8ug/metal-gear-solid-v--the-phantom-pain-e3-2013--extended-red-band-trailer

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/r22p1q/final-fantasy-xv-e3-2013--gameplay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWJD8DMasCU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuDNpGvmGCQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET4r2TbGesY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBNdrJMwrkc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjQ4DJXLzw

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/u7g37n/project-spark-e3-2013--combat-gameplay--cam-

I could go on...

Since when do PCs need exclusive titles to be viable? That's mostly a tactic used for consoles so they can recoop the expenses they lost selling the actual consoles for less than the manufacturing cost.

Originally posted by tkreep

Originally posted by Nitth

---

Originally posted by tkreep

---

Originally posted by Fusion

---

Originally posted by tkreep Wildstar isnt knocking anyones socks off after the mmos they showed on the consoles.

---

Which MMO's? Division? Destiny? HARDLY MMOs, more like glorified co-op battlefield on a slightly larger map.

---

every info they have given points to mmorpg

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/387225/The-Division-IGN-Article-Inside-the-MMORPG-Shooter.html

---

" I’m not calling [The Division] an MMO,” although he’s aware of the similarities. " - IGN

A lot of devs arent calling their mmos, mmos. the reason is marketing towards console gamers.  Lets see the the game is persistant online open world, open world pvp, end game, rpg, player looting, skill based progression system, quests, mmorpg gameplay (crowd control, group buffs, healer, dps).

So even though it has all that its still not a mmorpg to you?

The reason most devs aren't calling their games MMOs anymore has a lot less to do w/ console gamers, and a lot more to do with how loaded the term 'MMO' has become.

If you create a game (like The Division) and call it an MMO, it's all of a sudden held up to insane standards, has certain features demanded of it (that may not actually benefit the game), and is automatically put on the pedestal of 'will this be the next WoW?' If you create a game that has all the features of a good game, yet the scale of an MMO, but don't call it one; now you just have a really epic game.

It's a very real double-standard that exists with this genre specifically, and more devs have started to realize this.

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by Battlerock

 

Our very own beloved mmorpg forums have many questioning why they should own a pc. I think Wildstar is the only reason to even consider it. There are also articles on pc world about the coming pc apocalyptical days.

Sorry, I asked myself the reverse, why should I own a console when every good game is coming out on PC, and the ones that aren't are really not that crazy good looking to be worth the money.

PC's are still very much the standard, and will remain so.

You're making too much sense Laughing-man!

I'm honestly wondering where this idea is coming from on these forums, that PCs are somehow 'dying'. Everything I've seen, read, and heard seems to say the exact opposite. It's the consoles that are struggling to keep up, not visa-versa.

I think people are seeing this expansion of MMOs to consoles (which, while isn't a new phenomena, is slightly more frequent now than it was in the past) and assuming that it's because consoles are superior to PCs. The reality is that many of these games are just trying to tap multiple markets, hoping for more profit, etc. If this latest round of consoles has shown anything, it's that consoles are trying to become more like other platforms (PCs, TVs, Smartphones, etc.), in an effort to stay relevant.