4.0 will not require 3.0 to be completed

[LiadansWhisper]

Frankly, new players are not the ones going to have the most issue with gating. The primary complaint about gating is that it keeps you from new things. To a new player, the entire game is new; they aren't gated from anything.

 

If you look at many of the gating critic threads, the primary players that are negatively effected are old players who left in the middle, not new players just coming in. These players left, in many cases, because they did not enjoy the content when it was current and are aggravated at having to play through it anyway and from behind.

 

The issue of new players becoming overwhelmed and discouraged with all of the content they have to get through to see endgame is not a small one, however.  I have several friends who simply got burned out trying to get into Heavensward, because it seemed so very insurmountable to them.  It would take "forever."

[I'nhalki]

Frankly, new players are not the ones going to have the most issue with gating. The primary complaint about gating is that it keeps you from new things. To a new player, the entire game is new; they aren't gated from anything.

 

If you look at many of the gating critic threads, the primary players that are negatively effected are old players who left in the middle, not new players just coming in. These players left, in many cases, because they did not enjoy the content when it was current and are aggravated at having to play through it anyway and from behind.

 

I think you make a really good point. It made me think: the people who end up complaining are the ones who cancelled their subs before and will again, and may just be in the game to quickly max out content, not to truly enjoy it. 

 

In this way, by deterring these people who add negativity and don't actually enjoy the game, gating really should be something the developers stick to.

 

Also, small sample size, but I played through much of the content my first time through with two other newbies who were strangers to me. We were all intimidated and sometimes would gripe about the content being so seemingly endless, but in the end we were so caught up in the story and had built some kind of camaraderie from the experience of being annoyed at the Whiskaet fetch quests and such. I think the slowness of the content actually creates friendship somehow in its slowness. I of course can't speak for every new person, but I kept seeing this phenomenon with other newbies again and again.

[Lydia Lightfoot]

 

The issue of new players becoming overwhelmed and discouraged with all of the content they have to get through to see endgame is not a small one, however.  I have several friends who simply got burned out trying to get into Heavensward, because it seemed so very insurmountable to them.  It would take "forever."

 

Other than WoW recently having the option to instantly be level 90, every MMO requires a new player to level up through the content. It doesn't even really take that long. I'm a fairly casual leveler and V'alka is 47 after like... a month. Weigh in that I spend a lot of time doing RP, and I have three alts I'm also leveling, and... yeah.

 

And as a new player, I can safely say I don't really mind the gating at all. The only thing that irks me about it is things like... when I vendored some green-type items because they were untradeable and not for a class I planned to level, only to discover later that I threw away possible seals because I'd eventually unlock the ability to hand them over to my GC. It would've been nice of the game to give me a head's up - hey, btw, don't discard those, you can get seals for them later.

[V'aleera]

Is that a gating problem or an mmo problem? Keep in mind that if they even had the option of not doing the MSQ at all, that would only slow their progress on their initial class, not help.

 

While issues for new players certainly exist in the game, it's my opinion that the majority of them exist before level 50.

[Oli!]

I think we're all missing a very important question, here:

 

Why does it have to be either gated or open? Why can't it be both? What is uncomfortable about having both options?

 

 

What do we lose from having content that isn't gated? Is anything stopping people from playing through the gates that they want to play through?

 

 

It seems at this point that we're just arguing for the sake of displaying opinions, and not because there's actually anything to argue over.

 

The option to play through the gates will still be there. The option to not play through the gates is being introduced for people that don't want to do it.

 

"Yeah but they should do it my way" isn't really a reason to argue anything, because it can be countered with the exact same argument from the other side; if you accept your own as reasonable, then you have to accept the other side's as being reasonable because they're the exact same argument; if you don't accept the other side, then you can't accept your own without being hypocritical or otherwise contradictory.

 

And that's why we're not getting anywhere. There's nothing to argue about. This entire thing is a Non-Argument.

[V'aleera]

Gating is a tool. It belongs in some places and not in others.

[Unnamed Mercenary]

I think we're all missing a very important question, here:

 

Why does it have to be either gated or open? Why can't it be both? What is uncomfortable about having both options?

 

 

What do we lose from having content that isn't gated? Is anything stopping people from playing through the gates that they want to play through?

 

 

It seems at this point that we're just arguing for the sake of displaying opinions, and not because there's actually anything to argue over.

 

The option to play through the gates will still be there. The option to not play through the gates is being introduced for people that don't want to do it.

 

"Yeah but they should do it my way" isn't really a reason to argue anything, because it can be countered with the exact same argument from the other side; if you accept your own as reasonable, then you have to accept the other side's as being reasonable because they're the exact same argument; if you don't accept the other side, then you can't accept your own without being hypocritical or otherwise contradictory.

 

And that's why we're not getting anywhere. There's nothing to argue about. This entire thing is a Non-Argument.

 

 

Pretty much. At the end of the day "playing the game" though is still required to play the [new parts] of the game, whether that means someone going through the MSQ or just pounding FATEs, Levequests and repeated unlockable dungeon runs instead of fetchquests and [skippable] cutscenes.

 

I would imagine after a certain point, SE will probably open up much of the game or make all patches Y in X.Y "optional" content to unlock some new expansion X + 1.

[mongi291]

I'm fine with 4.0 not being gated as long as the story isn't watered down just to accommodate new players skipping 3.x. Honestly, I think the "summary" for the 3.0 story should be all the MSQ dungeons + the trials in order, with the most important cutscenes, and maybe the instanced MSQ battles, like the trial by combat.

[Oli!]

Gating is a tool. It belongs in some places and not in others.

 

Yes, but the argument presented is "gates or no gates." The scenario we're discussing is one in which there are gates everywhere, but they are optional.

 

So where gates should and should not be is not exactly relevant to the current context, and is in fact an argument all on its own, because the gates are both everywhere and nowhere depending on individual preference.

[Lydia Lightfoot]

I think the real issue with Heavensward as an expansion isn't even the gating, it's that the expansion added nothing to the game for players who hadn't completed the previous MSQ (besides Au Ra, which if you aren't a roleplayer is a purely cosmetic choice).

 

The gating mostly matters when (as previously mentioned) you're a returning player who'd like to see the new content but you had left before some of the pre-HW MSQ released, or, if you're a bit casual and you spent $40 for the expansion and feel ripped off by not having anything new to do because you aren't already end-game.

 

I've actually advised friends of mine who are coming to the game to avoid buying the expansion until they hit the end, because unless they're willing to pay $40 to play an Au Ra it really doesn't add anything for them until then. Since they may very well decide in the meantime that the game just isn't gripping them or whatever (can't please everyone, different strokes for different folks, etc), it's far better for them to have to write off $20 than it is to write off $60.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

The issue of new players becoming overwhelmed and discouraged with all of the content they have to get through to see endgame is not a small one, however.  I have several friends who simply got burned out trying to get into Heavensward, because it seemed so very insurmountable to them.  It would take "forever."

 

Other than WoW recently having the option to instantly be level 90, every MMO requires a new player to level up through the content. It doesn't even really take that long. I'm a fairly casual leveler and V'alka is 47 after like... a month. Weigh in that I spend a lot of time doing RP, and I have three alts I'm also leveling, and... yeah.

 

And as a new player, I can safely say I don't really mind the gating at all. The only thing that irks me about it is things like... when I vendored some green-type items because they were untradeable and not for a class I planned to level, only to discover later that I threw away possible seals because I'd eventually unlock the ability to hand them over to my GC. It would've been nice of the game to give me a head's up - hey, btw, don't discard those, you can get seals for them later.

 

Actually, until recently, WoW did the same thing.  And there were discussions - both on the part of players and on the part of devs - about the concern that new players might get overwhelmed with how many levels they have to get through.

 

But, the thing is, you can get from 1-90 in a matter of hours with heirlooms, and in maybe one or two days at most, and 90-100 is like, 16 hours.  It can take a new player weeks, if not longer, to level to 50 in FFXIV.

[Lydia Lightfoot]

 

Actually, until recently, WoW did the same thing.  And there were discussions - both on the part of players and on the part of devs - about the concern that new players might get overwhelmed with how many levels they have to get through.

 

But, the thing is, you can get from 1-90 in a matter of hours with heirlooms, and in maybe one or two days at most, and 90-100 is like, 16 hours.  It can take a new player weeks, if not longer, to level to 50 in FFXIV.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and flat out call BS that it would take a brand new player, with no contacts to feed them equipment, push them through dungeons, etc, two days to level from 1 to 90, even if we assume by 2 days you mean 48 hours /played and not the even more absurd literal 2 real world days consisting of probably two 3-5 hour play sessions.

 

FFXIV on the other hand feeds you all the equipment you need as you level up through the MSQ, you don't really need anyone to feed you anything anyway. And, as I mentioned previously, yes, it's taken me about a month to get V'alka to 47, while working on 3 alts, and also roleplaying most nights when I've been on. 

 

In an apples to apples comparison, brand new player in both games, would it take someone longer to get from 1-50 (with full pre-HQ MSQ completion) than it would take someone to get from 1-90 in WoW? I don't really care enough to speculate. But let's say for the sake of argument that it would.

 

Well, WoW's also a much older game with downright ugly graphics and uninspired audio. They've completely redone the original world of their game as of the Cataclysm expansion due to recognizing the growing obsolescence of that level range in their gameplay, and since then have enabled players to instantly become 90 for the same reason - because the content is downright ancient at this point. 

 

For all practical intents and purposes, FFXIV is a year old. None of the pre-HW content could be described as ancient or irrelevant from that regard. Since we're comparing to WoW, it was released November 2004. Cataclysm was released December 2010... SIX YEARS later. So, six years later, the devs decided "there's enough stuff later on in the game that players will want to do that we should ease their journey to getting to that stuff, let's revamp the old world and make that a smoother and faster process". They didn't do it when they released Burning Crusade, their first expansion, in January 2007 - a little over two years later (still twice as long as FFXIV has existed for practical purposes). 

 

tl;dr - it's pretty premature to consider the pre-HW content to be outdated and obsolete for players to play through. I'm a new player saying that. I don't feel burdened by this content at all.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

 

I'm gonna go ahead and flat out call BS that it would take a brand new player, with no contacts to feed them equipment, push them through dungeons, etc, two days to level from 1 to 90, even if we assume by 2 days you mean 48 hours /played and not the even more absurd literal 2 real world days consisting of probably two 3-5 hour play sessions.

 

Unless the player was a tank, it would actually be extremely inefficient to run dungeons to 90 (and as a tank, inefficient to run dungeons from 58-70, as there is a glut thanks to Death Knights).  The fastest way to level right now is straight questing.  You will outlevel each zone before you even get done with the quests - with or without heirlooms.

 

Unless you're on a PvP server, but one would hope that new players are not on PvP servers.

 

Edited to Add: And just to offer an example, I have a brand new player that I am mentoring. He is cross-server, so I cannot actually give him things like gold and gear. However, he told me that this is his first MMORPG, he's only ever played FPS games before this one.

 

He went from 1-43 in 6 hours of actual play. The next day, he was in his 70s. The last time I talked to him, he was level 85 and he hasn't even been playing WoW for a week, and is only able to play in the evenings and only until Midnight EST each night. They severely cut the amount of XP it takes to level from 1-90, and it was deliberately done.

[Blue]

The other day I put on a movie (2-3 movies, actually) and did nothing but quests for 5 hours straight, with a couple WC breaks in between. It got me from level 50 to 51 (though, mind you, it was level 33-44 quests). Five hours to go from the end of Brayflox Longstop to the footsteps of Garuda, and that was plenty to give me a migraine. No one should be forced to do this just for the sake of getting an RP character in the right city their character should ICly live at.

 

Gate MSQ if you want, and gate endgame. But leave areas and jobs out of that.

 

Also, it's not true that new players "don't care, because all the game is new to them anyway". My best connational friend was about to jump the boat from XI to XIV when he saw DRK and then changed his mind upon hearing of the 2.55 gate. It was too much work for him to get to the job he wanted to RP as. And frankly, I couldn't blame him, considering that in FFXI you can use a Great Sword from the very start.

[Lydia Lightfoot]

No idea how to multiquote. Dividing lines it is!

 

-----------------------

 

If they have in fact cut the exp in WoW that sharply, do again bear in mind we're talking about a nearly 11 year old game, not a 1 year old game... so we can't quite consider it apples to apples in terms of "get people hurried along to the most current content". For a great many players in a game so young as this, it's all current content.

 

-----------------------

 

I agree completely that there's no reason to prevent access to expansion area zones merely for travel's sake, considering that the quests within those zones would obviously not be visible if you aren't up to that point in the MSQ anyway so how much spoilering could you really encounter.

 

I also agree completely that it was a fundamentally baffling design choice to make Dark Knight, Astrologian, and Machinist MSQ-gated. Returning to my earlier comment about there not being anything for pre-50 players in the expansion, this seems like they missed an obvious opportunity... can you imagine if they'd done:

 

New classes: Squire, Diviner, Tinkerer. These classes begin in Ishgard with a new level 1-15 MSQ (which then routes you to running a message through the three original cities as usual and into the joint MSQ line) and each have a guild site in Ishgard, and they basically get the skills you currently would get from the advanced jobs if you were down-leveled below 30 (the skill progression already exists, in other words). One additional zone adjacent to Ishgard which has a few level 1-15 quests and features the hunt log rank 1-2 for those three classes. Ishgard gets an airship terminal (I have no idea if it has one or not already) and some level 1-4 "intro" quests similar to the ones in the other three cities (and maybe even a level 15 dance quest). The classes get class quests every 5 levels up to 30 like other classes, and then you do a quest to unlock Dark Knight, Astrologian, and Machinist jobs as their advanced forms, and carry on with job quests every 5 levels.

 

Now everyone who can do airships can get to Ishgard (or they could get their the old fashioned way if they want). Everyone who wants to check out the new classes could do so. None of it's gated to the MSQ. However, other than the class quests, "intro" quests, and the one new newbie zone, there just wouldn't be any new quests around Ishgard and the adjacent zones until you progress through the MSQ.

 

This would solve a lot of gripes.

[Aaron]

I'm apathetic as to whether or not the content will be gated in future expansions, and will be basing my purchasing decisions on other criteria that will often seem shallow to more dedicated gamers.

 

Is anybody else going to do this?

Everyone needs to do this. There'd be a lot less complaining.

[Warren Castille]

I know people love ignoring the convenient truths for the sake of being correct in a subjective argument (I do it all the time) but you all do recall SE bumping the MSQ exp when 3.0 came out, right?

 

People bitched to high heaven about how hard it would be to hit i90 before 3.0 and SE just added gear to the 2.x quests to help level it out. I'm happy that no gating will remove a bunch of angst from public conversation but I'm a little worried that it means people will be lacking actual experiences from things that will be added over the next four or five content patches. For example: You could always tell who'd glimpsed T5 when doing ST because anyone marked with the big ol' DIVEBOMB target would either run to the outside to not hit the entire raid (someone who's seen T5) or stand clustered and cause thousands of points of damage to everyone through ignorance.

 

Not a big deal, no, but discouraging.

 

Also, regarding WoW: Try to play WoD without having anything post-BC installed, and tell me how that goes.

[Oli!]

If they have in fact cut the exp in WoW that sharply, do again bear in mind we're talking about a nearly 11 year old game, not a 1 year old game... so we can't quite consider it apples to apples in terms of "get people hurried along to the most current content". For a great many players in a game so young as this, it's all current content.

 

 

This is a contradiction to an earlier stated point.

 

If a "new game" is "always new" to a new player, then the age of the game is irrelevant, because they have not played the content.

 

Yet, here it is stated that World of Warcraft's usage in the argument is irrelevant because of the game's age.

 

I'm not really sure what that has to do with the context of the argument anyway, but it's in direct contrast with what was stated before.

 

We must therefore decide whether a new game is Always New to a new player, or whether the age of the game somehow makes notable impact in the experience of someone who has never played something before.

[Warren Castille]

If they have in fact cut the exp in WoW that sharply, do again bear in mind we're talking about a nearly 11 year old game, not a 1 year old game... so we can't quite consider it apples to apples in terms of "get people hurried along to the most current content". For a great many players in a game so young as this, it's all current content.

 

 

This is a contradiction to an earlier stated point.

 

If a "new game" is "always new" to a new player, then the age of the game is irrelevant, because they have not played the content.

 

Yet, here it is stated that World of Warcraft's usage in the argument is irrelevant because of the game's age.

 

I'm not really sure what that has to do with the context of the argument anyway, but it's in direct contrast with what was stated before.

 

We must therefore decide whether a new game is Always New to a new player, or whether the age of the game somehow makes notable impact in the experience of someone who has never played something before.

 

Solve for actual number of new players WoW draws with each expansion. WoW had what, ten million subs prior to WoD? Or immediately post-Cata? They lost three to four million over the life of the expansion. If WoW was seeing an influx of new players with each expac, they'd probably be louding "WoW eclipses 25 million accounts" instead of trying to talk about concurrent subscribers. XIV does this, too: They passed two million accounts recently, but didn't disclose active subs.

 

At this point I feel it's safe to say most people are going back to WoW, not trying it for the first time. XIV's new enough to still get legitimate new blood.

 

Additionally, grinding a new character in an old expansion world (BC, Wrath, Cata, Panda) doesn't really preclude the experiences you'd have playing during the lifetime of the package. Questing to cap and moving on isn't grinding dungeons or raids, or doing the World PVP, or doing anything besides flying up to the "actual game." For better or for worse, XIV forces players to see these things along the way. You can get to level cap in WoW without having ever done any dungeon ever. XIV forces you to see the entry-level trials and dungeons, and HW makes you put up with people at your level at least five or six times. Warcraft might as well be a solo game until the level cap.

[Oli!]

 

 

 

Solve for actual number of new players WoW draws with each expansion. WoW had what, ten million subs prior to WoD? Or immediately post-Cata? They lost three to four million over the life of the expansion. If WoW was seeing an influx of new players with each expac, they'd probably be louding "WoW eclipses 25 million accounts" instead of trying to talk about concurrent subscribers. XIV does this, too: They passed two million accounts recently, but didn't disclose active subs.

 

At this point I feel it's safe to say most people are going back to WoW, not trying it for the first time. XIV's new enough to still get legitimate new blood.

 

 

 

 

That's all well and good, but what was being discussed was the experience of a new player booting up the game for the first time, and what their interaction with the game would be like, so whether or not people are going back to WoW, or whether or not it is gaining new subs, isn't exactly relevant to the discussion at hand either. As an aside, it seems a little hyperbolic to suggest that no one new at all is trying WoW. This is also shown to be false in Liadan's post. Additionally, I too know a few people that are planning to / already trying WoW in preparation for Legion.

 

Regarding WoW being a solo game: Only if you want it to be. That's part of the magnificence of player choice. If you want to, you can level up traditionally, do all the dungeons, do whatever. Or you can stick specifically to world-quests. Or you can PvP your way to the top. Or you can roll with a group of buds and explore. Or you can do nothing but slay hard to kill monsters. Or you can jump around the content and level where you want, when you want. Part of the reason why people were somewhat fascinated and / or got a good laugh out of the person that stayed in Pandaria and picked flowers all the way to the level cap is because the idea that you could do that in the first place never even crossed their minds; that's part of the miracle of player choice. It lets you experience a game in a myriad of ways, and perhaps make people think of whether they would like to experience the game that way, too. My own experience was a mixture of dungeons, PvP, and buddy-questing. It was never solitary for me, and I in fact feel much more "alone" in XIV because of its story content, even with a group of friends to talk to.

 

It seems like a lot of concern here is coming from the idea that "new players won't know the content." To be honest, this situation is no different than no one knowing the content when a new expansion launches. A bunch of people sitting in a boss room on Day 1 aren't going to know what that boss is going to do. Chances are most of the playerbase won't even know what they're supposed to do until at least a month into the expansion, because they're still getting there, and explanations will therefore be necessary. Additionally, if you really feel that that would impact your gameplay experience that much, then coach people through dungeons and tell them to do the same to other people that don't know, or point them to guides and ask them to read. Or, only run with people that have done all the content before you.

 

Personally, I don't think it takes much more time to say "If you're marked with a meteor, run away from everyone" than it does "you know that thing in bossfight? Yeah do that." The additional effort required is minimal.

 

I took a break between 2.1 and 3.0, or something like that. I haven't done Turns or Crystal Tower, since those have come up previously in this discussion. If a bossfight called for past mechanics, even though I'm an "old" player, I wouldn't know what to do. That doesn't mean I couldn't learn, and it also doesn't mean that I shouldn't be "playing" the game. As someone else even mentioned, those were intended to be optional pieces of content from the start; would we tell new players to go back to content that is not only old, but also optional in order to ensure that they were on a level that we deemed acceptable?

 

Forcing a preferred gameplay experience on a person solely for the betterment of your own experience seems somewhat questionable to me.

[Warren Castille]

I never said there wasn't any new blood in WoW, I said it's a fair bet there's not much of it.

 

WoW being a single player game if you want it to be is part of the challenge presented here: Why play an MMO at all if you're not interested in the "MM" part of it?

 

I'm having trouble articulating what I mean exactly, but removing the obstacles to reaching X point feels like it removes part of the bond between players. Everyone from 2.0 launch has war stories from Titan HM. Most folks who care about the story came away from 2.55 with powerful emotions regarding the climax. Removing those things from the prerequisites satisfies in the short-term, in my opinion. It means the strangers I'm playing with might truly be strangers, and there would be fewer things that we experienced together-yet-separately to try and draw common ground.

 

This community can be stand-offish enough without there being less we all have in common. Then again, maybe I come at this with my own biases. I never understood the "I don't want to play the game" mentality. I didn't have a problem with Ishgard being locked behind content. I don't have a problem with lore cementing jobs in specific places. It just gives me something to strive towards, which to me is the entire point of gear-treadmill games.

 

I mean, I don't want to PLAY Pokemon, I just want all my favorites in the starter area. Not everyone plays to collect badges, and less than 3% have beaten the Elite Four. Why should I have to go to other cities to get what I want every time I play it?

[Oli!]

I never said there wasn't any new blood in WoW, I said it's a fair bet there's not much of it.

 

WoW being a single player game if you want it to be is part of the challenge presented here: Why play an MMO at all if you're not interested in the "MM" part of it?

 

I'm having trouble articulating what I mean exactly, but removing the obstacles to reaching X point feels like it removes part of the bond between players. Everyone from 2.0 launch has war stories from Titan HM. Most folks who care about the story came away from 2.55 with powerful emotions regarding the climax. Removing those things from the prerequisites satisfies in the short-term, in my opinion. It means the strangers I'm playing with might truly be strangers, and there would be fewer things that we experienced together-yet-separately to try and draw common ground.

 

This community can be stand-offish enough without there being less we all have in common. Then again, maybe I come at this with my own biases. I never understood the "I don't want to play the game" mentality. I didn't have a problem with Ishgard being locked behind content. I don't have a problem with lore cementing jobs in specific places. It just gives me something to strive towards, which to me is the entire point of gear-treadmill games.

 

I mean, I don't want to PLAY Pokemon, I just want all my favorites in the starter area. Not everyone plays to collect badges, and less than 3% have beaten the Elite Four. Why should I have to go to other cities to get what I want every time I play it?

 

EDIT: Because I forgot to address it, there are many reasons why someone might choose to have a single-player experience in an MMO. Maybe they like the game's mechanics or visuals, but don't want to talk to anyone. Maybe they want to be a Lone Wanderer and talk about all the things that they managed to achieve on their own. Maybe they like the story or the world, and don't care much for multiplayer aspects like dungeons and PvP. Maybe they just enjoy making and dressing a character and running around. Maybe they're just there to play with their two or three friends and no one else.

 

Some people purchased WoW because they wanted to see Warcraft continue its story. Some people played City of Heroes because they wanted Superheroes, not specifically a Superhero MMO. Lots of people bought ESO because the Elder Scrolls universe is crazy and they love it, and not because they wanted an MMO out of it (this was actually a big point of contention surrounding the game ever since its launch). In this very game, in fact, there are people that are only here because they like Final Fantasy, a series of single-player games, and want more of the storytelling, visual aesthetic, and themes that that series provides. Not because they want to socialize in an MMO.

 

People play video-games for fun. What is fun is subjective, and therefore one person's fun is no more Right or Wrong than someone else's fun. If someone who only played Arena shooters sat down and watched you play the campaign of Halo or Goldeneye or something, and asked, "why are you playing a shooter if you're not gonna play multiplayer? That's what it's for," it's going to sound a bit like an odd question. There are many reasons to enjoy shooters outside of multiplayer, just as there are many reasons to enjoy MMOs outside of interacting with people.

 

 

-----Original Post-----

 

 

I would actually argue that any such bond isn't universal at all. This thread, in fact, is part of the proof.

 

The extent of my connection to the gated content was "well I guess it was okay, but I really only did it so that I could do the Cool Stuff I actually wanted to do, like Roleplay and explore the new zones." If you asked me for a Titan HM war story, my best would be along the lines of "well we got knocked off the platform a lot, and it was honestly just kind of annoying, and the tank and healer had to solo the last 25% for an hour because we were all dead." It's not quite as romantic for me and many others as it might be for another fraction of the playerbase.

 

We're already much more splintered than it might seem, though in this case, it's not because we chose to play the game differently (because we're all supposed to do the same content to advance) but instead of the way that we think about the content. Just as people came away from the 2.5 ending going "wow, that was deep," there were people that came away saying "meh, predictable bullshit." Just as there are those that think, "I love the housing system, it feels more meaningful because there are a limited amount," there are those that think, "this is stupid, I want a house, my friends want a house, just instance them so we can all have houses." Just as there are people that think, "I love this game's story, and I'd play it over and over if I could," there are those that are thinking, "I guess it was okay. I dunno. I'd rather not play it twice. Whatever."

 

The only bond is that we all have the same experience, and even that isn't very strong, as I have stated. It splinters further when we talk about what we think of it. If there really was a bond as tight as you think it would be, we'd all either be dancing about how happy we are that gated content is ending, or collectively up in arms over the fact that our precious game is being edited.

 

We're both.

[Flickering Ember]

I agree with you, Warren, about the importance of community. Playing WoW since vanilla, it was very sad to see its community slowly wither away as time went on. I dunno if the MSQ really contributes that much to the community though. I can't say I've ever found myself sitting in a random, discussing the MSQ.

 

I think getting rid of gated story content does the opposite for the community by allowing more people to play. The more hoops people have to jump through to get to a certain point, the less people there will inevitably be. 

 

Plus, I don't think that Pokemon analogy works very well. MMOs aren't supposed to be like single player games. You can raid if you want, or if you don't want to raid you can pvp, don't want to pvp? go crafting, don't want to do any of those things? focus on the story content, RP, whatever.

[Warren Castille]

Sliding scale of investment, I suppose. Something about geese and ganders.

[Telluride]

There's also a bit of a danger in suggesting that the only way one can be part of "the community" is to have "war stories" about content. If I'm somewhat less of a part of the community because I refuse to put up with the shenanigans of certain parts of the game, Titan HM being amongst them, then I have to at least stop to question if it's a community that I really want to be a part of, anyway. If my War Stories don't match up to what The Community expects, am I somehow not worthy?

 

For example, If I refuse to do Ravana or Bismarck EX because I find the ratio of enjoyment/reward to frustration to be all wrong, and I hate those fights, am I not a True Scotsman?

 

I have never done Ultima HM or EX since I started playing the game a year ago. Am I No True Scotsman?

 

If I think that most of the primal fights/trials are overrated wastes of time, and am happy to do dungeons and the occasional raid, meaning that I have collected fewer Pokemon and should not want to see anymore until I've collected them all (even though some of the "Pokemon" really are a lot more annoying than anything else), am I lower on this sliding scale of investment?