I seem to never learn my lesson when it comes to Final Fantasy 14 and challenging it to surprise me.
Shill Show: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheAccolonn
Exclusive Content: https://www.patreon.com/accolonn
Twitter: https://twitter.com/theaccolonn
Discord: https://discord.gg/JjR3pAR
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/accolonn
Everything Else: https://streamerlinks.com/Accolonn
#Accolonn #MMORPG #Gaming
source
Accolonn: "I dont know if its fair to compare FF XIV to Mass Effect"
yea seems kinda unfair, for Mass Effect
Mass Effect didnt gave you a ending of your choice.. đ đ .. well.. red blut and green.. but i like yellow! .. or Pink! or CremĂ© beige! .. Mass Effect betrayed its own playerbase.. and NONE of your choices made any difference in the end. Made peace between Quarians and Geth? Dosen't matter! .. Talked with the Leviatans? Never shows up again to a meaningful maner.
oh.. btw.. If you are saying you see Tomb Raider as a sort of RPG, but FF14 not.. well.. you have no clue what you are talking tbh…
I don't think every RPG has to give you multiple endings, it's not something that exists in any FF game in the series. It's more about having dialogue options, and following an established story.
RPG doesn't mean choices. It never has. It means you're PLAYING a ROLE. Every great RPG from the 80s till the early 2010 had a defined set story. I don't get where you're coming from at all.
The choices you get in most RPGs are false illusions. They are often rewards for the player doing specific things in the game. The canonical choice is usually the one that takes the least amount of effort to do. Rarely will it be the choice you do everything to obtain and often times the game will have story markers that would point the player to that direction. FFXIV is an RPG with an MMO element, it's a call back to old traditional RPGs where there's only one outcome. The mutli-outcome RPG is a new thing.
So many of you need to calm the fuck down. Reading through these comments, Its strange how many people hear only what they want to hear so they can get triggered and then leave everything else out.
never make a review of ff14 as an april fools jocke…check on what the team is doing, its actually funny…but other that that…never do this, april fools joke about ff14 is reserved to the devs and devs alone…and if you havent seen it then i recomend it…
then again i dont understand this day…if someone makes fun of me i will sue him, or beat him…because why did he do that…i find it as an idiotinc and stupid and ilogiucal day with no fun, in whichs where i am pubnked i will probably kill someone at the end…its a shitty american thing thant i dont get, a lot of people dont gent…so do it with more taste.
I get why you said cannot compare RPGs with choice and without but hear FF serious is not RPG as it does not like Mass Effect type sounds weird to me (maybe I get it wrong?) as FF/DQ serious almost define what is RPG (or JRPG?) long long time ago. I think linear story RPG and RPG with multiple endings cannot be a 1 to 1 comparison as the structure of the story is very different but both methods can tell a very good story just like FF XIV linear is suitable for the game and the soulborne games (Dark souls, Bloodborne, Elden Ring… etc.) are structured to have multiple endings you can pick. However, all those can be classified as RPG and it is down to if the writer pick a right way to tell the story.
Ishikawa: Challenge accepted.
Choice Matter not make story better. but Yes its give you more immersive but that's not story.
I kinda know your point but that not 'story' to compare, that immersive RP. In Cyberpunk they have so many immersive than FFs, and relationship with NPC is amazing.
but in term of story there are stupid thing too, example one of fixer know by intro, but when you met him, he just introduce to you like never met before.
LiS is masterpiece, LiS2 is kinda low than expectation.
You compare non-linear/linear story. and you like non-linear more but that's not mean non-linear have good story than linear, or linear have good story than non-linear.
good story is overall in game.
good choice matter is the storyline you like most, but overall story is another story.
*FFXIV have kinda have little immersive RP element, example dragoon quest before Heavensward, Coil before post-HW. but not meaningful impact like non-linear game.
Western RPGs have always largely been about the world, their main plots are generally short and can be completed within roughly 20 hours if you just follow the main story and do not touch the side story content. Even faster if you know what you are doing, with some games having even shorter main story time. This is because most of the focus is not on the main story, but rather all the side stories and things the player can do besides the main story. This is the driving force behind the Western RPG which is very much built off of DnD. You build your character and you experience the world, what you do in the world matters far more than the story itself. Sometimes there is not even a proper main story, you travel the world and experience its lore through the environment, gear, and what few NPCs there are and the game has an endpoint purely because games need an end point where the credits roll.
JRPGs, aka Eastern RPGs, have always been about the story, with the world and its setting more as the backdrop for the story to take place in. Usually there will not be much in the way of side content and side stories always tie into the main plot to some degree. You have a fixed cast of characters who will go through their character arcs and you experience their story in their shoes. Like playing a book or movie through an interactive medium instead of a passive one.
Ultimately it comes down to both east and west developed RPGs at the same time, but decided on different methodology where the West went with freedom of expression the East went with character driven stories. Much like when it comes to Manga vs Comics or Anime vs Cartoon. Both are functionally the same, but how they are approached is vastly different. Though over the years the two have blended together somewhat.
Yeah bad take. The choices are so illusory that they really don't count. For example getting Morrigan knocked up at the end of Dragon Age Origins. An old god soul, potentially cleansed of the taint. What happens? Nothing. Either it doesn't happen or Flemeth takes it then gets wiped out by Solas. Mass Effect, all those choices to take a blue, green or red ending. So by your own definition Mass Effect shouldn't be considered RPG. Even games where the endings are more open, like VtM:Bloodlines there's still things that are set in stone, such as LaCroix dying and you and the Sabbat are enemies. And it only had that freedom because there's no follow-up game. In real life a human GM can just roll with it and let the characters go completely off the rails, a cRPG can't do that, it would take so much extra programming for such little pay-off.
Also they're called role-playing games because you're playing a role. The old SSI games you only had a choice how to handle some situations and once again overall it didn't really change how the story played out. Ultima usually only had the choice of casting armageddon or saving the world. The whole "choices are what constitutes a RPG" just doesn't really pan out.
it is the difference between jrpg and western rpgs really. a majority of jrpgs are like ff14 linear with little diffrences like the trails series all the final fantasy games dragon quest games wild arms breath of fire and a bunch of other series. jrpg is its own rpg subgenre. making it not really a adventure rpg. its even a subgenre on rpgs on steam. western rpgs on the other hands are mass effect/dragon age/balders gate/pillers of eternity/pathfinder/divinity. just a culture difference between east and west. ive played all of the mentioned games except the dragon quest games that did not come to the west and almost all of them where excellent… da 2 was just ok.
TL;DR: I think Acco is right. Not 100% right, but right enough to defend and advocate.
I really like the premise of what Acco is doing here. Acco my not call it perfectly every time, but in my experience, he's solidly on the board when he makes a hard call and pretty close to the the middle of the board more often than not. I don't even like all the calls he makes, but that doesn't diminish the correctness of it when all is said and done.
I like how he is questioning the cornerstone of current naming conventions…and to be incontrovertibly sure…many are merely conventions. For instance, taking a step back and looking at things through fresh eyes, I don't think he's wrong for saying many titles actually categorize themselves into the "RPG Adventure" category. It makes sense. 10-20 years ago, he might be daft for suggesting such a thing, but today, not so much. In another 10 years, we probably wont be using the term "MMO" anymore; because its no longer a niche idea requiring such specific definition; Its a standard of expectation now. Same with cross play: Cross play was a revolution when it emerged. now its becoming a standard of expectation. In another 10 years, it will just be "[Online] Multiplayer". I don't think its fundamentally incorrect to say that by emerging standards, FFXIV couldn't be called an "[Online] Multiplayer RPG Adventure" game. in the last 20 years a dozen (or two) new gaming styles have emerged, but we still categorize them with the same 10 pairs of comfortable, familiar and maybe not so accurate buzzwords that were coined back in the early 2000's, if not long before.
Acco brings strong points to the table to take a step back, revisit our naming conventions, revisit how we perceive these ideas and to further polish the gem of our gaming culture. While many rebuffs of his thought processes are tantamount to "Stop polishing the gem…im more comfortable with calling it a green rock and treating it like a green rock.". As I said before, I don't agree with it all 100%, many of the comments make pretty inarguable points, But with over half a century of video gaming behind us, with the terms "Simulation", "VR" and "MMO" being the only significant new forms of categorization to come from it, I'd say we are all overdue to put in the due diligence in redefining our myriad of experiences.
Let me correct you. đ FFXIV is a pure RPG like evrey other RPG. The difference is that FFXIV is linear RPG and not a choise based RPG. One lets you follow a pre set story, the other lets you change the story but on a more personel level. The story ends almost the same only slightly diffrent.
I think these kinds of videos are interesting just to see if/how his point of view may or may not change over time.
Personally I consider player agency just to be one aspect of an rpg, and a lot of eastern games don't delve as deeply into that aspect. They often have a more straightforward approach to telling a story. But at the same time you have eastern games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Elden Ring that had multiple endings and choices mattered. Choice is generally a more prominent feature in western RPGs for sure, but at the end of the day they're just one aspect of what makes the genre great. I have no problem comparing a liner story experience to an open one, because each can stand on their own merits
its cute watching westernised gamers coming into FF and experiencing the concept of a JRPG for the first time! I love it!
It's a unique genre, that has grown separately from Western games, but western video games have taken loooaaads of concepts from the JRPG scene since FF7. There are some great JRPG's out there if you want to explore the genre (Persona 4 or 5 is a good recommendation)
RPGMMO is the better category for FFXIV imo
Edit: Once you've gotten to the point you can sit there and reflect on the game properly, and look back on what is available to you, etc., you'll see why I like to call XIV a RPGMMO. Or, maybe not đ
4:18 I'd say Morrowind is more of a pure rpg than Skyrim, Morrowind offers plenty more in terms of player choice than Skyrim did.
And that Skyrim isn't a pure rpg, if you compare it to it's grandfather Morrowind where you got two guilds to choose from for each guild type, warrior, mage, assassin (sadly not thieves) and your choice would lock you out of the other guild of that type, even making other factions you could join dislike you. Not to mention you can kill just about every npc you come across. So here we see Skyrim is lacking in player choice and depth, sure you could choose to not join any of its lame factions, that being one of your few choices besides what you want to make your character into.
Took me a second, but I see what you are saying. FFXIV is linear like pretty much all MMOs, you do not have a choice, you play the game and follow the story. But man is the story amazing, there are very few games period that made me "feel" and care about the characters.
I think you're confusing RPGs with Adventure games. The two points that make them different are that
1. RPG gates progression with stats and numbers and story has little to do with player choice. The player choice in RPG is basically relegated to class/job. Adventure games do little with stats and usually use inventory or dialogue flags to progress through the story.
2. Adventure games DEPEND on player choice wherein each decision (at least ideally) can have drastic implications to your entire playthrough and may cause foreseen/unseen ramifications to the overall plot.
TLDR; RPGs have the story(ies) lain out to you and the player is responsible for building a character to be able to go through it whereas Adventure games give you a character for you to influence the story.
Most JRPG I've seen kind of follow religiously a specific plot rather than giving lots of different ending. It's more western RPGs that do that. So I get what you're saying, but it would probably be simpler and easy to agree for everyone if you were to say that as an MMORPG, FFXIV challenge more story writing of JRPGs than it does of western RPGs, I'd say.
Your SWTOR comment is wrong, that was not why it failed.
Preach has an excellent video on comparing single player RPG vs MMO RPG. He has recently claimed that FFXIV is the best RPG that he has ever played, quote on quote ânot even closeâ. I donât disagree with him. FFXIV is by far the best RPG I have played as well. I have played all of Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc⊠they do have good stories. But none of them have made me so emotional on the same scale as Final Fantasy. I will also say, ânot remotely closeâ, by a large margin.
I love dragon age origin but does having a slightly different story change things all that much? FFXIVâs story is far more detailed, developed, and personal in my opinion. Which it should be since it is a constantly updated game and DAO isnât but having a singular insanely good story is better to me than 3 similar stories with sidenote differences.
Preach after finishing Endwalker
"Well that was the best RPG I've ever played in my life. It's not even close, actually"
A role-playing video game (as defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica), is electronic game genre in which players advance through a story quest, and often many side quests, for which their character or party of characters gain experience that improves various attributes and abilities. That is exactly what FF14 is, and that is also what choice RPGs are.
The distinction in "choice" has been catagorized in Western RPGs which eventually led to the split and distinction of JRPG and Western RPGs. Does the choice factor make Western RPGs more fun and immersive? It really depends on the title. Fable was garbage, Mass Effect and Dragon Age 1 were phenomenal.
I disagree with the argument that FF14's story cannot not be compared to Western RPGs; they are under the same category of RPG. The choice mechanic of having multiple endings and threads adds to the story, but does not necessarily make it better (ie. Cyberpunk, and the later Dragon Ages). The purest part of the RPG genre is the story and how it is delivered.
Come back to this discussion after you clear Endwalker; I am truly curious if your answer will be the same.
I got ur point dude and i have the same reservation at the start. For me is more RPG than MMO and also Yoshi-P already told us that in the future we could decide the ending.
the problem here is, you need or at least should played more jrpg for understood better what are you talking about
I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of control over the story making a story always better. DA I'll give you, but Mass Effect has the famous ending, which does actually differ in the in-setitng repercussions, but people genuinely hated at the time.
(I'd argue that it has a bad story based on how the story between the games needs to be ignored; see, the Council – because you had the option of wiping them out in ME1, they didn't do anything in 2, and then got carbon-copy replacements by 3 becuase the writers couldn't be bothered changing the story based on previous choices.)
I think there's too much of a focus on the RPG tag. Since people can't agree on a definition for it, it may be beneficial to be more granular in describing what is "good" or "bad" about individual systems as opposed to arguing semantics of whether or not a game is allowed to be called an RPG. I just don't think that the purity testing of RPGs is conducive to evolving the genre nor to improving it as people get caught up in labels too often to get the conversation out of the gate.
Obviously this isn't super helpful due to the nature of videos and how much info you can have in them without overwhelming the viewer, but it is a thing to keep in mind.