I don't see how having a solid backstory for a game is bad, and you most certainly don't need to play the previous Warcraft games to understand it, heck, I haven't. It isn't original? I'd rather have a solidly built story on something that's already been and is already well known. The world is set out, and people can explore the places they've seen and known in the Warcraft games, but you don't HAVE to have played those to enjoy the world. Heck, I've learned the entire Warcraft story, from the first up until WC3:FT story purely from playing missions and reading the books spread around the world.

See, just because a game doesn't have story missions doesn't mean it doesn't have story.

Every instance has a background, has a reason, and has missions within it that follow a story.

Every race has a background, has a purpose and reason.

Just because it doesn't have missions that say "lol dis is storee" doesn't mean there isn't any.

Oh and lets look at your generally "great" argument Omecle, which is "You don't like FFXI so you think it's very flawed", well the same thing applies to you, you like the game so you don't think it's very flawed, if anything you're more biased than I am because you're playing it and I'm not. You say the game doesn't "suit" me so I don't like it, well the reason it doesn't "suit" me is BECAUSE it's flawed.

A flaw is a flaw, it doesn't magically become a strength just because you think it is.

But heck, at least it has one slogan that'll work.

FFXI; at least it's not Everquest.

Now I really can't be bothered to argue with you any more because you I feel like I'm trying to break through a brick wall.