To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.
This isn't the review, it's just a timeline of observations. The completed review and accompanying score will come later.
If you don't want your game to be reviewed, then maybe the CEO shouldn't make outlandish claims regarding the game being live and fully functional, when it obviously isn't fully functional and is only "live" so that he can justify charging a subscription fee.
Just my humble take on the situation.
Thank you, but I do know how to read being that the title of this article said "Review in Progress".
Secondly, you have just demonstrated to me that you want the game reviewed so that the CEO "shouldn't make outlandish claims". I understand your concern-- I'm not even disagreeing on that point. But this should Not be the primary reason to review in my book.
Review when the game is supposed to be reviewed- in this case, when it's more mature in its development cycle.
Just because you think the poster you are quoting wants the game to be reviewed because the CEO "shouldn't make outlandish claims", doesn't mean that's the reason its being reviewed by Bill.
Bill stated quite clearly...the game is being reviewed because a) There will be no more wipes, and b), they are charging full box price + subscription to play it....but like you said....you know how to read, so you obviously read that part too.....
Just because you yourself don't feel like the game is in a state to be reviewed, doesn't mean it shouldn't be reviewed. If a game isn't mature enough in its development cycle to be reviewed, it also shouldn't be mature enough in its development cycle to be charging full box price plus subscription (again, one of the 2 criteria for it to be reviewed by Bill).
Thank you, but I do know how to read being that the title of this article said "Review in Progress".
Yet your very first sentence is: "Thanks for this review Bill". No, apparently you do not.
Now you're just backpedaling to try and save face.How absurd.
Secondly, you have just demonstrated to me that you want the game reviewed so that the CEO "shouldn't make outlandish claims". I understand your concern-- I'm not even disagreeing on that point. But this should Not be the primary reason to review in my book.
Don't put words in my mouth, where exactly did I say that I wanted the review performed for that reason? I simply made a statement regarding my opinion of what not to do, which in turn would have lead to none of this ever happening, which I'm absolutely correct about and the majority seem to agree with.
He should have never made those claims, period.
I find it rather telling that you didn't mention the bit about me stating that it's only live so that he can justify charging a subscription fee. I guess the truth hurts, eh?
There is a grand total of around 5 supporters of the game on this entire forum, not counting Dancey himself. That alone speaks volumes about the state of things. Two of those five have been in agreement with the rest of us regarding certain things that could have been handled better or should not have been done at all. That leaves about three that are solely here as rabid fanboys who can't take any type of negative criticism about the game and immediately jump all over anyone who speaks out about it.
Review when the game is supposed to be reviewed- in this case, when it's more mature in its development cycle.
It isn't your place to decide when the appropriate time is, if you'd like to be the one to decide that feel free to open your own site. Get down off your high horse.
To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.
The trouble is, people in the games industry continue to try and use made up words and fancy marketing speak to change the game industry for the worse. If we let it go, it only gets worse. First you had War-Z continuing to deny they were released even though they were selling the game and the cash shop was open. They used "Foundation Release" as an excuse for poor quality and justify charging money for what was a terribly bad game. What's next? Oh, PO goes from a rough alpha into "Early Enrollment" and starts charging a sub fee. Now we cants even get access to alphas/betas when we support games on Kickstarter without also subscribing for the pleasure of being a tester. I can think of no other game that charged a monthly sub fee for access to their testing period. Many of you supporters are saying the game isnt ready for review and yet the CEO continues to say things like "It isn't "missing" anything that would make it "really work". If its not missing anything to make it work and they are charging a monthly fee and characters are not being wiped, what more do you want in order for the game to be launched/released?
This site here reviews games. What is the measure for when a game is reviewed? Isnt a game released when they are openly selling it? Does it have to be on Steam to be released? What would your qualification be for when to review a game? When the CEO says it is released? If that is the case, games like War-Z would never "officially release" to save themselves the bad PR of getting a terrible review score and driving people away. This site has a very fair review policy, the game is ready when they start collecting money AND dont have any wipes. How much more fair does it have to be? Are you people who are currently playing NOT going to have your characters wiped? You are paying money for a game and get to keep your characters and progress. How is that NOT launched?
I ask you, what is your definition of "launched"? What definition would you use to protect gamers from scam companies like HammerPoint who hide from reviews while also being fair to good companies?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Thank you, but I do know how to read being that the title of this article said "Review in Progress".
Yet your very first sentence is: "Thanks for this review Bill". No, apparently you do not.
Now you're just backpedaling to try and save face.How absurd.
Secondly, you have just demonstrated to me that you want the game reviewed so that the CEO "shouldn't make outlandish claims". I understand your concern-- I'm not even disagreeing on that point. But this should Not be the primary reason to review in my book.
Don't put words in my mouth, where exactly did I say that I wanted the review performed for that reason? I simply made a statement regarding my opinion of what not to do, which in turn would have lead to none of this ever happening, which I'm absolutely correct about and the majority seem to agree with.
He should have never made those claims, period.
I find it rather telling that you didn't mention the bit about me stating that it's only live so that he can justify charging a subscription fee. I guess the truth hurts, eh?
There is a grand total of around 5 supporters of the game on this entire forum, not counting Dancey himself. That alone speaks volumes about the state of things. Two of those five have been in agreement with the rest of us regarding certain things that could have been handled better or should not have been done at all. That leaves about three that are solely here as rabid fanboys who can't take any type of negative criticism about the game and immediately jump all over anyone who speaks out about it.
Review when the game is supposed to be reviewed- in this case, when it's more mature in its development cycle.
It isn't your place to decide when the appropriate time is, if you'd like to be the one to decide that feel free to open your own site. Get down off your high horse.
1. A review in progress is not a review? Because that's exactly what I was referring to --- the REVIEW in progress. Since a preliminary review still counts as part of the review, you are flat out wrong here. And don't presume to know what I was thinking because you do NOT.
2. You more than implied you wanted the review done for that reason and are still implying it by your response. "He should have never made those claims." Are you prepared to tell me this is NOT why you are asking for a review?
3. I don't see anything wrong with saying I think it's better to review the game when it's more mature. I hope that statement didn't give you a fit because from the looks of it, it did.
To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.
The trouble is, people in the games industry continue to try and use made up words and fancy marketing speak to change the game industry for the worse. If we let it go, it only gets worse. First you had War-Z continuing to deny they were released even though they were selling the game and the cash shop was open. They used "Foundation Release" as an excuse for poor quality and justify charging money for what was a terribly bad game. What's next? Oh, PO goes from a rough alpha into "Early Enrollment" and starts charging a sub fee. Now we cants even get access to alphas/betas when we support games on Kickstarter without also subscribing for the pleasure of being a tester. I can think of no other game that charged a monthly sub fee for access to their testing period. Many of you supporters are saying the game isnt ready for review and yet the CEO continues to say things like "It isn't "missing" anything that would make it "really work". If its not missing anything to make it work and they are charging a monthly fee and characters are not being wiped, what more do you want in order for the game to be launched/released?
This site here reviews games. What is the measure for when a game is reviewed? Isnt a game released when they are openly selling it? Does it have to be on Steam to be released? What would your qualification be for when to review a game? When the CEO says it is released? If that is the case, games like War-Z would never "officially release" to save themselves the bad PR of getting a terrible review score and driving people away. This site has a very fair review policy, the game is ready when they start collecting money AND dont have any wipes. How much more fair does it have to be? Are you people who are currently playing NOT going to have your characters wiped? You are paying money for a game and get to keep your characters and progress. How is that NOT launched?
I ask you, what is your definition of "launched"? What definition would you use to protect gamers from scam companies like HammerPoint who hide from reviews while also being fair to good companies?
I get what you're saying. If you've seen the video Bill posted and read the article, you know that the game clearly needs alot of work before it's ready for primetime. But why the sudden push to review? Is it to shine this game in a bad light? Is it to have Mr. Dancey eat his words?
A review at this time is not useful to me because I know the game still has far to go. I would much rather see a formal review when the game is more feature-complete and polished - That is what I care about.
Originally posted by wmmarcellino I think this is reasonably accurate and fair for that part of the game. I wish though he had reviewed more than a tiny fraction of the game. The best and most developed parts are the crafting and economic systems, and the social interactions that happen because of it.
This isnt his review. It is his initial thoughts so far in the process. They will run a few of these as he plays more and then he will sum everything up when he is done taking into account the total picture of the game he saw. You should see his experience in the crafting coming up soon.
About as honest review as I have seen. Admitting you know the dude personally and still recommend not paying for it just yet shows true journalistic integrity. I will never question that again after this review. Well done.
For people complaining this was reviewed, they are charging a sub for an unfinished game. This is a service to people who are on the fence about jumping in. They are also claiming the game is not in a testing period. So you are charging for a game, charging for a sub, claiming the game is not in testing but is considered finished/development.....FAIR GAME.
To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.
The trouble is, people in the games industry continue to try and use made up words and fancy marketing speak to change the game industry for the worse. If we let it go, it only gets worse. First you had War-Z continuing to deny they were released even though they were selling the game and the cash shop was open. They used "Foundation Release" as an excuse for poor quality and justify charging money for what was a terribly bad game. What's next? Oh, PO goes from a rough alpha into "Early Enrollment" and starts charging a sub fee. Now we cants even get access to alphas/betas when we support games on Kickstarter without also subscribing for the pleasure of being a tester. I can think of no other game that charged a monthly sub fee for access to their testing period. Many of you supporters are saying the game isnt ready for review and yet the CEO continues to say things like "It isn't "missing" anything that would make it "really work". If its not missing anything to make it work and they are charging a monthly fee and characters are not being wiped, what more do you want in order for the game to be launched/released?
This site here reviews games. What is the measure for when a game is reviewed? Isnt a game released when they are openly selling it? Does it have to be on Steam to be released? What would your qualification be for when to review a game? When the CEO says it is released? If that is the case, games like War-Z would never "officially release" to save themselves the bad PR of getting a terrible review score and driving people away. This site has a very fair review policy, the game is ready when they start collecting money AND dont have any wipes. How much more fair does it have to be? Are you people who are currently playing NOT going to have your characters wiped? You are paying money for a game and get to keep your characters and progress. How is that NOT launched?
I ask you, what is your definition of "launched"? What definition would you use to protect gamers from scam companies like HammerPoint who hide from reviews while also being fair to good companies?
I get what you're saying. If you've seen the video Bill posted and read the article, you know that the game clearly needs alot of work before it's ready for primetime. But why the sudden push to review? Is it to shine this game in a bad light? Is it to have Mr. Dancey eat his words?
A review at this time is not useful to me because I know the game still has far to go. I would much rather see a formal review when the game is more feature-complete and polished - That is what I care about.
The main gripe most of the people you are quoting have, is that the game is charging full box price plus a subscription.
If you don't feel that the game is ready for the limelight of reviews, and thus being treated unfairly, surly you feel that the game isn't ready to be charging full box price on top of a subscription, right?
If something is being sold at maximum retail price, that product has a right to be reviewed. if said product isn't ready to be reviewed, it also isn't ready to be sold at maximum retail price.
A review at this time is not useful to me because I know the game still has far to go. I would much rather see a formal review when the game is more feature-complete and polished - That is what I care about.
I see an awful lot of "me" and "I" coming from you. You're missing the point completely, this isn't about you or anyone else who is already invested/aware.
It's about informing the general gaming public, so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to buy into the project as it currently stands. A game that is charging a fee for entry and a subscription fee on top of that. There is no ulterior motive here, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants to think that there is.
It's all about raising awareness and providing a clear picture for gamers, nothing more and nothing less.
About as honest review as I have seen. Admitting you know the dude personally and still recommend not paying for it just yet shows true journalistic integrity. I will never question that again after this review. Well done.
For people complaining this was reviewed, they are charging a sub for an unfinished game. This is a service to people who are on the fence about jumping in. They are also claiming the game is not in a testing period. So you are charging for a game, charging for a sub, claiming the game is not in testing but is considered finished/development.....FAIR GAME.
I couldn't agree more, frankly I've been very critical of the journalists on this site previously, I've even gone so far as to claim that some were not journalists at all.
I'm the first person to admit when I've made a mistake, and after this it appears clear to me that I was wrong. My sincerest apologies to the staff for any callous comments I may have previously made.
About as honest review as I have seen. Admitting you know the dude personally and still recommend not paying for it just yet shows true journalistic integrity. I will never question that again after this review. Well done.
For people complaining this was reviewed, they are charging a sub for an unfinished game. This is a service to people who are on the fence about jumping in. They are also claiming the game is not in a testing period. So you are charging for a game, charging for a sub, claiming the game is not in testing but is considered finished/development.....FAIR GAME.
I couldn't agree more, frankly I've been very critical of the journalists on this site previously, I've even gone so far as to claim that some were not journalists at all.
I'm the first person to admit when I've made a mistake, and after this it appears clear to me that I was wrong. My sincerest apologies to the staff for any callous comments I may have previously made.
I dunno....I've seen Bill run with already officially debunked "stories" which had random reddit posts as the source....though this is a good step, I don't think this excuses all previous bafoonry :P
"Despite being a large world though, the River Kingdoms feels sparse and empty."
PFO is the perfect example of old school players wearing rose-colored glasses. Old school MMO's were just awful. They truly were. Just look at most upcoming kickstarter "old-school mmo's", and you'll see how terrible the quality and gameplay is/was.
You mean to tell me, you actually continue gaining experience on accounts that are inactive (ie. no sub)? That would be idiotic if so.
No, but there is no wipe. So people that choose to pay the sub for a broken game that most people agree is at least a year away from something resembling a real game will have a huge advantage should the game find funding to last that long.
It's Pay for my beta, or join at "Open Enrollment" and be a year behind. in a PvP territory control based game...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
A review at this time is not useful to me because I know the game still has far to go. I would much rather see a formal review when the game is more feature-complete and polished - That is what I care about.
I see an awful lot of "me" and "I" coming from you. You're missing the point completely, this isn't about you or anyone else who is already invested/aware.
It's about informing the general gaming public, so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to buy into the project as it currently stands. A game that is charging a fee for entry and a subscription fee on top of that. There is no ulterior motive here, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants to think that there is.
It's all about raising awareness and providing a clear picture for gamers, nothing more and nothing less.
That's reasonable. But once again - a review now is not very useful to me. And probably not very useful to you either as we already know the game is pretty rough.
A review at this time is not useful to me because I know the game still has far to go. I would much rather see a formal review when the game is more feature-complete and polished - That is what I care about.
I see an awful lot of "me" and "I" coming from you. You're missing the point completely, this isn't about you or anyone else who is already invested/aware.
It's about informing the general gaming public, so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to buy into the project as it currently stands. A game that is charging a fee for entry and a subscription fee on top of that. There is no ulterior motive here, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants to think that there is.
It's all about raising awareness and providing a clear picture for gamers, nothing more and nothing less.
That's reasonable. But once again - a review now is not very useful to me. And probably not very useful to you either as we already know the game is pretty rough.
You know that. He knows that. But do you think everyone that this game is advertised to by the evangelists the company is asking for knows that and do you think that all, or any for that matter, of these evangelists will tell people about how rough it is? Not likely. Even if this is review is just a shaming, it is deserving. Companies have got to learn to stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes with marketing pr speak. I for one wish there was more of it. I am tired of what gaming companies, not just MMO ones, have been pulling on us for the past few years; broken, unfinished messes with less content than ever before. I wouldn't mind seeing the entire gaming market collapse like it has in the past to have a Phoenix arise from its ashes and leave behind all that crap we have had shoved down our throats. The fact is if you are selling a product or service, no matter how you try to label it, you damn well should be critiqued regardless if it's digital or physical. Viva la revolution
Disclosure: This is my very first post on these boards - and I'm one of the few settlement leaders in PFO - sometimes derogatory being called the alpha-aristocracy
Thanks for the thoughts about the game. They are pretty much spot on I would say.
The main concern I hear voiced here is that you pay for a non-finished product and that you only should pay for something you have fun with. So let you give you my own take on it.
I play many hours a week and I'm hooked to the game. As such paying for my fun is just fair. $60 a month is a fair price for me and my family. Yes - there are 4 accounts here - mine, one for my son who plays with me, one shared by my wife (who hasn't played yet and maybe never will) and daughter and one for a settlement shared account that was necessary in the early days because of lack of communal banking but that I might retire soon.
I don't see myself as a tester. I'm someone who first plays the game, second can contribute to the direction and development of the game due to my input and only third I'm a tester who also contributes bug reports or suffers if something doesn't work.
And here lies the issue with the game in the current state. If you are less forgiving for bugs, if you need something polished, if you don't get enjoyment out of shaping a game while it is produced then paying for it might feel like an outrage.
I hardly advertise the game to my firends at the moment - not many are of the same mindset that I am . So right now it will only cater to a niche - to a small set of players. But if you belong to them, then you can have lots of fun and shape the early world.
The Emerald Spire - the largest dungeon in the whole game . Take you pick:
a) Only published as a book and pure vapourware as it isn't implemented yet
b) We have a settlement camped at the doorstep of the Spire - my sons character was the first to have officially spotted it in game and his character will go into the histroy of the game as having been first to spot it
No fun to be had with a) but b) is something not many player ever will be able to say about a game. a) not worth a single cent - b) something you can't buy no matter how much money you spend
So in summary - for a small minority this game is fantastic as it is and I'm looking forward to the next installments. On the other hand - for the majority of players it isn't ready yet.
If you fall into the first category - try it out - there are 15 day free trials and I'm happy to organize one - just search Thod on the paizo boards and you will find how to contact me if you can't get it elsewhere. And please say hello to Thod / Theodum and the Emerald Lodge - a small settlement that tries to stay independent.
For the others - have an open mind. You are likely right that this game isn't for you at the current state. But should it ever manage to be great then to some degree thanks to people who contribute and shape it early. So don't drive them away just because it isn't for you. For some it can be a lot of fun.
I am not at all bashing the game itself but the principle of paying a sub while playing Early Enrollment is simply an atrocious practise. I mean, are you kidding me? Founder packs are fine but this? Seriously, people need to get their head out of their a$$ and stop this behaviour.
I have found in my lifetime, that the beauty of hating stupid people is, that it crosses all racial boundaries.
One aspect that will be very important to really experience the game will be to become a member of a settlement. I did write a series of (outdated now) articles about solo-play. But truly at the heart of the game is the settlement and the community / politics it involves.
You should really sontemplate to join one (or maybe two) settlements - of course you can only be member of one and any choice has consequences
Here is my list of suggestions:
PFU - Pathfinder University - you are restricted to 90 days (unless you become teaching staff). Best place to learn the game and to hang out to do PvE escalations
EBA - Everbloom Alliance - represented by Brighthaven (Fighter, Wizard), Phaeros (Cleric, Rogue) and Keepers Path. The largest alliance in the game - they can provide you with what you want and will fall over themselves showering you if you disclose you are reviewing this game. The 'Good' guys in this game.
Empire of Xelias - dominated by Golgotha - but also Kreuz Bernstein and Callambea. The 'Evil' counterpart. Pretty much PvP centric and having to suffer with the low amount of PvP right now or that they can't openly go to war with EBA as they are smaller.
A small settlement that is between Golgotha and the EBA and closest to the Spire - something we share with our evil neighbour Golgotha. We are independent / neutral - we survive because we are worth more alive as dead for either EBA or Golgotha. We do our PvP wars in the areas of politics and forum boards but otherwise play mainly as a place for RP players and PvE players.
Others - The Aeonian Leage (three small settlements) and the High Road Covenant in the North.
Be aware that decisions have consequences - joining Golgotha might bar any joining of EBA later (unless you bring useful information) and vice versa. So best make you pick between Good and Evil - or try out first PFU or Emerald Lodge and then go for Good or Evil. Both these places are neutral enough that either EBA or Golgotha will take you.
Joining Emerald Lodge would also have the benefit to see a contrast - a small settlement - sometimes empty (half players are EU based as this is where I come from) - so you experience a settlement at the frontier not yet sure if it will survive long term or not - and one of the big ones which are guranteed to have a large impact - but if they die before us then because someone bigger came along and dethroned them while we might be small enough to pivot around and adapt.
Why do the characters have their health bars attached to their butts bouncing up and down. This is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen. #ButtBars
The health bars of the mobs are equally annoying being this huge arch above the that seems to shrink when you get closer.
Originally posted by Kilrain
I feel it's fair to add that the animations themselves aren't bad at all. The timing on some of them are off and that's what makes it terrible.
Sorry, mate but in that Video the sound is not synchronized with the combat animation if the combat animation even shows at all.
Anyone paying for this and then subscribing for $15 a month must be really desperate for a game. Guys, seriously there are plenty of amazing single player games out there to play while you wait for something really good to come along. no need to punish yourself with this garbage.
This is odd. I read the review as negative (clearly the tone was) but the only things I could identify that were really poor is the combat animations (maybe all animations in general) and the jump height. I don't want to defend a bad product but what exactly is wrong with it?
Even if the animation is off a bit aren't we more concerned with gameplay? The animations in minecraft are horrible and yet, 2 billion dollars (to be fair minecraft animations are at least in sync and they fit the character design).
What exactly is wrong with combat other than animations? Is there enough content? Is the content fun? Don't get me wrong I fully expect there to be huge issues with the combat, mechanics, content availability, itemization, bugged bosses and quests. Animations just seem like a petty thing to pick on.
One thing I want to say about the development of this game…
I am having an absolute blast with PFO , would I recommend the game at this time? No its not ready it is at least a year away( if not more..). unless you have been disappointed by games over the last few years and want to try something new then this may be for you.
Why am I playing it now? Why would I want to help someone build their game by giving them money while they do so? Because for 5 years I haven’t found a game that has held my interest more than a month, PFO has held my attention now for 3 months even with all the detractors ( which every three weeks get better and better..). The traditional design structures of games have missed me as a consumer for at least 5 years , so why not help crowdforge one and see if my interest in the game is greater than what the market has offered me for 5 + years now.
Why do I believe a new business model can be effective in creating MMO? Lisa Stevens … D&D was the end all be all of RPGs since the late 70’s . She decided there was a better way to design and build a game system and Pathfinder RPG has blown traditional D&D away since Pazio changed up how game systems are designed and tested. Lisa is deeply involved with this project and she has built up enough trust with me as a customer that I trust her to build something really cool even if she doesn’t follow traditional paths when doing so.. Oh and she actually owns Yoda … how can you not trust someone who owns Yoda….
Comments
Just because you think the poster you are quoting wants the game to be reviewed because the CEO "shouldn't make outlandish claims", doesn't mean that's the reason its being reviewed by Bill.
Bill stated quite clearly...the game is being reviewed because a) There will be no more wipes, and b), they are charging full box price + subscription to play it....but like you said....you know how to read, so you obviously read that part too.....
Just because you yourself don't feel like the game is in a state to be reviewed, doesn't mean it shouldn't be reviewed. If a game isn't mature enough in its development cycle to be reviewed, it also shouldn't be mature enough in its development cycle to be charging full box price plus subscription (again, one of the 2 criteria for it to be reviewed by Bill).
Drinking game. Take a shot any time one of these statements are made is response to a less than glowing review.
Review is bad because not released
Review is bad because the first patch isn't out yet
Review is bad because the first expansion isn't out yet
Beta isn't the latest build
Release day miracle patch will fix it all
Reviewer is biased
Not the reviewers type of game
Reviewer is wrong (won't say where reviewer is wrong)
Something about haters
"Release day miracle patch will fix it all"
Oh man, I'd be drunk all day, every day hearing the people on these forums use that line.
@Super
The trouble is, people in the games industry continue to try and use made up words and fancy marketing speak to change the game industry for the worse. If we let it go, it only gets worse. First you had War-Z continuing to deny they were released even though they were selling the game and the cash shop was open. They used "Foundation Release" as an excuse for poor quality and justify charging money for what was a terribly bad game. What's next? Oh, PO goes from a rough alpha into "Early Enrollment" and starts charging a sub fee. Now we cants even get access to alphas/betas when we support games on Kickstarter without also subscribing for the pleasure of being a tester. I can think of no other game that charged a monthly sub fee for access to their testing period. Many of you supporters are saying the game isnt ready for review and yet the CEO continues to say things like "It isn't "missing" anything that would make it "really work". If its not missing anything to make it work and they are charging a monthly fee and characters are not being wiped, what more do you want in order for the game to be launched/released?
This site here reviews games. What is the measure for when a game is reviewed? Isnt a game released when they are openly selling it? Does it have to be on Steam to be released? What would your qualification be for when to review a game? When the CEO says it is released? If that is the case, games like War-Z would never "officially release" to save themselves the bad PR of getting a terrible review score and driving people away. This site has a very fair review policy, the game is ready when they start collecting money AND dont have any wipes. How much more fair does it have to be? Are you people who are currently playing NOT going to have your characters wiped? You are paying money for a game and get to keep your characters and progress. How is that NOT launched?
I ask you, what is your definition of "launched"? What definition would you use to protect gamers from scam companies like HammerPoint who hide from reviews while also being fair to good companies?
1. A review in progress is not a review? Because that's exactly what I was referring to --- the REVIEW in progress. Since a preliminary review still counts as part of the review, you are flat out wrong here. And don't presume to know what I was thinking because you do NOT.
2. You more than implied you wanted the review done for that reason and are still implying it by your response. "He should have never made those claims." Are you prepared to tell me this is NOT why you are asking for a review?
3. I don't see anything wrong with saying I think it's better to review the game when it's more mature. I hope that statement didn't give you a fit because from the looks of it, it did.
I get what you're saying. If you've seen the video Bill posted and read the article, you know that the game clearly needs alot of work before it's ready for primetime. But why the sudden push to review? Is it to shine this game in a bad light? Is it to have Mr. Dancey eat his words?
A review at this time is not useful to me because I know the game still has far to go. I would much rather see a formal review when the game is more feature-complete and polished - That is what I care about.
IC--thank you!
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
About as honest review as I have seen. Admitting you know the dude personally and still recommend not paying for it just yet shows true journalistic integrity. I will never question that again after this review. Well done.
For people complaining this was reviewed, they are charging a sub for an unfinished game. This is a service to people who are on the fence about jumping in. They are also claiming the game is not in a testing period. So you are charging for a game, charging for a sub, claiming the game is not in testing but is considered finished/development.....FAIR GAME.
The main gripe most of the people you are quoting have, is that the game is charging full box price plus a subscription.
If you don't feel that the game is ready for the limelight of reviews, and thus being treated unfairly, surly you feel that the game isn't ready to be charging full box price on top of a subscription, right?
If something is being sold at maximum retail price, that product has a right to be reviewed. if said product isn't ready to be reviewed, it also isn't ready to be sold at maximum retail price.
I see an awful lot of "me" and "I" coming from you. You're missing the point completely, this isn't about you or anyone else who is already invested/aware.
It's about informing the general gaming public, so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to buy into the project as it currently stands. A game that is charging a fee for entry and a subscription fee on top of that. There is no ulterior motive here, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants to think that there is.
It's all about raising awareness and providing a clear picture for gamers, nothing more and nothing less.
I couldn't agree more, frankly I've been very critical of the journalists on this site previously, I've even gone so far as to claim that some were not journalists at all.
I'm the first person to admit when I've made a mistake, and after this it appears clear to me that I was wrong. My sincerest apologies to the staff for any callous comments I may have previously made.
I dunno....I've seen Bill run with already officially debunked "stories" which had random reddit posts as the source....though this is a good step, I don't think this excuses all previous bafoonry :P
"Despite being a large world though, the River Kingdoms feels sparse and empty."
PFO is the perfect example of old school players wearing rose-colored glasses. Old school MMO's were just awful. They truly were. Just look at most upcoming kickstarter "old-school mmo's", and you'll see how terrible the quality and gameplay is/was.
No.
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
No, but there is no wipe. So people that choose to pay the sub for a broken game that most people agree is at least a year away from something resembling a real game will have a huge advantage should the game find funding to last that long.
It's Pay for my beta, or join at "Open Enrollment" and be a year behind. in a PvP territory control based game...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That's reasonable. But once again - a review now is not very useful to me. And probably not very useful to you either as we already know the game is pretty rough.
You know that. He knows that. But do you think everyone that this game is advertised to by the evangelists the company is asking for knows that and do you think that all, or any for that matter, of these evangelists will tell people about how rough it is? Not likely. Even if this is review is just a shaming, it is deserving. Companies have got to learn to stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes with marketing pr speak. I for one wish there was more of it. I am tired of what gaming companies, not just MMO ones, have been pulling on us for the past few years; broken, unfinished messes with less content than ever before. I wouldn't mind seeing the entire gaming market collapse like it has in the past to have a Phoenix arise from its ashes and leave behind all that crap we have had shoved down our throats. The fact is if you are selling a product or service, no matter how you try to label it, you damn well should be critiqued regardless if it's digital or physical. Viva la revolution
Disclosure: This is my very first post on these boards - and I'm one of the few settlement leaders in PFO - sometimes derogatory being called the alpha-aristocracy
Thanks for the thoughts about the game. They are pretty much spot on I would say.
The main concern I hear voiced here is that you pay for a non-finished product and that you only should pay for something you have fun with. So let you give you my own take on it.
I play many hours a week and I'm hooked to the game. As such paying for my fun is just fair. $60 a month is a fair price for me and my family. Yes - there are 4 accounts here - mine, one for my son who plays with me, one shared by my wife (who hasn't played yet and maybe never will) and daughter and one for a settlement shared account that was necessary in the early days because of lack of communal banking but that I might retire soon.
I don't see myself as a tester. I'm someone who first plays the game, second can contribute to the direction and development of the game due to my input and only third I'm a tester who also contributes bug reports or suffers if something doesn't work.
And here lies the issue with the game in the current state. If you are less forgiving for bugs, if you need something polished, if you don't get enjoyment out of shaping a game while it is produced then paying for it might feel like an outrage.
I hardly advertise the game to my firends at the moment - not many are of the same mindset that I am . So right now it will only cater to a niche - to a small set of players. But if you belong to them, then you can have lots of fun and shape the early world.
The Emerald Spire - the largest dungeon in the whole game . Take you pick:
a) Only published as a book and pure vapourware as it isn't implemented yet
b) We have a settlement camped at the doorstep of the Spire - my sons character was the first to have officially spotted it in game and his character will go into the histroy of the game as having been first to spot it
No fun to be had with a) but b) is something not many player ever will be able to say about a game. a) not worth a single cent - b) something you can't buy no matter how much money you spend
So in summary - for a small minority this game is fantastic as it is and I'm looking forward to the next installments. On the other hand - for the majority of players it isn't ready yet.
If you fall into the first category - try it out - there are 15 day free trials and I'm happy to organize one - just search Thod on the paizo boards and you will find how to contact me if you can't get it elsewhere. And please say hello to Thod / Theodum and the Emerald Lodge - a small settlement that tries to stay independent.
For the others - have an open mind. You are likely right that this game isn't for you at the current state. But should it ever manage to be great then to some degree thanks to people who contribute and shape it early. So don't drive them away just because it isn't for you. For some it can be a lot of fun.
I have found in my lifetime, that the beauty of hating stupid people is, that it crosses all racial boundaries.
To the reviewer:
One aspect that will be very important to really experience the game will be to become a member of a settlement. I did write a series of (outdated now) articles about solo-play. But truly at the heart of the game is the settlement and the community / politics it involves.
You should really sontemplate to join one (or maybe two) settlements - of course you can only be member of one and any choice has consequences
Here is my list of suggestions:
PFU - Pathfinder University - you are restricted to 90 days (unless you become teaching staff). Best place to learn the game and to hang out to do PvE escalations
EBA - Everbloom Alliance - represented by Brighthaven (Fighter, Wizard), Phaeros (Cleric, Rogue) and Keepers Path. The largest alliance in the game - they can provide you with what you want and will fall over themselves showering you if you disclose you are reviewing this game. The 'Good' guys in this game.
Empire of Xelias - dominated by Golgotha - but also Kreuz Bernstein and Callambea. The 'Evil' counterpart. Pretty much PvP centric and having to suffer with the low amount of PvP right now or that they can't openly go to war with EBA as they are smaller.
A small settlement that is between Golgotha and the EBA and closest to the Spire - something we share with our evil neighbour Golgotha. We are independent / neutral - we survive because we are worth more alive as dead for either EBA or Golgotha. We do our PvP wars in the areas of politics and forum boards but otherwise play mainly as a place for RP players and PvE players.
Others - The Aeonian Leage (three small settlements) and the High Road Covenant in the North.
Be aware that decisions have consequences - joining Golgotha might bar any joining of EBA later (unless you bring useful information) and vice versa. So best make you pick between Good and Evil - or try out first PFU or Emerald Lodge and then go for Good or Evil. Both these places are neutral enough that either EBA or Golgotha will take you.
Joining Emerald Lodge would also have the benefit to see a contrast - a small settlement - sometimes empty (half players are EU based as this is where I come from) - so you experience a settlement at the frontier not yet sure if it will survive long term or not - and one of the big ones which are guranteed to have a large impact - but if they die before us then because someone bigger came along and dethroned them while we might be small enough to pivot around and adapt.
Why do the characters have their health bars attached to their butts bouncing up and down. This is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen. #ButtBars
The health bars of the mobs are equally annoying being this huge arch above the that seems to shrink when you get closer.
Sorry, mate but in that Video the sound is not synchronized with the combat animation if the combat animation even shows at all.
Anyone paying for this and then subscribing for $15 a month must be really desperate for a game. Guys, seriously there are plenty of amazing single player games out there to play while you wait for something really good to come along. no need to punish yourself with this garbage.
/smh
This is odd. I read the review as negative (clearly the tone was) but the only things I could identify that were really poor is the combat animations (maybe all animations in general) and the jump height. I don't want to defend a bad product but what exactly is wrong with it?
Even if the animation is off a bit aren't we more concerned with gameplay? The animations in minecraft are horrible and yet, 2 billion dollars (to be fair minecraft animations are at least in sync and they fit the character design).
What exactly is wrong with combat other than animations? Is there enough content? Is the content fun? Don't get me wrong I fully expect there to be huge issues with the combat, mechanics, content availability, itemization, bugged bosses and quests. Animations just seem like a petty thing to pick on.
One thing I want to say about the development of this game…
I am having an absolute blast with PFO , would I recommend the game at this time? No its not ready it is at least a year away( if not more..). unless you have been disappointed by games over the last few years and want to try something new then this may be for you.
Why am I playing it now? Why would I want to help someone build their game by giving them money while they do so? Because for 5 years I haven’t found a game that has held my interest more than a month, PFO has held my attention now for 3 months even with all the detractors ( which every three weeks get better and better..). The traditional design structures of games have missed me as a consumer for at least 5 years , so why not help crowdforge one and see if my interest in the game is greater than what the market has offered me for 5 + years now.
Why do I believe a new business model can be effective in creating MMO? Lisa Stevens … D&D was the end all be all of RPGs since the late 70’s . She decided there was a better way to design and build a game system and Pathfinder RPG has blown traditional D&D away since Pazio changed up how game systems are designed and tested. Lisa is deeply involved with this project and she has built up enough trust with me as a customer that I trust her to build something really cool even if she doesn’t follow traditional paths when doing so.. Oh and she actually owns Yoda … how can you not trust someone who owns Yoda….