Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PFO rated #2 "Most Disappointing" game of 2015

Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,944

"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

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

My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

«1

Comments

  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,881

    Wow that's a super huge big deal, it's so meaningful and important. Good thing you made this thread. Life just wouldn't be complete without it.

    It's not like a list of the top 5 most disappointing is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nope not at all in fact it's so enthralling, captivating, and.. yea as if.

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer



  • IkedaIkeda Member RarePosts: 2,744

    It's fairly significant...

    But when you compare that to the fact that they're saying WoW's 7.1 millions active subs (so... 7.1mil x roughly $10 is 70 million a month) are #1 most disappointing...

    It's funny.  In 1 month WoW brings in probably more than PFO has in it's entirity.

    I tried PFO and found it very disappointing.  Not having basic GUI functions work pushed me away from further inquiry.  If you can't make a mouse clicking an X actually click the X... as opposed to having to click half an inch below the X... that's just programming laziness.

  • BigdaddyxBigdaddyx Member UncommonPosts: 2,039
    I almost..almost payed money to try this game and i am glad that i did not.
  • BigdaddyxBigdaddyx Member UncommonPosts: 2,039
    Originally posted by Nilden

    Wow that's a super huge big deal, it's so meaningful and important. Good thing you made this thread. Life just wouldn't be complete without it.

    It's not like a list of the top 5 most disappointing is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nope not at all in fact it's so enthralling, captivating, and.. yea as if.

    Actually, it is considering the sandbox pro nature of the forums here and how people are so quick to rip themepark MMOS and players a new one at any given oppertunity.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Originally posted by Bigdaddyx
    Originally posted by Nilden

    Wow that's a super huge big deal, it's so meaningful and important. Good thing you made this thread. Life just wouldn't be complete without it.

    It's not like a list of the top 5 most disappointing is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nope not at all in fact it's so enthralling, captivating, and.. yea as if.

    Actually, it is considering the sandbox pro nature of the forums here and how people are so quick to rip themepark MMOS and players a new one at any given oppertunity.

    It isn't Wow in itself that topped the list but Wows latest expansion. And it honestly havn't been ranked that great even on sites for Wow fans exclusively either. The expansion wouldn't have been a huge dissapointment if the game in itself had sucked.

    As for PFO is the real problem that they charge for a game that is nowhere near release shape, if the monthly fees hadn't started it wouldn't be on the list. PFO do have a lot of potential but actually expecting players to pay monthly for alpha testing is not a good move no matter how short you are of cash.

  • reeereeereeereee Member UncommonPosts: 1,636
    What game in alpha wouldn't be a "disappointing mess" when compared to actual finished games?  Now sure they're charging a  subscription fee to play alpha, but that's a different issue.
  • AudoucetAudoucet Member UncommonPosts: 69
    Originally posted by reeereee
    What game in alpha wouldn't be a "disappointing mess" when compared to actual finished games?  Now sure they're charging a  subscription fee to play alpha, but that's a different issue.

    WoW is in early pre-alpha too. It won't be complete before at least 2020.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Originally posted by reeereee
    What game in alpha wouldn't be a "disappointing mess" when compared to actual finished games?  Now sure they're charging a  subscription fee to play alpha, but that's a different issue.

    No, it is not. When you charge people for playing the game opens itself for reviews and stuff like this. 

  • IkedaIkeda Member RarePosts: 2,744

    Yea, except the moment they charged per month... their game is launched.  You're on the clock and owing something to your consumers.

    Alpha " In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release"

     

  • reeereeereeereee Member UncommonPosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by reeereee
    What game in alpha wouldn't be a "disappointing mess" when compared to actual finished games?  Now sure they're charging a  subscription fee to play alpha, but that's a different issue.

    No, it is not. When you charge people for playing the game opens itself for reviews and stuff like this. 

    Except it's not 2004 anymore.

  • AudoucetAudoucet Member UncommonPosts: 69

    Yeah, so 2015 means you judge something based on how the guy selling it wants you to judge it.

    I'm gonna be the next US President with that mentality.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,318

    I think pointing the finger at PO is a bit much,the game is not THAT BAD,it is just not that good either.

    I have seen games on Twitch Tv that people are buying and playing that i would rather have teeth pulled than play those games.There a bus load of games far worse than Pathfinder Online.

    I can even go one further,if i had a choice from stepping into Star Citizen or PO RIGHT NOW,it is a no brainer,i play PO in heartbeat as SC is not even worth my time.Now that does not mean that SC might not surpass it with flying colors but if we are talking about games RIGHT NOW,far more are worse than PO.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • Azaron_NightbladeAzaron_Nightblade Member EpicPosts: 4,688
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    It's fairly significant...

    But when you compare that to the fact that they're saying WoW's 7.1 millions active subs (so... 7.1mil x roughly $10 is 70 million a month) are #1 most disappointing...

    It's funny.  In 1 month WoW brings in probably more than PFO has in it's entirity.

    I tried PFO and found it very disappointing.  Not having basic GUI functions work pushed me away from further inquiry.  If you can't make a mouse clicking an X actually click the X... as opposed to having to click half an inch below the X... that's just programming laziness.

    Disappointing doesn't have much to do with the quality of the game in many cases. In this case WoW got the award because there were way more people with high expectations for the expansion that wound up disappointed, than PFO ever has had in terms of people caring about it (or even knowing about it).

    It doesn't mean that WoW's a worse game than PFO. Just that it has way more eyes watching it, and expecting great things from Blizzard.

    Or at least that's how I interpreted the list. PFO probably only made it on there because of the IP, otherwise no one would even care enough about it. (Cabal and Archlord are at least known names)

    My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)

    https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 2,914
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    I think pointing the finger at PO is a bit much,the game is not THAT BAD,it is just not that good either.

    I have seen games on Twitch Tv that people are buying and playing that i would rather have teeth pulled than play those games.There a bus load of games far worse than Pathfinder Online.

    I can even go one further,if i had a choice from stepping into Star Citizen or PO RIGHT NOW,it is a no brainer,i play PO in heartbeat as SC is not even worth my time.Now that does not mean that SC might not surpass it with flying colors but if we are talking about games RIGHT NOW,far more are worse than PO.

    The thing is R. D. is trying to peddle to us how "crowdforging" is so very valuable and thus 15$ month when in fact there is very little crowdforging going on.... hell you could even say atleast  in SC You are doing as much crowdforging as PO and it doesn't really cost you more than their min pledge package and adding the AC pass.

    SC is not claiming it's a full game or live game etc etc like PO are trying to do but I digress...

     

    Some of us told him he was making some wrong decisions alas our armor wasn't shiny enough for him to hear us so not surprised how this is going down at all.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • ThebeastttThebeasttt Member RarePosts: 1,130

    WoW threw way too many eggs in the Garrison basket. It also had a surprisingly small amount of endgame content for an expansion. Even so, to say it's more disappointing then PFO is quite the stretch, to put it nicely.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by Bigdaddyx
    I almost..almost payed money to try this game and i am glad that i did not.

    Why would you pay? They were handing out free trials like candy.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    Yea, except the moment they charged per month... their game is launched.  You're on the clock and owing something to your consumers.

    Alpha " In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release"

     

    Well I guess it's time to review shroud of the avatar and many other Steam EA games, like ARK etc... They're all charging for their alphas. Many of those have been at it far longer than PFO. Yet they're still in "alpha"...

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • F0URTWENTYF0URTWENTY Member UncommonPosts: 349
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    Yea, except the moment they charged per month... their game is launched.  You're on the clock and owing something to your consumers.

    Alpha " In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release"

     

    Well I guess it's time to review shroud of the avatar and many other Steam EA games, like ARK etc... They're all charging for their alphas. Many of those have been at it far longer than PFO. Yet they're still in "alpha"...

     

    Those games charge box fees just as pathfinder does and most people don't have much of a problem with that.

    The difference is pathfinder will cost you 180$/year.

    Rust and H1z1 are being actively developed and not costing me a thing.

  • reeereeereeereee Member UncommonPosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by F0URTWENTY
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    Yea, except the moment they charged per month... their game is launched.  You're on the clock and owing something to your consumers.

    Alpha " In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release"

     

    Well I guess it's time to review shroud of the avatar and many other Steam EA games, like ARK etc... They're all charging for their alphas. Many of those have been at it far longer than PFO. Yet they're still in "alpha"...

     

    Those games charge box fees just as pathfinder does and most people don't have much of a problem with that.

    The difference is pathfinder will cost you 180$/year.

    Rust and H1z1 are being actively developed and not costing me a thing.

    Ah, so your position is that an Alpha game with a cash shop is perfectly fine but an alpha game with a subscription is not.

  • mgilbrtsnmgilbrtsn Member EpicPosts: 3,297
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    It's fairly significant...

    But when you compare that to the fact that they're saying WoW's 7.1 millions active subs (so... 7.1mil x roughly $10 is 70 million a month) are #1 most disappointing...

    It's funny.  In 1 month WoW brings in probably more than PFO has in it's entirity.

    I tried PFO and found it very disappointing.  Not having basic GUI functions work pushed me away from further inquiry.  If you can't make a mouse clicking an X actually click the X... as opposed to having to click half an inch below the X... that's just programming laziness.

    They weren't talking numbers.  They were talking expectations.

    Having said that, I tried PFO and also found it disapointing.  Will wait and try again when it's a bit more... everything.

    Concentrate on enjoying yourself, and not on why I shouldn't enjoy myself.

  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,040

    The games not that bad, but for as long as the game has been out their lack of focus on optimizations is inexcusable, how they expect people to play a game for any length of time if its headache inducingly unoptimized and runs like poo poo on high end gaming rigs is baffling.  And sorry the 40 to 50 FPS range is horribly unoptimized.for how it looks, I can't stay in game long enough to enjoy.

    The graphics have improved of late, but that's not even the issue, and it does run a bit better than it used to props for some improvement there.  But considering how it looks for how poorly it runs, again, inexcusable.

    I'm running this game on a 600 dollar GTX 980, 16 gigs of ram, an SSD drive,  and a new high end i7 Intel processor.  I buy high end hardware for a reason, I like my games running fast and smooth and like to be able to tell which games developers spend time optimizing and which games developers don't.  Having as good a hardware as I do makes it painfully obvious who does and who doesn't.

    I've watched games like Gloria Victus and Shroud of the avatar go from ugly poorly running games to beautiful highly optimized games running over 100FPS.

    There is no excuse why Pathfrinder Online this late in development should run as bad as it does looking like it does.

    And rhere are ZERO options for graphic settings other than resolution, so there is no way to troubleshoot where their bottleneck is, shadows, draw distance, lighting, its all just hard coded at the moment.  No options yet for keybindings.  Good luck to them, Ill check the build in another 3 months and see how its doing.  Game has potential for sure.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,944
    Originally posted by reeereee
    Originally posted by F0URTWENTY
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    Yea, except the moment they charged per month... their game is launched.  You're on the clock and owing something to your consumers.

    Alpha " In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release"

     

    Well I guess it's time to review shroud of the avatar and many other Steam EA games, like ARK etc... They're all charging for their alphas. Many of those have been at it far longer than PFO. Yet they're still in "alpha"...

     

    Those games charge box fees just as pathfinder does and most people don't have much of a problem with that.

    The difference is pathfinder will cost you 180$/year.

    Rust and H1z1 are being actively developed and not costing me a thing.

    Ah, so your position is that an Alpha game with a cash shop is perfectly fine but an alpha game with a subscription is not.

    I would love to see reviews of every game!!

     

    I think PFO is at the top (bottom?) of the hill because it combines the sub with a NO WIPE promise in a FFA PvP game with looting based around territory control where you gain fixed XP over time.  To me, that is quite different than say Shroud of the Avatar which is listed above.  At least I believe that they will wipe, I honestly have not followed SotA much since the Kickstarter.  If they are NOT wiping, then yes they should get a review.  To me, that is the deciding factor.   An MMO game is launched as soon as the progress is permanent.

     

     

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    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

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • F0URTWENTYF0URTWENTY Member UncommonPosts: 349
    Originally posted by reeereee
    Originally posted by F0URTWENTY
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    Yea, except the moment they charged per month... their game is launched.  You're on the clock and owing something to your consumers.

    Alpha " In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release"

     

    Well I guess it's time to review shroud of the avatar and many other Steam EA games, like ARK etc... They're all charging for their alphas. Many of those have been at it far longer than PFO. Yet they're still in "alpha"...

     

    Those games charge box fees just as pathfinder does and most people don't have much of a problem with that.

    The difference is pathfinder will cost you 180$/year.

    Rust and H1z1 are being actively developed and not costing me a thing.

    Ah, so your position is that an Alpha game with a cash shop is perfectly fine but an alpha game with a subscription is not.

    Pathfinder charges a box fee, sub fee, and has a cash shop for the pitiful state its in. You can't compare it to other early access games, none are as incomplete or cost anywhere near as much. 

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,884

    Game looks clunky and dated as hell. I'm sure it's meant to have that super retro, so bad it's good because of the server/community feel. 

     

    The combat UI is a timeless mess though. It's bad by old, present, and future standards. I'm sure this is somebodies cup of tea (if warm urine is your thing). I'm kidding (not really).

     

    The game seems like the lore is the best thing about it. Amirite?

    Raging Demons for all flowchart "Kens". This is a metaphor.
  • reeereeereeereee Member UncommonPosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by Slapshot1188
    Originally posted by reeereee
    Originally posted by F0URTWENTY
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    Yea, except the moment they charged per month... their game is launched.  You're on the clock and owing something to your consumers.

    Alpha " In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release"

     

    Well I guess it's time to review shroud of the avatar and many other Steam EA games, like ARK etc... They're all charging for their alphas. Many of those have been at it far longer than PFO. Yet they're still in "alpha"...

     

    Those games charge box fees just as pathfinder does and most people don't have much of a problem with that.

    The difference is pathfinder will cost you 180$/year.

    Rust and H1z1 are being actively developed and not costing me a thing.

    Ah, so your position is that an Alpha game with a cash shop is perfectly fine but an alpha game with a subscription is not.

    I would love to see reviews of every game!!

     

    I think PFO is at the top (bottom?) of the hill because it combines the sub with a NO WIPE promise in a FFA PvP game with looting based around territory control where you gain fixed XP over time.  To me, that is quite different than say Shroud of the Avatar which is listed above.  At least I believe that they will wipe, I honestly have not followed SotA much since the Kickstarter.  If they are NOT wiping, then yes they should get a review.  To me, that is the deciding factor.   An MMO game is launched as soon as the progress is permanent.

    IIRC SotA actually had a cash shop up before there was a playable version of the game, I have no idea if they're going to wipe either. 

     

    I was under the impression it was the CEO running around saying it was a complete game that triggered the review not monetization or wipe policies but I hadn't been keeping close enough track to know how accurate that is.

This discussion has been closed.