Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Pantheon and Saga of Lucimia

2456711

Comments

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,336
    I don't believe you have any chickens. If you photograph any chickens  I still won't believe. If you video and audio tape any I still won't believe. Somewhere there must be a chicken website where I can post 100 times a day, denigrating your alleged chickens. And on that website, other posters will soon learn that nothing they say, nothing they write, and no form of proof will deter me from my chicken conspiracy beliefs.
    Kyleran[Deleted User]ChildoftheShadowstzervoGladDogDullahan

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,512
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:


    We don't know what Pantheon has planned, they aren't very transparent with anything really that would give us a chance to gauge their progress. So, I think at this point, it is fair to say Saga of Lucemia is in a better position and a favored selection to meet their goals. 




    Nope it is not fair to say that at all - you are just biased towards SoL.

    SoL is a lot more on thinner ice that you'd like to admit - lets say - something happens to Renfail - like he gives up, or gets sick or some other crazy thing happens like that - it's game over for SoL.

    Pantheon has more resilience - even with Brad gone - the game is still being developed and moving forward, but again to make a successful MMO it is exceedingly difficult thing to accomplish (for both Pantheon which is more ambitious, as well as SoL)

    Like I said - right now the highest possibility for both SoL and Pantheon is - failure - because that's what happens to most MMOs prior to launch - they just don't make it.

    I wish they both succeed - but realistically they are both more likely to fail.

    That's just the reality of MMO business at the moment. 


    Also you can't compare Pantheon and SoL as apples to apples comparison - because the scope, style and level of content and polish they are aiming for is quite different.


    SoL has a lot lower goals they are aiming for - thus it's far easier to accomplish those goals.

    Pantheon is aiming for a lot higher polish, scope, depth, content - everything thus making it a whole different level of complexity and effort.


    If both games were exactly the same in complexity, scope, content, and polish - then the comparison would be fair - the thing is it's not even remotely close.


    In a way your right in someways. Your talking about exposure and marketing.

    It's not Triple A but lets see what Stormhaven studios has planned first.  After all they have been playing EVERYTHING SMART FROM DAY ONE. Even allowing players to test, now that takes balls.

    They never had a big head, infact downright humble about their project. They admitted a few developers all working on their own time but with passion. 

    Even Renfail admitted they were never shooting for the stars, but he did add advertisement comes in do-time...... This is nice because they know over excitement pisses off people when they don't deliver quickly...... GOOD MOVES ALL AROUND !


    Lets not forget "Steam" and "word-of-mouth"... word travels fast..... Proof ?.... look how everyone knew about the many flops, that could go both ways.
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:


    We don't know what Pantheon has planned, they aren't very transparent with anything really that would give us a chance to gauge their progress. So, I think at this point, it is fair to say Saga of Lucemia is in a better position and a favored selection to meet their goals. 




    Nope it is not fair to say that at all - you are just biased towards SoL.

    SoL is a lot more on thinner ice that you'd like to admit - lets say - something happens to Renfail - like he gives up, or gets sick or some other crazy thing happens like that - it's game over for SoL.

    Pantheon has more resilience - even with Brad gone - the game is still being developed and moving forward, but again to make a successful MMO it is exceedingly difficult thing to accomplish (for both Pantheon which is more ambitious, as well as SoL)

    Like I said - right now the highest possibility for both SoL and Pantheon is - failure - because that's what happens to most MMOs prior to launch - they just don't make it.

    I wish they both succeed - but realistically they are both more likely to fail.

    That's just the reality of MMO business at the moment. 


    Also you can't compare Pantheon and SoL as apples to apples comparison - because the scope, style and level of content and polish they are aiming for is quite different.


    SoL has a lot lower goals they are aiming for - thus it's far easier to accomplish those goals.

    Pantheon is aiming for a lot higher polish, scope, depth, content - everything thus making it a whole different level of complexity and effort.


    If both games were exactly the same in complexity, scope, content, and polish - then the comparison would be fair - the thing is it's not even remotely close.


    Let us look at the premises of your position. 

    1. Game lead dies... 


    Note, you are arguing a hypothetical to which may never happen to SoL as if it is evidence that SoL will fail compared to Pantheon. 

    The likelihood of him dying, giving up, etc... based on the current progression of the game and their continued means of hitting their goals makes this premise unsound.

    Note you are also making unsupported assumptions about Pantheon as we again... still do not know where they are, where they are going, etc... because they aren't very transparent in their completion goals. 

    2. MMOs fail

    This premise is a generality. It is useless in this evaluation as the course of the discussion was not to evaluate if MMO projects in general tend fail, but rather between the two, which appeared to have a better chance of succeeding. Using this as a premise would be akin to trying to dismiss a triage evaluation as who has a better chance of surviving simple because the odds tend to favor death of that particular injury.

    So while you may be correct by stating the fact that MMOs fail, using it as a premise is invalid in this evaluation.


    3. Apples to Organges

    The basis of this premise is subjective. Pantheon and SoL sought a specific style of game play and audience initially. The fact that Pantheon decided to attend to mainstream, focus heavily on graphics and market to a wide audience later in its development does not somehow invalidate a comparison between project focus and attention.

    Pantheon changed its development focus. SoL stayed focus to its original intent. This does not give Pantheon a special pass because they decided they are all of a sudden going to "be AAA". AAA games, have more people, more funding, etc... Pantheon does not, so this is a development direction and design decision, not a category issue of comparison.  SoL still has a much more likely chance of completing their goals and releasing over Pantheon and Pantheons design decisions are actually important in pointing out why it is suffering compared to SoL. 


    4. Lower goals

    This is part of 3. SoL focused on a specific target. So did Pantheon initially, but later expanded. This is not a valid argument in defense, it is the point of the argument. SoL held to its goals, applied a structured focus of development and it is likely due to that why they are making progress and why Pantheon appears to be mired in design paralysis due to not properly balancing budget, labor, and goals.  



    I think your initial premise that I am biased may be a bit of a projection as you seem to be the one making excuses as to why Pantheon is not meeting development standards. 




    blueturtle13
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,338
    edited May 26
    Kyleran said:
    Getting up at 3 am? 6am? What's wrong with you people, those are going to bed times, it's almost if none of you are really gamers.

     ;) 
    Haha I normally go to bed around midnight but died out around 9 last night. When the dog got me up I decided to stay up and get work done. 6 hours sleep is pretty normal.
    Six hours sleep has been pretty much an aspirational goal the past 35 years or so, but seldom achieved except on weekends.

    During the week 5 to 5.5 is more typical, self inflicted for the most part these days.
    Amathe

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,338
    itchmon said:
    Kyleran said:
    Neither game much interests me at this point, haven't played either and what I've seen or read about them doesn't excite.

    Both have several more years at least before reaching final release so there's nothing really left at this point except to keep on beating these two dead horses.

    Hand me a stick please.

     >:) 

    SoL is actually in a playable state as we speak.  The closed testing runs actually indicate that a game worth a damn is being actively worked on and is approaching beta.  I've been in plenty of betas (and launches for that matter, looking at you Vanguard,anarxhy online and FFXIV) that were in worse shape than SoL is in now
    Good to know, but my definition of ”playable” is quite narrow, restricted to only games which have released, meaning progression is being retained and no longer reset or wiped.
    tzervo

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,602
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:
    Getting up at 3 am? 6am? What's wrong with you people, those are going to bed times, it's almost if none of you are really gamers.

     ;) 
    Haha I normally go to bed around midnight but died out around 9 last night. When the dog got me up I decided to stay up and get work done. 6 hours sleep is pretty normal.
    Six hours sleep has been pretty much an aspirational goal the past 35 years or so, but seldom achieved except on weekends.

    During the week 5 to 5.5 is more typical, self inflicted for the most part these days.
    I'm a child and have to force myself to sleep at 12:30 am for at least 7 1/2 "or so" hours.

    My body just loves 9 but I'm having too much fun to go to bed early.
    cheyane
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,203
    SoL already 2 years behind schedule. 2 years to go. If it releases it will be 4 years past original date. 

    Only time renfail comes on is to pub a presale. Money grabbers if you ask me
    borghive49YashaX
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,204
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:
    Getting up at 3 am? 6am? What's wrong with you people, those are going to bed times, it's almost if none of you are really gamers.

     ;) 
    Haha I normally go to bed around midnight but died out around 9 last night. When the dog got me up I decided to stay up and get work done. 6 hours sleep is pretty normal.
    Six hours sleep has been pretty much an aspirational goal the past 35 years or so, but seldom achieved except on weekends.

    During the week 5 to 5.5 is more typical, self inflicted for the most part these days.
    I get 5 hours. Go to sleep at around 3 am usually and up at 9 latest.
    Martens: "With all due respect, madam, where are you going with this?"
    Avasarala: "Wherever I goddamn like."
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:


    We don't know what Pantheon has planned, they aren't very transparent with anything really that would give us a chance to gauge their progress. So, I think at this point, it is fair to say Saga of Lucemia is in a better position and a favored selection to meet their goals. 




    Nope it is not fair to say that at all - you are just biased towards SoL.

    SoL is a lot more on thinner ice that you'd like to admit - lets say - something happens to Renfail - like he gives up, or gets sick or some other crazy thing happens like that - it's game over for SoL.

    Pantheon has more resilience - even with Brad gone - the game is still being developed and moving forward, but again to make a successful MMO it is exceedingly difficult thing to accomplish (for both Pantheon which is more ambitious, as well as SoL)

    Like I said - right now the highest possibility for both SoL and Pantheon is - failure - because that's what happens to most MMOs prior to launch - they just don't make it.

    I wish they both succeed - but realistically they are both more likely to fail.

    That's just the reality of MMO business at the moment. 


    Also you can't compare Pantheon and SoL as apples to apples comparison - because the scope, style and level of content and polish they are aiming for is quite different.


    SoL has a lot lower goals they are aiming for - thus it's far easier to accomplish those goals.

    Pantheon is aiming for a lot higher polish, scope, depth, content - everything thus making it a whole different level of complexity and effort.


    If both games were exactly the same in complexity, scope, content, and polish - then the comparison would be fair - the thing is it's not even remotely close.


    Let us look at the premises of your position. 

    1. Game lead dies... 


    Note, you are arguing a hypothetical to which may never happen to SoL as if it is evidence that SoL will fail compared to Pantheon. 

    The likelihood of him dying, giving up, etc... based on the current progression of the game and their continued means of hitting their goals makes this premise unsound.

    Note you are also making unsupported assumptions about Pantheon as we again... still do not know where they are, where they are going, etc... because they aren't very transparent in their completion goals. 

    2. MMOs fail

    This premise is a generality. It is useless in this evaluation as the course of the discussion was not to evaluate if MMO projects in general tend fail, but rather between the two, which appeared to have a better chance of succeeding. Using this as a premise would be akin to trying to dismiss a triage evaluation as who has a better chance of surviving simple because the odds tend to favor death of that particular injury.

    So while you may be correct by stating the fact that MMOs fail, using it as a premise is invalid in this evaluation.


    3. Apples to Organges

    The basis of this premise is subjective. Pantheon and SoL sought a specific style of game play and audience initially. The fact that Pantheon decided to attend to mainstream, focus heavily on graphics and market to a wide audience later in its development does not somehow invalidate a comparison between project focus and attention.

    Pantheon changed its development focus. SoL stayed focus to its original intent. This does not give Pantheon a special pass because they decided they are all of a sudden going to "be AAA". AAA games, have more people, more funding, etc... Pantheon does not, so this is a development direction and design decision, not a category issue of comparison.  SoL still has a much more likely chance of completing their goals and releasing over Pantheon and Pantheons design decisions are actually important in pointing out why it is suffering compared to SoL. 


    4. Lower goals

    This is part of 3. SoL focused on a specific target. So did Pantheon initially, but later expanded. This is not a valid argument in defense, it is the point of the argument. SoL held to its goals, applied a structured focus of development and it is likely due to that why they are making progress and why Pantheon appears to be mired in design paralysis due to not properly balancing budget, labor, and goals.  



    I think your initial premise that I am biased may be a bit of a projection as you seem to be the one making excuses as to why Pantheon is not meeting development standards. 





    Pantheon is not meeting development standards - like which ones? The ones you made up?

    Please - we don't know what will happen to SoL or Pantheon.

    Anything at this point is simply speculation - you go on and continue to speculate all you want,

    I will continue to speculate all I want.

    But reality is - we don't know - I still think the most likely outcome is - both games fail.


    Pantheon has been in Pre-Alpha for over 6 years.

    Originally, they stated previous beta targets and release goals, which are long past.



    Again, the entire premise of my argument was looking at which had more of a likelihood based on the information we had concerning them. That was the point. Going into platitudes that have no purpose within the evaluation does not have any relevance to the point of the discussion as I pointed out with the triage point. 


    Speculate all you like, but there are sound and unsound speculations. Your speculations are not looking at any relevant details and are not very helpful in the discussion. The entire point of my comments were that of building a sound position as to which was more likely to release. 

    In the end, yes... we don't know... but there is the difference between an educated assumption and that of wild speculation. Saying both are equal in failing is just wild speculation, without any legitimate evaluation and a useless summary in the face of the discussion at hand. 



  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,338
    Sovrath said:
    Kyleran said:
    Kyleran said:
    Getting up at 3 am? 6am? What's wrong with you people, those are going to bed times, it's almost if none of you are really gamers.

     ;) 
    Haha I normally go to bed around midnight but died out around 9 last night. When the dog got me up I decided to stay up and get work done. 6 hours sleep is pretty normal.
    Six hours sleep has been pretty much an aspirational goal the past 35 years or so, but seldom achieved except on weekends.

    During the week 5 to 5.5 is more typical, self inflicted for the most part these days.
    I'm a child and have to force myself to sleep at 12:30 am for at least 7 1/2 "or so" hours.

    My body just loves 9 but I'm having too much fun to go to bed early.
    Yeah, I recall you being childless, so you aren't nearly as resilient as those of us ”blessed” by the experience.


    cheyaneSovrath

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,602
    edited May 26
    Kyleran said:

    Yeah, I recall you being childless, so you aren't nearly as resilient as those of us ”blessed” by the experience.


    Childless and no responsibilities other than to show up to work with my pants on.

    Lines need to be drawn somewhere I suppose ...
    cheyane
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,895
    edited May 26
    I've seen more of Pantheon than Saga of Lucimia. I wonder if they're even working on it.
    KyleranYashaX
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    edited May 26
    I've seen more of Pantheon than Saga of Lucimia. I wonder if they're even working on it.
    Pantheon has been marketing a lot more (not sure that is a good use of time things considered) and while there are a lot more videos out there of play, a lot of them are just play over the same content they have released or various tech demos on "new" things they are implementing.

    This may or may not be a valid point you have, hard to say.

    Here is the list of videos of various pre-alpha to alpha footage for SoL

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=saga+of+lucimia+gameplay+

    So...

    While I understand to an extent your point about lacking the same level of media out as Pantheon, claiming that you are wondering if they are working on it is really just an argument that isn't very credible.

  • GladDogGladDog Member RarePosts: 1,065
    edited May 26
    Pantheon and Saga of Luchimia....... According to Stormhaven Studios their is no competition, according to Visionary Realms their is no comment about ANYTHING. Going off subject they lack in all departments.


    But this reminds me of the struggle for "release and quality" between EverQuest 2 and World of Warcraft back in 2004.  Remember World of Warcraft took it by a gaping landslide !!!


    Reason :
    EverQuest 2 was a "hot mess".  This was nearly twenty years ago, strange how history repeats it self. 
    No it was not a hot mess.  It sold as many copies as Sony thought it would.  It has had a dozen or so expansions.  A game making the money that the publisher expected and being enjoyed by enough people that they made expansion after expansion does not mark a 'hot mess' to me.  Maybe because it was not close enough to EQ1 a lot of people dissed it, but in the end in 2005 EQ2 had a lot more subscribers than EQ1 did.

    World of Warcraft released well, but Blizzard expected it to sell more copies than it did.  It went from about 3/4 of a million release sales to nearly 2 million because of an extensive advertising campaign.  They made a ton of cash from it to be sure, but it did not become a juggernaut until after they did the worldwide release that pushed it from nearly 2 million subscribers to over 10 million.
    SovrathAmatheYashaX


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,895
    Tanist said:
    I've seen more of Pantheon than Saga of Lucimia. I wonder if they're even working on it.
    Pantheon has been marketing a lot more (not sure that is a good use of time things considered) and while there are a lot more videos out there of play, a lot of them are just play over the same content they have released or various tech demos on "new" things they are implementing.

    This may or may not be a valid point you have, hard to say.

    Here is the list of videos of various pre-alpha to alpha footage for SoL

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=saga+of+lucimia+gameplay+

    So...

    While I understand to an extent your point about lacking the same level of media out as Pantheon, claiming that you are wondering if they are working on it is really just an argument that isn't very credible.

    Apparently this is your first delete thread. This is the argument he presents through every single one of his Pantheon threads (they're not showing enough) yet I've seen him praise SoL.

    The bottom line is game companies shouldn't show too much, spoilers and all, but if you're going to make an argument for one game, the same one should be made for others.
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,203
    Tanist said:
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:


    We don't know what Pantheon has planned, they aren't very transparent with anything really that would give us a chance to gauge their progress. So, I think at this point, it is fair to say Saga of Lucemia is in a better position and a favored selection to meet their goals. 




    Nope it is not fair to say that at all - you are just biased towards SoL.

    SoL is a lot more on thinner ice that you'd like to admit - lets say - something happens to Renfail - like he gives up, or gets sick or some other crazy thing happens like that - it's game over for SoL.

    Pantheon has more resilience - even with Brad gone - the game is still being developed and moving forward, but again to make a successful MMO it is exceedingly difficult thing to accomplish (for both Pantheon which is more ambitious, as well as SoL)

    Like I said - right now the highest possibility for both SoL and Pantheon is - failure - because that's what happens to most MMOs prior to launch - they just don't make it.

    I wish they both succeed - but realistically they are both more likely to fail.

    That's just the reality of MMO business at the moment. 


    Also you can't compare Pantheon and SoL as apples to apples comparison - because the scope, style and level of content and polish they are aiming for is quite different.


    SoL has a lot lower goals they are aiming for - thus it's far easier to accomplish those goals.

    Pantheon is aiming for a lot higher polish, scope, depth, content - everything thus making it a whole different level of complexity and effort.


    If both games were exactly the same in complexity, scope, content, and polish - then the comparison would be fair - the thing is it's not even remotely close.


    Let us look at the premises of your position. 

    1. Game lead dies... 


    Note, you are arguing a hypothetical to which may never happen to SoL as if it is evidence that SoL will fail compared to Pantheon. 

    The likelihood of him dying, giving up, etc... based on the current progression of the game and their continued means of hitting their goals makes this premise unsound.

    Note you are also making unsupported assumptions about Pantheon as we again... still do not know where they are, where they are going, etc... because they aren't very transparent in their completion goals. 

    2. MMOs fail

    This premise is a generality. It is useless in this evaluation as the course of the discussion was not to evaluate if MMO projects in general tend fail, but rather between the two, which appeared to have a better chance of succeeding. Using this as a premise would be akin to trying to dismiss a triage evaluation as who has a better chance of surviving simple because the odds tend to favor death of that particular injury.

    So while you may be correct by stating the fact that MMOs fail, using it as a premise is invalid in this evaluation.


    3. Apples to Organges

    The basis of this premise is subjective. Pantheon and SoL sought a specific style of game play and audience initially. The fact that Pantheon decided to attend to mainstream, focus heavily on graphics and market to a wide audience later in its development does not somehow invalidate a comparison between project focus and attention.

    Pantheon changed its development focus. SoL stayed focus to its original intent. This does not give Pantheon a special pass because they decided they are all of a sudden going to "be AAA". AAA games, have more people, more funding, etc... Pantheon does not, so this is a development direction and design decision, not a category issue of comparison.  SoL still has a much more likely chance of completing their goals and releasing over Pantheon and Pantheons design decisions are actually important in pointing out why it is suffering compared to SoL. 


    4. Lower goals

    This is part of 3. SoL focused on a specific target. So did Pantheon initially, but later expanded. This is not a valid argument in defense, it is the point of the argument. SoL held to its goals, applied a structured focus of development and it is likely due to that why they are making progress and why Pantheon appears to be mired in design paralysis due to not properly balancing budget, labor, and goals.  



    I think your initial premise that I am biased may be a bit of a projection as you seem to be the one making excuses as to why Pantheon is not meeting development standards. 





    Pantheon is not meeting development standards - like which ones? The ones you made up?

    Please - we don't know what will happen to SoL or Pantheon.

    Anything at this point is simply speculation - you go on and continue to speculate all you want,

    I will continue to speculate all I want.

    But reality is - we don't know - I still think the most likely outcome is - both games fail.


    Pantheon has been in Pre-Alpha for over 6 years.

    Originally, they stated previous beta targets and release goals, which are long past.



    Again, the entire premise of my argument was looking at which had more of a likelihood based on the information we had concerning them. That was the point. Going into platitudes that have no purpose within the evaluation does not have any relevance to the point of the discussion as I pointed out with the triage point. 


    Speculate all you like, but there are sound and unsound speculations. Your speculations are not looking at any relevant details and are not very helpful in the discussion. The entire point of my comments were that of building a sound position as to which was more likely to release. 

    In the end, yes... we don't know... but there is the difference between an educated assumption and that of wild speculation. Saying both are equal in failing is just wild speculation, without any legitimate evaluation and a useless summary in the face of the discussion at hand. 



    SoL has been in prealpha for 5 years..,
  • xpsyncxpsync Member RarePosts: 1,034
    Kyleran said:
    Getting up at 3 am? 6am? What's wrong with you people, those are going to bed times, it's almost if none of you are really gamers.

     ;) 

    Agreed but hard to do with modern games.

    Their almost like tv

    TV
    - turn on
    - watch
    - don't think
    - turn off

    Modern Games
    - turn on
    - watch
    - don't think
    - turn off

    Games when games were games.

    It's already 1 - 1:30ish am and deep in an EQ2 dungeon, OK decision time crew, we press forward or start back at entrance tomorrow night? Typical response i'll sleep when i'm dead; f*ck took us 6 hours to get here who can think of sleep lets keep going... the women were a little more reluctant due to beauty sleep and all. But hell yeah majority of the time was full steam ahead.
    Kyleranbcbully
    There are two ways of arguing with a woman, and neither one works. - John Marston

    Currently Playing; SWG:Legends, Wow:Classic & 8.3
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    Tanist said:
    I've seen more of Pantheon than Saga of Lucimia. I wonder if they're even working on it.
    Pantheon has been marketing a lot more (not sure that is a good use of time things considered) and while there are a lot more videos out there of play, a lot of them are just play over the same content they have released or various tech demos on "new" things they are implementing.

    This may or may not be a valid point you have, hard to say.

    Here is the list of videos of various pre-alpha to alpha footage for SoL

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=saga+of+lucimia+gameplay+

    So...

    While I understand to an extent your point about lacking the same level of media out as Pantheon, claiming that you are wondering if they are working on it is really just an argument that isn't very credible.

    Apparently this is your first delete thread. This is the argument he presents through every single one of his Pantheon threads (they're not showing enough) yet I've seen him praise SoL.

    The bottom line is game companies shouldn't show too much, spoilers and all, but if you're going to make an argument for one game, the same one should be made for others.
    My arguments stand on their own, irrelevant of Deletes comments. I explained my evaluation on both games and why I tend lean more to that of SoL. I merely commented your obviously dismissing comment about SoL as you promoted Pantheon. 
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    bcbully said:
    Tanist said:
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:


    We don't know what Pantheon has planned, they aren't very transparent with anything really that would give us a chance to gauge their progress. So, I think at this point, it is fair to say Saga of Lucemia is in a better position and a favored selection to meet their goals. 




    Nope it is not fair to say that at all - you are just biased towards SoL.

    SoL is a lot more on thinner ice that you'd like to admit - lets say - something happens to Renfail - like he gives up, or gets sick or some other crazy thing happens like that - it's game over for SoL.

    Pantheon has more resilience - even with Brad gone - the game is still being developed and moving forward, but again to make a successful MMO it is exceedingly difficult thing to accomplish (for both Pantheon which is more ambitious, as well as SoL)

    Like I said - right now the highest possibility for both SoL and Pantheon is - failure - because that's what happens to most MMOs prior to launch - they just don't make it.

    I wish they both succeed - but realistically they are both more likely to fail.

    That's just the reality of MMO business at the moment. 


    Also you can't compare Pantheon and SoL as apples to apples comparison - because the scope, style and level of content and polish they are aiming for is quite different.


    SoL has a lot lower goals they are aiming for - thus it's far easier to accomplish those goals.

    Pantheon is aiming for a lot higher polish, scope, depth, content - everything thus making it a whole different level of complexity and effort.


    If both games were exactly the same in complexity, scope, content, and polish - then the comparison would be fair - the thing is it's not even remotely close.


    Let us look at the premises of your position. 

    1. Game lead dies... 


    Note, you are arguing a hypothetical to which may never happen to SoL as if it is evidence that SoL will fail compared to Pantheon. 

    The likelihood of him dying, giving up, etc... based on the current progression of the game and their continued means of hitting their goals makes this premise unsound.

    Note you are also making unsupported assumptions about Pantheon as we again... still do not know where they are, where they are going, etc... because they aren't very transparent in their completion goals. 

    2. MMOs fail

    This premise is a generality. It is useless in this evaluation as the course of the discussion was not to evaluate if MMO projects in general tend fail, but rather between the two, which appeared to have a better chance of succeeding. Using this as a premise would be akin to trying to dismiss a triage evaluation as who has a better chance of surviving simple because the odds tend to favor death of that particular injury.

    So while you may be correct by stating the fact that MMOs fail, using it as a premise is invalid in this evaluation.


    3. Apples to Organges

    The basis of this premise is subjective. Pantheon and SoL sought a specific style of game play and audience initially. The fact that Pantheon decided to attend to mainstream, focus heavily on graphics and market to a wide audience later in its development does not somehow invalidate a comparison between project focus and attention.

    Pantheon changed its development focus. SoL stayed focus to its original intent. This does not give Pantheon a special pass because they decided they are all of a sudden going to "be AAA". AAA games, have more people, more funding, etc... Pantheon does not, so this is a development direction and design decision, not a category issue of comparison.  SoL still has a much more likely chance of completing their goals and releasing over Pantheon and Pantheons design decisions are actually important in pointing out why it is suffering compared to SoL. 


    4. Lower goals

    This is part of 3. SoL focused on a specific target. So did Pantheon initially, but later expanded. This is not a valid argument in defense, it is the point of the argument. SoL held to its goals, applied a structured focus of development and it is likely due to that why they are making progress and why Pantheon appears to be mired in design paralysis due to not properly balancing budget, labor, and goals.  



    I think your initial premise that I am biased may be a bit of a projection as you seem to be the one making excuses as to why Pantheon is not meeting development standards. 





    Pantheon is not meeting development standards - like which ones? The ones you made up?

    Please - we don't know what will happen to SoL or Pantheon.

    Anything at this point is simply speculation - you go on and continue to speculate all you want,

    I will continue to speculate all I want.

    But reality is - we don't know - I still think the most likely outcome is - both games fail.


    Pantheon has been in Pre-Alpha for over 6 years.

    Originally, they stated previous beta targets and release goals, which are long past.



    Again, the entire premise of my argument was looking at which had more of a likelihood based on the information we had concerning them. That was the point. Going into platitudes that have no purpose within the evaluation does not have any relevance to the point of the discussion as I pointed out with the triage point. 


    Speculate all you like, but there are sound and unsound speculations. Your speculations are not looking at any relevant details and are not very helpful in the discussion. The entire point of my comments were that of building a sound position as to which was more likely to release. 

    In the end, yes... we don't know... but there is the difference between an educated assumption and that of wild speculation. Saying both are equal in failing is just wild speculation, without any legitimate evaluation and a useless summary in the face of the discussion at hand. 



    SoL has been in prealpha for 5 years..,
    They are currently in Alpha Stage 3, started their game in 2014? 

    Now this is based on my research of when the game first registered and started its game, which their FB account shows at 2014, and their first blog comments on the game was in that time as well.

    They currently state they are in Alpha stage 3 on their site, but apparently an anonymous poster who defies all verifiable evidence is... correct?

    Care to correct your statement, validate it?  
    bcbully
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 489
    edited May 26
    Dunno, regardless of what studios mark or call their progress (alphas/betas/early access/full release) I don't trust them, these words have practically lost their meaning. These are the milestones I follow: 

    - Can show gameplay vids
    - Has announced last wipe date
    - No more wipes (=my definition for release)
    KyleranSlapshot1188YashaX
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,336
    I am pretty sure there is no game called Luchimia. Sounds more like a deli sandwich.
    SovrathGladDogdcutbi001

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,338
    tzervo said:
    Dunno, regardless of what studios mark or call their progress (alphas/betas/early access/full release) I don't trust them, these words have practically lost their meaning. These are the milestones I follow: 

    - No more wipes (=my definition for release)
    Totally agree, these release terms have totally lost all relevancy, I agree with your assessment, it isn’t a game until it is released, and this means, no more wipes, progression is maintained going forward.

    Nothing else matters...... 

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,831
    SO OP...you are trying to convince me that gamer's went out and bought EQ2 ,found ti to be buggy and went out and bought Wow and remained in WOW?


    Well so happens i was right there thick n thin in the middle of that transition period.

    What i was hearing in EB were kids simply buying the game because "their friends at school were buying the game".

    SO typical of to this day "buying on a WHIM" no criteria,no previous knowledge of mmorpg's to draw a comparison,let's just buy it ...because.
    Anyhow no important,Wow did not make it big for any meaningful reason,end of story.

    As to these two games,there should be one simple FACT and that alone should have people skeptical.

    1 Not enough money
    2 Making a game "on the fly" as money comes in as you can afford to hire more people,is NEVER a good way to DESIGN a game.Keyword is DESIGN,something that should be done months,years in advance and to do that properly ,you NEED to know what your budget is.

    This is why the genre is so dam stale,nobody can think or be creative,they see the commonly used ideas and just remake the exact same game with a different skin.Also why i am no longer playing ANY mmorpg's,too bored of them and i KNOW that neither Pantheon or Lucimia will save the day.

    So instead i been playing strategy games,yeah i like to think a bit unlike "arpg's" that just like to spam kill using maybe 1 brain cell.I hunt all over for good 4x strat games.I also enjoy the COD series for the production value,playing a COD game just looks miles above all the rest when comes to production.



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

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,203
    edited May 26
    Tanist said:
    bcbully said:
    Tanist said:
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:
    DMKano said:
    Tanist said:


    We don't know what Pantheon has planned, they aren't very transparent with anything really that would give us a chance to gauge their progress. So, I think at this point, it is fair to say Saga of Lucemia is in a better position and a favored selection to meet their goals. 




    Nope it is not fair to say that at all - you are just biased towards SoL.

    SoL is a lot more on thinner ice that you'd like to admit - lets say - something happens to Renfail - like he gives up, or gets sick or some other crazy thing happens like that - it's game over for SoL.

    Pantheon has more resilience - even with Brad gone - the game is still being developed and moving forward, but again to make a successful MMO it is exceedingly difficult thing to accomplish (for both Pantheon which is more ambitious, as well as SoL)

    Like I said - right now the highest possibility for both SoL and Pantheon is - failure - because that's what happens to most MMOs prior to launch - they just don't make it.

    I wish they both succeed - but realistically they are both more likely to fail.

    That's just the reality of MMO business at the moment. 


    Also you can't compare Pantheon and SoL as apples to apples comparison - because the scope, style and level of content and polish they are aiming for is quite different.


    SoL has a lot lower goals they are aiming for - thus it's far easier to accomplish those goals.

    Pantheon is aiming for a lot higher polish, scope, depth, content - everything thus making it a whole different level of complexity and effort.


    If both games were exactly the same in complexity, scope, content, and polish - then the comparison would be fair - the thing is it's not even remotely close.


    Let us look at the premises of your position. 

    1. Game lead dies... 


    Note, you are arguing a hypothetical to which may never happen to SoL as if it is evidence that SoL will fail compared to Pantheon. 

    The likelihood of him dying, giving up, etc... based on the current progression of the game and their continued means of hitting their goals makes this premise unsound.

    Note you are also making unsupported assumptions about Pantheon as we again... still do not know where they are, where they are going, etc... because they aren't very transparent in their completion goals. 

    2. MMOs fail

    This premise is a generality. It is useless in this evaluation as the course of the discussion was not to evaluate if MMO projects in general tend fail, but rather between the two, which appeared to have a better chance of succeeding. Using this as a premise would be akin to trying to dismiss a triage evaluation as who has a better chance of surviving simple because the odds tend to favor death of that particular injury.

    So while you may be correct by stating the fact that MMOs fail, using it as a premise is invalid in this evaluation.


    3. Apples to Organges

    The basis of this premise is subjective. Pantheon and SoL sought a specific style of game play and audience initially. The fact that Pantheon decided to attend to mainstream, focus heavily on graphics and market to a wide audience later in its development does not somehow invalidate a comparison between project focus and attention.

    Pantheon changed its development focus. SoL stayed focus to its original intent. This does not give Pantheon a special pass because they decided they are all of a sudden going to "be AAA". AAA games, have more people, more funding, etc... Pantheon does not, so this is a development direction and design decision, not a category issue of comparison.  SoL still has a much more likely chance of completing their goals and releasing over Pantheon and Pantheons design decisions are actually important in pointing out why it is suffering compared to SoL. 


    4. Lower goals

    This is part of 3. SoL focused on a specific target. So did Pantheon initially, but later expanded. This is not a valid argument in defense, it is the point of the argument. SoL held to its goals, applied a structured focus of development and it is likely due to that why they are making progress and why Pantheon appears to be mired in design paralysis due to not properly balancing budget, labor, and goals.  



    I think your initial premise that I am biased may be a bit of a projection as you seem to be the one making excuses as to why Pantheon is not meeting development standards. 





    Pantheon is not meeting development standards - like which ones? The ones you made up?

    Please - we don't know what will happen to SoL or Pantheon.

    Anything at this point is simply speculation - you go on and continue to speculate all you want,

    I will continue to speculate all I want.

    But reality is - we don't know - I still think the most likely outcome is - both games fail.


    Pantheon has been in Pre-Alpha for over 6 years.

    Originally, they stated previous beta targets and release goals, which are long past.



    Again, the entire premise of my argument was looking at which had more of a likelihood based on the information we had concerning them. That was the point. Going into platitudes that have no purpose within the evaluation does not have any relevance to the point of the discussion as I pointed out with the triage point. 


    Speculate all you like, but there are sound and unsound speculations. Your speculations are not looking at any relevant details and are not very helpful in the discussion. The entire point of my comments were that of building a sound position as to which was more likely to release. 

    In the end, yes... we don't know... but there is the difference between an educated assumption and that of wild speculation. Saying both are equal in failing is just wild speculation, without any legitimate evaluation and a useless summary in the face of the discussion at hand. 



    SoL has been in prealpha for 5 years..,
    They are currently in Alpha Stage 3, started their game in 2014? 

    Now this is based on my research of when the game first registered and started its game, which their FB account shows at 2014, and their first blog comments on the game was in that time as well.

    They currently state they are in Alpha stage 3 on their site, but apparently an anonymous poster who defies all verifiable evidence is... correct?

    Care to correct your statement, validate it?  
    What exactly is alpha phase 3? You mind linking a definition?

     Sounds like a made up term used to hype people to preorder.

    oh, excuse me SoL has been in development 6 years...
    IselintzervoSensaiYashaX
  • TanistTanist Member UncommonPosts: 272
    bcbully said:
    Tanist said:
    bcbully said:
    Tanist said:
    Pantheon has been in Pre-Alpha for over 6 years.

    Originally, they stated previous beta targets and release goals, which are long past.



    Again, the entire premise of my argument was looking at which had more of a likelihood based on the information we had concerning them. That was the point. Going into platitudes that have no purpose within the evaluation does not have any relevance to the point of the discussion as I pointed out with the triage point. 


    Speculate all you like, but there are sound and unsound speculations. Your speculations are not looking at any relevant details and are not very helpful in the discussion. The entire point of my comments were that of building a sound position as to which was more likely to release. 

    In the end, yes... we don't know... but there is the difference between an educated assumption and that of wild speculation. Saying both are equal in failing is just wild speculation, without any legitimate evaluation and a useless summary in the face of the discussion at hand. 



    SoL has been in prealpha for 5 years..,
    They are currently in Alpha Stage 3, started their game in 2014? 

    Now this is based on my research of when the game first registered and started its game, which their FB account shows at 2014, and their first blog comments on the game was in that time as well.

    They currently state they are in Alpha stage 3 on their site, but apparently an anonymous poster who defies all verifiable evidence is... correct?

    Care to correct your statement, validate it?  
    What exactly is alpha phase 3? You mind linking a definition?

     Sounds like a made up term used to hype people to preorder.

    oh, excuse me SoL has been in development 6 years...
    Well, what does it mean? Well, they have already went through pre-Alpha, are in Alpha, and are set for Beta in July 2021, release in Q4 2021.

    So, what does Alpha mean? 

    Traditionally, it means the game is still having content and features implemented. Beta usually means that content and features are being tested and balanced. 


    You would likely have to read more carefully and follow more closely to SoL to see what Alpha means exactly to them. 



    bcbully
Sign In or Register to comment.