Originally posted by Iselin you want to be reviewed as an unfinished work in progress? Drop the sub.
Yeah, I agree with you 100% there. As soon as a game actually cost money it is fair to review it like a released game.
Indeed.
But the game does deserve to be reviewed by folks that aren't actively hostile to the concept of crowd forging though. If a PvE player was reviewing a PvP game I would say the same.
It's hard to think a product is being given a fair run when the reviewer has an agenda to push.
Just as a general note though, I am generally very pro crowd funding. I think it's a huge positive in the world of single player PC games, board games, PnP RPGs, comics, and many other areas that I love and has been incredible for grass roots development. I don't think the model is suited to MMORPGs though, so it disappoints me that people that folks use their negative experience with MMORPG crowd funded games to dismiss the model entirely when it has brought so many quality things to a market that would not be supported by the mainstream goliaths.
Well, he have some point. Having someone who only enjoy typical themepark MMOs is only valid to other people with the same taste, kinda like letting something who only listen to metal review a rap album.
But I don't think the dev team actually should have any say in who get to review their game either, that kinda takes out the point of making reviews. It is the sites job to find someone who can review a game fairly, not the devs.
That Pathfinder gets bad scores could of course be because none of the reviewers are in the right focus group but the game is honestly in a pretty crappy state and shouldn't started to charge anyone yet so the question is if even players who enjoy this type of game would score it much higher.
This site usually gives pretty fair reviews and if it faults somewhere it is that it often is too generous with the score. I don't hang out so much at other sites so I don't know how things are there.
We do remember Eurogamers review of DFO though with a 1 of 10 score which felt unfair, DFO might have many flaws but considering the scores EUGamer usually gives out it should have gotten something like 4 of 10.
Well that's really the elephant in the room isn't it? Does he really expect that someone who "sees value in the crowdforging experience" will gloss over the fact that charging a sub to play an early access game is a very unusual weird-ass move?
If you want the game previewed as an early access alpha or beta you don't start charging a sub or open up a cash store.
Neverwinter tried the same shit with their endless "open beta." They tried to do a pre-emptive strike against being reviewed by declaring that it was just beta... and then they opened up the cash store and made characters there permanent. So the gaming media saw this and said "Screw you. Call it a beta if you want but you're monetizing it as a finished product... here's our review."
You can't have it both ways. And even the blindest pro-crowdsourcing fanboy who wants to keep a shred of credibility will need to take the post-release monetization model into consideration when rating this. Sorry... you want to be reviewed as an unfinished work in progress? Drop the sub.
That's a choice the player makes though isn't it? They agree to pay for a early access game.. That's how everything in business works, if people are willing to pay... it's acceptable to that crowd. So I don't see where a review should differ, they know what they were getting into.... Of course they should be honest, yet at the same time, they should also take the fact they opted in as well into account.
Anyway...I'd rather have a dev tell me before I pay anything.. hey this game isn't done it's still in so and so state... than see them, like every other Studio, publishing unfinished games and passing them off as gone gold. Which is pretty much common practice, look at ESO and many many others when they released.
On top of that they'll give you free time, which gives you ample evidence whether you'd feel it's worth it or not. I really don't see the problem here.
Players willingness to buy in or not is a whole different matter and so is the fact that every MMO is constantly in never-ending development. And they all get to call their own shots about when the reviews happen by monetizing it like a released product or not.
What is different here is the CEO actively campaigning for special review consideration. Neither ESO nor any other unfinished MMO release (which is all of them) start whining when they get bad press and say "but, but... it's not finished."
Maybe some of the other developers do also feel that way and don't own up to their role in getting the game reviewed too early by releasing it too early. But we don't really know because they have handlers doing their best to keep them from constantly sticking their feet in their mouths... something Dancy should seriously consider spending a couple of bucks on.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
As a backer of the project, I am frustrated with the current state of the game.
At this point, its clear PFO is simply in the wrong hands and being captained by folks that may be a tad disillusioned. Hopefully things get back on course and quickly.
Originally posted by Dakeru "I want an objective review so I am asking my friends to do it."
This is not what he said at all.
I'm no fan of the game really, but if you are going to criticise at least be fair enough to respond to what he said, not what you wanted him to be saying.
Yeah it's a huge difference whether his friends make the review or if his friends pick people to write the reviews.
We can't just let anyone judge games, especially not when they don't take into account that this game is being crowdforged which automatically should get it a higher rating.
Obviously any negative review is a result of the wrong people writing the reviews.
Originally posted by Dakeru "I want an objective review so I am asking my friends to do it."
This is not what he said at all.
I'm no fan of the game really, but if you are going to criticise at least be fair enough to respond to what he said, not what you wanted him to be saying.
Yeah it's a huge difference whether his friends make the review or if his friends pick people to write the reviews.
Actually, it is.
Asking for a review to be done by someone who is familiar with the process, or at least doesn't have an active agenda against crowdfunding, is not the same as asking for a puff review from a mate.
Just for the record, I am all for reviewing a game as a finished thing once it starts charging, so I am not actively supporting PFO here. It just irritates me when people do what you did in this post. It's just very cheap.
Obviously any negative review is a result of the wrong people writing the reviews.
Still doing it, eh?
ok, whatever. I don't feel strongly enough to argue about the way that you debate past these comments, so I'll leave you to it as this point. Have fun.
Originally posted by Dakeru "I want an objective review so I am asking my friends to do it."
This is not what he said at all.
I'm no fan of the game really, but if you are going to criticise at least be fair enough to respond to what he said, not what you wanted him to be saying.
Yeah it's a huge difference whether his friends make the review or if his friends pick people to write the reviews.
We can't just let anyone judge games, especially not when they don't take into account that this game is being crowdforged which automatically should get it a higher rating.
Obviously any negative review is a result of the wrong people writing the reviews.
It was already explained to you that Bill said he was too biased to do the review so he wanted someone else to do it. That's a far cry from Ryan telling Bill to have a friend of Ryan's do the review.
Do you realize that every post in this thread you have made up someone's stance in order to fit your personal narrative? Do you also realize that's a weird thing to do when the truth is in print on this very site?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Not sure how comfortable I am seeing the CEO state that he is telling his "friends" at sites like MMORPG (specifically mentioned) who he thinks should review his game...
Can't help but wonder if this is related to the change of reviewer for the game.
Oh for Fu$ks Sake, this guy is is own worst enemy!!! Just as there are some positive things to potentially have the current reviewer see, Ryan jumps in and complains that it won't be objective.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Lets completely disregard that reviews are entirely subjective for a minute and instead question what "crowdforging" has to do with the quality of game delivered. Just because you're sourcing ideas from your players doesn't mean that you deserve a free pass on producing a lower quality product than what you hope to compete with.
Originally posted by Dakeru "I want an objective review so I am asking my friends to do it."
This is not what he said at all.
I'm no fan of the game really, but if you are going to criticise at least be fair enough to respond to what he said, not what you wanted him to be saying.
Yeah it's a huge difference whether his friends make the review or if his friends pick people to write the reviews.
We can't just let anyone judge games, especially not when they don't take into account that this game is being crowdforged which automatically should get it a higher rating.
Obviously any negative review is a result of the wrong people writing the reviews.
It was already explained to you that Bill said he was too biased to do the review so he wanted someone else to do it. That's a far cry from Ryan telling Bill to have a friend of Ryan's do the review.
Do you realize that every post in this thread you have made up someone's stance in order to fit your personal narrative? Do you also realize that's a weird thing to do when the truth is in print on this very site?
You obviously missed why Bill passed the review off. He said that he liked Ryan personally, and his review was going to be at the bottom half of the 1 - 10 scale, so he passed it off for a fresh look. In other words, he felt bad his review was going to be low and he passed it off so that maybe it might be higher in someone else's review (even though he felt his review score was honest and accurate).
Now Ryan jumps in during the middle of the two week review and complains preemptively that the review will not be objective.
What Ryan should be doing is pointing to the "Forever War" which is a geo-political war being fought by two power blocks that was completely developed through emergent game play on the part of the players. Yes, even with the lack of all of the PvP tools, players are still finding a way to wage a meaningful war against each other.
What a missed opportunity!
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
What Ryan should be doing is pointing to the "Forever War" which is a geo-political war being fought by two power blocks that was completely developed through emergent game play on the part of the players. Yes, even with the lack of all of the PvP tools, players are still finding a way to wage a meaningful war against each other.
What a missed opportunity!
Now that you mention it, there's very little news about the politics, settlements and social interaction in game. Do you know of any fansites that cover that stuff?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
What Ryan should be doing is pointing to the "Forever War" which is a geo-political war being fought by two power blocks that was completely developed through emergent game play on the part of the players. Yes, even with the lack of all of the PvP tools, players are still finding a way to wage a meaningful war against each other.
What a missed opportunity!
Now that you mention it, there's very little news about the politics, settlements and social interaction in game. Do you know of any fansites that cover that stuff?
I have asked the involved parties to come here and post about it. But, anyone will access to the Goblin Works forums have knowledge of the politics of the game.
Even Ryan knows the politics of the game, and if he thought for a moment of how to better market his game to this community he'd be talking about the player generated events, rather than complaining about pending reviews he suspects will be bad,
Geez... I would think that is Marketing 101 kind of stuff. PFO does have some emergent game play, the bread and butter of sand box MMOs, and he is not capitalizing on it. Does it break somewhat from the Care Bear utopia some of the player base were hoping for? Yes, and Goblin Works may not be able to cater as much to them. But, they have not shown up in droves anyway, so perhaps a shift in vision is needed. Hopefully ego does not get in the way.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
I think asking for an objective anything is sort of silly--anything we do is local, subjective, and reflects our personal history and perspective. Thoughtful, transparent, useful--those are all possible for a review, but not objective.
And I don't see what crowdfunding has to do with this. So what if it's crowdfunded? That can--and in this case I hope will--lead to a better game, but the point is still the quality of the game.
However, what I wish we could get is a friggin' reviewer to actually play the game. All the juice in this game is found when you're a member of a settlement. By design it's meant for you to join a settlement, and then for the settlements to fight/ally/trade/whatever. All of the fun, cool, interesting stuff happens when you are a member of a settlement, working as part of a community to get stuff done.
So if a reviewer "plays" the game by logging on for a few hours and puttering around, they haven't actually done a review. It would like playing a couple of 'bot matches in DOTA2 and then writing a review, without actually playing live human matches. yea, you saw the graphcis and some of the basic systems, but you didn't actually play the game--how can you review it?
Originally posted by Dakeru "I want an objective review so I am asking my friends to do it."
This is not what he said at all.
I'm no fan of the game really, but if you are going to criticise at least be fair enough to respond to what he said, not what you wanted him to be saying.
Yeah it's a huge difference whether his friends make the review or if his friends pick people to write the reviews.
We can't just let anyone judge games, especially not when they don't take into account that this game is being crowdforged which automatically should get it a higher rating.
Obviously any negative review is a result of the wrong people writing the reviews.
It was already explained to you that Bill said he was too biased to do the review so he wanted someone else to do it. That's a far cry from Ryan telling Bill to have a friend of Ryan's do the review.
Do you realize that every post in this thread you have made up someone's stance in order to fit your personal narrative? Do you also realize that's a weird thing to do when the truth is in print on this very site?
Well I do realize that you are not reading your own links.
Bill hinted that he considers the game to be such shit that he isn't considering this as an objective opinion anymore so he asked someone else to review the game.
Still, Dancey says that he asked friends to find people to review his game properly.
You know, some of us find it fishy when a CEO says he wants his friends to find suitable reviewers for his game.
But go ahead with your personal vendetta against Slap and me.
Since when does a reviewer need qualifications? And more importantly, for a developer/publisher to have accreditation of the reviewer.
A reviewer relates their reaction to something. In this case, games. And every reviewer is the undisputed authority on their personal experience. If the reviewer thinks the UI is confusing, or the graphics aren't pretty, that's their opinion and is valid feedback. Reviewing doesn't require a degree, or technical insider information about how a game is made. The only requirement is for the reviewer to put their experiences into a coherent, pleasing form. And that requirement is only for the article publisher for the benefit of the customer, making the 'Review' product viable and entertaining for the consumer.
And if the developer still has objections to that, consider a series of blind reviews, where the developer doesn't know who is writing the Reviews.
Books distinguish between Reviews and Critiques. A Review is a customer's opinion of a finished product. A Critique is a form of private feedback that only the author sees (and can act on) prior to publication. Critiques are generally peer-review comments from other authors, who may ask for a reciprocal critique.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You know, some of us find it fishy when a CEO says he wants his friends to find suitable reviewers for his game.
Dakeru, it's normal for a developer toseek out suitable reviewers for their game. MMOs are a great example of that. Let's say you're developing a big game hunting MMO for PC and console. You have to be a bit selective on the console side. Why? Because odds are, due to the nature of MMOs, they are going to find the graphics outdated and the moment to moment gameplay lacking. That's because their point of comparison is often going to be single player console games, where the greater control over scenes usually means higher quality graphics and richer content, scripted and creative.
It's not just MMOs, it's any entertainment. Critics crapped all over the movie "Cars 2" because it had juvenile humor and wasn't the artistic work that "Cars" supposedly was. One would think a movie critic would understand the question review readers want to know is "Is it good for kids?" but they all focused on how it somehow betrayed animator Lasseter and the Pixar brand.
When I worked for Vault Network, I managed and created content for the RPG and MMO sites. I've reviewed several games. Sending me a copy of Dragon's Lair HD to play and review is pretty smart. Sending me a copy of the latest Madden would probably have resulted in a pretty bad review.
In most companies, it's not the CEO handling something like this. It would be the PR team or the PR firm that would handle it. They'd hit up the various sites and media outlets to get the game previewed/reviewed and get interviews/articles out there. Is it that it seems fishy to you because it's the CEO himself handling this?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You know, some of us find it fishy when a CEO says he wants his friends to find suitable reviewers for his game.
Dakeru, it's normal for a developer toseek out suitable reviewers for their game. MMOs are a great example of that. Let's say you're developing a big game hunting MMO for PC and console. You have to be a bit selective on the console side. Why? Because odds are, due to the nature of MMOs, they are going to find the graphics outdated and the moment to moment gameplay lacking. That's because their point of comparison is often going to be single player console games, where the greater control over scenes usually means higher quality graphics and richer content, scripted and creative.
It's not just MMOs, it's any entertainment. Critics crapped all over the movie "Cars 2" because it had juvenile humor and wasn't the artistic work that "Cars" supposedly was. One would think a movie critic would understand the question review readers want to know is "Is it good for kids?" but they all focused on how it somehow betrayed animator Lasseter and the Pixar brand.
When I worked for Vault Network, I managed and created content for the RPG and MMO sites. I've reviewed several games. Sending me a copy of Dragon's Lair HD to play and review is pretty smart. Sending me a copy of the latest Madden would probably have resulted in a pretty bad review.
In most companies, it's not the CEO handling something like this. It would be the PR team or the PR firm that would handle it. They'd hit up the various sites and media outlets to get the game previewed/reviewed and get interviews/articles out there. Is it that it seems fishy to you because it's the CEO himself handling this?
I think people find it fishy in general.
It's just that it normally happens behind closed doors. "Out of sight, out of mind" does kinda apply.
It was a bad move from the CEO to do this publicly, so he will catch some heat for it. Rightfully so.
I think asking for an objective anything is sort of silly--anything we do is local, subjective, and reflects our personal history and perspective. Thoughtful, transparent, useful--those are all possible for a review, but not objective.
And I don't see what crowdfunding has to do with this. So what if it's crowdfunded? That can--and in this case I hope will--lead to a better game, but the point is still the quality of the game.
However, what I wish we could get is a friggin' reviewer to actually play the game. All the juice in this game is found when you're a member of a settlement. By design it's meant for you to join a settlement, and then for the settlements to fight/ally/trade/whatever. All of the fun, cool, interesting stuff happens when you are a member of a settlement, working as part of a community to get stuff done.
So if a reviewer "plays" the game by logging on for a few hours and puttering around, they haven't actually done a review. It would like playing a couple of 'bot matches in DOTA2 and then writing a review, without actually playing live human matches. yea, you saw the graphcis and some of the basic systems, but you didn't actually play the game--how can you review it?
You are assuming that the previous reviewer did not join a settlement, and that the current reviewer has not either. Assuming that he had joined a company, what then woukd be the requirement he would have to completed in order to make a valid review? Assuming that he joined a settlemrnt, what next, before he could make a valid review? Say he had run an escalation, could he then make a valid review? If he pvp'd, would that have been enough?
Or will he have to wait until settlement conquest is in the game, some 6 - 12 months from now, before he could make a valid review?
The issue is, Ryan claimed that the game is feature complete and is in Early Enrollment. In that stage it is justified to charge the full, standard rate subscription. When given every opportunity to walk back on that claim, Ryan instead not only refused to take the hint, but doubled down that the game was MVP and feature complete, and the review as such began.
The review score Bill mentioned was going to be in the lower portion of the 1 - 10 scale. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say that would have been 4.99 out if 10.0. Might as well close the doors as far as this website is concerned, a score below 6.0 is the kiss of death. Bill realizing that, and being that he likes Ryan as a person, he passed on the review to another (Steve) for a fresh eyed look.
Rather than being grateful for a second chance, in the middle of a two week review, Ryan chimes in with a complaint that any review that does not recognize the value of crowd forging is invalid. This is as if no other game takes into consideration player feedback during its developmental alpha and beta stages. Ryan knows that this is not true, he knows that it is not unique to PFO., he states that in the OP.
There are only a few things that are unique with PFO and its development. First, it's CEO claims that it is feature complete when it is not. Secondly, it claims that it is worthy of full subscription value just because players in its development stage have input. That is unique as far as any other MMO I, and most others, have ever experienced while alpha or beta tested an MMO. What is unique is that the player base has been asked to advertise the game and draw in new players to "buy in" to the glories of crowdforging and the privilege of paying for it. Finally, what is unique is the demand that the game is reviewed but not based on what it has now but the promises of what it might be 6-12 months from now. Not for how a player chooses to play in the sandbox, but only on how to play in it according to a narrow view of how it should be played.
PR and marketing don't seem to be Ryan's strong suit. It is already a tough sell to get players to not only try this game, after they have seen it, but also to get them to play it beyond the 14 day trial. That isn't any easier with the CEO becoming unhinged because no one apparently sees his vision as being genius or to put it in your words, PFO is the savior of the genre of MMOS (see Why PFO Matters thread).
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Honestly, if you question the validity of the review then go try the game's 15 day free trial. Make the determination yourself. Its free to do after all.
I'll do my own little review as someone who has taken part in the crowdforging process, effected changes to this game, and even been featured on the front page of it's kickstarter:
1. Do they make changes based on forum feedback? Yes. So do most games.
2. Do they give you a deeper view into the innerworkings of this game's development than other comparable titles? No. They aren't as tight lipped as Star Vault (Mortal Online) and Adventurine (Darkfall) but they give less information about their inner workings than Cloud Imperium Games (Star Citizen) and ACE (Crowfall).
3. Do I feel like my input makes made more of an impact than it does in other titles? Only by virtue of there being less players. Their game isn't more "crowdforged" than other titles. It just feels that way because the community is smaller. They are building the game they want to build and pulling ideas from the community as it suits them.
Perhaps if Ryan Dancey wishes to be taken seriously about his claims that crowdforging makes this game different from others, he could spell out what he means by the term and how he feels this makes him different not from themeparks and archaic sandboxes, but other fresh and more successful crowdfunded titles.
I suspect he is looking for a review that is done in context, i.e. comparing PFO to other crowdsourced projects at similar phases in their development. To get that, you'd need a reviewer that has reviewed a broad range of early access offerings and who can keep the scope confined.
As long as the review came with the relevant disclaimers, I'd say that's not unreasonable. A review of a niche game, targeted at an even narrower band of niche players.
There's a regular early-access review done on RPS. I salute the person that bears that cross, they are made of sterner stuff than me, lol
The problem for Ryan is, there are no games in the same context. He chose to avoid using the beta tag for the game, instead using Early Enrollment to justify the full price subscription cost. He chose to claim the game is feature complete and had met his definition of a minimum viable product.
He chose to build the game on a Unity 4 game engine. There is only so far that engine can be pushed when being compared against more advanced engines.
If I chose to compare PFO to a game right now, I'd compare it to Albion Online. Albion is in its 3rd alpha (not sure how many builds). It cost $30 one time to get into current alpha phase, which started 2 weeks ago. There is no subscription cost at present.
Graphically and game play wise, Albion is head and shoulders ahead of PFO. It has what I believe is feature complete status.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
The problem is, money is blind. Thats the main issue here... utilizing a food analogy, you can select a mid range restaurant like TGI Fridays or Chilis and review it against a burger from a place such as Mcdonalds or Burger King -- but people would say.. "why aren't you comparing the same types of restaurants" Fast food should go with fast food. Crowdforging should go with Crowdforging. Early access games should go with early access games.
The problem with PFO is that they're making you pay for a Restaurant Chain burger when the offerings are much more in comparison to fast food.
They don't care who gives them money, they won't say "hey you aren't interested in crowdsourced games, we refuse your money" but when it comes to people expecting and reviewing the game based on their experience in comparison to what they pay? Then they want to complain its not fair footing? Doesn't add up.
Comments
Indeed.
But the game does deserve to be reviewed by folks that aren't actively hostile to the concept of crowd forging though. If a PvE player was reviewing a PvP game I would say the same.
It's hard to think a product is being given a fair run when the reviewer has an agenda to push.
Just as a general note though, I am generally very pro crowd funding. I think it's a huge positive in the world of single player PC games, board games, PnP RPGs, comics, and many other areas that I love and has been incredible for grass roots development. I don't think the model is suited to MMORPGs though, so it disappoints me that people that folks use their negative experience with MMORPG crowd funded games to dismiss the model entirely when it has brought so many quality things to a market that would not be supported by the mainstream goliaths.
Players willingness to buy in or not is a whole different matter and so is the fact that every MMO is constantly in never-ending development. And they all get to call their own shots about when the reviews happen by monetizing it like a released product or not.
What is different here is the CEO actively campaigning for special review consideration. Neither ESO nor any other unfinished MMO release (which is all of them) start whining when they get bad press and say "but, but... it's not finished."
Maybe some of the other developers do also feel that way and don't own up to their role in getting the game reviewed too early by releasing it too early. But we don't really know because they have handlers doing their best to keep them from constantly sticking their feet in their mouths... something Dancy should seriously consider spending a couple of bucks on.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
As a backer of the project, I am frustrated with the current state of the game.
At this point, its clear PFO is simply in the wrong hands and being captained by folks that may be a tad disillusioned. Hopefully things get back on course and quickly.
Yeah it's a huge difference whether his friends make the review or if his friends pick people to write the reviews.
We can't just let anyone judge games, especially not when they don't take into account that this game is being crowdforged which automatically should get it a higher rating.
Obviously any negative review is a result of the wrong people writing the reviews.
Actually, it is.
Asking for a review to be done by someone who is familiar with the process, or at least doesn't have an active agenda against crowdfunding, is not the same as asking for a puff review from a mate.
Just for the record, I am all for reviewing a game as a finished thing once it starts charging, so I am not actively supporting PFO here. It just irritates me when people do what you did in this post. It's just very cheap.
Still doing it, eh?
ok, whatever. I don't feel strongly enough to argue about the way that you debate past these comments, so I'll leave you to it as this point. Have fun.
It was already explained to you that Bill said he was too biased to do the review so he wanted someone else to do it. That's a far cry from Ryan telling Bill to have a friend of Ryan's do the review.
Do you realize that every post in this thread you have made up someone's stance in order to fit your personal narrative? Do you also realize that's a weird thing to do when the truth is in print on this very site?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Oh for Fu$ks Sake, this guy is is own worst enemy!!! Just as there are some positive things to potentially have the current reviewer see, Ryan jumps in and complains that it won't be objective.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
You obviously missed why Bill passed the review off. He said that he liked Ryan personally, and his review was going to be at the bottom half of the 1 - 10 scale, so he passed it off for a fresh look. In other words, he felt bad his review was going to be low and he passed it off so that maybe it might be higher in someone else's review (even though he felt his review score was honest and accurate).
Now Ryan jumps in during the middle of the two week review and complains preemptively that the review will not be objective.
What Ryan should be doing is pointing to the "Forever War" which is a geo-political war being fought by two power blocks that was completely developed through emergent game play on the part of the players. Yes, even with the lack of all of the PvP tools, players are still finding a way to wage a meaningful war against each other.
What a missed opportunity!
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Now that you mention it, there's very little news about the politics, settlements and social interaction in game. Do you know of any fansites that cover that stuff?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I have asked the involved parties to come here and post about it. But, anyone will access to the Goblin Works forums have knowledge of the politics of the game.
Even Ryan knows the politics of the game, and if he thought for a moment of how to better market his game to this community he'd be talking about the player generated events, rather than complaining about pending reviews he suspects will be bad,
Geez... I would think that is Marketing 101 kind of stuff. PFO does have some emergent game play, the bread and butter of sand box MMOs, and he is not capitalizing on it. Does it break somewhat from the Care Bear utopia some of the player base were hoping for? Yes, and Goblin Works may not be able to cater as much to them. But, they have not shown up in droves anyway, so perhaps a shift in vision is needed. Hopefully ego does not get in the way.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
I think asking for an objective anything is sort of silly--anything we do is local, subjective, and reflects our personal history and perspective. Thoughtful, transparent, useful--those are all possible for a review, but not objective.
And I don't see what crowdfunding has to do with this. So what if it's crowdfunded? That can--and in this case I hope will--lead to a better game, but the point is still the quality of the game.
However, what I wish we could get is a friggin' reviewer to actually play the game. All the juice in this game is found when you're a member of a settlement. By design it's meant for you to join a settlement, and then for the settlements to fight/ally/trade/whatever. All of the fun, cool, interesting stuff happens when you are a member of a settlement, working as part of a community to get stuff done.
So if a reviewer "plays" the game by logging on for a few hours and puttering around, they haven't actually done a review. It would like playing a couple of 'bot matches in DOTA2 and then writing a review, without actually playing live human matches. yea, you saw the graphcis and some of the basic systems, but you didn't actually play the game--how can you review it?
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
1) The Pathfinder Online website is horrible.
2) The Early Access/Founders/Backers whatever its called pricing is horrible.
3) The early version of the game is horrible.
4) The CEO's whining and blame on everyone else is horrible.
How is that for a review?
Well I do realize that you are not reading your own links.
Bill hinted that he considers the game to be such shit that he isn't considering this as an objective opinion anymore so he asked someone else to review the game.
Still, Dancey says that he asked friends to find people to review his game properly.
You know, some of us find it fishy when a CEO says he wants his friends to find suitable reviewers for his game.
But go ahead with your personal vendetta against Slap and me.
Since when does a reviewer need qualifications? And more importantly, for a developer/publisher to have accreditation of the reviewer.
A reviewer relates their reaction to something. In this case, games. And every reviewer is the undisputed authority on their personal experience. If the reviewer thinks the UI is confusing, or the graphics aren't pretty, that's their opinion and is valid feedback. Reviewing doesn't require a degree, or technical insider information about how a game is made. The only requirement is for the reviewer to put their experiences into a coherent, pleasing form. And that requirement is only for the article publisher for the benefit of the customer, making the 'Review' product viable and entertaining for the consumer.
And if the developer still has objections to that, consider a series of blind reviews, where the developer doesn't know who is writing the Reviews.
Books distinguish between Reviews and Critiques. A Review is a customer's opinion of a finished product. A Critique is a form of private feedback that only the author sees (and can act on) prior to publication. Critiques are generally peer-review comments from other authors, who may ask for a reciprocal critique.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Dakeru, it's normal for a developer to seek out suitable reviewers for their game. MMOs are a great example of that. Let's say you're developing a big game hunting MMO for PC and console. You have to be a bit selective on the console side. Why? Because odds are, due to the nature of MMOs, they are going to find the graphics outdated and the moment to moment gameplay lacking. That's because their point of comparison is often going to be single player console games, where the greater control over scenes usually means higher quality graphics and richer content, scripted and creative.
It's not just MMOs, it's any entertainment. Critics crapped all over the movie "Cars 2" because it had juvenile humor and wasn't the artistic work that "Cars" supposedly was. One would think a movie critic would understand the question review readers want to know is "Is it good for kids?" but they all focused on how it somehow betrayed animator Lasseter and the Pixar brand.
When I worked for Vault Network, I managed and created content for the RPG and MMO sites. I've reviewed several games. Sending me a copy of Dragon's Lair HD to play and review is pretty smart. Sending me a copy of the latest Madden would probably have resulted in a pretty bad review.
In most companies, it's not the CEO handling something like this. It would be the PR team or the PR firm that would handle it. They'd hit up the various sites and media outlets to get the game previewed/reviewed and get interviews/articles out there. Is it that it seems fishy to you because it's the CEO himself handling this?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think people find it fishy in general.
It's just that it normally happens behind closed doors. "Out of sight, out of mind" does kinda apply.
It was a bad move from the CEO to do this publicly, so he will catch some heat for it. Rightfully so.
You are assuming that the previous reviewer did not join a settlement, and that the current reviewer has not either. Assuming that he had joined a company, what then woukd be the requirement he would have to completed in order to make a valid review? Assuming that he joined a settlemrnt, what next, before he could make a valid review? Say he had run an escalation, could he then make a valid review? If he pvp'd, would that have been enough?
Or will he have to wait until settlement conquest is in the game, some 6 - 12 months from now, before he could make a valid review?
The issue is, Ryan claimed that the game is feature complete and is in Early Enrollment. In that stage it is justified to charge the full, standard rate subscription. When given every opportunity to walk back on that claim, Ryan instead not only refused to take the hint, but doubled down that the game was MVP and feature complete, and the review as such began.
The review score Bill mentioned was going to be in the lower portion of the 1 - 10 scale. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say that would have been 4.99 out if 10.0. Might as well close the doors as far as this website is concerned, a score below 6.0 is the kiss of death. Bill realizing that, and being that he likes Ryan as a person, he passed on the review to another (Steve) for a fresh eyed look.
Rather than being grateful for a second chance, in the middle of a two week review, Ryan chimes in with a complaint that any review that does not recognize the value of crowd forging is invalid. This is as if no other game takes into consideration player feedback during its developmental alpha and beta stages. Ryan knows that this is not true, he knows that it is not unique to PFO., he states that in the OP.
There are only a few things that are unique with PFO and its development. First, it's CEO claims that it is feature complete when it is not. Secondly, it claims that it is worthy of full subscription value just because players in its development stage have input. That is unique as far as any other MMO I, and most others, have ever experienced while alpha or beta tested an MMO. What is unique is that the player base has been asked to advertise the game and draw in new players to "buy in" to the glories of crowdforging and the privilege of paying for it. Finally, what is unique is the demand that the game is reviewed but not based on what it has now but the promises of what it might be 6-12 months from now. Not for how a player chooses to play in the sandbox, but only on how to play in it according to a narrow view of how it should be played.
PR and marketing don't seem to be Ryan's strong suit. It is already a tough sell to get players to not only try this game, after they have seen it, but also to get them to play it beyond the 14 day trial. That isn't any easier with the CEO becoming unhinged because no one apparently sees his vision as being genius or to put it in your words, PFO is the savior of the genre of MMOS (see Why PFO Matters thread).
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Honestly, if you question the validity of the review then go try the game's 15 day free trial. Make the determination yourself. Its free to do after all.
I'll do my own little review as someone who has taken part in the crowdforging process, effected changes to this game, and even been featured on the front page of it's kickstarter:
1. Do they make changes based on forum feedback? Yes. So do most games.
2. Do they give you a deeper view into the innerworkings of this game's development than other comparable titles? No. They aren't as tight lipped as Star Vault (Mortal Online) and Adventurine (Darkfall) but they give less information about their inner workings than Cloud Imperium Games (Star Citizen) and ACE (Crowfall).
3. Do I feel like my input makes made more of an impact than it does in other titles? Only by virtue of there being less players. Their game isn't more "crowdforged" than other titles. It just feels that way because the community is smaller. They are building the game they want to build and pulling ideas from the community as it suits them.
Perhaps if Ryan Dancey wishes to be taken seriously about his claims that crowdforging makes this game different from others, he could spell out what he means by the term and how he feels this makes him different not from themeparks and archaic sandboxes, but other fresh and more successful crowdfunded titles.
I can sort of sympathize with Ryan's dilemma.
I suspect he is looking for a review that is done in context, i.e. comparing PFO to other crowdsourced projects at similar phases in their development. To get that, you'd need a reviewer that has reviewed a broad range of early access offerings and who can keep the scope confined.
As long as the review came with the relevant disclaimers, I'd say that's not unreasonable. A review of a niche game, targeted at an even narrower band of niche players.
There's a regular early-access review done on RPS. I salute the person that bears that cross, they are made of sterner stuff than me, lol
The problem for Ryan is, there are no games in the same context. He chose to avoid using the beta tag for the game, instead using Early Enrollment to justify the full price subscription cost. He chose to claim the game is feature complete and had met his definition of a minimum viable product.
He chose to build the game on a Unity 4 game engine. There is only so far that engine can be pushed when being compared against more advanced engines.
If I chose to compare PFO to a game right now, I'd compare it to Albion Online. Albion is in its 3rd alpha (not sure how many builds). It cost $30 one time to get into current alpha phase, which started 2 weeks ago. There is no subscription cost at present.
Graphically and game play wise, Albion is head and shoulders ahead of PFO. It has what I believe is feature complete status.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
The problem is, money is blind. Thats the main issue here... utilizing a food analogy, you can select a mid range restaurant like TGI Fridays or Chilis and review it against a burger from a place such as Mcdonalds or Burger King -- but people would say.. "why aren't you comparing the same types of restaurants" Fast food should go with fast food. Crowdforging should go with Crowdforging. Early access games should go with early access games.
The problem with PFO is that they're making you pay for a Restaurant Chain burger when the offerings are much more in comparison to fast food.
They don't care who gives them money, they won't say "hey you aren't interested in crowdsourced games, we refuse your money" but when it comes to people expecting and reviewing the game based on their experience in comparison to what they pay? Then they want to complain its not fair footing? Doesn't add up.