Search Posts
I think we are going to explore a Steam Greenlight campaign and we'll evaluate the option of using it for Early Enrollment vs. Open Enrollment once we get a sense for how effectively we're able to seed Early Enrollment from our own Crowdfunding tool. Is there no other way to get onto Steam than through Greenlight? It seems weird to me, as both of your Kickstarters were tremendously successful, proving that there's enough demand, therefore eliminating the need for it to become greenlighted. What I'm also interested in is in how you're going to treat press enquiries such as key distribution for Alpha/Beta/Early Enrollment. Are there possibilities for the press to get a glimpse of the game or is it a backers only occasion? I'm especially talking about Alpha in this case.
I'm sort of a lurker too. I started following PFO quite early and even took part in some discussions here. I also was one of the people who sent in a video statement for their publisher pitch (and therefore I was an inaugural member of the Goblin Squad, for whatever that's worth). But many of the updates were much too theoretical and abstract for me to really talk about it. Not to mention that many of the updates were kind of long and I follow a lot of other games (also for professional reasons) so there's a lot to keep up with. With the second Kickstarter Goblinworks lost a bit of my sympathy towards the project. So, yeah, here we are. I frequent the forums now and then, but I haven't been able to really keep up with it, and as long as there's not a good tl;dr version, I probably won't be able to. Even though I really want to, because, with all its faults campaign-wise and marketing-wise, I still think PFO could manage to become one of the best MMORPGs out there.
I haven't really been able to be up to date concerning different models that were to evaluate by GW. But still, any ingame-cashshop and "free to play" idea is inherently bad in my opinion and the classic subscription model is infinitely better. 1.) A subscription is only expensive on first look. Say we pay 10 dollars a month - sounds like a lot, but actually isn't, especially if you are a core-player. Casual players definitely will not be bothered by a free-to-play-model, but a core-player that wants to gain as much fun as possible out of his game will find himself throwing money out the window for things he doesn't really need (well, as long as it's not pay-to-win-stuff). On the long haul, a free-to-play-model is, I suggest, a lot more expensive. Of course that also depends on the pricing, but from what I've seen, those tiny bits of content you pay for with your hard earned money aren't worth 2 dollars, they're maybe worth a quarter, and probably not even that. 2.) A micro-transaction-model is complicated and always smells like a money-grab. Look at your average iPhone game and you know what I mean. I'm really put-off by those systems, because I don't think I should pay for contents in the game, I'd rather pay for being able to play. It's just that the math behind cash-shops is always totally intransparent and the pricing is just a construct and not even remotely based on any "real economy". There will be some form of free play, that's a requirement in today's market where people want to try an MMO before they put in any money. So there's only the free-to-play and any subscription model is inherently bad? What about simply enabling players to play one or two weeks for free? If people are compelled by the game, they will pay for a subscription, if they're not compelled they will not pay for a subscription but they won't either pay for stuff in a cash-shop.
To be honest, I can't say much about the environment. It looks good, but it's nothing special. It's your average green-hills-fantasy-world (well, it's the River Kingdoms after all) and I miss a bit of a twist here and there. But I'm pleased with the amount of armour that already exists. Looks good and I'm also really glad that there were no ub0roversized four-handed swords and plate armours that weigh around 94387 tons.
You know what I'd like to see most in early enrollment? Myself. I want to play that game from the beginning on and when the project started I was quite optimistic that I would get in, but seriously, with all the backers and some of you crazy guys in the forum.... I could barely keep up with all the updates and discussion even though I frequently read everything here. Damnit.
Downsides? I think those aren't really downsides. 1) Yes, and I think that's not a downside, but a different style of playing. With companies building cities, economy and trade, strategy, politics - those are things we don't usually see in an MMO. And those things wouldn't work (or at least they wouldn't be fun) if achieved too easily. While planning ahead and stuff like that is not a core feature in other games, it could be different here. In WoW you just want to raid a certain dungeon (or however that works)- here you will have a greater picture. It's not just a raid, it's maybe a whole military movement or a trading rush. This is, of course, quite difficult, or say complicated, but that's not a bad thing - it's the thing people want from PFO. 2)Yes, certain players absolutely should congregate in certain areas. Your feature, or say downside, provides a lot of strategy for warfare and trade. Maybe there are big trading cities built around such hubs whilst travel to cities that are famous for its resources are a bit more difficult to reach. That's an exciting idea that absolutely supports the big world feel and the natural feel of an economy. 3)Since they have to, the will be.
Congratulations! Honestly, I had my doubts about the second Kickstarter, so I was quite surprised to see the end result. Being a poor student and lacking a credit card, I couldn't really pledge, so I'm grateful for every single penny everyone else pledged. I will spread the word like I've been doing since the announcement of the game. I'm excited to see how things will work out. And I'm looking forward to playing PFO.
I'm really against a play-on-words and immersion-breaking-names-rule. Not because I want to play a chaaracter named Ben Dover or dRizZt. It's because there are very different understandings of immersion-breaking.
An example: I LARP frequently with different groups. One group is a group inspired by 18th/19th century British navy.
The only players that complained about our names were ultraserious and really uninspired people. (Gra'Khri'Gnojrtusk of the folk of Bri'Gnrahfg sduhf - that kind of serious) I always think we should not take ourselves TOO seriously and that's simply part of some of my characters. I think to exclude certain playerstyles is a really bad idea because of all the people I've met there were so many different conception of what immersion means, of what "good roleplaying" is. The solution always is: don't play with people that don't agree with your playstyle. Of course - I'm not for Ben Dover or DarkDrizZt and whatever - but I think you get what I mean.
That is the same thing that I have thought too. Problem with the weapon skills in GW2 is that they are unlocked waaay to fast, so that you don't have a real sensation of achievement over a longer period of time. I'm looking forward to the Goblinworks solution :)
Just a short thing: There was an extremely cool (!) grabbing button in Dragon's Dogma (similar to Shadow of the Colossus). That kind of climbing, holding onto changed my view on a lot of RPGs because THIS is exactly the kind of moving dimension that most RPGs lack. That grabbing button, if implemented better than in Dragon's Dogma could change a lot in terms of exploring from jumping an holding on to an edge to grabbing a rope. I realise that this is not going to be in PFO and is probably too complicated to implement into an RPG so it'll stay in the action adventure genre forever, but still I just wanted to mention it.
Even though I agree with you guys, I'm really interested about the general content for "more accomplished" characters. Or no, I'm interested in the whole content that encompanies our own endeavours. We had a few interesting discussions in the "rare monsters"-thread about threats from big, scary monsters, about events such as sicknesses that need to be cured and so on. I think while WE are the content in terms of building empires there is a real need for such events. I think that's why PFO is part sandbox, part theme park. If used right the theme park can be a great storyteller. I'd really love to see a dynamic event that doesn't just contain playing in the sandbox but facing real unthought-of challenges.
Well, I still think you have a point. It's somehow ironic - that's my European view - that it's perfectly okay to poison people, to shoot them, to stick a sword in your enemy's chest, to probably kill entire tribes of goblins to put weakening curses (-> torturin) and what not, while it's forbidden by banning law to talk about a sexual act. It's not America bashing at all, it just strikes me as odd because violence (generally not awesome) seems to be no problem but sex (a great thing) isn't. Here, on Swiss and German TV you can see boobies probably everytime you watch TV, while violence is more or less limited to late night TV. It's also ironic that everyone in the US seems to freak out over a pair of breasts but every 10-year-old can play Call of Duty - while we have debates going on wether violent videogames should get banned entirely. Edit: By the way I absolutely support these rules but I have some concern about the profanity thing because it's always a point of view thing and "offensive" statements are not always intended to be offensive. For example I think that ArenaNet is really, really petty about some of those cases and I hope that's not happening to PFO. FYI, I don't intend to use a lot of profanity and also I'm not a dick. ;-)
I just did some research and found out that chariots were kind of an ancient thing, not medieval at all. Seeing as though pathfinder is a vaguely medieval setting for the most part, I can now see why they wouldn't fit. I disagree. Fantasy, especially high-fantasy is an extreme historical mix. For example druids are clearly ancient, as they are gaulish/celtic. Or everything involving guns & ammos is essentially 18th century, because everything earlier is impossible to implement when it should stay fun. Furthermore most fantasy games somehow lack crossbows or typical armour from that era. Also you never see typical medieval witches or medieval knights. I'm drifting - My point is, that fantasy is an extreme mix which you can't nail to a certain period of time since it includes stuff from 5000 B.C. until the 18th century...
Oh god, I hope PFO will NOT be like GW2. I've played several hours now but I just can't get into it. Somehow it's even MORE themepark-oriented than other themepark-MMOS, which is kind of crazy. You have these heart events, spawnpoints, points of interest and vistas. And you just... Kind of work through the points marked on your map. Crafting is really time-consuming and in my opinion useless.
As much as I've loved Jeremy Soule in Icewind Dale - I'd suggest Inon Zur and Mark Morgan. Inon Zur did Icewind Dale 2 and Mark Morgan was the guy who did Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate. I think specially Mark Morgan is a very special composer with a distinct style. He always had very original ideas that surpassed "Oh let's just put a bunch of violinists in it" and got really creative.
Things - Age of Conan had a pretty decent spellweaving system. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3h-juMLLho )
It really depends on how the gameplay feels. So it's really difficult to tell that in advance. For example, I really like melee fighting in Guild Wars 2, but I hated it in World of Warcraft. I really liked playing a casting priest in Age of Conan, but I didn't like it in pretty much any MMORPG I've ever tried. So gameplay-wise it's all about the feeling of it. Roleplaying-wise I'd love to play a bard or ranger, basically every "Robin-Hood-Chaotic-Good"-class. I even could see a chaotic evil Orc fighter... Man, I could nearly see anything. But I'll wait until more is revealed before I can really make an informed choice :)
Thanks for that post. That really cheered me up. That sounds A LOT better, than my vision of it. I'm calm again. :) @DeciusBrutus: And that's why I don't like many of the single-player games out there, because they are dumbed down so that every idiot on the planet knows what to do. "Press X" "What X?" will never happen, I hope. ;D You know I'm not that kind of hardcore gamer who goes through 10 games a month, but when I play, I want to have a little challenge in it :) But now Ryan cleared that up and I'm looking forward to that challenge... I can definitely also see the appeal of just pushing the same button at the same time, I think that requires a bit of timing and perfection of said timing. But over time it would just become routine, that's why I was worried.
Exactly! What stays with you over the time of playing an MMO aren't necessarily items or epic loot. It's the stories you are part of. I don't mean the artificial quest stories, I mean the real stories about how you and your friends saw something or maybe took on a big, big monster or had fun otherwise. These are the stories you tell over the years. I'm studying journalism and that's one of the core things we learn there. Statistics, numbers are all fine but those aren't the things that stay with you. The things you keep in your mind are the things that touch you emotionally. And what a touch it would be, if you encounter a rare creature and somehow confirm that creature and therefore change the lore of your nation. Of course it's arbitrary, but isn't life a bit arbitrary sometimes? That whole "everybody has to experience the same things" is a problem in my opinion. It creates artificial heroes, a lot of heroes. So that it doesn't mean anything anymore. PVE content has lost its potential to create heroes. Of course, PVP players get glory fast, if they have the right equipment and only PVP and you can see them in a ranking. Maybe they can generate some kind of reputation which simply isn't possible in PVE content because in PVE everybody is a hero. The possibility of rare monsters gives players the opportunity to be real heroes. And I'm not just talking about a random rare encounter, I'm also talking of the dragon, that Banesama mentioned. A dragon, who is a nationwide problem can make A LOT of heroes. The researchers, who - in a dangerous mission - find the weakness of the creature, the group of thieves and sneaky adventurers who steal the most valuable artifact to lure the dragon into a trap and the group of fierce warriors, who then slay the dragon. And - of course - the historian who writes all these names down and creates a scripture, which everybody can read in the nationwide library... And the bards and their songs, if roleplayed correctly... This is the stuff that legends are made of. That whole event crap that repeats itself devaluates the efforts of players and it nullifies the "hero-factor" Ryan, you said it would create artificial winners and losers. That may be - at the beginning. But when other players see, what you can really reach for in this game, they put all effort into being a dragonslayer, they train hard to become a masterful fighter and this is their goal - to become a hero in battling a rare creature. Like a crafter wants to become a mastercrafter or an explorer who wants to be everywhere first. It's a motivational thing, I think :)
Yes, of course. But as GrumpyMel said, if it's gonna be a huge part of the game and if that's going to be the only way to defend a settlement in mass combat... I really think GW will make this feature as good as possible, but in the worst case scenario that would be a real turn-off. Edit: Just imagining. You enter Mass Combat mode with a quick overview of the battlefield. Glowing letters announce "BATTLE!" and then it says "Press A repeatedly" and then "Press in sequence: q, c, b, t. I mean come on... Can that be fun?
I also like this idea. It also plays into the concept of sandbox with themepark influences. It's a special - ideally unique monster-event - (themepark aspect) which gives the players huge opportunities to interact. Alchemists would search for an antidote (maybe including a dangerous mission to get the original poison from the monster?) and maybe sell it, maybe give it out for free. Warriors who secure the area, making sure infected people don't go anywhere, where they shouldn't go (e.g. throne room of the king?). A group of adventurers trying to slay the monster, historians trying to find out as much as possible about the monsters. For historians and such I see a great opportunity to push the lore forward (which again is some sort of themepark aspect - simply a one-time-attraction). Events like this would actually motivate people to really participate - unlike in Guild Wars 2, which has an event system that repeats itself every 20 minutes or so. Implementing rare monsters is a huge opportunity to drive the game forward, include more lore and give them certain inputs about what to do ingame for people who are struggling with the sandbox concept now and then (as does every, even avid, sandbox player, I'm sure).I hope my thoughts are coherent enough to understand. Quite difficult in a foreign language, but hey, I tried. ;)
I think if PFO wasn't open PVP, that would take away it's whole raison d'être. PVP is a core mechanic and I think it's not only gonna work as a competitive mechanic like in many other MMOs where you have instanced battlegrounds (I so loathe that system), but it's a natural part of your ingame-life. Danger lurks everywhere - not in the sense of constant grieving but in the sense that, well a world like this has its dangers. Finito. Just because it's open PVP doesn't mean it's only a hardcore PVP game for competitive players that don't do anything else their whole life.
I haven't read the whole thread now, but I'm a little worried about the Guitar Hero reference. At first read, it sounds to me as if we, as players, enter a "battle sequence" and have to succeed at many quicktime events which, in my opinion, aren't real gameplay. Have I misinterpreted things or is that the way it's gonna go down?
I really like the artworks. It's one of the things I've been a little anxious about, since that's something that can completely tear a game apart. I have been away now for quite some time and it's nice to see that things really progress - I think we can also see that in the new blog posts, which are really tight with information. But I'm okay with that as long as we get updates! :) I started playing Guild Wars 2 and it's another proof of how the theme-park aspect can really ruin a whole experience, even though they were really enthusiastic about bringing the genre forward. So I'm looking forward to PFO even more. Bring it on!
If it's really going to be 15./16. Century I definitely want to see fashion from that epoque. And pikes. And Landsknechts. Oh my, that would be damn awesome.
You can have realistic graphics that are all sunshine and rainbows, and you can have cartoony graphics that are dark and gritty.Well said. Then let's clear it up: Dark, gritty and realistic. You can add an artistic style even to a realistic game that will make it age very well. Mass Effect 1 for example. Or Dead Rising, which was, I believe, a launch title for the Xbox 360 and still has awesome graphics. Maybe not top notch anymore, but still awesome.
"World design" is perhaps the vaguest descriptor possible. Batman: The Animated Series had a censor-friendly dark, gritty world. Tremors had lots of graphic violence and grisly deaths but deserved its pg-13 rating. That's why I added two examples of a dark and realistic world. Dark Souls/Demon's Souls and The Witcher 2. I'm not sure however, how graphical the violence in those games actually is. I don't observe every bit of it. To me it's more part of a coherent, atmospheric world. For me it's not compulsory to be able to hack of arms and heads - altough that can be a very cool feature in a certain context or game-world. I'm not sure either how to look at American ratings since in Euorpe and especially Switzerland/Germany we have two ratings. PEGI (pan-european) and USK (Germany). Both games are 16+ (except TW2 was rated 18+ by PEGI which is, I think, because of the overall tone of the game). So I have no idea how to rank your ratings. What I know, is that Teens (the next rating under 16+ is 12+ here) get to see absolutely nothing. If it's got a gun in it, it's more or less immediately 16+. I'd love PFO to be in the style of the mentioned games above and not in the style of Aion and those rainbowy Korean MMOs. If there's a realistic and non-dinastywarriorsfinalfantasy'esque world I really don't care about separating heads from bodies. I just fear PFO might go into the hoorayloveandponies direction.
Graphic depictions of violence is not a part of our objective or plan. So if you're looking for that as the feature that makes Pathfinder Online for you, you'll be disappointed. You're implying that Valkenr and I are some sort of violence voyeurs. But that's not the case and I think we both know that. If I want to play a game, where violence is THE feature, then I play Happy Wheels. Or Mortal Kombat. Also it's not about the violence in particular, as previously stated, but it's about the general world design, which I'd love to be realistic, maybe a bit darker and not like My Little Pony.
I absolutely agree with you. But it looks like we're gonna get another Wakfu. Or basically every other Anime/Comic-style MMO with colorful violence and lots of flowers. You know, like Dynasty Warriors, less violent and brighter. Hooray. And a bit more constructive: I'm done with those unrealistic World of Warcraft, Kingdoms of Amalur, Final Fantasy, Aion, Tera worlds. I want a darker world. A more realistic world. That's why I loved The Witcher and Demon's Souls/Dark Souls.
What Decius said.
If you implement the mechanic right, no one will cast it all the time. Imagine a slow giant having a LOT more hitboxes. This would be the first step to balance.
While I agree with all of your points, there is one I don't fully suport. 2.) Graphics I'm not a graphicswhore, I still play Baldur's Gate and whatnot. Nevertheless there are many games that benefit from good graphics. MMORPGs belong to this type of games. It's a lot more immersive, a lot more motivating to walk through a beautifully crafted world with GOOD character animations than an empty, grey shell. Take DarkFall for example. Just horrible.
Absolutely love this idea. Thus: seconded.
No, in all seriousness, it could make some things harder, but I'm willing to take that risk, because RPing is a lot more fun when you don't know exactly with whom you're dealing.
I absolutely agree with you. I just think realism should not be implemented only for the sake of realism. Every aspect of a game should have a specific function. Your idea is great but a river should not only be a disadvantage: the aggressors should also have the possibility to build a prmitive bridge for instance. Every mechanic should have it's "raison d'être"
We should not forget that PFO still remains a game and not real life. Usually, I'm all for realism, but there are certain parts of games in which realism is just a pain in the ass. Really having to eat and drink all the time would be absolutely terrible, since we don't get the reward of "tastiness" if you know what I mean. I can see the appeal of it, yes, but as soon as you get into game routine everything which is not core-material gets annoying. The freshness of those ideas wears off after time and if you see yourselves having to find a way around every damn river in the game because you can't lose your armour you will throw your keyboard against a wall. Having consequences is one thing and wanting immitate evey single thing from real life is another. If you really want to implement rust or burnt leather you d'also have to implement broken bones, illnesses that last for hours and so on.
Hi guys I work for Trend Magazine (fashion, cars, music and stuff...) in the games departement (which I lead) and thus I wrote an article about PFO. It's the game of the week. :-) So I was wondering if we could get a thread started in which we gather articles. Not lame news but real articles. Anyways, here's mine - for the German speaking among you. ;) http://www.trendmagazin.ch/maerz-2012/trend-journal/pathfinder-online
Gildur, the problem with Servers with "a bit of RPing when/if you want" is, that nobody will really engage in RP then except for a few hardcore players. And frankly, it's difficult to immerse yourself into the gameworld when people near you discuss the results of the newest football game. ALSO: xXnarutoXx
|
