| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to me to be a growing amount of frustration and personal attack on this MMO, over all the design goals we think should be implemented.
This makes sense... because we all want different things out of the game. We all want a Pathfinder MMO (or at least many of us do)... and there is only going to be one of them, so we want it to be the kind of game we'd play.
Problem is, it isn't our game. Pathfinder belongs to Paizo, and Pathfinder Online belongs to Goblinworks. They will create a product, and it will be up to us if we want to use that product. And however they choose to do it, they will alienate some people and attract others.
So no matter what happens, some of us will find Pathfinder Online... less than ideal.
Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't chime in and give our opinions, because that's important to marketing research. But let's be a little more professional, ease up on the hostility.
It's a bit like politics. Sometimes, what you perceive as problems the other side actually considers benefits, and what you see as benefits the other side abhors as problems. It isn't because they are ignoring you, or because they are stupid, or simply being jerks... it's because they have fundamentally different values and see options and their consequences through that lens.
But who should they please? I'd love it if it was me, but putting myself in the shoes of a business, there are two strategies that could work. In either case, you use market segmentation to determine what parts of your player base want what kinds of game. One strategy is to go for whatever part of the market has the highest number of players. That's where the other MMOs are. That's where you find competition. The other strategy is to differentiate yourself, and target under-served markets. You (probably) get a smaller customer base, but you have more market power within it. Given all the statements made by the developers so far, it looks like they might be going for the latter strategy. They are making a game that probably appeals to a smaller segment of the MMO potential player base. Decisions which alienate more players are not necessarily bad ones.
What this means for us is that is that we shouldn't be treating this like politics. The majority won't win. We don't have a deciding vote. And so there is no reason to attack each other with the vitriol you find among political activists.
Squeaky wheel gets th' grease, Louie.
The majority won't win.Uh, you guys aren't the majority. The majority is the consumer base at large, not a bunch of people on a messageboard.
I apologize if you misunderstood me. My meaning was not to imply that the people on this messageboard were the majority of MMO players. It was to say that we should stop arguing as though we were trying to win an election.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get thicker skin.
Goblin Squad Member
|
That makes more sense. However, I do disagree. The people who are making this game apparently read this board, so if someone is posting toxic ideas or advice, people are going to try arguing them down, and they should.I apologize if you misunderstood me. My meaning was not to imply that the people on this messageboard were the majority of MMO players. It was to say that we should stop arguing as though we were trying to win an election.The majority won't win.Uh, you guys aren't the majority. The majority is the consumer base at large, not a bunch of people on a messageboard.
Agreed, so we can all try to make this a better game. If the game was instantly created using the middle-ground (with a slight lean toward the comments of Goblinworks/Paizo employees) of everything discussed here (that I have read) so far...I would subscribe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Goblinworks needs to listen to their gut instincts and most of all, any input from Paizo.
This MMORPG offering needs little or no input from the MMORPG sector or customer base and can benefit from maximum input from the RPG and pen and paper sector.
Forget that your making an MMORPG and make a GREAT massively multiplayer, online, roleplaying game :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, pen and paper mechanics are, in no way, shape, or form, suited for massive multiplayer online games. Like, at all.
Lies.
A massively multiplayer computer game is the penultimate environment to accommodate a true RPG environment; it's just never been truly attempted before. The fact that MMORPG games have taken a different path within the mainstream is not an indicator that this is remotely impossible. Ultima Online was closer to achieving this goal 13 years ago than World of Warcraft could hope to achieve in the next 13 years.
We live in the technological age of Skyrim, yet expect no more from our MMORPGs than floating exclamation marked quests from 1-85th level, followed by scripted, instanced raid dungeons and 'dailies'. Baldur's Gate came out in 1998, you telling me you cannot even offer me that level of depth in an MMORPG game in 13 years?
|
Actually it's more, "Don't listen to the fanbase, they are only telling you what they personally want in complete disregard for what is actually functional, plausible or actually enjoyable for most people in the world."
Yeah, the market is flooded with developers who catered to fanboys in forums, and they all suck.
Best examples are:
Star Wars Galaxies -- You should have witnessed the moaning over concessions like "okay okay, we'll just make 10% of the biggest MMO universe to date allow non-consensual pvp, and only in areas which are player run and the player government there allows it" "NOooOOOoOoOoOoOoOooO and more crafting!" Oh, and that was by former UO developers who got it right once, then went around taking forum posters way too seriously.
Vanguard -- "Let's kick it old school and make it super hard and labor intensive and it'll be the hardest game EVAR! You'll EARN everything you get and you'll LOVE it!" <cheers from the message boards, fanboys posting two to three hundred times a day, tons of chatter on how the Jesus of MMO's is risen again>. They've got like one server, and the game just sucks.
|
|
SWG and Vanguard were awful, but it wasn't because there was some sort of forum audience clamoring for awful games. The developers genuinely believed, from the bottoms of their hearts, that these games were a good idea.
In the case of SWG it was listening too much to the "nobody interferes with my ability to craft and explore" in a universe where 50% of the title is "WARS" and the backdrop is an epic conflict of good and evil. They initially aimed for that "non consensual pvp in some areas" and were ground down by persuasive (or just persistent) forum posters.
EVE is far too mercenary/capitalism gone wild for a Pathfinder game, but the idea that actual people and actual danger make for the most compelling action/drama/politics in the game is dead on. People WILL fill the void that (hopefully) missing contrivances like magical "can't attack" zones will leave, and it'll be better for it.
I guess I'm saying the spirit of open pvp is good in EVE. Bad guys should suffer meaningful consequences, not simply be told "you can't do that." The hint at alignment shifts is a good start, as long as faction and alignment matter, and they won't to every player. The game is so much more compelling for it, and not just because the NPC's and stories are so anemic.
In the case of Vanguard, it was more surrounding themselves with the hardest of the hardcore. It all sounded great til the idea was exposed to anyone outside the cult, who summarily rejected it.
I don't think any project Paizo is involved in will suffer from a Vanguard death, though. They're pretty good at consulting the boards, taking our views into consideration, and letting them merely guide decisions, not letting us steer the ship. They're also known to have confidence in their product (3.5 revision? Oriental Adventures? Horror? Spaceships? You're crazy) and that we'll typically be blown away by the product, even if we thought we'd never be interested in those things.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading many of the comments from Ryan and the FAQ, my personal take is that PFO is a game where current Paizo fans and Pathfinder RPG players are not the main target audience. Certainly there is an overlap, and some Pathfinder RPG players will love PFO, but I would guess that it's under 30% (again, this is purely my take).
Because of this, there's lots of messageboard posters who are not happy that the first Pathfinder video game is not at all the game they want to play. It's particularly weird since we're used to Paizo products that get announced which are so cool that they seem to be scanning our brains to come up with great products.
I think that either a single player RPG that was based strongly on the RPG rules would be the style of game that would get the most acceptance from the existing Paizo fanbase, whether it plays like Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, or more turn based like Temple of Elemental Evil, Pool of Radiance, or the old Gold Box games from SSI. However, there are some legal issues around this, since the OGL explicitly doesn't cover computer games, and some marketplace issues, in that single player RPGs are few and far between, and unless they're cross platform (which often means that they don't have the same feel as an "old school" CRPG that was just for PC), they don't have much mass market success.
That being said, even in the MMO world, the choice for a sandbox style game rather than a themepark style game seems to not be capturing the core Paizo fanbase sensibilities. Ryan seems to have a pretty good MMO market analysis on why a strong, well developed fantasy themed sandbox MMO makes a lot of sense in the marketplace. The question is, and will remain to be seen, is it the right Pathfinder video game?
As a follow up question, is there room for other Pathfinder video games, and even room for another Pathfinder MMO that was more focused on the theme park style (i.e. more focused on adventuring and dungeon crawling rather than on politics and kingdom building)? Is Paizo open to this? Would such a theoretical game be done by Goblinwerks, or could another company do it? Is there any type of exclusivity agreement on Pathfinder games (either in total or MMOs specifically) that Goblinwerks has?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing is, pen and paper mechanics are, in no way, shape, or form, suited for massive multiplayer online games. Like, at all.Lies.
A massively multiplayer computer game is the penultimate environment to accommodate a true RPG environment; it's just never been truly attempted before. The fact that MMORPG games have taken a different path within the mainstream is not an indicator that this is remotely impossible. Ultima Online was closer to achieving this goal 13 years ago than World of Warcraft could hope to achieve in the next 13 years.
We live in the technological age of Skyrim, yet expect no more from our MMORPGs than floating exclamation marked quests from 1-85th level, followed by scripted, instanced raid dungeons and 'dailies'. Baldur's Gate came out in 1998, you telling me you cannot even offer me that level of depth in an MMORPG game in 13 years?
I think you're arguing seperate points here. Yes, you can have an MMO that has a rich immersive story.
He was saying, from a purely mechanics stand point, you can't use TTRPG mechanics. They are designed for turn based combat, which is counter intuitive to an online game, and has nothing to do with the roleplay or story aspect of the game, really.Try reading a post, before you come with the snarky "lies" b#*+!*#&.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SWG died because of SOE and the decision to revamp the entire game from the ground up. People who had been playing it for years felt betrayed, and rightly so. It felt like star wars...then suddenly it felt like a kid's star wars game. It ruined the experience for many, and they left.
Perhaps SOE listened to too many of the "ZOMG we wants teh Jedis" people, but first rule of business is you keep your core customers. They generate existing revenue, and free word of mouth advertising. You never change things to get new players, at the expense of your existing player base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Try reading a post, before you come with the snarky "lies" b&@$!$#%.
Relax. It wasn't intended to be snarky, it was actually meant quite playfully.
I concur you can't successfully port exact pen & paper mechanics into an MMORPG, but that's not to say you can't recreate the essence of the game if a serious effort was made to break the mould of conventional MMORPG.
My original post was specifically saying that the TTRPG influence should shadow the MMORPG infleunce; I treated Alouicious's response in reflection to my own (as it immediately preceded it) than that of a generalised post.
Apologies if I didn't approach the conversation directly *Bows and shuffles awkwardly out of the thread*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry man.
That was a little harsh, and I apologize.
Don't mention it! We must fight the growing abrasive tendencies on this forum, I find it hard myself at times. Nothing like a bunch of idealistic strangers coming together for a debate!
Years on the Darkfall forums had me considering climbing a clock tower.
P.S I also just saw I sent that at 3am when I was indeed angry and drunk. Might have left a little of my mood in there :D
