First Impressions

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think this game needs kobolds to be the main villains. I know some of you guys don't want that, but I'm speaking for the other 99% of us.

[Audoucet]

jimibones83 wrote:

And please, anyone who reads this, I don't care about your opinion about "graphics is deserves" doesn't matter. I know there are some of you out there that dont think they matter. I was speaking for the other 95% of us.

I completely respect that. Myself, it's not that I don't care about graphics, it's just that I genuinely prefer simpler graphics, than very advanced graphics. Because most of the time, I find it easier to succeed in creating a good aesthetic, with primitive graphics.

[Dakcenturi]

jimibones83 wrote:

I was going to play because I believed in the game. I thought because of the improved style of play that after a year or 2 it would be bringing in the kind of money it would take to re invest in the graphics it deserves. Unfortunately I now see that that's not the plan and not cared about what so ever, so I will likely not play at all, I'll just wait and see what the next game of its kind looks like if there even is one.

Erm I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Ryan said that is specifically what they will potentially be doing.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

We have to sell people on the idea that we will, eventually, have AAA class graphics and we will eventually have achieved the kind of aesthetic that meets or exceeds AAA expectations. But we won't have that for a very, very long time. Instead, we'll have a series of incremental steps where things get very slightly better, continuously.

[Guurzak]

Yeah, I was confused by that as well. Ryan specifically posted that he was planning to do exactly what jimibones83 wanted and expected, and jimibones83 says "so since you're not doing that, I'm out."

[Cirolle]

I think he was talking about this.

Maybe he didn't get longer in this thread.
Maybe he saw that it would take a long long time.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Having graphics that are no better than 80% as good as AAA has no meaningful market effect. People who care about graphics will hate the product. Since we won't be anywhere close to 80% of AAA I can't worry about it. If it's a fatal flaw, it's an unfixable fatal flaw.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Guurzak wrote:

Yeah, I was confused by that as well. Ryan specifically posted that he was planning to do exactly what jimibones83 wanted and expected, and jimibones83 says "so since you're not doing that, I'm out."

I will bet that it is the fact that the graphics are not a priority, on the level that jimi wants, that is the problem. The following sentence (by Ryan) includes a time table that is not ok for jimi. Perfectly ok as a personal choice.

Yet, we sometimes write things and feel differently later. That is ok too.

[jimibones83]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think this game needs kobolds to be the main villains. I know some of you guys don't want that, but I'm speaking for the other 99% of us.

I like your wise remark and all, but I have a feeling my statistics are more accurate than yours

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

jimibones83 wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think this game needs kobolds to be the main villains. I know some of you guys don't want that, but I'm speaking for the other 99% of us.

I like your wise remark and all, but I have a feeling my statistics are more accurate than yours

And I'm just as sure you aren't. All you have are opinions, which are all equally valid.

Goblinworks isn't trying to make a big budget MMO, because *they don't work anymore*. They all go bust, end up F2P, and end up closing down relatively shortly.

They are trying a different approach. They are targeting a different market. That might not be your market, and that is unfortunate for you. But they will not suddenly change course and shoot for a AAA game, because they are already committed on their current design.

[Audoucet]

jimibones83 wrote:

I like your wise remark and all, but I have a feeling my statistics are more accurate than yours

I think not.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think his statistics are definitely more accurate than mine, but I still think they're wrong.

[jimibones83]

Im not the head of a market research firm, I was just trying to make a point. You guys get the point, there's no need to debate a number I made up. Still, as Kobold kinda implied, its not wildly inaccurate, its just inaccurate

[jimibones83]

Cirolle wrote:

I think he was talking about this.

Maybe he didn't get longer in this thread.
Maybe he saw that it would take a long long time.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Having graphics that are no better than 80% as good as AAA has no meaningful market effect. People who care about graphics will hate the product. Since we won't be anywhere close to 80% of AAA I can't worry about it. If it's a fatal flaw, it's an unfixable fatal flaw.

Thats correct. I missed the longer one he posted after that that explained things better, which restored hope:) I just don't want to invest a year or 2 into a game that I won't be able to get my friends to play at OE or within a reasonable amount of time thereafter

[Audoucet]

jimibones83 wrote:

Im not the head of a market research firm, I was just trying to make a point. You guys get the point, there's no need to debate a number I made up. Still, as Kobold kinda implied, its not wildly inaccurate, its just inaccurate

Thing is, last years showed us great success, for games with poor graphics. Rust, Minecraft, Papers Please, FTL...

[jimibones83]

@TEO You only think your as sure as I am. Its very clear that the market for graphics far exceeds the one for without, expressed no better than by goblinworks itself in targeting a small crowd for their very own game with low end graphics. This is not an opinion, graphics being in high demand is a fact. That was what my made up percentage was to reflect.

And its not big budget MMO's that don't work anymore, its theme park MMO's that don't work. Do you think if they raised the largest game budget ever had that they wouldn't use it? Lol, no. They would certainly use it. That's because its not the budget that fails the game, its the game that fails the budget. That is an issue with theme park MMO's that sandbox MMO's hopes to break free of. Only time will tell if my thoughts in this paragraph are correct, but its pretty obvious to me. We can debate it if you want.

[jimibones83]

Audoucet wrote:

jimibones83 wrote:

Im not the head of a market research firm, I was just trying to make a point. You guys get the point, there's no need to debate a number I made up. Still, as Kobold kinda implied, its not wildly inaccurate, its just inaccurate

Thing is, last years showed us great success, for games with poor graphics. Rust, Minecraft, Papers Please, FTL...

I think "great" is subject to interpretation there. They don't have Boulders Gate status that's for sure. I mean its cool that good games can somewhat overcome the hurdle of graphics, but I still think for a game to truly be a game changer, like I was hoping for PFO, you need it all, including but not limited to graphics

[Kobold Catgirl]

Alexander Damocles wrote:

And I'm just as sure you aren't. All you have are opinions, which are all equally valid.

jimijimjimijimjimjim(hasalwaysbeenadecentsorttooldbilly)bones wrote:

@TEO You only think your as sure as I am.

All opinions are equally valid. But some are more equally valid than others.

[Kobold Catgirl]

jimibones wrote:

Boulders Gate

Baldur's Gate's hick brother?

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

The huge budget requires a fast return on investment. If you spend $300 million on a game, you want your money back, and not in a 20 year timeframe. The problem is, that kind of profits just don't happen anymore. WoW managed it, and it was fluke. No one has repeated its success, and no one likely will.

But if you take a smaller budget, with investors willing to wait a little longer to get their money back, then you can see what happens. You make a good game, aimed at a small market that will respond to your efforts. You don't try to make millions, you try to make your money back and profits after that are a bonus.

I don't think you can successfully make a AAA MMO anymore, because they simply cost too much to get a return on your investment in time to satisfy your investors.

[Crash_00]

If they were able to crowdfund a $300 million game, then it would likely be a success. Revenue after game release would only need to cover upkeep to meet costs and everything else would be profit since the game is already paid for.

Crowdfudning that amount is currently a pipe dream though.

TEO has the issue with big budget MMOs down 100%. They pay a ridiculous amount of money up front, and hope to get that money back, plus upkeep costs, plus extra for profit. It just doesn't work today. Especially when you add in that people are shying away from subscription models.

I won't say that a AAA MMO isn't possible anymore, I think we'll see them in the future, they just have to have a wildly different approach at creation, which is what we're seeing in this case. GW is trying a wildly different approach.

As to the success of low graphics and non-AAA games, there is no denying it. We are in the middle of The Indie Revolution. Sure, it might not sell as many copies, but if a single man makes a game for $100 and it grosses 2 million, that's a huge success. I don't think anyone can say that a 20,000 times return over three years isn't a success (like Beat Hazard). Minecraft brought in 101 mil in 2012. Pretending these aren't successful is playing ostrich and sticking your head in the sand. Success is bringing in profit and making the game you want.

[Caldeathe Baequiannia]

In general, when somebody uses "xxx is/are 90%|95%|99% yyyy" I presume they are speaking rhetorically, since it is 99% likely to have been made up on the spot.

I've only seen two surveys about the importance of graphics to an online game that had more than 200 participants, and in both considerably less than 95% ranked it as more than moderate importance. (One as about 70% ranking at is "moderately important" or more (and at that, almost all of those were "moderately") the other was less than 15% ranking it as anything other than third after storyline and play.

[Sepherum]

jimibones83 wrote:

Cirolle wrote:

I think he was talking about this.

Maybe he didn't get longer in this thread.
Maybe he saw that it would take a long long time.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Having graphics that are no better than 80% as good as AAA has no meaningful market effect. People who care about graphics will hate the product. Since we won't be anywhere close to 80% of AAA I can't worry about it. If it's a fatal flaw, it's an unfixable fatal flaw.

Thats correct. I missed the longer one he posted after that that explained things better, which restored hope:) I just don't want to invest a year or 2 into a game that I won't be able to get my friends to play at OE or within a reasonable amount of time thereafter

Bro, I have two kinds of gamer friends when it comes to Pathfinder Online. Those who will eventually join me in-game and those who can't get past the extremely negative reputation of 'pvp' itself among many MMO players. Graphics aren't nearly the barrier to entry that the idea of a 'pvp' game not being any fun is. I wish Mr. Dancey had never written 'murder simulator' (although it was in a rather heated thread that needed some clarification from someone in the know, as I recall) because it had the opposite effect from what was intended. I'd never heard the phrase myself; now you hear many times "Murder simulator? Oh yes it is."

[Audoucet]

jimibones83 wrote:

Audoucet wrote:

jimibones83 wrote:

Im not the head of a market research firm, I was just trying to make a point. You guys get the point, there's no need to debate a number I made up. Still, as Kobold kinda implied, its not wildly inaccurate, its just inaccurate

Thing is, last years showed us great success, for games with poor graphics. Rust, Minecraft, Papers Please, FTL...

I think "great" is subject to interpretation there. They don't have Boulders Gate status that's for sure. I mean its cool that good games can somewhat overcome the hurdle of graphics, but I still think for a game to truly be a game changer, like I was hoping for PFO, you need it all, including but not limited to graphics

Minecraft is the best seller game ever, more than WoW. Rust is Steam's second bestseller.

[FMS Quietus]

I think thanks to the age of Steam and early access, the concept that Goblin Works has been working towards and now starting to implement is becoming a more common thing. I personally picked up 7 Days To Die and have watched the small development crew there add updates and constantly improve on the game. This included the graphics, pretty substantially. It can happen. It does happen and it's going to continue to happen.

This new trend of game development is the future. How far and how much is what remains to be seen.

But as long as there's enough interest to warrant an investment, game developers will always choose this option going forward. The days of having things developed behind lock and key are fading. Open development is the future because it offers the lowest risk vs. rewards for the companies and honestly is the only way startups have a shot at competing to grow a product.

I will give you - I don't know - three examples off the top of my head - Minecraft, Day Z and Path of Exile.

Now I'll give you a few other companies doing the same thing as Goblin Works is doing - Trion Worlds with Trove, BeHavior with Eternal Crusade, SOE with Everquest Next.

And that's not even counting the other Kickstarters that have been funded and made major waves in the process.

The point of all of this is that it's not a released game. This is a jumping off point. From where I stand that point looks pretty damn good to start out on.

My 2 cents.

[jimibones83]

@TEO I understand that, but I still firmly believe that is not the reason those games fail. If they could keep every customer they get for the 2-3 year time frame PFO is shooting for then they would certainly make many times their money back, but they don't because the game gets boring after a short time. The main objective of this game is to change that, and that alone has nothing to do with the budget. I mean, its undenyable that a game with a smaller budget will meet its threshold sooner, that's not debatable. I'm just saying that its the game that was failing, not those big budgets.

[jimibones83]

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

In general, when somebody uses "xxx is/are 90%|95%|99% yyyy" I presume they are speaking rhetorically, since it is 99% likely to have been made up on the spot.

I've only seen two surveys about the importance of graphics to an online game that had more than 200 participants, and in both considerably less than 95% ranked it as more than moderate importance. (One as about 70% ranking at is "moderately important" or more (and at that, almost all of those were "moderately") the other was less than 15% ranking it as anything other than third after storyline and play.

I could believe the first example, but the second seems out of touch with reality. I mean, I see argument after argument on forums about graphics. Its certainly important to a lot of people.

[jimibones83]

Audoucet wrote:

Minecraft is the best seller game ever, more than WoW. Rust is Steam's second bestseller.

lol, isn't minecraft free? My son plays it on ps3, he downloaded it for free, as did he on his moms phone. I know about every kid 13 and under plays it but if its free then it doesn't seem like it should count

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

jimibones83 wrote:

Audoucet wrote:

Minecraft is the best seller game ever, more than WoW. Rust is Steam's second bestseller.

lol, isn't minecraft free? My son plays it on ps3, he downloaded it for free, as did he on his moms phone. I know about every kid 13 and under plays it but if its free then it doesn't seem like it should count

Those are effectively demo versions. Minecraft for the PC is a paid download.

jimibones83 wrote:

I mean, I see argument after argument on forums about graphics.

Forum posters are usually a vocal minority of gamers who tend to be very critical of most games. There are a few hundred PFO posters here. There are several thousand early enrollment accounts. Forums will discuss things endlessly. Polls tend to have more weight, sales even more so.

jimibones83 wrote:

If they could keep every customer they get for the 2-3 year time frame

They can't. Big budget MMOs tend to have players last about six months. Themeparks require that kind of huge budget. A sandbox doesn't, which means the company can be leaner and make its profit sooner. It has to focus on a niche market who won't jump ship for the next big pretty MMO. Because big pretty MMOs have their fanbase, and people haven't focused on a sandbox MMO with constrained PvP.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Minecraft is not free.

[jimibones83]

Also, its not the investment plan I'm arguing, its a good plan. I'm just saying all the mmo's that failed in the past failed because the style of play. Still, this new investment plan is still wiser, even if it wasn't the type of investment plan that was used in the past causing games to fail. All of this aside, I'm glad to hear all the reinforcement about how the graphics will indeed improve in the future, that's all I was hoping for

[jimibones83]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Minecraft is not free.

it is on ps3. I can't say for certain whether my boy got it for free on his moms phone or not, but I know it was free here at my house on the ps3

Edit* Ah, I see an above mentione of a demo version. That's probably what it is I suppose

[jimibones83]

TEO yur last paragraph has frustrated me for the last time. I'm done having my point ignored so that someone else can continue making one that mine refutes. Good day to everyone

[Crash_00]

It isn't boredom that gets most players to jump ship from the high budget, pretty games with voice acting and [insert over bells and whistles here]. It's, wait for it...the next big high budget, pretty game with [insert bells and whistles +1 here].

That's the problem with catering to the graphics are most important crowd. The moment the next big thing comes out with better graphics, they jump to it. Graphics fanboys are notoriously migratory.

The game doesn't have to just manage to not be boring. It has to manage to be entertaining enough to overcome the next shiny thing.

Minecraft is not free. If you read the last post I made, you'll see that it brought in 101 million back in 2012. I'm pretty sure that should count.

The biggest thing against most new MMOs these days is the nature of the MMO. People play MMOs usually to play with other people. MMO x comes out that you're excited about, but all your friends still play MMO y. How long do you play MMO x before you end up going back to your friends? From what I've seen, this is a huge reason WoW is still so successful. So many people play it, that it's the game to play if you want to play with your friends. People get lonely, and go back after trying new games.

[Lam]

Gol Morbis wrote:

Oh, right. Sorry. Morbis is a veteran of the Great Edition Wars. I have a bit of a trigger finger when it comes to 4E.

("D&D 4E is basically just an MMO" is one of the stupidest ways to disparage the game is all. There is plenty wrong with 4E. Being like an MMO isn't one of them.)

What is this editions thing? THere was the Chainmail fantasy supplement, and then the three books and then a couple more, but I was "AWAY". THen there was this ADnD thing and it got confusing after that.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Lam wrote:

Gol Morbis wrote:

Oh, right. Sorry. Morbis is a veteran of the Great Edition Wars. I have a bit of a trigger finger when it comes to 4E.

("D&D 4E is basically just an MMO" is one of the stupidest ways to disparage the game is all. There is plenty wrong with 4E. Being like an MMO isn't one of them.)

What is this editions thing? THere was the Chainmail fantasy supplement, and then the three books and then a couple more, but I was "AWAY". THen there was this ADnD thing and it got confusing after that.

Have Mercy! I got started with Chainmail miniatures battles. I had a paper route JUST TO BUY MINIATURES. I was a sick puppy...

[Forencith of Phaeros, TSV]

Dakcenturi wrote:

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:

One other thought: make it easier to self target. Clerics have a bit of a challenge in getting their heal spells to target themselves. Accidentally healed the NPC that was killing me. Also, it makes the one round defensive buffs kind of difficult to use.

Long term: SWTOR had a fairly nice system where if you used a beneificial option on a hostile, it automatically targeted you with the effect. So, if I in a fight, I could keep my target as my target, and still heal myself.

Yes I ran into this a few times last night. Completely agree and the SWTOR would be a great route, although I suppose I could see the potential for being able to heal hostiles too. Your player enemy is fighting some mobs and you sneak up and heal the mobs in order to let them kill your enemy. :)

Exactly. I hope they do not fix this...example, positive energy on undead does damage. Also, there might be fine line between friend and enemy when it comes to battles between factions. I hope I have the choice on who to damage and who to heal at any given time without regard to my current reputation list.

I do hope there is an easy way to target yourself.

[Forencith of Phaeros, TSV]

Stephen Cheney wrote:

For now, F1 targets you for your heals (and if you're in a party, the other F keys target party members). We'll probably have smarter targeting for beneficial spells eventually (there's design for having to do some kind of override to attack friendlies and being unable to buff/heal hostiles, which should help if all PvE enemies are treated as hostiles).

I know we have a minority of TSV members who hope to be pro-PvE mob. An interesting choice I know, especially when the mobs will always be anti-character. However, the system as is works logically. If positive energy heals wounds on living flesh, why wouldn't targeting an Ogre with it heal them? It can be argued that your intent would preclude that...but your current target is the representation of your intent. If you do not want to heal the Ogre, don't target the Ogre and channel positive energy.

While I understand the argument for convenience, my personal opinion is that removing our sandbox tools (options for creative play and tactics) in the name of convenience is an unfortunate trade. I would prefer working up an alternate path to the convenience that does not remove our sandbox tools.

[Lam]

Or is this pursuing a Nash equilibrium?

Everyone knows that high capitalized, superb graphics is where the market is. Is there a larger market, with enough graphics and some real play?

What small markets are bing left behind? What big markets are being ignored because "everyone knows".

Again, "The night is not black if you know that it is green. Don't bother looking you're too blind to see."

And I do not know that in the original, but rather the Fever Tree cover of Springfield!

If the most toxic elements are bored, what would the market be?

[Tyncale]

Nihimon wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Fifty new posts!? Jesus, did Bluddwolf say something about Nihimon's weight agai...

Nope, but for the record I'm 6'4" and about 315 lbs right now. "Fat and Happy" is, I believe, the operative phrase :)

Those silly avatars! When I first heard your voice on the alpha footage, I simply could not match it with your Elvish avatar. I was expecting a high-pitched, fast talking, slightly arrogant voice , instead I hear this relaxed, low rumble.

Makes more sense to me now, I am picturing a large happy Bear from now on! :)

[Audoucet]

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

I know we have a minority of TSV members who hope to be pro-PvE mob. An interesting choice I know, especially when the mobs will always be anti-character. However, the system as is works logically. If positive energy heals wounds on living flesh, why wouldn't targeting an Ogre with it heal them? It can be argued that your intent would preclude that...but your current target is the representation of your intent. If you do not want to heal the Ogre, don't target the Ogre and channel positive energy.

While I understand the argument for convenience, my personal opinion is that removing our sandbox tools (options for creative play and tactics) in the name of convenience is an unfortunate trade. I would prefer working up an alternate path to the convenience that does not remove our sandbox tools.

Well, in most modern MMO, auto self-target is an option, not a mandatory thing.

I don't see why we should make a choice, when everyone can be happy.

[FMS Quietus]

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

For now, F1 targets you for your heals (and if you're in a party, the other F keys target party members). We'll probably have smarter targeting for beneficial spells eventually (there's design for having to do some kind of override to attack friendlies and being unable to buff/heal hostiles, which should help if all PvE enemies are treated as hostiles).

I know we have a minority of TSV members who hope to be pro-PvE mob. An interesting choice I know, especially when the mobs will always be anti-character. However, the system as is works logically. If positive energy heals wounds on living flesh, why wouldn't targeting an Ogre with it heal them? It can be argued that your intent would preclude that...but your current target is the representation of your intent. If you do not want to heal the Ogre, don't target the Ogre and channel positive energy.

While I understand the argument for convenience, my personal opinion is that removing our sandbox tools (options for creative play and tactics) in the name of convenience is an unfortunate trade. I would prefer working up an alternate path to the convenience that does not remove our sandbox tools.

Would this apply to friendly fire then? IE- a fireball you cast could burn your fellow party members?

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

I do hope there is an easy way to target yourself.

Stephen Cheney wrote:

For now, F1 targets you for your heals (and if you're in a party, the other F keys target party members). We'll probably have smarter targeting for beneficial spells eventually (there's design for having to do some kind of override to attack friendlies and being unable to buff/heal hostiles, which should help if all PvE enemies are treated as hostiles).

[Being]

jimibones83 wrote:

...I just don't want to invest a year or 2 into a game that I won't be able to get my friends to play at OE or within a reasonable amount of time thereafter

Either I don't understand this, or I don't understand friendship.

If they are friends their friendship will be unaffected by whatever games they or you play. And friendship is only enhanced by new friendships. If your friends aren't playing the game you are playing there is no harm and only good to making new friends in your new environment.

[Dorgan Berkham]

Being wrote:

jimibones83 wrote:

...I just don't want to invest a year or 2 into a game that I won't be able to get my friends to play at OE or within a reasonable amount of time thereafter

Either I don't understand this, or I don't understand friendship.

If they are friends their friendship will be unaffected by whatever games they or you play. And friendship is only enhanced by new friendships. If your friends aren't playing the game you are playing there is no harm and only good to making new friends in your new environment.

He'd rather play with his friends, but they won't play the game because of the quality of graphics.

[Being]

That his friends value graphic quality more than they value gameplay with their friend brings me to the question regarding the nature of such a friendship is all.

[Dario]

Being wrote:

That his friends value graphic quality more than they value gameplay with their friend brings me to the question regarding the nature of such a friendship is all.

Is it your contention then that all in a group of friends should always do things together? Do disparate interests somehow undermine the nature of friendship to you?

[<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves]

@KC

Where you at KC? I think we need a one-liner to get this thread back on track.

[Being]

Dario wrote:

Being wrote:

That his friends value graphic quality more than they value gameplay with their friend brings me to the question regarding the nature of such a friendship is all.

Is it your contention then that all in a group of friends should always do things together? Do disparate interests somehow undermine the nature of friendship to you?

No. But if I wish to play a game but the preferences of my friends lie in another direction I can act independently of them and make new friends. My existing friends don't thereafter exclude me. I will not have lost anything but only gained new friends.

I shouldn't be so dependent of the values of my friends that their interests govern my choices or we aren't really talking friendship. Sounds more like dependency.

[Dakcenturi]

Being wrote:

Sounds more like dependency.

Ouch.. I felt the heat from that burn.

[Banesama]

I see where Being is coming from. I have TT friends that only play Shooter type MMOs which I have no interest in. They are still my friends but I won't join them to play those games. At the same time, I know they aren't interested in PFO, but that won't stop me from playing PFO and forming 'friends' within PFO. My friends and I understand this and it doesn't hurt our friendship in any way.