Seriously guys, the visuals are crap


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Jiminy wrote:
Mavrickindigo wrote:
It looks like a late 90s or early 2000s game, not something to come out of 2014. I know this is your first foray into video games, but clearly an MMO needs to either look and feel really good or be purposely stylized. This looks like neither.
His main point has been refuted and therefore his premise is incorrect.

How exactly do you refute an opinion that the game looks bad. It's an opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

Demon Gate wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Mavrickindigo wrote:
It looks like a late 90s or early 2000s game, not something to come out of 2014. I know this is your first foray into video games, but clearly an MMO needs to either look and feel really good or be purposely stylized. This looks like neither.
His main point has been refuted and therefore his premise is incorrect.
How exactly do you refute an opinion that the game looks bad. It's an opinion.

Because the opinion that the OP gave was not just 'the game looks bad', but rather 'the visuals are crap' was based on the premise that they looked like they were from the late 90's or early 2000's.

The examples I gave definitively showed that games in beta and released in the late 90's and early 2000's had graphics far cruder and more cartoon like that the alpha visuals of PFO.

The OP then went on to say that a MMO had to be one of two things (graphics wise) to not 'be crap', that being 'having really good graphics' or being 'stylized'. The second example I gave showed that the graphics of PFO are definitively stylized after the animation style of Pathfinder.

So while he gave an opinion, he also gave reasons for the formation of that opinion. I countered those reasons which therefore should invalidate the opinion of the OP. Note, he did not just say "I don't like the graphics", as you're correct, that sort of opinion cannot be countered - this thread however was not like that.

Goblin Squad Member

Demon Gate wrote:
How exactly do you refute an opinion that the game looks bad. It's an opinion.

"I don't like the way the game looks" is an opinion.

"I think the visuals are crappy" is an opinion.

"Seriously guys, the visuals are crap" is a value judgement, not an opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

Demon Gate wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Mavrickindigo wrote:
It looks like a late 90s or early 2000s game, not something to come out of 2014. I know this is your first foray into video games, but clearly an MMO needs to either look and feel really good or be purposely stylized. This looks like neither.
His main point has been refuted and therefore his premise is incorrect.
How exactly do you refute an opinion that the game looks bad. It's an opinion.

Like this.

Its an Alpha. Its been stated many times that these are not the final graphics. Its safe to say, they'll use "crappy" graphics until they are closer to OE which is probably over 2 years away. Plenty of time for technology to be released and graphics to get "crappy" again.

The MMO graphics are stylized. Whether or not it looks like they are to you does not change anything. His name is Wayne Reynolds, look him up.

So how do you refute an opinion?

If the opinion includes statements that are to be taken as fact, they have to be accurate. What makes him an authority on the quantifiable and qualifying standards of what an MMO has to be? He states that "an MMO needs to either look and feel really good (a purpose of an alpha is to work towards feeling good) and look good or be purposefully stylized (which it was, even though he was too ignorant to realize it)" How is he in a position of authority to mandate this? He's not.

So, since you cannot see dark matter, oxygen, and many other things with the naked does that mean that they do not exist?

The game was stylized. The posters inability to see that and ignorance of the contrary invalidates his opinion as being anything but useless. He may as well say the Earth is flat.

Goblin Squad Member

here are the facts:

compared to other already released or already once overhauled games PFO's

-texture quality is fine
-animations are really bad
-effects are really bad
-audio/visual but especially visual gameplay feedback is really bad

while I have to strongly disagree that the OPs statements can be refuted by "the games artstyle is stylized" I have to say that the above points are not relevant until the game is actually released aka Open Enrollment.

Normally I'd say the game is released once thy start taking money for it but I fell this argument will not work in this forums culture.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Summarizing:

OP: think the graphics are bad.

Constructive comments: It's well known the graphic will be better in some time at the future.

The rest is a bit off-topic or a bit too harsh.

Ps: Welcome to PFO Foruns. There are a lot of things to be read in goblinworks blog.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

TEO Papaver wrote:
Normally I'd say the game is released once thy start taking money for it but I fell this argument will not work in this forums culture.

I agree with you, but I think that ship has sailed a long time ago, with Kickstarter and Early Access becoming more and more the standard in the industry.

Goblin Squad Member

Demon Gate wrote:
How exactly do you refute an opinion that the game looks bad. It's an opinion.

There are at least two schools of thought on this question.

One holds that there is such a thing as fact, and that fact is more valuable than opinion.

The other holds that facts are also opinions, everything is relative, and nothing is more valuable than any other thing.

If you hold that there are facts and facts are more valuable than opinions, then you can refute an opinion with a contradicting citation of fact.

If you hold that facts are merely opinions then nothing can be known.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If facts are merely opinions, therefore there is no meaning in post anything here, since every single post is merely a subjective opinion. The cake is a lie and the truth is out there. So we can discard this idea for now. :D

In the matter, I can see different points of view resulted by different levels of perceptions(differents perception rolls maybe). The thing I can't point is whoever rolled the highest... ;)

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:


I doubt steam would even sell this game for EE. For one it will have no ESRB, and second I have never heard of a limited release game selling on Steam. Maybe when OE comes around, and the gates are completely open.

HAH! This is legitimately quite hilarious. Both of those have been proven, time and time again, to be absolutely no issue for steam releases. Despite customers complaining about it.

Goblin Squad Member

Zindarak wrote:


My above point was that you can not charge 20$ on Steam and give them EE when the 35$ store bakers don't even get EE by default.

Sure GW can.

Its there game, not ours.

They can do anything they want.

We can complain, whine and moan about it till we're blue in the face but they have our money and we can't get it back.

Add the simple fact that if we're still around at this point we are committed, dedicated and short of the entire project self destructing in the next year and never happening WE WILL PLAY IT.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yeah, they can, but it would be borderline fraud.

Goblin Squad Member

As it was already mentioned the game is in Alpha. This isn't an excuse for the graphics, but it is the case that at this stage in the game development you probably are not going to see final art assets, models, and shaders (along with many other assets like music, sounds, and such). Each of these makes major differences in the appearance of the game so I wouldn't be surprised to see the game look vastly different a year from now even without people critiquing the current appearance of the game.

That doesn't mean I don't think the graphics are not important however if this was the end product I would argue with people that might say it looks fine because it is all "stylized." At the current depiction it feels like it is going for a realistic appearance, but isn't to the point where it is at a good feeling state.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Yeah, they can, but it would be borderline fraud.

No, not really. They never said on the Kickstarter that this was the only way to gain access to EE.

That is like saying its fraud for a company to put a game on sale after you bought it at full price.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fraud? No. Incredibly rude move? Yes.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bottom line. I would rather that they be rude than that they be "fail".

Letting enough players in through steam at a lower price point (because needed) does not take away that "I" am in EE. It just ensures that there are enough people in EE to really make it more than a circle jerk tiny server of a couple thousand.

Of course I will accept something in the way of consideration as a soothing "peace offer" but I want them to do what they need to do to get the game going and the features/classes implemented.

Goblin Squad Member

Per Bringslite, if there's a point at which being "fair" means we get nothing for our venture instead of less than we expected, then there's a choice to be made.

Maybe if that happens, they'll crowdforge it. I can see the poll now. Would you rather

  • a) we give people what you got for a less, or
  • b) Shut the game down for lack of funds.

Goblin Squad Member

For $100 in the KS, you got Month 1 EE.

For $100 now, you can get month 2 EE.

For $35 then or now, you can get ~month 17 EE.

So the precedent has already been set that more money AND earlier purchase gets earlier access, and less money OR later purchase gets later access. I don't see any reason in the world why GW couldn't offer an $80 month 6 EE or a $50 month 12 EE if that's what they think the best way to meet their growth curve goals is.

That doesn't take anything away from me; I got what I paid for, and I'm not losing my head start. If it helps build a larger community and keep GW in business, I'm all in favor.

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

Don't forget other things that backers recieved like destiny twin, all the daily deal items, etc. These are things (I imagine) GW won't offer again so even if they opened it up to let people in at month 3 for a sale of $20 I would be ok with that.

We got plenty of benefits that I don't have an issue with them doing a reduced price or sale to get people into the game to meet their growth curve.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always found it somewhat difficult to understand folks who feel that a lower price at a later time somehow harms them. To me, purchase decisions are made based on the factors in play at the time of the decision, and are (or rather, should be) internal to the person considering the purchase.

If the price lowers later, how does that retro-actively change the value of the purchase? If it was worth the purchase then, it feels as if it remains worth the purchase, and thus not worth being upset.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
If the price lowers later, how does that retro-actively change the value of the purchase?

While I understand and largely share your position, there's a reason some retailers offer Price Protection. I don't know that it really applies here, though. The way I look at it, I was giving money to Goblinworks because I believe in PFO and wanted to support it. I don't want to feel taken advantage of, but my main goal is the success of PFO.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

I've always found it somewhat difficult to understand folks who feel that a lower price at a later time somehow harms them. To me, purchase decisions are made based on the factors in play at the time of the decision, and are (or rather, should be) internal to the person considering the purchase.

If the price lowers later, how does that retro-actively change the value of the purchase? If it was worth the purchase then, it feels as if it remains worth the purchase, and thus not worth being upset.

Well I don't think that it is fair that player X trusted the company when it was five guys in a cave creating a game, and just get to pay more than player Y, who waited three years to see if the game would be cool or not.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Where does the whole trust bit come from? Basically the KS backers are low level investors in the game and I think the devs have treated that relationship well. As an 'owner' of the game who already got a lot off goodies for my investment I think opening the game to others within EE is only good business. My biggest concern as far as 'fairness' goes would be for the $35 backers who might not be well balanced against latecomers, I was at $100 so am not as familiar with the lower supporter perks.

The biggest issue is making sure that the game is truly ready for an influx before letting others in. As we will already start paying for game time within a few months of EE starting GW's might have more freedom to increase features at that point. What I have seen from others participating in alpha highlights the potential of the game BUT it is not ready for the average gamer yet. The devs know what they are doing and I greatly anticipate the arrival of EE.

P.s. In regards to minimum viable products I made the mistake of paying to try Rust, that was the worst game investment ever. It exemplifies why GW's needs to put in the safeguards it has. I will never play rust again because it is murderhoboville. When GWs releases PFO for EE the reputation system is the most important aspect.

Scarab Sages

Look, we paied $100 and we recieved EE, PDFs, Destiny's Twin (double account) and a chance to participate in game development by disccusing it with the devs. In fact we (the comunnity) are a sponsor of the project.

The newcomers will pay, let's say, $20 for a account. Will start late in the game, behind all the EEs. Will not participate of this early development circle, won't recieve any benefits. They can buy some of the PDFs, buy 2 accounts to emulate the DT, and thus will spend more than we.

And we helped the project to be done at first.

Quote:
The devs know what they are doing and I greatly anticipate the arrival of EE.

Seconded that!

Goblin Squad Member

I bought about 10 games during the steam summer sale for about $5-8 each. Most of them were $60 when they were released, plus probably another $30 for each expansion that came with my purchases. Just sayin

Scarab Sages

Dont forget the Humble Bundle this week...

Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
...steam summer sale...

Gabe Newell is eeevil. :-)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys, let's let this negatively-titled post drop off the front page rather than continuing to bump it with irrelevancies.

Here's the line marking the end of the thread:

==========================================================================

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ok


That's why it's imperative that everything is great on the gameplay/balance/numbers side. I'm worried because if they spec this too much like other combat based sb games, it'll not be able to compete. Offer something that plays like dnd mmo plus with incentive to both flesh, grind, and fight, it will have appeal. The mere idea of settlement v settlement with these graphics is not enough.

Goblin Squad Member

D'oh! So close!

Guurzak wrote:

Guys, let's let this negatively-titled post drop off the front page rather than continuing to bump it with irrelevancies.

Here's the line marking the end of the thread:

==========================================================================


yes plz stop bumping it now :)

Goblin Squad Member

Seriously guys. No bumping.

Goblin Squad Member

The thread went on a tangent, and I do not think the Steam, Cheap Deal discussion was irrelevant. A bit premature maybe. Most people seem to be ok with the idea that non-backers should be allowed in when the need arises, at low-entry pricing. KS backers have some EE exlusivity already, and also several other exclusive perks that came with the pledges.

But yeah, the title really sucks. However, this will not be the last of these threads, I am afraid. Better get used to it. Some will fall off the page quickly, others not so much.

*walks away from the thread*

Goblin Squad Member

Look, we are being serious.... DO NOT BUMP THIS THREAD.

*draws a line in the sand*

________________________________________________________________________

Goblin Squad Member

*draws an even bigger line in the sand*

JUST IN CASE

Goblin Squad Member

=========================================================================

Goblin Squad Member

Is this where the volleyball tournament is taking place?


guyyyys stop bumping :(

Goblin Squad Member

understood

Goblin Squad Member

Ok. You all are correct.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yeah, stop bump !


Guys it's not funny anymore you have to stop.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is srs bsns stop it

Goblin Squad Member

I'm confused, is there supposed to be a difference bewtween this line:

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________ ___
and this line:
Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:
=========================================================================


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The first line is when Jesus carried you... Or something...

Goblin Squad Member

Vali Haggarsson wrote:
The first line is when Jesus carried you... Or something...

I lol'd


-Bows- Thank you, thank you! I am here all week. Tip your waitresses!

Goblin Squad Member

Well that explains everything.


You are welcome. Just your friendly neighborhood Haggarsson, glad to help out at every turn!

51 to 100 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Seriously guys, the visuals are crap All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.