Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[General Article] Pathfinder Online: Early Access Review in Progress #3
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
I think next week, yes in the midst of E3, I’ll finally put a wrap on this project and assign a score to Pathfinder Online as it stands now. But let me start this week by saying that fresh of The Witcher 3 and another Early Access game known as ARK: Survival Evolved makes Pathfinder feel even less finished. PFO can be enjoyable, it can… but the more I play it the less I can recommend investing your own money in the River Kingdoms for now.
Read more of Bill Murphy's Pathfinder Online: Early Access Review in Progress #3.
)
Comments
If GW wants my money and others, they are going to have to try harder.
Right now, paying for one of the worst early access games, that also has a SUBSCRIPTION, is not enough.
Oh yeah, and their website is pretty bad too.
Thank you for finally mentioning the one thing that turned me off from the get go. The jump animation or lack of. Basically the camera does not follow you at all when you jump and you get the picture you showed above, a nice shot of your character's lower section hanging in the air, lol.
The real question is, aren't these guys playing their own game? And have they not played other MMOs? It seems like something from a start up company in the year 2000, like they aren't using what the genre has already refined. It's boggling. Let alone the fact that they are griping at people who complain about the game or who aren't backing it. Are they really that blind to reality?
I agree with what you say. I tried the 15 day trial and the game really seems like something out of the shareware days of the 90s. Incredibly unpolished, subpar graphics...etc. Honestly, there are far superior F2P games out there. Yet this one is charging a sub? They must truly be out of touch.
Almost nobody is going to pay for this game. I don't see how they're going to get the huge money injection they will need to get this game to an even remotely acceptable state.
Gamers live on "potential" and "hope". I am sure they will get the money from these types.
A) Your camera is zoomed all the way in. That's why you're seeing your dwarf's ass, because you want to. Jump height is the same for all races, as are the hitbox sizes. This produces a weird effect for dwarves, and will be really fun for gnomes when they come in.
c) Agree that graphics/animations/AI are subpar. From what I hear these will be improved.
I dont' know about how i feel about reviewing this game.
Yes I know it's charging money,
yes i know people on this site are requesting it to be reviewed.
yes I know one of the dev said it's basically open.
Yes I know all this, but lets be fair as people reviewing, does this look finished to you? Playing this for a bit, no it doesn't look finished, it looks like a work in progress. I dunno, it just seems odd to review a product that isn't finished, they made a mistake calling this open, and I don't agree with charging for it, i'd say to be really fair as your a good bit through this, giving it two scores, one as a here and now product, and a less harsh score as an unfinished producct. However this game is going to get a low score as it's pretty obvious it isn't finished, so comparing it to finished products like Witcher 3 is kind of dumb. Witcher is finished, this is not.
Personal opinion, they shouldn't be charging for this, and stop calling it X enrollment and call it what it really is, Alpha/Beta testing.
I just dont see any good reason to be reviewing something when you can see for yourself it's unfinished, but thats my just my opinion. If you are doing it because people on this site are requesting it, know this (you probably do but in case you don't) most of these requesting it, will not take into account the game is in early access and will just use it as ammunition against the game's fans. You are basically giving them fire to start a flame war, I feel deep down you know. This is one of the reason people pushed for this to get reviewed now and say review it as it is not what it can be, they want a low score (which it will get) so they can fire this back at it's fans. The one dev who said it was basically done is wrong in my opinion. As reviewers you should be able to determine if something is at the point of a proper review based on other games, regardless of what people say.
PS. I'm a fan of the alignment system (which last i played wasn't even in the dang game, so it lost me real quick) but the game isn't really where it needs to be for me to hold onto it or be a fan of it, so i'm coming at this as a third party. I played this game for like a week, i'm currently playing SW;ToR and Age of Wushu in case people want to turn this post into I guess defense of it (as they see it) and say i'm trying to white knight it or something
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Regarding your last sentence, based on my 15 days in game (about 3 months back) the game felt extremely generic. Nothing stood out at all. Bland everything. I had to force myself to put in 10 hours over those 15 days to feel comfortable that I was judging things correctly (for me, anyway).
I agree - this game doesn't *really* fit into any neat catagory when it comes to development.
On the one hand, I see why they're reviewing it - it's a released game with a monthly subscription.
On the other hand, Goblinworks is trying something 100% new: it's almost like its an Kickstarter for $15 a month, with one of the perks being you get to play the game in its Alpha State and get heard on development issues long before launch.
My opinion is no one's getting hurt by this experiment. If someone truly pays money for it and, somehow, didn't know what they were getting themselves into, I don't really feel sorry for them. As they say, a fool is soon parted from his money... and Goblinworks isn't even making a pretext that the game is finished. You probably have to read a paragraph about the principal behind this development philosophy three times before you bust out your credit card.
I think Bill's doing a fair job with this one: a balance between harsh reality and the ideal they're shooting for - just as this games development doesn't fit a neat mold, neither should the review.
I'm not participating in this game, but I'm pulling for it.
My personal opinion is if they are charging to buy into the game plus a monthly sub. It deserves to be treated/reviewed as a full release game. Charging full game price plus pay a monthly sub...that says game is ready for release and deserves to be reviewed. So it should be compared to Witcher 3 as well as any MMO currently on the market.
I agree, They have also stated is it "complete". If so, it should be reviewed as so.
They are selling it, charging a sub, and the developers have said it is not in beta/alpha or early access. If you are going to put your product on the market expect it to be reviewed.
And its good to be reviewed so that gamers can get an insight into the game without having to spend time on it.
Now lets imagine that project red put W3 out in the same state that PFO is at the moment, charging a box price plus a sub and then making up a new word to describe a state that is not alpha/beta or early access to justify the situation. I would assume they would get laughed out of the room, slammed by the media, ridiculed. Only the indie-status of the PFO dev team is protecting them from far harsher treatment imo.
If you re-read my post you will see I'm aware of all this, thats why i said i'm not sure how i feel about reviewing this game, I'm both ways, I think it should be reviewed because they are basically playing it like it's released, but also i'm on the other end that you can quite tell based on development time and how the game looks it's unfinished. The two questions I think the reviewer needs to ask himself is, am i being fair to say this game is done when i know full well where in the development cycle it is. Also they have to ask, am i perhaps being told to review this by the people on this forum for an alternative reason, and if that reason is to bash the game, what kinds of trouble could this review cause my moderators in the future.
This is really shaky ground. yes techanically by the rules laid down it's ready for review, but if you look at it based on it's dev cycle it's about 40% complete, also why are the people on this forum so quick to want this reviewed, three reasons to want this review To warn others of a possibly bad company (highly unlikely as what would one person care about another they don't know, so using the i'm looking out for my fellow gamers doesn't float with me, thats a cover), to trash the game/developer, or to stop this kind of practice of charging for your game before it's ready.
the first one is more often then not a cover for the second
The second one is used so they can trash the fans and the game, reviews are meant to be used to understand what you are getting, not for flame wars (you watch in the future and that will happen, people will use this as part of an attack against the fans of this game. I can see this a mile away thats the reason some people want this reviewed so badly. it's not for the betterment of the community or to watch out for fellow gamers)
The third could be the case but seriously who on this forum hasn't already been aware of this practice and anyone who is anyone in gaming knows what early access/enrollement means, you are getting in before the game is ready.
Saying things like it deserves to be reviewed now because they are charging tends to (and i'm familiar with the tatics on this forum) be the people who are part of the second tatic
Again i'm two ways: yes it should be reviewed because it's for all intent in purposes by the rules in a review state, but using our brains we know based on dev cycles and what the game looks like we know this game isn't complete, and the reviewers have to be careful not to be pawns in their forum game.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
CEO of the company said its not alpha or beta but "early enrollment". When you make up bullshit terms to try and push your game to the masses with a box price and sub fee then you damn well better have something that grabs your attention to warrant said fee or you will have your name dragged through the mud.
Not sure why you are kinda/sorta defending them anyway. When the game's own playerbase is saying that the game should not be charging either the box price and/or the sub fee then you know you have a bad product on your hands.
Goblinworks brought this on themselves by trying to say its a released game to justify the price so they live with the consequences of running their mouth.
Good reason 1: to call them out and shame them into not charging people for beta, or at least charge a fair price, not a full release price.
Good reason 2: GW says it is finished. Reviewing them is calling them out on that claim.
Let me ask you this: Who decides when his game is "finished" or rather ready for release? Answer: The developer does when he calls it complete, puts a sticker price on it and asks for a monthly fee.
You can call it whatever you want. As soon as you are asking money for a product the product can be reviewed. Reviews are to get an idea what you get for your money. It's a way consumers decide if they should spend the money or not. If that basic principle is now gone because "everyone can see it is unfinished" then we might as well stop writing reviews altogether.
By your logic we would now create a new category of games we don't review because we think they are not finished:
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The only shaky ground is the one your argument is standing on. The devs have said the game is not in beta/alpha or early access. You need to pay to play and there will be no more server wipes. Making up a new term "early enrolment" to describe a game that has been released in an unfinished state should not prevent it from being reviewed.
I am not sure where you get this idea of "trashing" fans of a game. There are plenty of posters in this forum who I agree with on some things and disagree with on others. Why would anyone want to "trash" someone because they like a particular game? It serves no purpose.
I am actually interested in PFO, it seems to have some interesting ideas. I hope Bill can get a bit further into the game and flesh it out for us some more in upcoming instalments.
Good reason 2: GW says it is finished. Reviewing them is calling them out on that claim.
Those reasons seem pretty good.