[General Article] Pathfinder Online: Early Enrollment Review in Progress

SBFord

We didn’t think we’d be reviewing Pathfinder Online anytime soon… until we discovered the game is both a.) taking money and b.) done wiping progress. As mentioned many times here, that’s all we need to consider a game ready to be reviewed. If a studio is confident enough in a product to do both of those things, then we’re confident that it deserves a score and review. Read on for the beginning of our Pathfinder Online adventures.

Read more of Bill Murphy's Pathfinder Online: Early Enrollment Review in Progress.

Talonsin

Please dont rate the game on potential.  We all agree the potential is there.  How is the game right now and is it worth a subscription in its current state.

Nemesis7884

its like the guys at sharks tank that expects investors to pay "the potential" of their company instead of what the company is worth right now...

right now is the only thing that matters...right now

Dreamo84

Let's see if it beats the War Z

Brenics

Thank you for the review. I been watching and thinking if I should go for it or not. Guess I will wait a year and see if the next review you do gives the game a better review.

Talonsin

Originally posted by Dreamo84
Let's see if it beats the War Z

War-Z is so bad they had to change the name again (Now called Romero's Aftermath) because all that were left playing it were the 300 hackers.  I'm not happy about companies charging for what is essentially alpha/beta access but in no way do I feel this game deserves a War-Z level score.  I feel the CEO has a solid vision (but with some flaws) and they want to truly make a good product.  In no way do I feel that Pathfinder is the scam that War-Z-Infestation-Aftermath is.

Kilrain

I feel it's fair to add that the animations themselves aren't bad at all. The timing on some of them are off and that's what makes it terrible.

 

The only REAL deal breaker for animations (for me) is when you jump the camera doesn't follow the character. So if you like to play close up like I do and you jump the character will nearly jump out of the top of the screen. Just terrible.

Ozmodan

I have to question the development staff.  If you can't figure out what the problem with spawn camping is, then why are you making a pvp game?

Nilden

I'm appreciating full disclosure and blunt honesty in this article. Needs a lot of work before I would put money anywhere near this.

phobossion

"I don’t know if it’s the Unity engine or what, but controlling your avatar and fighting with him (or her) is just awkward and stilted."

 

Please, not this again. The engine has nothing to do with production quality or synchronization code responsiveness. If you don't understand what you're saying, just don't say it - simple as that.

 

Burntvet

Originally posted by Talonsin
Please dont rate the game on potential.  We all agree the potential is there.  How is the game right now and is it worth a subscription in its current state.

This ^^

The MMO market is littered with the corpses of many games that had "potential".

So it does not mean anything that a game has it.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

wmmarcellino

I think this is reasonably accurate and fair for that part of the game.   I wish though he had reviewed more than a tiny fraction of the game.  The best and most developed parts are the crafting and economic systems, and the social interactions that happen because of it.

klash2def

Originally posted by phobossion

"I don’t know if it’s the Unity engine or what, but controlling your avatar and fighting with him (or her) is just awkward and stilted."

 

Please, not this again. The engine has nothing to do with production quality or synchronization code responsiveness. If you don't understand what you're saying, just don't say it - simple as that.

 

ty.. people love to blame unity for bad coding/coders. There are some awesome games made in unity that have combat and they work how they should. 

Warlyx

i tried a trial , and im sorry but albeit have been tester of many betas...and some alpha this one is anything but fun , and yes as tester im not there to have "fun" since thats optional , but i wasnt forced and wasnt being payed in my other betas / alphas so i could just stop playing , PFO is asking ppl to buy the game and pay a sub........to not have fun and test a game......

MMorpgs are at this point , and its sad...ppl paying to test ALPHAS (or not even thaT), betas i somewhat  can understand , hype and whatnot...but PFO...is a different matter.

the game has potential to be awesome? YES , and i hope it delivers but atm is FAAAR from it.

Talonsin

Originally posted by wmmarcellino
I think this is reasonably accurate and fair for that part of the game.   I wish though he had reviewed more than a tiny fraction of the game.  The best and most developed parts are the crafting and economic systems, and the social interactions that happen because of it.

This isnt his review.  It is his initial thoughts so far in the process.  They will run a few of these as he plays more and then he will sum everything up when he is done taking into account the total picture of the game he saw.  You should see his experience in the crafting coming up soon.

Bringslite

@ Bill

Reading your first review, I think that you were fair and unbiased. I look forward to reading more. If there were anything that I could suggest that you explore as your analysis progresses, it would have to be that you get involved (join) one of the larger or most active of the medium settlements. Do a few play sessions with them. Hang in their Team Speak or Mumble for at least a few nights. Pardon me if you are already doing or planning to do so.

Now I do realize that you are a pro game reviewer and most likely quite capable of extrapolating the difference between solo play and the group dynamics this game is designed for. Being within a positive and active company or settlement is so very much different than going it solo,  that it almost seems like a different game. Don't get me wrong, the things that you have mentioned above are still there, they just weigh a whole lot less with that "group dynamic" thing going on.

I also realize that you probably have a limited amount of time to do this complete review. I am just laying out a way to possibly see some of the things that keep us supporters coming back.

If you read this and consider it, I thank you.

If you can't, I still appreciate that you are reviewing PfO in the first place.

Bringslite

superconducting

Thanks for this review Bill.

To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.

GolbezTheLion

Originally posted by superconducting

Thanks for this review Bill.

To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.

This isn't the review, it's just a timeline of observations. The completed review and accompanying score will come later.

If you don't want your game to be reviewed, then maybe the CEO shouldn't make outlandish claims regarding the game being live and fully functional, when it obviously isn't fully functional and is only "live" so that he can justify charging a subscription fee.

Just my humble take on the situation.

superconducting

Originally posted by GolbezTheLion

Originally posted by superconducting

Thanks for this review Bill.

To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.

This isn't the review, it's just a timeline of observations. The completed review and accompanying score will come later.

If you don't want your game to be reviewed, then maybe the CEO shouldn't make outlandish claims regarding the game being live and fully functional, when it obviously isn't fully functional and is only "live" so that he can justify charging a subscription fee.

Just my humble take on the situation.

Thank you, but I do know how to read being that the title of this article said "Review in Progress".

Secondly, you have just demonstrated to me that you want the game reviewed so that the CEO "shouldn't make outlandish claims". I understand your concern-- I'm not even disagreeing on that point. But this should Not be the primary reason to review in my book.

Review when the game is supposed to be reviewed- in this case, when it's more mature in its development cycle.

 

Sovrath

Originally posted by superconducting

Thanks for this review Bill.

To be honest, I would not have yielded to the requests of a few on these forums. It was obvious that PFO was not in a state to be reviewed, no matter what "phase" of development it was said to be in. It seemed to me that those who asked for reviews had done so more to prove a point rather than actually see the game being well-reviewed (the point being that devs should be held accountable to their words and advertising). At least this is my humble take on the situation.

I completely agree with you that many people probably did want to "prove a point".

However, when they take money and they no longer wipe (as is mentioned) then it's hard for anyone not to say "wait a minute, what exactly are you doing and are we paying for".

I have no problem with small developers allowing players to pay to get in and test and kick the tires and give suggestions/criticism. 

But when the only difference on whether a game company is still creating a game and finished with a game is just on their "say so" then that seems a bit fishy to me.

 

aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Talonsin

Originally posted by Dreamo84
Let's see if it beats the War Z

War-Z is so bad they had to change the name again (Now called Romero's Aftermath) because all that were left playing it were the 300 hackers.  I'm not happy about companies charging for what is essentially alpha/beta access but in no way do I feel this game deserves a War-Z level score.  I feel the CEO has a solid vision (but with some flaws) and they want to truly make a good product.  In no way do I feel that Pathfinder is the scam that War-Z-Infestation-Aftermath is.

I don't think anything at the moment deserves a WarZ score.

 

WarZ is actually a scam. At least games like PFO or Mortals Online or Darkfall tries to make something, despite their state.

Slapshot1188

Why does it hurt to wait a year? Because you earn xp over time and there is no eipe. This is a territory control pvp game. Being behind the curve is a huge handicap.

They know that... and its the hook they use to sucker people into a bad game in the hopes that someday maybe it will be better. If there was a wipe I wouldnt care about his pay to beta. Having no wipe for his pay to beta is unforgivable.

Dullahan

You mean to tell me,  you actually continue gaining experience on accounts that are inactive (ie. no sub)?  That would be idiotic if so.  I mean, time based exp is already a bad idea and contrary to the principles of progression rpgs and mmorpgs (or real life) were founded on, but to allow players to get it forever just because they once activated an account is a whole new level of bad.

kikoodutroa8

Omg here it is! The long awaited Everquest killer!!!!

rsdancey

I thought that was a great start to your Pathfinder Online experiences!  You are absolutely right - if you want a game that is comparable to a traditionally released MMO, Pathfinder Online is not ready for you yet.  Currently you have to see the value in the Crowdforging process to get value out of your participation - that's a hard thing to quantify and we expect that it will be interesting to a small segment of the MMO audience, but we do think even a small segment of a couple million people is still a reasonably big number. 

I'll also support the suggestion that you spend some time with a Settlement. The Settlements are the focus of the whole game design and being a part of one is the only way to really experience the whole game right now.  Like EVE, people who join a group have a lot more fun than people who play solo.