OP are you just trolling or what? I thought it looked really good, both graphically and functionally - especially for an early alpha.
I've been looking forward to the game, but wasn't sure if it would ever actually materialize - but this showing has made me much more confident I may actually get to play this some day.
(I understand it's probably a year or two away, if not more and if at all, but still)
I just can't understand how anyone would NOT be slightly impressed, or at least feel a little positive about the outlook of the game after watching that.
I miss Vanguard so much and this is the only game on the horizon that I think could fill that void for me.
Charging people 'per life' isn't just a revenue
model for us. It also ties in closely with one of our core design
principles.
We believe heroes should be truly heroic and
villains should risk real consequences for their actions. As a result,
risky, adventurous, or illicit behavior
often shortens your overall lifespan if
unsuccessful. By tying the cost of the game to a player's lifepsan we
force them to make
meaningful choices about their in-game behavior.
This is just idiotic to me. It is encouraging people to do the safest content possible so they don't have to pay. Permadeath in general is an atrocious concept for an MMORPG. Making you have to pay money to restart after permadeath is even worse.
People get attached to their characters. Thats a huge reason why EQ had such great retention, and is a likely reason why modern games have such lousy retention, games dont promote that character attachment anymore by making everyone a fast leveling jack of all trades. CoE looks like it wants to reverse the trend, but then undoes it with the permadeath. Tough to get attached to a character you know will be temporary.
You can't do the "its pre-alpha, early development" routine if you also think the game will launch in 2017. The game looks extremely rough for an mmorpg that will launch in less than two years.
Its not early development if you have gone past year two on a four year project.
Actually in this case you can.
You have to think a bit and understand that this is not one of those AAA games where they say "pre-alpha" and it looks like it's can launch (even though it can't) or that it's a AAA game studio that is going to seriously ramp up all the efforts to polish everything to a perfect AAA shine.
If players can't understand that this will be an indy game, that it has a small team and that its final project will only be released NOT looking like a AAA game then they are in a good place.
If players think that this game is going to look and feel like a AAA game once released then they just don't understand what's going on here.
Problem is that people makes all excuses about the looks and expect that everything will have a huge improvement over 18 months time, its this myth that time works differently if you are an indie developer instead of operating under an AAA budget. It also ignores that with an AAA budget you can get 5 to 20 times more man-hours during those 18 months.
My impression is that Pantheon is 3 years away and this is in fact early development. If launch is within two years this is roughly the look we will have at launch.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
You can't do the "its pre-alpha, early development" routine if you also think the game will launch in 2017. The game looks extremely rough for an mmorpg that will launch in less than two years.
Its not early development if you have gone past year two on a four year project.
Actually in this case you can.
You have to think a bit and understand that this is not one of those AAA games where they say "pre-alpha" and it looks like it's can launch (even though it can't) or that it's a AAA game studio that is going to seriously ramp up all the efforts to polish everything to a perfect AAA shine.
If players can't understand that this will be an indy game, that it has a small team and that its final project will only be released NOT looking like a AAA game then they are in a good place.
If players think that this game is going to look and feel like a AAA game once released then they just don't understand what's going on here.
Problem is that people makes all excuses about the looks and expect that everything will have a huge improvement over 18 months time, its this myth that time works differently if you are an indie developer instead of operating under an AAA budget. It also ignores that with an AAA budget you can get 5 to 20 times more man-hours during those 18 months.
My impression is that Pantheon is 3 years away and this is in fact early development. If launch is within two years this is roughly the look we will have at launch.
Good thing that's your opinion, and not based on any fact. If you've ever tested any game 2-3 years before it is supposed to launch, you would know that they never look better than this, and in fact this is very good for how few man hours have been invested into it so far, in comparison to any AAA title.
I'd say they are doing a lot of "bang" for my and everyone else's buck right now, and I'm extremely pleased with what I see.
OP is right if the game launches how it is now, it will turn a ton of people off with the animations. Graphics honestly I did not think were horrible. Not BDO/FFXIV good but more then passable.
We cannot expect genre breaking graphics and animations on a game without a 150+ million dollar budget. But personally I would rather have a game with less graphics and more dept then a shinny linear shallow pieces of crap the AAA devs been churning out as of late.
This is not me white knighting Pantheon, I agree it has a ways to go. But people need to stop thinking alpha/beta or this is case a development pre-alpha build is the game at launch.
WoW, EQ, GW, FFXIV all look significantly worse in early stages then in launch. Honestly in worse ways then this game did today. Anyone who has tested games in very very early states can attest to this.
I mean look how EQ looked in Pre-alpha. This does not look much like the game you have in your post op... I mean pre-alpha = launch right? Obviously not. Pantheon might end up being crap, but what we seen today shows alot of promiss, have to see where Brad and everyone takes the game at the end.
Enjoy the Pre-alpha footage of EQ and tell me pre-alpha's = launch.
AS for them seeming like kids in the stream... They sound more like people having fun in the game to me. Sounds more like a group on my vent from back in the early days.
I can tell you, in pre-Alpha EQ did not look "nice" even for its time. It didn't even look "decent" in alpha footage I've seen. It was pretty late in the game that they managed to bring it up to par.
You can't do the "its pre-alpha, early development" routine if you also think the game will launch in 2017. The game looks extremely rough for an mmorpg that will launch in less than two years.
Its not early development if you have gone past year two on a four year project.
Actually in this case you can.
You have to think a bit and understand that this is not one of those AAA games where they say "pre-alpha" and it looks like it's can launch (even though it can't) or that it's a AAA game studio that is going to seriously ramp up all the efforts to polish everything to a perfect AAA shine.
If players can't understand that this will be an indy game, that it has a small team and that its final project will only be released NOT looking like a AAA game then they are in a good place.
If players think that this game is going to look and feel like a AAA game once released then they just don't understand what's going on here.
Problem is that people makes all excuses about the looks and expect that everything will have a huge improvement over 18 months time, its this myth that time works differently if you are an indie developer instead of operating under an AAA budget. It also ignores that with an AAA budget you can get 5 to 20 times more man-hours during those 18 months.
My impression is that Pantheon is 3 years away and this is in fact early development. If launch is within two years this is roughly the look we will have at launch.
Good thing that's your opinion, and not based on any fact. If you've ever tested any game 2-3 years before it is supposed to launch, you would know that they never look better than this, and in fact this is very good for how few man hours have been invested into it so far, in comparison to any AAA title.
I'd say they are doing a lot of "bang" for my and everyone else's buck right now, and I'm extremely pleased with what I see.
Pantheon is supposed to launch in 2017, that's not 2-3 years from now.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
comparing pre alpha in 2016 to pre alpha in 1997 is silly
Bottom line is Pantheon isnt targeting gamers that place a high emphasis on graphics. I personally think EQ looks just fine today still, and thats because it does a great job at creating Norrath. A game like Rift may look prettier, but Telara just doesnt have that same feel, it feels far more manufactured.
I can't tell based on what I've seen if Pantheon nails that aspect or not, but i do like the little bit that I watched.
Why would animations have anything to do with it being better than EQ? People who played EQ don't give a rats boner about graphics and since that's their target market they should probably focus on other things to make the game successful. Like DMKano said though I'm sure they haven't gotten around to polishing and what not since its still very early.
This is true. When I started Wurm Online in 2012 its animations were--well honestly--absent. The player charcters HAD NO ANIMATIONS. I don't think anything did. They were just some old low poly stick figure models. I don't even know if there was a female--I think there was. Then they started releasing new models and animations. It's much better looking, but I never cared about it. I liked hte gameplay. It was very survival-ish and harsh.
Believe me, its grpahics were worse than many older games. The only difference was it might have had bloom and more polygons and items to show, but its animations and texturing were far worse.
But for it to really work the game needs to do something other games don't. At the time, there was nothing else exactly like Wurm Online. There were a few options, like Xsyon and Mortal Online and a few others, but almost nothing else offered the freedom and harshness. MMORPGs then and now do not have sandboxes so deep. And Wurm Online was also fairly cheap in 2012--just $13 for 2 months. I was having so much fun I ignored hte gfx.
I will say though its wilderness was very wild-ish. No other game I had played had forests which sort of convinced me. They were so thick. And the trees had colliision detection. It just felt so immersive. And also the hills and slopes slowed you down greatly. They didn't just look steep.
It was the most immersive thing I had ever played. Not because of how it looked, but its gameplay mechanics. They were harsh--unfriendly. But those things made it matter. Painful sometimes? Yes. But it sucks you in. Many games and MMO's add convenience features. I understand why and I don't blame people for wanting that. I'm glad MMO's don't do it equally.
EDIT: Not trying to offend or act superior or be threatening. I don't speak for anybody else except me.
In my opinion, graphical quality is a point, but isnt the point, i prefer a well balanced game with a nice performance and a great playability than an AAA game that you will bore in two weeks.
I had my way i would like graphics to look like Square Enix's new DX 12 work but i am a realist.I do NOT want cartoon graphics,i like to feel immersion in my game, i do not like to feel like i am in Saturday morning cartoons.
I like plausible realism,i do not want to see cow's flying through the air,although it was funny in Monty Python :P
I like systems and idea to make sense,somersaults and back flips do NOT make sense,maybe if it were a gymnastics game but it is not.Speeding in from 30 feet away like a rocket pack does not make sense,leaping up 20 feet in the air and coming down wiping out 20 mobs does not make sense.Firing a bow like a minigun does not make sense,yet guess what i see a lot of in game designs, a lot of crap that doesn't make sense. Point being i can give up on DX12 graphics/physics if the game can just make sense and give me some immersion.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The game just looked bad and I am not talking just about the graphics.
If the game "looks" bad or "looks" boring it actually has a chance to be good. Games with beautiful graphics and flashy moves are usually as shallow as a kiddie pool.
I could tell by the gameplay there is allot of stuff to deal with, meaning the combat mechanics are going to be tense, complex and possibly stressful but definitely not boring.
The sad part is the whole time I was watching the video, all I could think about was how many nimrods were going to descend upon this forum to talk about "how terrible" the game looks, and how it was going to be a failure, etc etc etc.
This is really the main downside of showing a game too early. However, since they are making the game for a specific audience, and said audience generally has an attention span longer than 2 minutes, I'm not particularly worried about it.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
The sad part is the whole time I was watching the video, all I could think about was how many nimrods were going to descend upon this forum to talk about "how terrible" the game looks, and how it was going to be a failure, etc etc etc.
This is really the main downside of showing a game too early. However, since they are making the game for a specific audience, and said audience generally has an attention span longer than 2 minutes, I'm not particularly worried about it.
Ya, the detractors forgot about Pantheon right after they posted here.
I'm as highly skeptical of Brad as the next guy but this post is straight up retarded. This game is being made with an unsuccessful kickstarter by mostly amateurs for pennies on the dollar. This is an achievement considering it looked like vaporware a few months ago.
You naive graphics monkies need to wise the **** up. Chrono trigger is still better then every RPG in the past 10 years. And look how fast no one cares about Blade and Soul. FFXIV is basically running off of pure nostalgia because game play wise it's a worse clone of WoW. Black Desert could have been an amazing PvE sandbox, too bad it's only made for PvP. And the list goes on. AAA graphics don't mean **** when you quit in a month.
In theory everyone is talking about graphics, but realistically, there should be two distinct terms. Because some people are talking about graphics as an aesthetic quality, and some are talking about how technologically advanced the engine is.
I love how a game like Journey looks. It runs on a PS3, a low spec by now, yet it looks great. It is aesthetically pleasing. Many Nintendo games are aesthetically pleasing, yet Nintendo isn't known for using fancy game engines.
Some zones in Everquest are like that, aesthetically pleasing, but some are not. And it kind of makes sense, because Everquest didn't just have one art director, they had many over the years.
In theory everyone is talking about graphics, but realistically, there should be two distinct terms. Because some people are talking about graphics as an aesthetic quality, and some are talking about how technologically advanced the engine is.
I love how a game like Journey looks. It runs on a PS3, a low spec by now, yet it looks great. It is aesthetically pleasing. Many Nintendo games are aesthetically pleasing, yet Nintendo isn't known for using fancy game engines.
Some zones in Everquest are like that, aesthetically pleasing, but some are not. And it kind of makes sense, because Everquest didn't just have one art director, they had many over the years.
Well graphics is one of those kind of nebulous ideas that everyone has a different definition of. Honestly it drives me nuts. Loads of people try to say that WoW had/has fantastic graphics, when objectively it actually has terrible graphics. What they were confusing and conflating was the subjectivity of the art style. Objective measurements, like texture resolutions, poly counts, lighting quality, particle effects quality, etc. Those are quantifiable measurements.
Subjective things like art style are important, but people really need to stop equating art style with graphics. They're not the same.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
I've been looking forward to the game, but wasn't sure if it would ever actually materialize - but this showing has made me much more confident I may actually get to play this some day.
(I understand it's probably a year or two away, if not more and if at all, but still)
I just can't understand how anyone would NOT be slightly impressed, or at least feel a little positive about the outlook of the game after watching that.
I miss Vanguard so much and this is the only game on the horizon that I think could fill that void for me.
I dont want EQ. I want EQ Next!
People get attached to their characters. Thats a huge reason why EQ had such great retention, and is a likely reason why modern games have such lousy retention, games dont promote that character attachment anymore by making everyone a fast leveling jack of all trades. CoE looks like it wants to reverse the trend, but then undoes it with the permadeath. Tough to get attached to a character you know will be temporary.
My impression is that Pantheon is 3 years away and this is in fact early development. If launch is within two years this is roughly the look we will have at launch.
I'd say they are doing a lot of "bang" for my and everyone else's buck right now, and I'm extremely pleased with what I see.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Compare apples to apples.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Bottom line is Pantheon isnt targeting gamers that place a high emphasis on graphics. I personally think EQ looks just fine today still, and thats because it does a great job at creating Norrath. A game like Rift may look prettier, but Telara just doesnt have that same feel, it feels far more manufactured.
I can't tell based on what I've seen if Pantheon nails that aspect or not, but i do like the little bit that I watched.
This is what it looked like when I started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RJ5C7WxOE8
Believe me, its grpahics were worse than many older games. The only difference was it might have had bloom and more polygons and items to show, but its animations and texturing were far worse.
But for it to really work the game needs to do something other games don't. At the time, there was nothing else exactly like Wurm Online. There were a few options, like Xsyon and Mortal Online and a few others, but almost nothing else offered the freedom and harshness. MMORPGs then and now do not have sandboxes so deep. And Wurm Online was also fairly cheap in 2012--just $13 for 2 months. I was having so much fun I ignored hte gfx.
I will say though its wilderness was very wild-ish. No other game I had played had forests which sort of convinced me. They were so thick. And the trees had colliision detection. It just felt so immersive. And also the hills and slopes slowed you down greatly. They didn't just look steep.
It was the most immersive thing I had ever played. Not because of how it looked, but its gameplay mechanics. They were harsh--unfriendly. But those things made it matter. Painful sometimes? Yes. But it sucks you in. Many games and MMO's add convenience features. I understand why and I don't blame people for wanting that. I'm glad MMO's don't do it equally.
EDIT: Not trying to offend or act superior or be threatening. I don't speak for anybody else except me.
I like plausible realism,i do not want to see cow's flying through the air,although it was funny in Monty Python :P
I like systems and idea to make sense,somersaults and back flips do NOT make sense,maybe if it were a gymnastics game but it is not.Speeding in from 30 feet away like a rocket pack does not make sense,leaping up 20 feet in the air and coming down wiping out 20 mobs does not make sense.Firing a bow like a minigun does not make sense,yet guess what i see a lot of in game designs, a lot of crap that doesn't make sense.
Point being i can give up on DX12 graphics/physics if the game can just make sense and give me some immersion.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If the game "looks" bad or "looks" boring it actually has a chance to be good. Games with beautiful graphics and flashy moves are usually as shallow as a kiddie pool.
I could tell by the gameplay there is allot of stuff to deal with, meaning the combat mechanics are going to be tense, complex and possibly stressful but definitely not boring.
The sad part is the whole time I was watching the video, all I could think about was how many nimrods were going to descend upon this forum to talk about "how terrible" the game looks, and how it was going to be a failure, etc etc etc.
This is really the main downside of showing a game too early. However, since they are making the game for a specific audience, and said audience generally has an attention span longer than 2 minutes, I'm not particularly worried about it.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
You naive graphics monkies need to wise the **** up. Chrono trigger is still better then every RPG in the past 10 years. And look how fast no one cares about Blade and Soul. FFXIV is basically running off of pure nostalgia because game play wise it's a worse clone of WoW. Black Desert could have been an amazing PvE sandbox, too bad it's only made for PvP. And the list goes on. AAA graphics don't mean **** when you quit in a month.
^ This
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I love how a game like Journey looks. It runs on a PS3, a low spec by now, yet it looks great. It is aesthetically pleasing. Many Nintendo games are aesthetically pleasing, yet Nintendo isn't known for using fancy game engines.
Some zones in Everquest are like that, aesthetically pleasing, but some are not. And it kind of makes sense, because Everquest didn't just have one art director, they had many over the years.
Well graphics is one of those kind of nebulous ideas that everyone has a different definition of. Honestly it drives me nuts. Loads of people try to say that WoW had/has fantastic graphics, when objectively it actually has terrible graphics. What they were confusing and conflating was the subjectivity of the art style. Objective measurements, like texture resolutions, poly counts, lighting quality, particle effects quality, etc. Those are quantifiable measurements.
Subjective things like art style are important, but people really need to stop equating art style with graphics. They're not the same.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche