vjek said:If you design your game to attract the largest possible audience, you will, intentionally, if successfull, have to give up every single thing about the game that obtained all the donations for Pantheon from January 2014 until Brad died. If you're ok with that? Then I'm not sure what to tell you, except such an attitude excludes at least one ethical premise: Integrity.
This statement is the perfect example of why we have to expend so many resources whenever we communicate anything publicly. And is a reminder that even when we do, some will only hear what they want to hear and will continue to stir others up into hearing that same thing.
The point of this podcast episode was to say expressly and simply this:
We are not designing Pantheon to attract the largest possible audience. However, I believe what we're making will resonate with a lot of people. Those are two different statements. And therefore, I do not expect Pantheon to be "niche" because I believe it will resonate with the hearts of adventure-loving gamers. Period.
Please feel free to continue this discussion around the actual premise of the podcast.
Finn said: What, specifically, are you pointing at that has changed to the extent that you think the desire to have a "broader appeal" is actually being harmful to the vision?
IMO:
Two off the top of my head? Leashes and in-game maps. Not enough? The removal of zone lines except at dungeons exits/entrances. Climbing requiring the re-creation of every zone in the game.
Moving from the original benefits of Unity (stock/standard assets) to now having to recreate every 3D asset in the game.
And now the cash shop is no longer an impossibility, but if not a definite certainty, a definite possibility. Wasn't originally, now is. Slippery slope indeed.
The original intent was to self publish. Now? Nope. Gotta find someone with $$$$$$$ to partner with, and all the nonsense that entails.
Joppa said:vjek said:If you design your game to attract the largest possible audience, you will, intentionally, if successfull, have to give up every single thing about the game that obtained all the donations for Pantheon from January 2014 until Brad died. If you're ok with that? Then I'm not sure what to tell you, except such an attitude excludes at least one ethical premise: Integrity.
This statement is the perfect example of why we have to expend so many resources whenever we communicate anything publicly. And is a reminder that even when we do, some will only hear what they want to hear and will continue to stir others up into hearing that same thing.
The point of this podcast episode was to say expressly and simply this:
We are not designing Pantheon to attract the largest possible audience. However, I believe what we're making will resonate with a lot of people. Those are two different statements. And therefore, I do not expect Pantheon to be "niche" because I believe it will resonate with the hearts of adventure-loving gamers. Period.
Please feel free to continue this discussion around the actual premise of the podcast.
IMO:
Sure, let's take a look at the rest of that post, and remove the "largest possible audience" hypothetical:
vjek said: ... Every decision, every design, every implemention; How can this 'thing' appeal to the wider, broader, widest, broadest possible target audience. How can we get more customers. How can we make this 'sticky'? How can we make more money? How can we encourage all our customers to pour their wallents into our bank accounts, instead of just a subscription? How can we improve shareholder dividends? How can we improve share/stock price (if applicable)? How can we make more money? How can we monetize every second of every moment every customer is consuming our service? How can we get in on RMT? How can we shift the entire focus of the game to making it impossible to enjoy without paying us for every interaction, click, and second of time? Loot boxes, cash-shop keys, bags, gear, items, potions, XP, levels.Now it's all in scope, and all on the table, because the ends justify the means, and we MUST appeal to a broader/wider and/or broadest/widest target demographic.
It completely shifts the focus of design and implementation away from anything remotely resembling thematic consistency, fun, or challenge.Sounding familiar? It should. That's the exact design philosophy that removes all of the features that narrow, restrict, or limit the target audience and instead.. expand it to reach exactly one goal: Increase subscribers. Increase subscriber retention. Increase cash shop sales. Increase krono purchases. Increase every RMT feature uptake & use. ...
Now, feel free, anyone, Joppa, Kilsin, Ben, whoever, what above there is false, given the past 25+ years of MMO history?
Because every. single. MMO. I have every seen of, heard of, or played has followed this pattern once they start to appeal to a widER target demographic. (note: NOT largest possible. Not largEST. LargER.)
vjek said:Finn said: What, specifically, are you pointing at that has changed to the extent that you think the desire to have a "broader appeal" is actually being harmful to the vision?IMO:
Two off the top of my head? Leashes and in-game maps. Not enough? The removal of zone lines except at dungeons exits/entrances. Climbing requiring the re-creation of every zone in the game.
Moving from the original benefits of Unity (stock/standard assets) to now having to recreate every 3D asset in the game.
And now the cash shop is no longer an impossibility, but if not a definite certainty, a definite possibility. Wasn't originally, now is. Slippery slope indeed.
The original intent was to self publish. Now? Nope. Gotta find someone with $$$$$$$ to partner with, and all the nonsense that entails.
Leashes: What changed? VR has talked quite a bit about how this topic is still "pending" and implementation has not been confirmed.
In game maps: Barring a personal preference, the fact there will be a topographical map (not mini map, not gps) with a potential cartography system doesn't seem to violate any tenets.
Zone Lines: This seems like a good thing. How is it deviating from the "vision"?
Climbing: I'm possibly with you on this one, but this seems more like potential "feature creep" than a deviation from the original vision. In other words, this doesn't "make it like WoW".
Assets: Barring potential impact on delivery timeline, again...not a vision deviation
Cash Shop: Fear based. You don't know what will happen.
Publisher: Fear based. This is a business decision. Potentially zero impact on the "vision". In fact, so far, they have said they have turned down investors and publishers because they don't want to give up control. Yeah, you need money to make an MMO. Crazy, right?
To me, it seems like you are taking things you don't like and presenting them as deviations from "the vision". Sprinkle in some fear based concerns of how things might turn out...? Looks like you are creating things to be upset about. Just my 2 cents.
vjek said:Joppa said:vjek said:If you design your game to attract the largest possible audience, you will, intentionally, if successfull, have to give up every single thing about the game that obtained all the donations for Pantheon from January 2014 until Brad died. If you're ok with that? Then I'm not sure what to tell you, except such an attitude excludes at least one ethical premise: Integrity.
This statement is the perfect example of why we have to expend so many resources whenever we communicate anything publicly. And is a reminder that even when we do, some will only hear what they want to hear and will continue to stir others up into hearing that same thing.
The point of this podcast episode was to say expressly and simply this:
We are not designing Pantheon to attract the largest possible audience. However, I believe what we're making will resonate with a lot of people. Those are two different statements. And therefore, I do not expect Pantheon to be "niche" because I believe it will resonate with the hearts of adventure-loving gamers. Period.
Please feel free to continue this discussion around the actual premise of the podcast.
IMO:
Sure, let's take a look at the rest of that post, and remove the "largest possible audience" hypothetical:
vjek said: ... Every decision, every design, every implemention; How can this 'thing' appeal to the wider, broader, widest, broadest possible target audience. How can we get more customers. How can we make this 'sticky'? How can we make more money? How can we encourage all our customers to pour their wallents into our bank accounts, instead of just a subscription? How can we improve shareholder dividends? How can we improve share/stock price (if applicable)? How can we make more money? How can we monetize every second of every moment every customer is consuming our service? How can we get in on RMT? How can we shift the entire focus of the game to making it impossible to enjoy without paying us for every interaction, click, and second of time? Loot boxes, cash-shop keys, bags, gear, items, potions, XP, levels.Now it's all in scope, and all on the table, because the ends justify the means, and we MUST appeal to a broader/wider and/or broadest/widest target demographic.
It completely shifts the focus of design and implementation away from anything remotely resembling thematic consistency, fun, or challenge.Sounding familiar? It should. That's the exact design philosophy that removes all of the features that narrow, restrict, or limit the target audience and instead.. expand it to reach exactly one goal: Increase subscribers. Increase subscriber retention. Increase cash shop sales. Increase krono purchases. Increase every RMT feature uptake & use. ...
Now, feel free, anyone, Joppa, Kilsin, Ben, whoever, what above there is false, given the past 25+ years of MMO history?
Because every. single. MMO. I have every seen of, heard of, or played has followed this pattern once they start to appeal to a widER target demographic. (note: NOT largest possible. Not largEST. LargER.)
Still seems like you are making a huge amount of assumptions of worst case scenarios based on your fear of what might happen. What is supposedly necessary to be appealing.
You seem to have skimmed over the fact that Joppa didn't say "the ends justify the means" or that "we MUST appeal to a broader/wider target demographic".
He said that by virtue of making a good game, lots of people will want to play. That's it.
YOU are creating false correlations where in order to have A (a game that is popular with a larger audience) you MUST do B and C (certain concessions you have created in your mind). HE did not say "we are making design decisions that will result in a bigger audience" - YOU assumed that. All HE said was basically "We want to make a good game we think lots of people will play."
Finn said: ... Sprinkle in some fear based concerns of how things might turn out...? ...
IMO:
Yes, based on the history of playing MMO's since they have existed, only. Not predicting the future, just learning from the past.
Continue on this path, and they'll get exactly what has happened before, for everyone who has walked down the same path.
It doesn't cost me anything except another missed opportunity at a better game. But it seems like it would be a fantastic way to waste 8+ years of effort. :)
vjek said:Finn said: ... Sprinkle in some fear based concerns of how things might turn out...? ...IMO:
Yes, based on the history of playing MMO's since they have existed, only. Not predicting the future, just learning from the past.
Continue on this path, and they'll get exactly what has happened before, for everyone who has walked down the same path.
It doesn't cost me anything except another missed opportunity at a better game. But it seems like it would be a fantastic way to waste 8+ years of effort. :)
And I completely get that fear. Many of my concerns about their ability to deliver Pantheon revolve around my observation of the success rates of almost all crowdfunded MMOs. However, that is a FEAR.
At some point, you believed VR would deliver on their promises to create the game they said they would. You believed they were capabale of doing that despite all the evidence to the contrary. Why is it so different to believe that, despite the "monetized and mass appeal focus" (my words) of the genre today, VR will still be able to deliver on the assurances they won't be that way?
It's faith either way. I just find it odd that you have faith in one, but not the other.
vjek said:The removal of zone lines except at dungeons exits/entrances.
PvPers can simply zone and disconnect to avoid being finished off when a fight goes south; with fewer zonelines, those who flee will have to be more clever than that and might instead choose to commit to the fight to the very end. Zonelines also offer non-FD classes a workaround to powerlevel restrictions. Though not generally an issue, having to zone multiple times can really interfere with group/guild chat. I had to stop going from point A to B on numerous occasions in Norrath just to make sure not to miss out on any details mentioned in guild. Even diehards on p99 wish Neriak was one zone. While I have always liked how zones can function as scenes in a play, with the curtain being the load time...MMORPGs are virtual worlds, not stages.
"Dorotea- When such pathetic videos get made, we can AND WILL discuss it. "
Of course - and we should. Just as I was discussing it. What I meant but perhaps didn't make clear is that it is the design of the game that is crucial not the meaning of "niche".
The guts of this thread is twofold. What audience is VR aiming at? What audience *should* VR be aiming at.
The heart of the concern is that if VR expands its target audience too much they will quite likely abandon or water down key design features that most of us want. Each change in this direction might be a minor thing that most of us could accept - the cumulative total of such decsions could gut the game.
Thus - if the death penalty is reduced to an amount of experience you can get by killing five mobs - how different is that from WoW? If one can get to maximum level in a month of reasonable playtime - how different is that from WoW? If there is instant travel between many locations once you have tagged the stables - how different is that from WoW. And so on.
Yet most of us would agree that if a change that isn't *too* drastic would double the likely pool of subscribers and greatly enhance the chances of the game's success - and attract a good publisher and investors - that change would be something well worth making. Even if the game went from 100% better than anything else to 90% better. The old saying - the perfect is the enemy of the good.
One example - the group-centric nature of Pantheon. Eliminate that and many would say "there goes my reason for supporting the game". Yet if you put in a path for soloing to level-cap but assure that it is a slower and less rewarding path - you might attract more players with strongly encouraged grouping in lieu of forced grouping.
Another example - quests. Make it easy to quest from one hub to another and get to level-cap in a month many would again say "there goes my reason for supporting the game". Yet players are used to quests and if you have hundreds of quests but *not* a golden path and *not* huge experience rewards you might attract more players without driving away the quest-phobic.
But if you do things like that in 20 different areas of game design - maybe you have WoW-lite.
dorotea said:"Dorotea- When such pathetic videos get made, we can AND WILL discuss it. "
Of course - and we should. Just as I was discussing it. What I meant but perhaps didn't make clear is that it is the design of the game that is crucial not the meaning of "niche".
The guts of this thread is twofold. What audience is VR aiming at? What audience *should* VR be aiming at.
The heart of the concern is that if VR expands its target audience too much they will quite likely abandon or water down key design features that most of us want. Each change in this direction might be a minor thing that most of us could accept - the cumulative total of such decsions could gut the game.
Thus - if the death penalty is reduced to an amount of experience you can get by killing five mobs - how different is that from WoW? If one can get to maximum level in a month of reasonable playtime - how different is that from WoW? If there is instant travel between many locations once you have tagged the stables - how different is that from WoW. And so on.
Yet most of us would agree that if a change that isn't *too* drastic would double the likely pool of subscribers and greatly enhance the chances of the game's success - and attract a good publisher and investors - that change would be something well worth making. Even if the game went from 100% better than anything else to 90% better. The old saying - the perfect is the enemy of the good.
One example - the group-centric nature of Pantheon. Eliminate that and many would say "there goes my reason for supporting the game". Yet if you put in a path for soloing to level-cap but assure that it is a slower and less rewarding path - you might attract more players with strongly encouraged grouping in lieu of forced grouping.
Another example - quests. Make it easy to quest from one hub to another and get to level-cap in a month many would again say "there goes my reason for supporting the game". Yet players are used to quests and if you have hundreds of quests but *not* a golden path and *not* huge experience rewards you might attract more players without driving away the quest-phobic.
But if you do things like that in 20 different areas of game design - maybe you have WoW-lite.
This is a great breakdown. Joppa has talked quote a bit on this kind of stuff. It isn't an "either or" proposition, it is a matter of degrees. All these controversial topics come down to implementation. The problem, IMO, is there is a "die hard" group that views ANY deviation from "the way EQ did it" as a slide into "the way WoW does it". They are unwilling to to find a reasonable middle ground that maintains the value of the game, embodies the tenets, and still doesn't alienatae too many people.
There is a group that seems to be perfectly happy if Pantheon went "super EQ hardcore" and only had a few thousand subs because that is the only way to "stay true to the spirit of the game". I whole-heartedly disagree. I VERY much think there are solid middle-ground approaches that embody the "best of both worlds". However, I guess if your goal is just to have "EQ reborn", I can see how some might not feel that way. They might view ANY concession to "modern gaming" as a path to decline.
Frankly, I don't think there will ever be reconciliation with that group. I think the expectation is flawed. I think there is no way to make that group happy unless you literally just rebuilt EQ.
Maybe, in that regard, Pantheon is niche. If your requirements for a "good MMO" are that rigid and particular - maybe the game isn't for you? ;)
Finn said:Some of you all kinda crack me up.
Joppa comes in and basically says "yeah, we aren't doing that", and you still respond with "yes you are". If you don't believe the man in charge, guess nothing anyone says will matter.
benty said:Finn said:Some of you all kinda crack me up.
Joppa comes in and basically says "yeah, we aren't doing that", and you still respond with "yes you are". If you don't believe the man in charge, guess nothing anyone says will matter.
To be clear, Joppa came in and said it's not niche because he thinks it will appeal to a lot of players. Think it's a somewhat large assumption to say it discredits the rest of the points made.
It does because the "points being made" rely on the assumption that VR is going to make specific design compromises just to attract players, as opposed to what Joppa said which boils down to "our game is going to be so fun to play, it will naturally have lots of people who will want to play it".
I'll say it again: If you build it, they will come.
It's like the saying "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." You don't need to design around attracting players (which, I admit, has been the path of least resistance for most, if not all, modern studios - it's way easier). You can just focus on making a great MMO, and it will inherently attract lots of people.
It's the assumption that in order to attract lots of player, you have to make concessions, that I take issue with. It's not a requirement.
Finn said:I see this whole debate as a clear dilineation of people still trying to hold on to what they interpreted Brad's ramblings from 6+ years ago to mean vs what the true design intent behind those ramblings looks like now that they are being implemented.
I'll be frank. I was not following this game as seriously 6 years ago - it was barely on my radar. I, honestly, do not care what Brad might have said or implied during one of his stream of consciousness blog posts. I do not care whether the game is "niche" or not, whether it was meant to appeal to the "EQ crowd" or not, or that it sticks to what "EQ did" or not.
All I care about is that we get a good MMO.
What matters now is that the team (which has always been involved - this was never "the Brad show") stick to the tenets they have outlined. That they continue to push forward the vision they have. That they stay true to evolving the genre in the direction it should have gone in, had it not gone down the path that led to the current "MMO genre".
To me, there is this group of people who want the game to be "niche". They want the game to be "exclusionary". They want the game to be "for me, but not for you" because they don't want those "evil casual gamers to come in an ruin everything". That group seems to be incapable of understanding that you can create a great MMO, that also just so happens to be appealing to a lot of people. That you can appeal to a lot of people without compromising the vision/tenets. That you can make a great MMO without being "niche".The important part, in all of this (for ME), is that VR stick to their tenets. That they don't sacrifice their vision.
Let go of what happened 5, 6, 7, 8 years ago. Joppa has repeatedly talked about how the core vision has not changed, yet some of you continue to hang on to the pedantic meanderings of someone who is gone. The team now, the team that was with that individual when creating the core design document, is in charge. That's it. Sorry if that sounds harsh.
Stop thinking that just because the paint job may have changed, that the entire blueprint is different.
Brad's gone. Accept it. This isn't loyalty - it's cultish and silly, IMO. You are losing sight of the forest for the trees. You are waging a semantics battle with no consideration to what is actually trying to be communicated.
Move on.
Agreed, we can throw in our two cents but ultimately VR needs to make the game according to their vision and tenets. If we in the end don't like it when it comes out, we ourselves could always become game devs and create a game according to our own vision of what an MMO should be. As far as the term niche goes, words are just words; let's wait to actually experience the game and see what we think.
I have not seen the most recent video being addressed by the OP, but words matter in marketing regardless of the context. The word "niche" is not a negative word - it is simply a fact. People can pick up on disingenous marketing, and will absolutely be cancle-culture vampires. As others have mentioned, an MMO in itself is niche, as is a FPS or survial game... they're all designed to appeal to a specialized section of the population (a.k.a. niche).
Actively advertising something to be different than what it is will only lead to dissapointment and backlash. i.e. If you're selling an item that is typically black, and your product looks black in a photo without identifying its color, when people receive it and can see that it is actually dark brown in person, you are going to get a lot of returns and poor reviews - which could be avoided if you simply advertised it as dark brown. Advertising this as just the next MMO with extra features is going to generate a lot of initial purchases, but if done disingenously, that could publically crush a game in short order.
On the flip side of the disingenous argument... if the game is in fact steering away from being group-centric focus and will be enjoyed ("equally") by solo players, then they can call it just the next MMO with some added features. Again, I haven't watched the video and have very little desire to at this point. I'm "personally" waiting for some substantial content before I put too much more energy into this; I don't enjoy watching other people testing 6 years later...
Add: Those of us on these forums will play the game, niche or not (and VR knows this). Any who say otherwise aren't being honest with themselves.
Darch said:I have not seen the most recent video being addressed by the OP, but words matter in marketing regardless of the context. The word "niche" is not a negative word - it is simply a fact. People can pick up on disingenous marketing, and will absolutely be cancle-culture vampires. As others have mentioned, an MMO in itself is niche, as is a FPS or survial game... they're all designed to appeal to a specialized section of the population (a.k.a. niche).
Actively advertising something to be different than what it is will only lead to dissapointment and backlash. i.e. If you're selling an item that is typically black, and your product looks black in a photo without identifying its color, when people receive it and can see that it is actually dark brown in person, you are going to get a lot of returns and poor reviews - which could be avoided if you simply advertised it as dark brown. Advertising this as just the next MMO with extra features is going to generate a lot of initial purchases, but if done disingenously, that could publically crush a game in short order.
On the flip side of the disingenous argument... if the game is in fact steering away from being group-centric focus and will be enjoyed ("equally") by solo players, then they can call it just the next MMO with some added features. Again, I haven't watched the video and have very little desire to at this point. I'm "personally" waiting for some substantial content before I put too much more energy into this; I don't enjoy watching other people testing 6 years later...
Add: Those of us on these forums will play the game, niche or not (and VR knows this). Any who say otherwise aren't being honest with themselves.
I apologize in advance for the snark, but...
If you haven't watched the video, and Joppa's comments on the topic, how the heck can you actually effectively comment on any of this? The whole point here is how VR is attempting to clarify the "messaging". Joppa does exactly that in the podcast. How can you possibly comment on the impact of this whole topic, without actually be informed on what VR has directly said is the goal?
This whole thing is crazy to me. VR (i.e. Joppa) came out and said "here is the confusion, here is our answer, here is our intent/desire". Yet, desite that, people are basically coming in and saying "nuh uh" or, even worse, saying "I have no idea what you actually clarified on the topic, but here is the problem as I see it."
I wouldn't blame them for stopping communication if this is the response.
I actually really enjoyed the podcast, and i have faith that Joppa shares enough of my own understanding of what made EQ and for me DAOC so great that they stood the test of time and left me with that increadible sense of awe when i first stepped into those game worlds. What however makes me cringe, and i could see it coming in that podcast, is the idea that 'climbing' is the great messiah of innovation and immersion in this game.
Give anyone at VR a licence to try to explain what will make this game unique and evolutionary and you will get the same answer 'climbing'.. I'm sure i'm not the only one who is somewhat underwhelmed by this 'incredible' game mechanic. Put more emphasis on iterating on what made eq great, it's not a crime, honestly! Creating a gameworld that is so vast, so immersive and so deep that i get that same feeling i got in 99 when i started in toxx forest and after a couple of days floundering around there and on kerra isle i looked up level 6 or 7 and went WTF, this is only one TINY corner of the map.. OH MY GOD!
These are the things from what has been spoken of and revealed that make me hyped about pantheon:
1) Enormous, and detailed gameworld
2) Starting at a very low level (been a lot of talk of single digit stats, and equipment being mostly mundane with small increments)
3) Large range of classes and mechanics
4) Non-instanced content
5) Group content being king, some solo, some raid, but group being the sweet spot
6) Range of content, including long and difficult dungeons with good itemisation.
Climbing, perception system, acclimatisation, honestly, they are gimmicks to me, stop stressing them so much, you are making a great game, you don't have to push what is going to be DIFFERENT so much. I understand you need new blood, make a great game and they will come. Every single nay sayer on this board will come flocking in and many more if you meet the requirements above and do it well.
Some of the people panciking on here that they are tryng to appeal to mass market, did you actually listen to the podcast? None of the design philosophy is targetted at that, they are simply scared to death that only old eq players will wan tto play this game. Guess what when eq launched all kinds of people picked it up, make the game and they will come! Have faith in what you are doing, you don't need to try to dispel the niche argument nor do you need to use gimmicky game systems like climbing and perception to try to prove you are doing something new.
Finn said:I apologize in advance for the snark, but...
If you haven't watched the video, and Joppa's comments on the topic, how the heck can you actually effectively comment on any of this? The whole point here is how VR is attempting to clarify the "messaging". Joppa does exactly that in the podcast. How can you possibly comment on the impact of this whole topic, without actually be informed on what VR has directly said is the goal?
This whole thing is crazy to me. VR (i.e. Joppa) came out and said "here is the confusion, here is our answer, here is our intent/desire". Yet, desite that, people are basically coming in and saying "nuh uh" or, even worse, saying "I have no idea what you actually clarified on the topic, but here is the problem as I see it."
I wouldn't blame them for stopping communication if this is the response.
kellindil said:Agree completely. Up until these last two videos I still had hope for the game.
Now after watching them both, I have no real hope anymore. I am starting to regret pledging.
I signed up for a niche game, the niche game Brad said would be the future of MMOs. Because I agreed with him.
I did not want another game that tries to appeal to the general masses.
Sad to see it go this way. I had such hope.
I can agree with you on having a certain expectation for this game and I sympathize with your outlook of this game now, as I too had the same expectations. I actually was hoping for a game that I could relive or delve into, and knowing it was envisioned by Mr Brad McQuaid. But, as a person that values community and us video gamers, I have to take in notion that we have to remember that this is a totally different company and MMORPG. The VR team has probably been the most vocal with all the work they've done and they've been definitely been listening and interacting with their fan base a lot more than I've seen other companies do. I think they have been patient and understanding of US, the community and their future upcoming community that will give this game a chance because even if they did change some things or not, they want to still appease to everyone because they want this game to succeed and that means appeasing to every single player that decides to give this game a try. I honestly think whether is a game that we all like or not, but I still think they're working on an MMORPG that's way different from a lot others and I'm pretty sure they're doing their best for this game to be unique and something to look forward to. As a video gamer, I can only say that I'm hoping for this game because at least I know I'm following a game we all can relate with, with Brad McQuaid having been part of this new game and company that he left us to become part of. For me that's enough for me to play the game, regardless.
If you follow MMOs since original EQ or before, you just know what works and what does not. You are reading a few of the PR jibba jabbas and you just know,... hard to explain why. Maybe because hundreds of other games tried the same and failed? ;-)
Also the reason I don't usually post much on these forums. We just get more and more new folks. Which is actually not a bad thing, but they just don't know what the PR talk actually means in reality, after release. And they just swarm you and hit on you, if you point it out.
*reads thread*
Hm. This is what popped into my mind.
1) What was considered niche 7 years ago may no longer be seen in the same light now
2) The most recent dev stream, which arguably was a while ago, did it live up to our expectations? Is that what we thought Pantheon would be?
I think #2 is important. I feel after a few months of no dev gaming stream, the community gets anxious.
Praise the sun!
The response to Niche has been from the front end and game-play, but I think a singificant impact will take place behind the gameplay, at log in when you can make - oh I called it something clever in an old post, i've forgotten, but it wasn't matchmaking- that will solve the group problem since by answering a few questions you will be on when others of like ilk will also be on. Class spread info will also be available if not to players to someone and there will be enough old school mentality to stifle "quarternity" adherants and instead encourage non-standard make-ups that can lead to suprises and secretly to better playerability (wax on, wax off). 2 wizzy's and a rogue? lets do it for it is to the new pplayer to the genre that would think that partuicluar group make up is impossible to succeed that, seeing it succeed or at least accomplish as much as it can is then impressed and perhaps, hooked.
I can see why VR wouldn't want to use the term niche when describing Pantheon. Niche is a very limiting term that confines something into fitting within a specific box. The only 'niche" that pantheon really fits into is an emphasis on true class identity, group-based combat, and meaningful gear progression. It is strange to consider those aspects as a niche, as those were pretty much the founding principles for the MMOs we have today.
Pantheon is shaping up to have its own unique identity, to the point that there really isn't a niche out there that can classify what it is. I would say that Pantheon is looking to fit into its own unique niche which doesn't exist yet. When this game launches it is going to shock and amaze people with what it is and what it does.
Finn said:Darch said:I have not seen the most recent video being addressed by the OP, but words matter in marketing regardless of the context. The word "niche" is not a negative word - it is simply a fact. People can pick up on disingenous marketing, and will absolutely be cancle-culture vampires. As others have mentioned, an MMO in itself is niche, as is a FPS or survial game... they're all designed to appeal to a specialized section of the population (a.k.a. niche).
Actively advertising something to be different than what it is will only lead to dissapointment and backlash. i.e. If you're selling an item that is typically black, and your product looks black in a photo without identifying its color, when people receive it and can see that it is actually dark brown in person, you are going to get a lot of returns and poor reviews - which could be avoided if you simply advertised it as dark brown. Advertising this as just the next MMO with extra features is going to generate a lot of initial purchases, but if done disingenously, that could publically crush a game in short order.
On the flip side of the disingenous argument... if the game is in fact steering away from being group-centric focus and will be enjoyed ("equally") by solo players, then they can call it just the next MMO with some added features. Again, I haven't watched the video and have very little desire to at this point. I'm "personally" waiting for some substantial content before I put too much more energy into this; I don't enjoy watching other people testing 6 years later...
Add: Those of us on these forums will play the game, niche or not (and VR knows this). Any who say otherwise aren't being honest with themselves.
I apologize in advance for the snark, but...
If you haven't watched the video, and Joppa's comments on the topic, how the heck can you actually effectively comment on any of this? The whole point here is how VR is attempting to clarify the "messaging". Joppa does exactly that in the podcast. How can you possibly comment on the impact of this whole topic, without actually be informed on what VR has directly said is the goal?
This whole thing is crazy to me. VR (i.e. Joppa) came out and said "here is the confusion, here is our answer, here is our intent/desire". Yet, desite that, people are basically coming in and saying "nuh uh" or, even worse, saying "I have no idea what you actually clarified on the topic, but here is the problem as I see it."
I wouldn't blame them for stopping communication if this is the response.
Understandable point of view - that is why I prefaced my statement the way I did. My point of view is based solely on the fact that I'm directly responding to the O.P. using the past 5 years of watching videos and reading forums/discord (so watching a single video is irrelevant). If the video is now stating that (paraphrase) "the game is not niche" then I can very easily "effectively comment on" that topic. Regardless of what Joppa said in a single podcast, the past 5 years of messaging speak louder and the actual game design/mechanics will tell the true message. As I stated - if the "message" is trying to be changed from what the actual "delivery" will be simply to try to appeal for advertising, it will be a disengenuous "message". So regardless of what the video stated, my comment doesn't need any more context - because I'm replying to the OP, not the video.
The word "niche" is just an awful word to use for a game. VR wants everyone to play and enjoy their game. If they were making clothes for 7foot plus people, then "niche" would work. In a game setting, it is just an opinionated word.