Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

MMORPG Will Review PFO

MMORPG's managing editor has decided that PFO is fully released–charging a fee, and no more wipes–and therefore is ripe for a review and score. I am interested to see how contextualized the review will be.
A member of Ozem's Vigil, home to servants of Iomedae and her coming Paladins.
The terminology/semantic gimmicks with Early Enrollment vs Beta that GW leadership devised are now going to bite PFO in the butt. It's a shame, the people actually building the game deserve better, but I'm guessing the game is going to get brutalized in the review. Obviously, none of us think the game is considered a launch, but they will review it as if it is. ugh
Quick, someone fill up the rivers with water!
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Stilachio Thrax
This is not going to end well for anyone. I realize this game is early beta at best, and I can work with it on those terms. Reviewers aren't going grade PFO on a curve, and its going to be ugly if they expect a finished product.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Tink says Stab
The review will come out, they will say that the game is really rough, not worth a subscription, they might include a paragraph about Dancey asking people to go out and recruit, and everything will go back to normal. We might get a few new players from it (because curiosity), and then the developers will keep on plugging away at developing the game, and those people already subscribed will continue to subscribe.

Dancey will probably post a rebuttal on a few points that he believes were mischaracterized. In six months the game will be better, and some of the people that didn't want to play the game will watch a Twitch stream, get curious again, and try out a buddy invite. Then, six months later the cycle will roll over again, some more people will see that the game has been further polished, they might read a story about the Epic Sacking of [Insert Town Here], and they will try out a buddy invite.

A bad review, especially these days, given the state of video game journalism and the weight that people give those reviews, will probably do very little to the long term viability of the product line.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Duffy Swiftshadow
Come now Doc, we know dam well no matter what semantics they used they were gonna get flack one way or the other. It's always easier to tear down anything than it is to build it. All the 'successful' games of the last 10 years have been declared the same as PFO by some group or another, it's just a matter of time. There comes a point in life where you learn to just let things go. Either something works for you or it doesn't, the key is to maintain some objectiveness with your subjectivity. Unfortunately most people don't care, they just want to declare things from some lofty pillar and be 'right'.

You can be critical without hyperbole, lambasting, or ridicule but it doesn't make for nearly as good clickbait.
the key is to maintain some objectiveness with your subjectivity.

I think you just divided by 0.

Come now Doc, we know dam well no matter what semantics they used they were gonna get flack one way or the other.

Of course. The key is how much flack? A little hazing as a right of MMO dev passage, or a brutal crucifixion?

I disagree with Tink. Reviews do matter. People google stuff, and it will show up in the results. Does anyone really think a Movie reviewers opinion somehow matters more than others? And yet folks still read them.
Tink says Stab
I don't think that it will help, but I honestly, truly do not think that it will hurt long term. A lot of gamers don't give a toss about what video game reviewers say these days. The most recent rounds of exposition that shone a light on their ethical bankruptcy pulled a lot of their positional authority. Lets say that someone like TotalBiscuit did a 'WTF is' of PFO. Then I would agree that the game might be put into a compromising position. But then again, people like TotalBiscuit have shown time and time again that they give games a fair showing when they review them.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
If they're honest enough to include the fact that PFO is currently looking for players who are willing to pay to be part of the development process, that will help. Right now, the key thing is just getting the very small percentage of folks who might be interested in that to realize Pathfinder Online exists.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I have no fears about honesty. has nothing to gain by being biased. There's a very good chance the review will land a few bruising hits, but in the long run, it will mostly hurt with people who weren't going to join EE anyway. I anticipate that it will be good for the game. If it's negative, and someone is still bothering to look for reviews of it a couple of years from now, it will be because the game is going well and it won't matter much.
To reach me, email
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post