lotuss79 said:With the recent Pre Alpha sessions the game seemed to be going in such a great direction.
It was very enjoyable to play, crafting aside (tedious, clunky) they were getting everything right.
Then this disaster.
This Disneyfication of Pantheon is a total betrayal of everyone who has supported your game for the past 10 years.
Best of luck with your "broader, more contemporary audience".
What a shameless cash-grab sell out that will backfire so hard and fast.
Im out
Another narrative created from misinformation. IF what VR was about is being a "a shameless cash-grab sell out" then they would not be making a tab-target game and they Pantheon would already be backed by a studio. They have said as much over the years that they could've been backed already but turned down offers that didn't match their vision. But, again to create a false narrative, folks ignore very, very, very important details about Pantheon's development for confirmation bias.
At least the previous person I responded to didn't resort to nonsensical rhetoric to make a point. Even though I disagreed with him, I can take his comment with some seriousness. That above comment from you sours your entire critique and I can't take it seriously.
Just ignore the well meaning reason, agree or disagree, they gave for the change and call it whatever ya'll want...that sounds reasonable and fair right?
I'm not a big fan of the change just like I'm not a big fan of the LAS. BUT, VR has given well thought out and solid explanations for their decsions and I can appreciated them. NOT just be dismissive of them and accused them of things you have absolutely no proof of.
lotuss79 said: Could not care less if you take my comment seriously. Who do you think you are anyway? My comment is based in reality. I don’t need to assume anything. They state clearly that these changes are being made to appeal to a “broader, more contemporary” audience. That means, we want a larger player base to make more $$$. And thats fine, its a business. But thats absolutely not what was sold to the community that put up the funds to get Pantheon here.
It's interesting that you quote part of the market quote and not all of it. Again confimation bias. Folks were to the point of harrassing VR because of how the game looked. Content creators made videos thrashing the game relentlessly. The foundation of the game and tenets are still the same. Trying to make Pantheon with the realistic graphics most(INCLUDING them if you're being fair and not just critcising just to criticize) would take too long and we ALL know how that is working out with public perception. If the money was there to hire a bigger team then we would be getting the realistic graphics.
But, hey, IGNORE all the other reasons and just focus on the one you can use to paint a false narrative.
lotuss79 said: You’re right, i take it back. FACT! Pantheon has a dedicated team of scrappy developers who are Killing it despite not having any money and being offered millions to sell out their vision to big developers. Im glad you’re here to sniff out my confirmation bias and put the record straight. 3 years ago this type of nonsense might have flown. im afraid you’re pushing it a little too far now.
Yet you keep referencing the "original vision promised." Now you want to change the focus to fit your narrative...yet again. My points encompass the entirety of the game's development to present. I don't cherry pick things to make a point. Context matters when discussing this, not singular things used(out of context) to paint a total picture. You're conflating things I said to apply them to things I never said.
vjek said:"Under this plan and with this tech I have hopefully explained why using Unity and the Unity Store is so key to our development plan and the sequence and order within that plan. To be clear, you are going to see a lot of store bought assets in the movies and screenshots probably up until the last year or so of development."
Neat quote, thanks vjek. It sounds like we're in that phase that was referred to in this quote where we are going to start seeing a lot of their store assets being replaced by in house art, which seems like what they had planned all along? They've hired the artists now and begun the work of creating their own art.
Ranarius said:vjek said:"Under this plan and with this tech I have hopefully explained why using Unity and the Unity Store is so key to our development plan and the sequence and order within that plan. To be clear, you are going to see a lot of store bought assets in the movies and screenshots probably up until the last year or so of development."
Neat quote, thanks vjek. It sounds like we're in that phase that was referred to in this quote where we are going to start seeing a lot of their store assets being replaced by in house art, which seems like what they had planned all along? They've hired the artists now and begun the work of creating their own art.
What many people have come to expect is that the Unity assets used represented a mostly accurate representation of the final art style of the game even knowing those assets would be replaced with in-house assets. 9.5 years of using realistic looking assets, even after a complete refactoring of the game world, further emphasized that it would be how Pantheon would look at release. This art style change is an abrupt departure even when you accept all those assets would be replaced. The fact that the reasoning, now, is that it is for 'speeding up development' and 'improving game performance' are both difficult to swallow by many out there because of those intervening 9.5 years.
Could VR have purchased far less detailed models, building the game in a greybox mode from the very beginning? Yes, they could but there is a problem with that approach: The game is crowd funded. Getting people to pledge to support a game when you're trying to sell the vision and the vision is just greyboxes would be very difficult to say the least. Would the Kickstarter have failed even worse had it been greybox? Yes. Would the later internal fund raiser failed worse than it did? Absolutley. Art and visuals attract people to a game but gameplay mechanics keeps them playing.
If you look at M&M who started their work in an extremely rough greybox form, with little capsules repesented PCs and NPCs, that worked for them because they were not simultaneously asking people for money. They didn't need to sell a vision or an art style, but they did (and continue to do) 'sell' their game through multiple dozens of hours of real-time development streams every week. VR had to sell a future product from the beginning while M&M doesn't.
In the end, at least for me, I think the art style change will look good once you're in the game seeing in first-hand. All the assets existing in the same world with final lighting and other atmospherics, animations, movements, etc. Screenshots are crap for giving a true representation of how something will look, especially when that screenshot lacks all context and scale. I remain unconvinced that this change will decrease production time because we've heard that same statement time and time again over the years. "This tool will make development faster" has been touted at least a a half dozen times but we're still awaiting proof.
Dikenzu said:lotuss79 said: You’re right, i take it back. FACT! Pantheon has a dedicated team of scrappy developers who are Killing it despite not having any money and being offered millions to sell out their vision to big developers. Im glad you’re here to sniff out my confirmation bias and put the record straight. 3 years ago this type of nonsense might have flown. im afraid you’re pushing it a little too far now.
Yet you keep referencing the "original vision promised." Now you want to change the focus to fit your narrative...yet again. My points encompass the entirety of the game's development to present. I don't cherry pick things to make a point. Context matters when discussing this, not singular things used(out of context) to paint a total picture. You're conflating things I said to apply them to things I never said.
ehh, do you even hear yourself? when i reference the "original vision promised", i am Not the one "changing the focus to fit my narative". Thats Literally what you're doing now. Im keeping it on the original focus.
Look, the point is, the devs aran't perfect, and when they make major (terrible) decisions like this, they Need to be pushed back on to keep them honest.
Just kissing up to them and making excuses and saying what an amazing job they are doing will not send this message.
If the community lets them, very soon they will turn Pantheon into a High Fantasy Fruit Ninja mobile app because "that'll Really increase the player base!"
They need to stick close to the original vision, and it seems like they are using any excuse possible to "mainstream" this game for quick $$$
lotuss79 said:They need to stick close to the original vision, and it seems like they are using any excuse possible to "mainstream" this game for quick $$$
The question for many is what better defines the original vision: The gameplay or the graphics? Which is more important in the long term?
Vandraad said:lotuss79 said:They need to stick close to the original vision, and it seems like they are using any excuse possible to "mainstream" this game for quick $$$
The question for many is what better defines the original vision: The gameplay or the graphics? Which is more important in the long term?
I would suggest it doesn't have to be either/or
Both are pretty central to the original vision imo.
My concerned is that this most recent change of direction portends other changes on the way.
If they are willing to totally change the esthetic direction of the game to appeal to a mass audience, they will not stop there. They are going to "mainstream" gameplay next.
lotuss79 said:If they are willing to totally change the esthetic direction of the game to appeal to a mass audience, they will not stop there. They are going to "mainstream" gameplay next.
The classic 'slilppery slope' fallacy: Because they did this, they will definitely go and do that. I can confirm that all the gameplay tenets that have been promoted since the earliest days have remained unchanged and are very much alive and well
Vandraad said:lotuss79 said:If they are willing to totally change the esthetic direction of the game to appeal to a mass audience, they will not stop there. They are going to "mainstream" gameplay next.
The classic 'slilppery slope' fallacy: Because they did this, they will definitely go and do that. I can confirm that all the gameplay tenets that have been promoted since the earliest days have remained unchanged and are very much alive and well
- An awareness that content is king.
- A requirement that classes have identities.
- No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
- A belief that game economies should be predicated on delaying and minimizing item value deflation.
- A commitment to a style of play that focuses on immersive combat, and engaging group mechanics.
- An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding. An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
- An understanding that player involvement is required for progression.
- All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
- A belief that meaningful character progression will always involve a player increasing in both power and prestige.
- A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds.
- A belief that an immersive world requires intelligent inhabitants.
- An understanding that faction and alignment should be an integral part of interacting with the world and its citizens.
- A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.
- A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
- An agreement that player levels should be both meaningful and memorable. An assertion that player vs. environment should involve more than NPCs -- Engage the World!
I hope you're right. I actually want this game to adhear to its core tenants and succeed.
However i can just as easily say the slippery slope argument is not a "fallacy". You actually need to look at ones current action to get an idea of where they will be going.
Remember,
1. Project Faerthale was a smashing success and will speed up development!
2. ViNL was a smashing success and will speed up development!
3. Our new hires are a smashing success and will speed up development!
4. We are now fully funded till release and it will speed up development!
I can see a scenario where (call me crazy) all the tenants you listed above, one by one, start to fall by the wayside in the pursuit of releasing this game for a broader, more contemporary audience.
After all, you can not say with a straight face that switching the art style of the game away from a realistic aesthetic is in keeping with what Pantheons was original sold to its supporters as. More will change. slippery slope fallacy or not. Head out of the sand time.
lotuss79 said:I hope you're right. I actually want this game to adhear to its core tenants and succeed.
However i can just as easily say the slippery slope argument is not a "fallacy". You actually need to look at ones current action to get an idea of where they will be going.
Remember,
1. Project Faerthale was a smashing success and will speed up development!
2. ViNL was a smashing success and will speed up development!
3. Our new hires are a smashing success and will speed up development!
4. We are now fully funded till release and it will speed up development!
Oh, I'm in full agreement that VR has overused the 'this will speed up development', much like they have turned the word 'soon' into a ridiculous meme. That is why so many of us are on the 'words are cheap, show us the #$&*@%@ proof'. But I can so that the gameplay tenets are withstanding the test of time.
lotuss79 said:The question for many is what better defines the original vision: The gameplay or the graphics? Which is more important in the long term?I would suggest it doesn't have to be either/or
Both are pretty central to the original vision imo.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Available evidence indicates that the facts are somewhat different.
One can look thru any of the pages on this site - Game overview, World, Key Features, FAQs - and find plenty of info about gameplay. Climbing, Perception, Combat, Climates, Fractures, Unique Skills, Dispositions & Traits, Crafting, Raids, Itemization, Guilds, Races, Classes, Game Tenets. Nowhere will you find mention of graphical quality as a reason to play Pantheon.
You can compare this info to how the site described Pantheon in the past and see the same thing. Here's a link to this site in 2016, over 6 years ago. You'll find the same thing. Pages of description about gameplay. Nothing about graphics. https://web.archive.org/web/20160325171547/http://pantheonmmo.com/game/what_is_pantheon/
Art style & graphic fidelity have never been mentioned as part of the 'original vision' by VR. The tenets that Vandraad listed are - and have been - the foundation of the 'orginal vision' of Pantheon since the beginning.
However i can just as easily say the slippery slope argument is not a "fallacy".
Try typing "fallacy, slippery slope" into google and read a few of the links you get. Then come back and argue that.
Vandraad said:lotuss79 said:If they are willing to totally change the esthetic direction of the game to appeal to a mass audience, they will not stop there. They are going to "mainstream" gameplay next.
The classic 'slilppery slope' fallacy: Because they did this, they will definitely go and do that. I can confirm that all the gameplay tenets that have been promoted since the earliest days have remained unchanged and are very much alive and well
- An awareness that content is king.
- A requirement that classes have identities.
- No single player should be able to do everything on their own.
- A belief that game economies should be predicated on delaying and minimizing item value deflation.
- A commitment to a style of play that focuses on immersive combat, and engaging group mechanics.
- An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding. An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
- An understanding that player involvement is required for progression.
- All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
- A belief that meaningful character progression will always involve a player increasing in both power and prestige.
- A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds.
- A belief that an immersive world requires intelligent inhabitants.
- An understanding that faction and alignment should be an integral part of interacting with the world and its citizens.
- A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.
- A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
- An agreement that player levels should be both meaningful and memorable. An assertion that player vs. environment should involve more than NPCs -- Engage the World!
#1 seems they are taking combat as king to me, combat is not that important to me and yet I've seen little to nothing on content.
#2 BS, I don't call a cleric heal for 100 HP with a 15sec cooldown and the shaman can heal 100 HP over 15sec as a dot to be an "identity"! they can all heal, they can all rez, they are 3 shades of red, but they are all just red... identity sold out for please everybody.
could go through at least 50% of the rest of them the same way. They are so vaguely written that they are changing the meaning as they see fit so they can make WoW and a game that attempts to cater to everyone
lotuss79 said:I can see a scenario where (call me crazy) all the tenants you listed above, one by one, start to fall by the wayside in the pursuit of releasing this game for a broader, more contemporary audience.
That started long ago. If I had to pick an event that started it, I would say Brads passing. They no longer have him to keep them to the vision so they are building what they want, not his visio.
I can't say the new art style thrills me. Not the worst, but I am not a fan of the WoW simplified style. Worse would be the "contemporary" part, will we find the gameplay evolving for those folks too? Even if you say "no", can we even believe you? I was wondering why there was no July or August stream, this probably plays a part.
Disappointing to see yet another reboot this many years in (hopefully only art, but doubt it). I will still try it as I did spend $250 on it and it's not like I hate the new style though I probably would not have backed this had this been presented, so I do feel somewhat scammed... And what is with those dinky screenshots? It feels like you purposefully don't want people to take a closer look. The bear model isn't too bad since it is a lot less busy than the full screen one.
Anyways, please elaborate on what the "contemporary" means to VR, that is probably the most important thing.
I copied, and pasted, my thoughts from another forum here, fwiw:
These graphics are simply an admission that they can't provide the earlier graphics they were headed towards in a timely fashion. To me they aren't what I was expecting, and what they seemingly were going to provide. They couldn't do that. Personally I would have preferred that they sacrificed on the "buying cosmetics front" and gone to a larger publisher and surrendered on that front, than lower the graphics quality. At least with a larger publisher they could get the resources to get the product to market and hopefully maintain the game quality. Now they find themselves on the "slippery slope". They've shown that they will sacrifice the "vision" and we are left to guess as to what else will fall, now that their actions have shown they can't deliver what we've been expecting since 2014.
Another concerning element of all this is the total abandonment of the concept of seeking the advice/suggestions of those that chose to back the game. Early on we were led to believe that our opinions would be sought out, and valued. Now, not so much, fait accompli, hope you like the changes...
One suggestion, next time reach out to your supporters before such a jarring decision. This reeks of "better to ask forgiveness than permission".
What were they supposed to ask us when it comes to this decision? Only they know their limitations and they have now admitted they can't release the game with the current realistic graphics because it takes them too long and requires too much manpower.
The question would have simply been "Would you rather have stylized graphics or give up on releasing the game" and I'd like to hope most of us would pick choice A.
The technical parts of the game were never for us to decide. If I had to make a *guess*, they probably talked to their actual investors about the art change, but they have never been beholden to us as backers. They ask us gameplay questions or abstract scenarios about core tennants, not what graphics/networking/coding they should use.
It might drive some people away, but it is what they have to do to release the game. It is what it is as they say.
I honestly don't care that much about the specific art style. Whatever works best for the project. What is a problem is that this decision is happening now. 10 years in and you are just now putting your foot down on the art style? Maybe in a few more years you can start working on the actual game world and by year 20 we can start alpha? The more I hear/see about this project the more it looks like a failed project. I think at this point Monsters and Memories has a better chance of releasing and it just got started a few years ago. However, it has a much more clear and defined mission and is making amazing progress even with just a handful of part time devs and without any funding yet. I just don't have much faith left in Pantheon as a project. Depressing. :(
You know it is interesting when I first got interested in Pantheon I saw the drawings and pictures of the races. They reminded me of the artwork by DiTerlizzi from MTG. One of my favorite artists and he had that same kind of hand painted art style.
I am happy to hear you are going in that direction because I actually like that style myself. I think the bear you presented is VERY close, but it is bordering too much on like a mobile game. If could capture more of that DiTerlizzi style, make it look more like actual paint that would be great. I think you are very close especially with the human screenshot and forest. I provided some links below of his artwork, I hope it will inspire you!
https://www.mintmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Cat-Lord.jpg ; (This could be the style of a Dark Myr)
https://149455152.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Realms-featured.jpg (Bear/Owl example)
More examples of his art
https://www.artofmtg.com/artist-interview-tony-diterlizzi/
It would make the game look less like a Torchlight/mobile game and more like a fantasy, which is precisely what we want.
Also honestly, I know it sounds strange to say but I am glad you guys are being realistic too. This actually gives me hope that Pantheon will release. I think just being honest about time and resources available and making those decisions and being open about them is a good thing. It actually makes me think the game will release. Honestly trying to make games ultra super duper realistic, is really not the point I think. I really like the game Guild Wars 2, but they don't have ultra realistic graphics and I still love that game 10 years later. Even EQ graphics I still enjoy. Again if you can make it look less like a Torchlight or less mobile, and give it more of that painted, fantasy DiTerlizzi look, I think you could have something really special.
Just my 2 cents.
I have said for many years that getting a game actually released was far more important than getting a perfect game released. A game that all of us thought was perfect that collapsed before release would do none of us any good.
I find the new style direction .....unfortunate. I find the stated desire to appeal to a contemporary audience and not the people that have been supporting the game (and the many others that want the same things) beyond unfortunate. But I adhere to my first law. Any release is better than no release. At best some of us will enjoy it. At worst none of us will - but none of us will enjoy a total failure either.
My primary hope is a somewhat odd one. it is that VR was ...lying. That they have not totally abandonned the vision and are trying to go "contemporary" but rather were trying to put the best possible face on a decision that they didn't like and felt forced into. This is not a very *good* hope since when someone is less than honest on one thing they can hardly be trusted to be forthcoming on other things.
