Excellent assessment of the game and I agree. Because of work obligations, although in a guild, I have been forced to play solo but have no regrets and it’s totally viable but takes more time. I have enjoyed my play time so far and believe it will only get better. I too am an older player and don’t mind the extra “challenges” in a sandbox MMO.
@@sergiohenrique2411 I too played Soulmask, before Pax Dei released. Great game, but as you said, it was alone and not a vibrant world with other players.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your view on what people expect from an Early Access game. It's not always about the financial consideration, many people pay for EA titles, however, if you look at some EA titles in the last few years, we got things like Enshrouded and Valheim, both great games and whilst not complete, they were still pretty well fleshed out and offered damn good experiences. Now as you quite rightly said in this video, so much is to come later in Pax Dei, my view is there is not enough to do at present. I want some excitement and fun and not just have the endless grind, and to be fair it's seems to me to be a proff grind and building at the moment. Of course it's great that you are enjoying your play and loving the game so far, but others like myself would rather wait and see what comes next and how soon. So this isn't a negative on Pax Dei, it's just me saying no thanks for the time being, there are other games I would rather invest in at present, given time though I may invest in Pax Dei at a later stage when it is more 'fleshed out'. I am not wrong in taking this view, just like you are not wrong for loving the game as is, it's just different perspectives, I just wish others would stop calling people like myself negative, because we do have reservations and don't want to jump in straight away. If the Dev's want the game to appeal to many more players, then if I may be blunt, it's up to them to make it more appealing to the masses. I enjoyed watching this video and hearing your take on the game though and I hope I didn't offend you with my response.
Love the game, have 200 hours in since launch. I don't think most of its detractors have bothered to read the information Mainframe has provided. This is an ambitious project that is not going to be for everyone. World of Warcraft tried to be for everyone, buy there's no quest givers. Please research the games before you buy them so you know what you're getting, this is far from polished and ready, they said at least a year before leaving early access. If you like the idea of setting your own goals, building, exploring, forming alliances with other groups, actually talking to other players, using discord to talk, etc then this might be for you. If you like an amusement park with npc's that have gold punctuation over their heads this is not for you.
Pax's original mistake is believing that sandbox means stripping a game bare bone and leaving the player without any gameplay features. "You're free to do anything you want". Yeah not really. I'm only able to experience thing within the confines of what the game offers. Here, what are the confines when you get absolutely nothing ? Really restricted. Social and community-oriented gameplay implies features that promote this aspect. A messaging system to post in-game notices when looking for a craftsman? A pigeon system that would depend on a new profession branch? A guild system to organize these professions, agree on prices, or settle commercial disputes? A hand-crafted central hub with NPCs to create a flow between the players and encourage to meet in one central place? A political election system? A tribunal and crime features? There's so much that could be done, i've just took some ideas flowing through my mind. People expect an ambitious game to offer ambitious mechanics. They expect from a game that goes against the grain, meaning one that promotes cooperation and community where modern games are all about immediate gratification, to offer new and unexpected mechanics. As it stands, the social and community aspect of a clan or group of players live exclusively or almost exclusively thanks to features outside the game, like Discord. You go on Discord to chat, organize your guilds, find a craftsman, create quests and adventures. The game offers nothing to foster this community aspect within itself. They expect the players do to all the "work" while the dev sit and relax. That's not how an ambitious MMO sandbox game works. Okay, there's a text chat at least. And they plan on a VOIP. Wow. On top of that main mistake, the combat system needs to be created from scratch. Right-click to fight and swing your sword is not a "combat system." No directional blocking. No "chamber." No dodging. You can't attack and move at the same time... In short, they have nothing, no direction in which to go, be it a Mount and Blade style or a classic tab target or a hybrid action combat. Yet again, they expect players feedback to build something when they didn't even do anything. That, I could forgive. Personally, the combat gameplay of a medieval game is the central element of the gameplay loop that keeps me engaged. But, I could overlook it if the rest was solid enough. Between the pitch used to describe and sell the game, and the promotion of "experienced Eve developers," Pax Dei is far from the product it could be. It's even far from the product it SHOULD be. Right now, it's just a construction and craftsman simulator for 40 bucks, in Early Access, with promises of being 1.0 in a year. Sure, right. It will take 2 to 3 years, not at the development pace between the 2023 alpha and this month's Early Access release. They need to pick up the pace. There's no way a game goes from alpha to 1.0 in 1 year. Even less with core mechanics problems. Don't even get me started on the PvP, which I quote : ""We do not want PvP to appear as a separate mode and thus create a gap between PvP players and PvE players. PvP should be an integral part of the world and the economy. We plan to offer players interesting and consistent ways to engage in PvP." So the talk about kingdom and religion, right now, sounds to me way too idealistic when they can't even make what they already have work correctly. 4 years, "experienced EVE devs", 30 millions, which is nothing for a MMO, BUT : no mounts, no farming, no classes, no trade, no market, no quests, no lore, no towns, no npc, no writing, no combat (right clicking isn't "combat"), no bosses, no engaging PvP, no social features. Nothing but crafting and construction. And both of them aren't even close to being feature completes. That's a big problem if you think about it for about 2 minutes. 30 millions to release a MMO which doesn't have any features of a classic MMO ? Or just put all that aside and have fun. One can have fun with very little, like building castle in the sand. Doesn't mean I'll pay 40 bucks for it. And tbh, I do want to play and like this game. Truly. I just can't enjoy a game in this state. And nobody will enjoy it long term if they don't remedy this whole "it's up to the player to build the world" idea. At least that's my concern. EA price is secondary. People pay for quality. Which Pax has not apart from a beautiful graphic engine and some good ideas. That's why criticism on price and EA system comes afterward. Pax is released way too soon. And judging by the devs vision, the state of the actual game after 4 years and the quotes from the devs, game will probably take 10 to 15 years to be complete, like a SC. I can't find the exact quotes I red in an interview, but it goes like "Pax will never be really finished as we have an ambitious vision and the fund to back us". I didn't get into SC for that reason. I won't get into Pax also. But yet market and economic reality tells otherwise. We all know which one wins 90% of the time between "vision and ideas" and economic reality. That's why they released as EA as far as I see it. So their vision will never be realized when they already destroyed the hype and the hopes for the game releasing in EA this bare bone.
The game is early access, not a finished product. I do agree with a lot of your points but from the transparency of the devs and a great foundation and roadmap, it will not take more than a year to complete the game for release. Especially if they sell cosmetics, mounts, outfits, etc. as DLC content for players to support the game. Only time will tell but having spent 5 years to get this far they are in it for the long game and not a scam as we have seen many times before.
@@MrLonwolfmq Doesn't matter the game is not finished. The game is out, labeled as EA yes, but nonetheless it is out. Some EA are in an alpha state way more polished, some EA are in beta in a worst state... People see it for what it is : an alpha with crooked foundation. Because of all the point I made. It will definitively take more than one year to complete the game. Sorry but you're delusional if you think it will release in 1.0 in june 2025. Or you can release any game in any state in 1.0 and call it a day at this point. Especially by talking about "cosmetics, mounts, outfits as DLC". That's the least they need to focus on. Or they do if they plan to take 12 years to complete the game. Which will be dead anyway in far less time. They don't have even the 1/10 of the mass of players expecting and wanting to play SC to support them long enough. And I mean, SC is already more than 10 years old as an "EA" game. How long do you think Pax will last with 8-10k concurrent players each day at peak ? And I mean, its quickly dropping I don't think its a scam. As a scam is something made purposefully. I just think Pax Dei's error is just to fail to understand the simple mechanic I spoke of : "Social and community-oriented gameplay implies features that promote this aspect". Its almost philosophical game design wise. Thinking a sandbox MMO means its up to the player to imagine everything without deep and interconnected features to support it, will 100% lead to a fail. That's why people are already leaving. Again, I won't make the point. Pax isn't a scam. Its an incredible fail. Like 95% of the so called "sandbox" MMO that didn't understand yet that if you're going for no classes, no quests, no writing, no lore, no market, no currency, no nothing, you still have to build in game features to make your game a "social sandbox experience". Even in a tabletop RPG, which is the epitome of "the player is free," there is a rulebook as thick as a phone directory to support the players' freedom within a framework of rules designed to encourage creativity and liberty. Plus, there is a storyline constructed by the GM to bring the game to life and guiding you, the player. This is a philosophy that works. The player's freedom is expressed within a well-constructed framework. The better constructed it is and interconnected, the less the players will even feel like there are rules and game mechanics. The more the player will have fun and use the rules to live their experience. Removing all the rules and saying "you're free" is an intellectual scam. Any tabletop GM and any player who has experienced this idea of "do whatever you want" at least once the first time they played, understands what I'm talking about.
Excellent assessment of the game and I agree. Because of work obligations, although in a guild, I have been forced to play solo but have no regrets and it’s totally viable but takes more time. I have enjoyed my play time so far and believe it will only get better. I too am an older player and don’t mind the extra “challenges” in a sandbox MMO.
guys I have been playing soulmask alone and this video kinda sold me this game, I will give it a try !! GGs to both of you brothers :)
@@sergiohenrique2411 I too played Soulmask, before Pax Dei released. Great game, but as you said, it was alone and not a vibrant world with other players.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your view on what people expect from an Early Access game. It's not always about the financial consideration, many people pay for EA titles, however, if you look at some EA titles in the last few years, we got things like Enshrouded and Valheim, both great games and whilst not complete, they were still pretty well fleshed out and offered damn good experiences. Now as you quite rightly said in this video, so much is to come later in Pax Dei, my view is there is not enough to do at present. I want some excitement and fun and not just have the endless grind, and to be fair it's seems to me to be a proff grind and building at the moment. Of course it's great that you are enjoying your play and loving the game so far, but others like myself would rather wait and see what comes next and how soon. So this isn't a negative on Pax Dei, it's just me saying no thanks for the time being, there are other games I would rather invest in at present, given time though I may invest in Pax Dei at a later stage when it is more 'fleshed out'. I am not wrong in taking this view, just like you are not wrong for loving the game as is, it's just different perspectives, I just wish others would stop calling people like myself negative, because we do have reservations and don't want to jump in straight away. If the Dev's want the game to appeal to many more players, then if I may be blunt, it's up to them to make it more appealing to the masses. I enjoyed watching this video and hearing your take on the game though and I hope I didn't offend you with my response.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Love the game, have 200 hours in since launch. I don't think most of its detractors have bothered to read the information Mainframe has provided. This is an ambitious project that is not going to be for everyone. World of Warcraft tried to be for everyone, buy there's no quest givers. Please research the games before you buy them so you know what you're getting, this is far from polished and ready, they said at least a year before leaving early access. If you like the idea of setting your own goals, building, exploring, forming alliances with other groups, actually talking to other players, using discord to talk, etc then this might be for you. If you like an amusement park with npc's that have gold punctuation over their heads this is not for you.
Pax's original mistake is believing that sandbox means stripping a game bare bone and leaving the player without any gameplay features. "You're free to do anything you want". Yeah not really. I'm only able to experience thing within the confines of what the game offers. Here, what are the confines when you get absolutely nothing ? Really restricted.
Social and community-oriented gameplay implies features that promote this aspect. A messaging system to post in-game notices when looking for a craftsman? A pigeon system that would depend on a new profession branch? A guild system to organize these professions, agree on prices, or settle commercial disputes? A hand-crafted central hub with NPCs to create a flow between the players and encourage to meet in one central place? A political election system? A tribunal and crime features?
There's so much that could be done, i've just took some ideas flowing through my mind. People expect an ambitious game to offer ambitious mechanics. They expect from a game that goes against the grain, meaning one that promotes cooperation and community where modern games are all about immediate gratification, to offer new and unexpected mechanics. As it stands, the social and community aspect of a clan or group of players live exclusively or almost exclusively thanks to features outside the game, like Discord. You go on Discord to chat, organize your guilds, find a craftsman, create quests and adventures. The game offers nothing to foster this community aspect within itself.
They expect the players do to all the "work" while the dev sit and relax. That's not how an ambitious MMO sandbox game works. Okay, there's a text chat at least. And they plan on a VOIP. Wow.
On top of that main mistake, the combat system needs to be created from scratch. Right-click to fight and swing your sword is not a "combat system." No directional blocking. No "chamber." No dodging. You can't attack and move at the same time... In short, they have nothing, no direction in which to go, be it a Mount and Blade style or a classic tab target or a hybrid action combat. Yet again, they expect players feedback to build something when they didn't even do anything.
That, I could forgive. Personally, the combat gameplay of a medieval game is the central element of the gameplay loop that keeps me engaged. But, I could overlook it if the rest was solid enough.
Between the pitch used to describe and sell the game, and the promotion of "experienced Eve developers," Pax Dei is far from the product it could be. It's even far from the product it SHOULD be. Right now, it's just a construction and craftsman simulator for 40 bucks, in Early Access, with promises of being 1.0 in a year.
Sure, right. It will take 2 to 3 years, not at the development pace between the 2023 alpha and this month's Early Access release. They need to pick up the pace. There's no way a game goes from alpha to 1.0 in 1 year. Even less with core mechanics problems. Don't even get me started on the PvP, which I quote : ""We do not want PvP to appear as a separate mode and thus create a gap between PvP players and PvE players. PvP should be an integral part of the world and the economy. We plan to offer players interesting and consistent ways to engage in PvP."
So the talk about kingdom and religion, right now, sounds to me way too idealistic when they can't even make what they already have work correctly.
4 years, "experienced EVE devs", 30 millions, which is nothing for a MMO, BUT : no mounts, no farming, no classes, no trade, no market, no quests, no lore, no towns, no npc, no writing, no combat (right clicking isn't "combat"), no bosses, no engaging PvP, no social features. Nothing but crafting and construction. And both of them aren't even close to being feature completes.
That's a big problem if you think about it for about 2 minutes. 30 millions to release a MMO which doesn't have any features of a classic MMO ? Or just put all that aside and have fun. One can have fun with very little, like building castle in the sand. Doesn't mean I'll pay 40 bucks for it. And tbh, I do want to play and like this game. Truly. I just can't enjoy a game in this state. And nobody will enjoy it long term if they don't remedy this whole "it's up to the player to build the world" idea. At least that's my concern.
EA price is secondary. People pay for quality. Which Pax has not apart from a beautiful graphic engine and some good ideas. That's why criticism on price and EA system comes afterward. Pax is released way too soon. And judging by the devs vision, the state of the actual game after 4 years and the quotes from the devs, game will probably take 10 to 15 years to be complete, like a SC. I can't find the exact quotes I red in an interview, but it goes like "Pax will never be really finished as we have an ambitious vision and the fund to back us". I didn't get into SC for that reason. I won't get into Pax also.
But yet market and economic reality tells otherwise. We all know which one wins 90% of the time between "vision and ideas" and economic reality. That's why they released as EA as far as I see it. So their vision will never be realized when they already destroyed the hype and the hopes for the game releasing in EA this bare bone.
The game is early access, not a finished product. I do agree with a lot of your points but from the transparency of the devs and a great foundation and roadmap, it will not take more than a year to complete the game for release. Especially if they sell cosmetics, mounts, outfits, etc. as DLC content for players to support the game. Only time will tell but having spent 5 years to get this far they are in it for the long game and not a scam as we have seen many times before.
@@MrLonwolfmq Doesn't matter the game is not finished. The game is out, labeled as EA yes, but nonetheless it is out. Some EA are in an alpha state way more polished, some EA are in beta in a worst state... People see it for what it is : an alpha with crooked foundation. Because of all the point I made. It will definitively take more than one year to complete the game. Sorry but you're delusional if you think it will release in 1.0 in june 2025. Or you can release any game in any state in 1.0 and call it a day at this point.
Especially by talking about "cosmetics, mounts, outfits as DLC". That's the least they need to focus on. Or they do if they plan to take 12 years to complete the game. Which will be dead anyway in far less time. They don't have even the 1/10 of the mass of players expecting and wanting to play SC to support them long enough. And I mean, SC is already more than 10 years old as an "EA" game. How long do you think Pax will last with 8-10k concurrent players each day at peak ? And I mean, its quickly dropping
I don't think its a scam. As a scam is something made purposefully. I just think Pax Dei's error is just to fail to understand the simple mechanic I spoke of : "Social and community-oriented gameplay implies features that promote this aspect". Its almost philosophical game design wise. Thinking a sandbox MMO means its up to the player to imagine everything without deep and interconnected features to support it, will 100% lead to a fail. That's why people are already leaving. Again, I won't make the point.
Pax isn't a scam. Its an incredible fail. Like 95% of the so called "sandbox" MMO that didn't understand yet that if you're going for no classes, no quests, no writing, no lore, no market, no currency, no nothing, you still have to build in game features to make your game a "social sandbox experience".
Even in a tabletop RPG, which is the epitome of "the player is free," there is a rulebook as thick as a phone directory to support the players' freedom within a framework of rules designed to encourage creativity and liberty. Plus, there is a storyline constructed by the GM to bring the game to life and guiding you, the player. This is a philosophy that works. The player's freedom is expressed within a well-constructed framework. The better constructed it is and interconnected, the less the players will even feel like there are rules and game mechanics. The more the player will have fun and use the rules to live their experience. Removing all the rules and saying "you're free" is an intellectual scam.
Any tabletop GM and any player who has experienced this idea of "do whatever you want" at least once the first time they played, understands what I'm talking about.
Right now combat sucks bad. They have made so many bad decisions.
2 mistakes , mmo and pvp