Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

We want full open world, not instanced! And first post!

2

Comments

  • SalengerSalenger Member UncommonPosts: 554
    Game looks interesting, and will probably be a good RPG.

    But its not an MMORPG by any means and should not be on this site at all. I agree with everyone else, UO fans have waited and waited for its successor for years, this is not that.

  • ApraxisApraxis Member UncommonPosts: 1,518
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Well imitator is maybe not the correct word but he does seem to have given up on MMOs and not trying to create a sucessor of UO but rather a single/lmited multiplayer game. And that is going backwards, from UO, not forwards.

    Many out there may think that not catering to people like you may be a step forward. Your argument works two ways. Don't pretend you hold the ultimate truth - apparently most of the MMOs you disliked in the past are still doing just fine without you.

    What you want is not the only possible way to do things - and definitely not the best success wise. But I wonder why I'm trying to explain that, considering your post history of intolerance towards any game that doesn't fit your precise rules of what a MMORPG should be.

    You are making arguments which are not part of the discussion here. I am talking about working on UO and creating a successor for it. Obviously a non MMO would not be that and I dont see how my post history has anything to do with the fact that this guy did create the grandfathers of sandbox MMOs and it would make sense to build on that.

    And that is a mistake. Raph Koster was the lead designer for UO, he basicly created UO. Back in that time Richard Garriott got a lot else to do. He was involved in the vision of a multiplayer kind of UO, but how it was actually handled was the part of Raph Koster.

    And on the other side.. everything what we know up to now enables everything. It could be a Open World. Because as much as i read into it. It is more about the player in the client version. You will get a offline version. Ok. I got a offline version for Old UO, it doesnt change the gameplay on UO servers. You got a version where you can play just with your friends. Ok, i know one million freeshard UO servers, where basicly exactly that happens. It doesnt change how it plays on the usual OSI servers.

    So.. i dont see anywhere that it is not open world. I will say that much, i liked almost all Ultima games, and i liked Ultima Online. I will wait and see what he is really cooking there, and will play test it. And after that i will judge it is a worthy game or not. But in all honestly, i believe Garriot is a quality game designer, and i am interested in what he is doing. But i am not that sure if he really is the MMO guru a lot of ppl made him, because actually he did not made that much when it comes to MMOs.

  • ApraxisApraxis Member UncommonPosts: 1,518
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    • Fully Interactive World | Everything is interactive in one way or another.
    • Classless Character System | You won't be limited to any class, but instead will really be able to craft your own class.
    • Extensive Player Housing | There are several types of housing that will serve different purposes all together.
    Sounds a lot like UO to me so far.
     
    I don't expect Richard Garriot to repeat the MISTAKES he made in UO - notably forcing FFA PvP on everybody, something they had to revert with Trammel in order to stop the player bleeding. While this won't be pre-trammel UO made 3D, which would be doomed to failure (we all know how well FFA PvP games fare... very badly), it definitely takes root in the Ultima Games including UO.

    Another mistake. Garriot left 2000 EA. And Trammel was introduced in 2000. So how much involvement of Garriot was in that one? Not a lot, if at all.

  • ApraxisApraxis Member UncommonPosts: 1,518
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    When TNG meets TOS... ;-)

    I'd add one thing to the great post of BadSpock:

    TRAMMEL KILLED THE GRIEFERS, NOT THE TRUE PVPers.

    And that's fact. A specific category of "players" was angry because they could no longer gank harmless crafters just outside of town. They were angry because now, they had to fight skilled PvP players, those who would fight back and strip them naked, instead of them doing the stripping.

    Everyone else was enjoying the change, and UO had more total players than it ever had.

    Well.. as i see it as old time UO player and miner/crafter and pvper. Trammel killed the economy, because every single ore could be easily farmed to hell and the prices dropped down, and we got a hyper inflation.

    That you have to do something against useless ganking or griefing is one thing, but to destroy pvp and the economy alltogether is the wrong one. Eve solved this problem a lot better. Another solution is serious consequences for some kind of pking. But to split the world is a bad idea and a bad solution, and bad game design. Imho, of course.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,749
    Originally posted by BrownAle

    You know im getting fairly tired of this litmus test on games.  By that i mean "i can only enjoy a game if it has features X, Y,Z and cannot possibly like a game that has features A,B,C"

    I mean really?  Are people these days so incapable of enjoying a game?  Not just with this game, but i see people who are not interested in games that DONT have player housing, or if it does it needs to be open world player housing (which has major issues with the game world and home avalibility btw)...

    Seriously?  We cant possibly enjoy a game if it has instances?  We cant possibly enjoy a game if it has a certain feature or lacks another:?

     

    People wonder why they cant find a game they like...its because the one specific game that you will like will never get made.  Play games for fun, stop with the 30 point checklist where one missing feature or one feature you dont like means your going to hate the game.  And yes, when you walk into a game expecting to hate it, chances are your not going to enjoy it.

     

    Secondly, who cares what this guy wants to make?  Let him make the game as he sees fit and see if you like it, however i relaize most wont bother due to it failing the 30 point checklist.

     

    Will i play it?  Well if it launches and looks decent i probably will. 

    X, Y, Z are fun and A, B, C are not.  This is why people are picky about game features.  They can literally make a game worth playing or not.  I love chess, can't stand checkers.  They both use the same board, but have different features.  I love MMORPGs without raiding and PvP and any MMO that forces either on me, then it's dead in the water as far as I'm concerned.  I hate instancing as it removes the virtual world aspect when I'm looking for a more robust social experience.  Frankly, I shouldn't need to explain this to you.  People have every right to dislike a game for any reason what so ever.  It doesn't need to be valid in your eyes in order to be valid in theirs.

     

    P.S. "....and looks decent...."  sounds like a qualifier to me and the very essensce of your argument against picky people.

    image
  • drbaltazardrbaltazar Member UncommonPosts: 7,856
    Gw1 was too instanced.gw2 is just perfect.me as long as i ain't in dungeon style world and ain't meeting loading screen every inch(staring at ff14 that was free for a long while)I can compromise
  • ShadowsladyShadowslady Member UncommonPosts: 148

    Shadowlord Sage
    CmdrAkbar

    Napa Valley, UO, 1997.

  • Cube34Cube34 Member Posts: 1
     I was subscribed and looked forward to what he was offering up. Seeing kickstarter completely turned me off. I'll still feel obligated to check it out. But I have less faith than I would expect for Garriott. Trammel was good and bad, but more good than bad the longer I thought about it. With regards to PvP, I was a hardcore faction player, occasionally Red vs Blue stuff. I came to really appreciate the split environment. When I stepped into Fel which was roughly 85% of the time, I knew everyone I saw was looking for a fight or was preppared to run for it. When I step into Tram, I knew everyone either wanted to be left alone, chat, or do business. With the economy, don't forget how helpful trammel was for the housing of the large player base. The PvP environment (base)home was more affordable. Trammel homes plus the subsequent expansion zones made for a great profitable realestate market which I participated in for the other 15% of the time. For me, it funded my successful faction efforts and the efforts of my partners. While during those times I thought I disliked Trammel. I came to realize it was the best thing that happened to the pvp AND pve community.  Atleast the pvp community that likes to be challenged.
  • HancakesHancakes Member Posts: 1,045
    Originally posted by Salenger
    Game looks interesting, and will probably be a good RPG. But its not an MMORPG by any means and should not be on this site at all. I agree with everyone else, UO fans have waited and waited for its successor for years, this is not that.

    What a sad day....

     

     

    "Though Shroud of the Avatar won’t be a massively multiplayer online role playing game, it will be a multiplayer game."

     

    This travesty seems better suited for a Tablet. :(

     

     

    HYPE LEVEL  :   ZERO!!! image

  • The fully seamless world was definitely one of the major things that made Ultima VII the game I liked the most in the series. I really hope they reconsider the current structure of the game world.
  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,739
    Yes, this seems more like a evolution of the Ultima series, but not UO.  I was really hoping for UO2 basically, even if he changed it some to make it a little more friendly.  I don't have too much interest in this version, I will of course look at it more when its closer to being done, but it isn't really what I look for I don't think.
  • For me I'd love to see a new single player game in the series OR an Ultima Online 2 sort of deal. I'm not sure I'm that interested in this hybrid version, but I'll be looking in on it now and then since it's Ultima afterall.
  • jesteralwaysjesteralways Member RarePosts: 2,560
    On the matter of instance and open world, i think there should be an option; a player choice; before entering dungeon or raid players should be able to choose if they want the instance to be public or open. that way if someone loves to be ganked while trying to kill boss can keep the instance open and be ganked while fighting boss. win-win for everyone.

    Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.

  • KomandorKomandor Member Posts: 272
    Ultima was open world, so why wouldn't this game? Anything else and it's a step back. Open world STRONG!

    Keep on rockin'!image

  • stvnkrs10stvnkrs10 Member UncommonPosts: 53
    I find it amusing that people seem to think since they want an open world that everyone does. Not everyone likes pvp. I enjoyed Tram in UO and when I felt like it I went in to Fel. There's some days you feel like taking risks and other days you just want to mine and craft and maybe shop without having to look over your shoulder. I love the new OPO concept that if I want to participate in pvp then I can play myself pvp and I will see pvp players. I like how the system will smartly surround me with others that have the same interests as me. I dont want to have to have some 14 year old kid asking me for gold every time I go in to town or be forced to see people I don't care to. 
     
    I am looking forward to Shroud. Bring on the next phase of Gaming!
  • WereLlamaWereLlama Member UncommonPosts: 246

    I think thoughtful instancing can be superior to non-instancing.

    Personally, I think instancing can elevate a more Sandbox like environment by rewarding players with higher quality experiences for each zone based on how much they 'add' to the game.

    When our game comes out this fall, we are using instancing as a 'reward' mechanism for adding value (vs grief play) to the game.

    -WL

  • chrisbcarrchrisbcarr Member Posts: 5
    I definitely want full open world, not instanced especially with housing!!
  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,105
    Originally posted by Onigod

    What are open worlds?

     

    Companies have lost the meaning of it.. they will promote something as an open world yet have 50 different channels/hubs on that same world.

     

    I cant play any game that uses channels.  if i play on a server i want to see everyone playing on that server in my world.  playing a mmorpg is meaningless if you will never see any of the players again that you just played with. on top of that communities always suck in these type of games.  it doesnt matter what you do it cant be used against u since the people you said/did it to will never be seen again.

    Actually it's the players who have lost their way by redefining the definitions used in a game to suit their needs or biases.  Open-World means that there is freedom to go anywhere.  Think of it as an open map with no boundaries.  Most gamers confuse the term or use it loosely and interchangeably with Zoned or Seamless worlds.  Some even say that there is a lack of instancing in an open world.  But that's not true either.  Any time you begin to narrow the definition you create issues that can never be recovered from.

     

    Your post is a perfect example of this narrow thinking, having copies of a world/zone is not nor never be part of whether a world is open world or not.  You can have different channels in an MMO and continue to be open world, just as you can have zones in a world and continue to be open or linear.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • MandibleMandible Member UncommonPosts: 14
    Originally posted by taus01
    Originally posted by evemaster00

    We want full open world, not instanced!

    Why does richard garriot think ex UO players want anything less than an actual WORLD where all players are able to interact with each other? Be it for good, or for bad. It's the ups and downs that makes for the best experience.

    The whole Kickstarter looks to me like an attempt to jump on the bandwagon and get some easy cash. I am puzzled by the design decisions and the lack of vision. It is not even an mmo, its more of the facebook generation pseudo online games we have seen in recent years. Lobby or world map with instanced multiplayer but mostly made for solo play.

    I am disappointed Lord British!

    Agreed, I feel the say way......  LB is all about gaming with your facebook friends these days. I'm an older mature gamer and dont have any friends who will be playing this game.... Richard keeps talking about how we are going to play with our friends.... I'm thinking who the hell is he talking about. I want to meet my friends IN THE GAME, not bring my friends from Facebook. He's completely lost and turn this game into a rediculious lobby based game like D&D online. 

  • InsaneMembraneInsaneMembrane Member Posts: 130
    Originally posted by Mandible
    Originally posted by taus01
    Originally posted by evemaster00

    We want full open world, not instanced!

    Why does richard garriot think ex UO players want anything less than an actual WORLD where all players are able to interact with each other? Be it for good, or for bad. It's the ups and downs that makes for the best experience.

    The whole Kickstarter looks to me like an attempt to jump on the bandwagon and get some easy cash. I am puzzled by the design decisions and the lack of vision. It is not even an mmo, its more of the facebook generation pseudo online games we have seen in recent years. Lobby or world map with instanced multiplayer but mostly made for solo play.

    I am disappointed Lord British!

    Agreed, I feel the say way......  LB is all about gaming with your facebook friends these days. I'm an older mature gamer and dont have any friends who will be playing this game.... Richard keeps talking about how we are going to play with our friends.... I'm thinking who the hell is he talking about. I want to meet my friends IN THE GAME, not bring my friends from Facebook. He's completely lost and turn this game into a rediculious lobby based game like D&D online. 

    LB isn't about gaming with your facebook friends... Gamers are. Casual gamers, ones that aren't hard core, ones that can't really play games properly any longer due to the attention span issues of today's youth.

    I also want to meet new players in the game, nobody I know on FB plays the crap I do because they are all nubs. 

    The good thing is, there is an Open Player Online mode, it isn't induced by any sort of social media friend junk, and you can meet new players in the game. Bad part about this is due to the way the game will be working, there could be a maximum amount of players around 100 which will be connected to your game at any given time.

    We need more info, and need to see this in action, but I don't think it is the end of the world.

  • stvnkrs10stvnkrs10 Member UncommonPosts: 53
    Originally posted by chrisbcarr
    I definitely want full open world, not instanced especially with housing!!

    The housing area of this game is not going to be instanced. Just because you don't see certain people doesn't mean your house and vendors won't, they will be viewable by everyone at all times.

    The Open World Online feature aims to group you with people with similar play styles around you, if you are a soloer, you may only run in to soloers, if you area pvper you will more than likely only see those who engage in pvp. LB is making the game so you only encounter those of a similar play as you and it sounds good to me.

    If I want to be pvp then I will only see pvp style people, if I chose to be a pve only character, then I don't have to worry about being ganked every time I leave town. It is a little segregated but all in all, it's not a deal breaker for me. 

    The only people this should affect are the pvp gank crews that prey upon us innocent miners and crafters out to find some metals. 

  • EzbeeEzbee Member Posts: 31

    I agree, when I saw that part of the game description it killed all my hype. 

    Sounds similar to neverwinter's system but that sort of works because of the type of game it is. With this game it sound like an awful system.

  • InsaneMembraneInsaneMembrane Member Posts: 130

    I played NWO for about two days, the game was so cookie cutter and so terrible I couldn't even play much past that. 

    What does that tell you?

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by Onigod

    What are open worlds?

     

    Companies have lost the meaning of it.. they will promote something as an open world yet have 50 different channels/hubs on that same world.

     

    I cant play any game that uses channels.  if i play on a server i want to see everyone playing on that server in my world.  playing a mmorpg is meaningless if you will never see any of the players again that you just played with. on top of that communities always suck in these type of games.  it doesnt matter what you do it cant be used against u since the people you said/did it to will never be seen again.

    Your right, you wont see your favorite enemy guild if you arent in their instance.

    In UO for example you laways had ALL enemies in your game.

    It is a online game but you wont be able to meet all players that actually play the game and who you meet will differ every time you log into the game.

  • Romulan78Romulan78 Member UncommonPosts: 99
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Onigod

    What are open worlds?

     

    Companies have lost the meaning of it.. they will promote something as an open world yet have 50 different channels/hubs on that same world.

     

    I cant play any game that uses channels.  if i play on a server i want to see everyone playing on that server in my world.  playing a mmorpg is meaningless if you will never see any of the players again that you just played with. on top of that communities always suck in these type of games.  it doesnt matter what you do it cant be used against u since the people you said/did it to will never be seen again.

    Your right, you wont see your favorite enemy guild if you arent in their instance.

    In UO for example you laways had ALL enemies in your game.

    It is a online game but you wont be able to meet all players that actually play the game and who you meet will differ every time you log into the game.

    eww, what a waste of a game if what you say is correct.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.