Consider how many poor releases happened in years past: vanguard, warhammer, champions, etc. All were widely criticized for being incomplete and buggy.
The only thing that has changed is developers now call these pre-release and early access..... and somehow players went from expecting quality games in exchange for their money to a state where they actually defend developers for selling the same buggy and unfinished games.
The above statement is what makes me believe you do not understand kickstarter development. The majority of these developers tell you exactly what to expect for the state of the game before you buy in yet people still expect a polished finished game. You have the right to criticize all you want but others have the right to refute your criticism. The right works both ways. Who called your right to criticize into question anyway?
BTW, many developers have refunded donation money during these crowd funded projects. Many publishers have refused to refund pre-purchase games. Your distinction really doesn't differentiate the two.
Devs findings themselves *asking* for positive reviews. Not a great situation at all.
Did they ever consider the possibility that the game ISN't as good as it is supposed to be? Because that's exactly how I feel-- this game is likely going to miss the mark for me.
Thankfully, I most intelligently already put in my $80 early, so I don't have to worry about wasting my hard earned dollars when I find out it's a total flop. Thank you kickstarter!
That review doesn't sound unreasonable. I don't much follow the game anymore because the hype meter feels propped up by fear and my BS meter has been going off for months. I backed the kickstarter and upgraded afterwards. But after raising millions, it's still not enough.
My review would be one sentence. All the people who enjoyed not only UO, but also mostly all the Ultima series RPGs, should be playing this game, because if they don't, they miss something major, or they are just not Ultima fans like they pretend to be.
My opinion of SotA isn't shared with yours and I don't really, even understand yours. Is it like, "It's great because it's Ultima! Deal with it!"? It's not great just because it's made by Lord British. It's not Ultima. If it's going to be great, it sure as hell isn't showing those colors yet.
Ultima was great because it brought that open-world adventure sense, what people today refer as "sandbox" (ugh) to the table. Similarly, UO brought good, novel game concepts to the table. I don't see what SotA is bringing to the table. Maybe they have yet to set the table. It looks more like they have yet to buy the table, on which they'd care to set something they'd bring...
Kickstarter and early access are the bane of a games fanbase. Seriously, how many people back a game, buy a founder's pack, etc and then just turn around and rage and/or quit because of the slow process of progression in polish, etc?
People THINK they want to help develop a game, until they actually have to do it.
This is why I will never play an alpha, ever. You dedicate a ton of time to making the game better and in the end the devs can still totally eff it up. Giant waste if you ask me.
My review would be one sentence. All the people who enjoyed not only UO, but also mostly all the Ultima series RPGs, should be playing this game, because if they don't, they miss something major, or they are just not Ultima fans like they pretend to be.
My opinion of SotA isn't shared with yours and I don't really, even understand yours. Is it like, "It's great because it's Ultima! Deal with it!"? It's not great just because it's made by Lord British. It's not Ultima. If it's going to be great, it sure as hell isn't showing those colors yet.
Ultima was great because it brought that open-world adventure sense, what people today refer as "sandbox" (ugh) to the table. Similarly, UO brought good, novel game concepts to the table. I don't see what SotA is bringing to the table. Maybe they have yet to set the table. It looks more like they have yet to buy the table, on which they'd care to set something they'd bring...
I seriously doubt you even played SotA. The open world of the Ultima games was built exactly like SotA is, with a map and interest points it was zooming in to.
I guess you only played UO, since you wouldn't post such nonsense if you had been there in the golden age of Ultima, during Ultima IV and beyond.
SotA is inspired by what many consider the best computer RPGs ever made, and stays true to them. Problem is, the modern video gamer will never be able to adapt to that. It's not instant gratification, it's not keyboad facerolling quests.
LoL. You're right, I'm not playing SotA. I'm not going to pay a litigious blow-hard to test his game for him. I certainly played early Ultimas on Atari 800 and commodore 64. I didn't play UO much, but that shouldn't stop me from being able to say honest, nice things about it. I follow SotA, as many upcoming games, in whatever media I can.
Blah blah blah inspired this and that. Whatever. The post to which you replied discussed, "What does SotA bring to the table?". Instead of answering that, or even trying to answer that, you attacked my knowledge of the Ultima IP, of which I clearly spoke well. Stop being unnecessarily defensive from your buyer's remorse and answer that question.
Consider how many poor releases happened in years past: vanguard, warhammer, champions, etc. All were widely criticized for being incomplete and buggy.
The only thing that has changed is developers now call these pre-release and early access..... and somehow players went from expecting quality games in exchange for their money to a state where they actually defend developers for selling the same buggy and unfinished games.
The above statement is what makes me believe you do not understand kickstarter development. The majority of these developers tell you exactly what to expect for the state of the game before you buy in yet people still expect a polished finished game. You have the right to criticize all you want but others have the right to refute your criticism. The right works both ways. Who called your right to criticize into question anyway?
BTW, many developers have refunded donation money during these crowd funded projects. Many publishers have refused to refund pre-purchase games. Your distinction really doesn't differentiate the two.
1) I disagree with larger companies simply slapping "pre-release" on their unfinished games and selling them to the public.
2) I disagree with others who says that a game labeled 'pre-release' or 'alpha/beta' removes the right to criticize, regardless of the developers size, if they are selling the game.
3) I have no real issue with small upstart companies trying to crowd source some start up capital. In some cases it is win/win. My problem is with companies that fall in point 1.
I think you have some of my comments mixed up, sorry if they came off otherwise.
That makes your opinion(s) about this game irrelevant, and so are your insults.
If you never played the game, you definitely have no clue about how close to the Ultima IP it is.
I know. You don't.
Case closed.
edited: You know what, man, I'll get my info from someone else and just count you as a negative when I chalk up pros/cons to checking out this game. You just keep on being you.
Originally posted by mystik13 Not really appropriate for a developer to try to influence reviews though. It undermines however much integrity the review system has. Devs should appreciate negative but constructive criticism. I want to read honest impressions not propaganda. That being said I am interested in the game.
It happens all the time with media sites and even if not in a written contract,it is a known given that without that favorable review there is no incoming advertising money and no future interviews with them,so ya it is a given.You basically cannot trust any interview unless from a total independent person. and even then everyone has their own preferences to what is good and bad.
Example i find that a game like Diablo for example is total nonsense and mindless,yet it sold multi millions and some people think it is the best thing since sliced cheese.So my review would be total negative while other legit ones could be all positive.The difference being,i base a game on the EFFORT it takes to make it and if what they are doing could be done better,whilst others would simply base it on weather they like it or not.I alos know game design VERY well,there is very little i can't see what the developer is doing or not doing,and believe me MOST of the time it is cost cutting corners and NOT putting out their best effort.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Now a days you've got to do your homework before jumping into a game. Sure if you have all kinds of income then you can buy on impulse and not really care if you got something good for your money. But unless they have a free weekend or free beta or something that costs you nothing to try the game out you should do your research and if it's a mixed bag of reviews simply wait and see how the game develops before putting your hard earned money into it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
nothing wrong with that game , it is just what are almost all KS crow founding games, promises,never ended game developing ,cash grab ... and devs making game for self pleasure & playing not for masses who donate money.
Ive seen this review on STEAM, but the truth preveils past your hate for the game.
1. all the paid advantages are in the form of housing and inventory, two things that will not affect gameplay or advantage in a game.
2. Supporters of a game told to go over to steam and rate up the game is not even close to shady business. Supports of any game can post anywhere and take their business anywhere they want. The people who support the game and go to steam to post positive feedback are REAL PEOPLE, with REAL FEELINGS! If it was a fake bunch of people with false feelings you might have some credit, but you just look hateful and spiteful for calling out supporters of a game.
3. Just because you hate a game before its even released and try to hound it because you were banned in their forums for posting negativity on the companies website, you should look at every other company and see the same happens. Post to sites like this if you dont like a game.
Conclusion:
I find the main post uncredible and therefore ask that you find better reasons to hate on this game then you have now. Everything you say are either not true or just pointing fingers saying somethings shady when its not. Good day to you, hope you move on past your forum ban from the game company's website and move on with your life.
2. Supporters of a game told to go over to steam and rate up the game is not even close to shady business. Supports of any game can post anywhere and take their business anywhere they want. The people who support the game and go to steam to post positive feedback are REAL PEOPLE, with REAL FEELINGS! If it was a fake bunch of people with false feelings you might have some credit, but you just look hateful and spiteful for calling out supporters of a game.
Just want to point out this isn't just something game companies ask for. Most software companies want you to do this. Buy an app on your phone or tablet or from the Windows or Apple store and they'll ask you to rate it 5 stars. They never just ask you to rate it whatever you feel like. They also ask if you'll rate it 5 stars.
Buy something from Amazon or another online retailer and they'll ask you to rate your experience highly. Some of those ask for more critical feedback but that's usually the site and not partnered reseller.
Asking for positive reviews isn't shady and isn't new.
But it is when they are asking their fans to post positive reviews and mark negative reviews as "not helpful" so they lose visibility.
I pledged $800 before I figured out what a steaming pile of snake-oil salesmen Garriott and crew are. Portalarium only listens to their top-tier backers and the rest of us are just filler cash so those people get the game THEY want. Worst part is Portalarium is actively helping them do that.
As long as you agree with Port and their "inner circle" you'll be treated with courtesy. If you post anything criticizing the game, they'll turn on you like a pack of rabid wolves.
"Keep these positive reviews coming because we need to sell Early Access or development will stop and this game will never be finished"
This seems to be the general mantra these days for EA games. It's despicable, shady and flat out insulting. I am a first day backer but you will get a bad review because so far you delivered nothing but crap and you deserve the bad reviews. If that means my investment is doomed, so be it.
2. Supporters of a game told to go over to steam and rate up the game is not even close to shady business. Supports of any game can post anywhere and take their business anywhere they want. The people who support the game and go to steam to post positive feedback are REAL PEOPLE, with REAL FEELINGS! If it was a fake bunch of people with false feelings you might have some credit, but you just look hateful and spiteful for calling out supporters of a game.
Just want to point out this isn't just something game companies ask for. Most software companies want you to do this. Buy an app on your phone or tablet or from the Windows or Apple store and they'll ask you to rate it 5 stars. They never just ask you to rate it whatever you feel like. They also ask if you'll rate it 5 stars.
Buy something from Amazon or another online retailer and they'll ask you to rate your experience highly. Some of those ask for more critical feedback but that's usually the site and not partnered reseller.
Asking for positive reviews isn't shady and isn't new.
But it is when they are asking their fans to post positive reviews and mark negative reviews as "not helpful" so they lose visibility.
I pledged $800 before I figured out what a steaming pile of snake-oil salesmen Garriott and crew are. Portalarium only listens to their top-tier backers and the rest of us are just filler cash so those people get the game THEY want. Worst part is Portalarium is actively helping them do that.
As long as you agree with Port and their "inner circle" you'll be treated with courtesy. If you post anything criticizing the game, they'll turn on you like a pack of rabid wolves.
First, I am a longtime fan of Lord British's past work and recognize the game is still in Alpha and as such is still in an unfinished state.
With that said, I fail to grasp how anyone could be wowed by it at this juncture. While I haven't been critical of it anywhere to this point, I haven't been impressed either. Frankly, I wish I had waited rather than back it at this point. When I have logged in, I have been quickly bored feeling there is little to see and do, as the game feels very unfinished (As it should feel given it is in Alpha)
I am disturbed at the prodding of players to post positive reviews to influence others to buy the game; "loyal backers" indeed. I take a different view. If the game is launched to amazing reviews, everyone will buy it. For example, look how many have purchased the excellent Witcher III, a quality RPG from an excellent publisher (CD Projeckt) who treats their player base with respect.
By the same token, if this development team can't deliver on the promise, a few more "loyal backers" beating the drum aren't ultimately going to determine the fate of the game. I too have followed development on the forums and am pretty unimpressed with the communication and tone of communication from the development team. Maybe they should spend less time spinning and more time listening to what people are telling them. These are the same people who will or will not ultimately purchase the game they develop.
LOL always a sign to jump ship when the designers start begging the " loyal " members to post positive comments.
I admit I kickstarted this pos but the first time I got in game I realized just what a no talent tired old game they were building.
My recommendation is suck up the loss and walk away.
Agree. Asking for positive reviews from the so called "loyal" members is asking for a description the game often cant back. It is a way to trick others buying into a game based on fake positive reviews. These "loyal" backers that write positive reviews based on developers asking them is as i see it part of a community in denial and they are also most likely eager to defend their huge investment. Some have invested thousands of dollars. Making positive reviews based on developer demand and not the actual status of the game is bad business and will not make this game a more successful one. Most of these positive reviews are also describing the game and it's features poorly while the negative ones describes them well.
Writing positive reviews cause the game is produced by seasoned developers you have faith in isn't something anyone should trust. Many of them are biased reviews and i feel sorry for the ones that bought the game cause they read a biased positive review.
Originally posted by ElirionLoth A developer asking people who like the game to post a positive review on a site? Sorry, not seeing the problem with that. He's not asking anyone to lie and also not asking anyone to omit the negatives.
Developer asked players to post positive reviews on steam to manipulate the score from " mostly positive " to " very positive ". If you don't see the problem with that, then I think your moral compass is off.
I think many over at SotA forums have lost track with reality and will do anything to please these seasoned developers. Sure many of these positive reviews is truthfully written but it make it no less a manipulation created by these developers to trick others to buy into a game that don't deserve the today reputation it has on steam.
Another reason why many have written a more positive review then deserved is protection of their investment, some have put thousands of dollars into this game.
Comments
The above statement is what makes me believe you do not understand kickstarter development. The majority of these developers tell you exactly what to expect for the state of the game before you buy in yet people still expect a polished finished game. You have the right to criticize all you want but others have the right to refute your criticism. The right works both ways. Who called your right to criticize into question anyway?
BTW, many developers have refunded donation money during these crowd funded projects. Many publishers have refused to refund pre-purchase games. Your distinction really doesn't differentiate the two.
Devs findings themselves *asking* for positive reviews. Not a great situation at all.
Did they ever consider the possibility that the game ISN't as good as it is supposed to be? Because that's exactly how I feel-- this game is likely going to miss the mark for me.
Thankfully, I most intelligently already put in my $80 early, so I don't have to worry about wasting my hard earned dollars when I find out it's a total flop. Thank you kickstarter!
i miss the days where game reviews were actually about the game, not stupid gaming politics.
LOL always a sign to jump ship when the designers start begging the " loyal " members to post positive comments.
I admit I kickstarted this pos but the first time I got in game I realized just what a no talent tired old game they were building.
My recommendation is suck up the loss and walk away.
That review doesn't sound unreasonable. I don't much follow the game anymore because the hype meter feels propped up by fear and my BS meter has been going off for months. I backed the kickstarter and upgraded afterwards. But after raising millions, it's still not enough.
My opinion of SotA isn't shared with yours and I don't really, even understand yours. Is it like, "It's great because it's Ultima! Deal with it!"? It's not great just because it's made by Lord British. It's not Ultima. If it's going to be great, it sure as hell isn't showing those colors yet.
Ultima was great because it brought that open-world adventure sense, what people today refer as "sandbox" (ugh) to the table. Similarly, UO brought good, novel game concepts to the table. I don't see what SotA is bringing to the table. Maybe they have yet to set the table. It looks more like they have yet to buy the table, on which they'd care to set something they'd bring...
Kickstarter and early access are the bane of a games fanbase. Seriously, how many people back a game, buy a founder's pack, etc and then just turn around and rage and/or quit because of the slow process of progression in polish, etc?
People THINK they want to help develop a game, until they actually have to do it.
This is why I will never play an alpha, ever. You dedicate a ton of time to making the game better and in the end the devs can still totally eff it up. Giant waste if you ask me.
LoL. You're right, I'm not playing SotA. I'm not going to pay a litigious blow-hard to test his game for him. I certainly played early Ultimas on Atari 800 and commodore 64. I didn't play UO much, but that shouldn't stop me from being able to say honest, nice things about it. I follow SotA, as many upcoming games, in whatever media I can.
Blah blah blah inspired this and that. Whatever. The post to which you replied discussed, "What does SotA bring to the table?". Instead of answering that, or even trying to answer that, you attacked my knowledge of the Ultima IP, of which I clearly spoke well. Stop being unnecessarily defensive from your buyer's remorse and answer that question.
1) I disagree with larger companies simply slapping "pre-release" on their unfinished games and selling them to the public.
2) I disagree with others who says that a game labeled 'pre-release' or 'alpha/beta' removes the right to criticize, regardless of the developers size, if they are selling the game.
3) I have no real issue with small upstart companies trying to crowd source some start up capital. In some cases it is win/win. My problem is with companies that fall in point 1.
I think you have some of my comments mixed up, sorry if they came off otherwise.
It happens all the time with media sites and even if not in a written contract,it is a known given that without that favorable review there is no incoming advertising money and no future interviews with them,so ya it is a given.You basically cannot trust any interview unless from a total independent person. and even then everyone has their own preferences to what is good and bad.
Example i find that a game like Diablo for example is total nonsense and mindless,yet it sold multi millions and some people think it is the best thing since sliced cheese.So my review would be total negative while other legit ones could be all positive.The difference being,i base a game on the EFFORT it takes to make it and if what they are doing could be done better,whilst others would simply base it on weather they like it or not.I alos know game design VERY well,there is very little i can't see what the developer is doing or not doing,and believe me MOST of the time it is cost cutting corners and NOT putting out their best effort.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Hadn't thought about that...but you're right lol.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Ive seen this review on STEAM, but the truth preveils past your hate for the game.
1. all the paid advantages are in the form of housing and inventory, two things that will not affect gameplay or advantage in a game.
2. Supporters of a game told to go over to steam and rate up the game is not even close to shady business. Supports of any game can post anywhere and take their business anywhere they want. The people who support the game and go to steam to post positive feedback are REAL PEOPLE, with REAL FEELINGS! If it was a fake bunch of people with false feelings you might have some credit, but you just look hateful and spiteful for calling out supporters of a game.
3. Just because you hate a game before its even released and try to hound it because you were banned in their forums for posting negativity on the companies website, you should look at every other company and see the same happens. Post to sites like this if you dont like a game.
Conclusion:
I find the main post uncredible and therefore ask that you find better reasons to hate on this game then you have now. Everything you say are either not true or just pointing fingers saying somethings shady when its not. Good day to you, hope you move on past your forum ban from the game company's website and move on with your life.
LOL
I am not banned, what gave you that idea?
Why post on a forum with biased moderators and developers?
But it is when they are asking their fans to post positive reviews and mark negative reviews as "not helpful" so they lose visibility.
I pledged $800 before I figured out what a steaming pile of snake-oil salesmen Garriott and crew are. Portalarium only listens to their top-tier backers and the rest of us are just filler cash so those people get the game THEY want. Worst part is Portalarium is actively helping them do that.
As long as you agree with Port and their "inner circle" you'll be treated with courtesy. If you post anything criticizing the game, they'll turn on you like a pack of rabid wolves.
ATM, when I log into SoA, the first thing that comes to mind is:
"This was made by the Legendary Lord British?"
Text boxes and graphics like DDO.
Nothing new.
"Keep these positive reviews coming because we need to sell Early Access or development will stop and this game will never be finished"
This seems to be the general mantra these days for EA games. It's despicable, shady and flat out insulting. I am a first day backer but you will get a bad review because so far you delivered nothing but crap and you deserve the bad reviews. If that means my investment is doomed, so be it.
A good description of the company policy.
First, I am a longtime fan of Lord British's past work and recognize the game is still in Alpha and as such is still in an unfinished state.
With that said, I fail to grasp how anyone could be wowed by it at this juncture. While I haven't been critical of it anywhere to this point, I haven't been impressed either. Frankly, I wish I had waited rather than back it at this point. When I have logged in, I have been quickly bored feeling there is little to see and do, as the game feels very unfinished (As it should feel given it is in Alpha)
I am disturbed at the prodding of players to post positive reviews to influence others to buy the game; "loyal backers" indeed. I take a different view. If the game is launched to amazing reviews, everyone will buy it. For example, look how many have purchased the excellent Witcher III, a quality RPG from an excellent publisher (CD Projeckt) who treats their player base with respect.
By the same token, if this development team can't deliver on the promise, a few more "loyal backers" beating the drum aren't ultimately going to determine the fate of the game. I too have followed development on the forums and am pretty unimpressed with the communication and tone of communication from the development team. Maybe they should spend less time spinning and more time listening to what people are telling them. These are the same people who will or will not ultimately purchase the game they develop.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
Writing positive reviews cause the game is produced by seasoned developers you have faith in isn't something anyone should trust. Many of them are biased reviews and i feel sorry for the ones that bought the game cause they read a biased positive review.
Another reason why many have written a more positive review then deserved is protection of their investment, some have put thousands of dollars into this game.