I'm attempting the free trial, and it doesn't seem like too bad of a game. Liking the skill system, the interactions with the environment, and even the combat a bit, though it takes getting used to. I played for a couple hours and I'm still in my starter gear with the only exception being a leather helmet I found in a dresser or something.
I'm going into this never expecting to use the store, and not really caring about player housing, though apparently the only way to get housing now is to buy a lot from a player who already owns one? At least they say there are free lodgings and rental services available around.
I'm still on the fence about buying it, and haven't capped out the trial yet, but at least it's B2P and only like $45 for the initial purchase, so it's not terrible, I suppose.
I have tried to play this so many times through it's development and just could never get very far and I just had to log just way too clunky.
So now that it's launched I thought I would give it a go and I just logged off at about the same place! I'm sorry King Richard but its just not my cup of tea..
"SOTA’s special sauce here is in how skills level up. Each skill has its own XP bar, and the more you use it the more you gain in that skill. It even works on practice dummies - smash away at the wood for a while and watch your skill climb."
Oh that isn't going to be botted to all hell is it? Characters wailing on dummies 24hrs a day, I hope they are ready and have systems in place to stop this ?!
Game has a nice and quaint old-school vibe about it. Don't know why, but it reminds me of Dungeon Lords.
Sort of a hugely flawed mediocre game with some really nice throwback features. I can't see it appealing wide in any way whatsoever - but it's got the potential to be a niche success, if such a thing makes any sense.
While I've only scratched the surface of the surface, I think it's got enough content for a while - and I'm particularly keen to check out the dungeons to see if they resemble the Ultima dungeons.
I love puzzles and exploration in that way, and there's clearly some of that in this game.
I doubt I'll play it all that much, but - then again - I didn't expect to.
It looks like ass in my opinion - and it performs like an amateur-hour Unity game - even with R52.
No one is going to convince me that genuine heart and passion went into this. That's out of the question.
Then again, 9 out of 10 AAA games are made in that very same factory-line product way - so that's not necessarily a terrible thing.
Time will tell, but I'm keeping an open mind for now.
Now that it's released, is this game actually an MMO? I get quite confused whenever I read articles about it.
Some mention offline mode, others have mentioned a smaller scale coop experience. Some call it an actual MMO but then seem to reference very low player caps in zones which would mean it's not an MMO.
Yep, they kickstarted it as a single player game you can play online with friends....then a few months after getting the money for that they brought in a new dev, Darkstarr and he pushed them to an MMO.
So, is it an MMO or not then?
To be clear what I mean, MMO = a game that supports 500+ people within the same virtual environment. A virtual environment being an area where you can actually play the game and that can be traversed without a loading screen.
This is actually the definition that Garriott himself came up with 20 years ago and confirmed on this site in the not-too-distant past (though back then his number was 250, the number's gone up as average multiplayer has gone up) so I'm really curious as to whether he has stuck to his own definition or not. I get the impression that he hasn't, that the heavy use of instancing and player caps means that it's in the same realm as Destiny and The Division (i.e. not MMOs)
There is no way they can do 500 in the same scene...though they have a hard time having that many online at once anyways.
There are a lot of games that have trouble with 500 in the same area. Rift Prime has a hard time with 500 in the same zone let alone in the same area. Even if there are 500 people in the same area in most mmos you won't see them because of culling to prevent the horrible freeze frame fps stuttering mass concurrency causes. That's true in AAA mmos like Rift, GW2, etc. ESO handles it by never putting more people in a phase than the engine can handle.
He's just trying to derail the conversation into "what is an mmo" so he can go off on long insightful meaningless diatribes.
I'm not trying to derail anything, and the definition was in the same virtual environment.
I don't think I've ever played an MMO that can handle 500 on screen at the same time, but thats not the definition and not what I care about. All the old MMOs could handle 500 in the same virtual environment, certainly the ones I played anyways (swg, ff11, lotro, war etc).
I just want to know whether Shroud is an MMO or not, and gave my definition so that someone could actually answer me directly rather than us getting into a discussion about the definition.
You'll notice that nobody has actually answered my simple question.
Now that it's released, is this game actually an MMO? I get quite confused whenever I read articles about it.
Some mention offline mode, others have mentioned a smaller scale coop experience. Some call it an actual MMO but then seem to reference very low player caps in zones which would mean it's not an MMO.
Yep, they kickstarted it as a single player game you can play online with friends....then a few months after getting the money for that they brought in a new dev, Darkstarr and he pushed them to an MMO.
So, is it an MMO or not then?
To be clear what I mean, MMO = a game that supports 500+ people within the same virtual environment. A virtual environment being an area where you can actually play the game and that can be traversed without a loading screen.
This is actually the definition that Garriott himself came up with 20 years ago and confirmed on this site in the not-too-distant past (though back then his number was 250, the number's gone up as average multiplayer has gone up) so I'm really curious as to whether he has stuck to his own definition or not. I get the impression that he hasn't, that the heavy use of instancing and player caps means that it's in the same realm as Destiny and The Division (i.e. not MMOs)
There is no way they can do 500 in the same scene...though they have a hard time having that many online at once anyways.
There are a lot of games that have trouble with 500 in the same area. Rift Prime has a hard time with 500 in the same zone let alone in the same area. Even if there are 500 people in the same area in most mmos you won't see them because of culling to prevent the horrible freeze frame fps stuttering mass concurrency causes. That's true in AAA mmos like Rift, GW2, etc. ESO handles it by never putting more people in a phase than the engine can handle.
He's just trying to derail the conversation into "what is an mmo" so he can go off on long insightful meaningless diatribes.
I'm not trying to derail anything, and the definition was in the same virtual environment.
I don't think I've ever played an MMO that can handle 500 on screen at the same time, but thats not the definition and not what I care about. All the old MMOs could handle 500 in the same virtual environment, certainly the ones I played anyways (swg, ff11, lotro, war etc).
I just want to know whether Shroud is an MMO or not, and gave my definition so that someone could actually answer me directly rather than us getting into a discussion about the definition.
You'll notice that nobody has actually answered my simple question.
If you're not talking about on screen at the same time, then what are you talking about?
Your definition is muddy as hell. Virtual environment - being an area you can play in or traverse can easily be an area that's instanced a hundred times over.
So, be absolutely clear and you can get a clear answer.
That said, I don't think I've ever seen 500 concurrent players online in the game so far
That makes it pretty hard to answer either way.
But technology and fidelity have evolved over the years. The times of simplistic interactions with minimal player action updates are long gone.
Back in the day, everything was on a long server-based cooldown for every action - and actions were extremely simple in terms of calculation - because it was a matter of large hitboxes and basic math.
These days, the server has to keep track of a lot more nuance in terms of player action/movement and fine-tuned synchronizations across the board - so it's almost certainly impossible to have 500 players doing advanced interactions in non-instanced areas as small as the ones in SotA.
This game is failing for sure, but it isnt all that bad. I did have some hours of fun and I dont regret buying access to it. It wont last though, it isnt a lasting game.
The Biggest problem and the real dealbreaker, is the loading screens and the developers failing to do anything about them. They last too long, and is needed way way too often.
Now that it's released, is this game actually an MMO? I get quite confused whenever I read articles about it.
Some mention offline mode, others have mentioned a smaller scale coop experience. Some call it an actual MMO but then seem to reference very low player caps in zones which would mean it's not an MMO.
Yep, they kickstarted it as a single player game you can play online with friends....then a few months after getting the money for that they brought in a new dev, Darkstarr and he pushed them to an MMO.
So, is it an MMO or not then?
To be clear what I mean, MMO = a game that supports 500+ people within the same virtual environment. A virtual environment being an area where you can actually play the game and that can be traversed without a loading screen.
This is actually the definition that Garriott himself came up with 20 years ago and confirmed on this site in the not-too-distant past (though back then his number was 250, the number's gone up as average multiplayer has gone up) so I'm really curious as to whether he has stuck to his own definition or not. I get the impression that he hasn't, that the heavy use of instancing and player caps means that it's in the same realm as Destiny and The Division (i.e. not MMOs)
There is no way they can do 500 in the same scene...though they have a hard time having that many online at once anyways.
There are a lot of games that have trouble with 500 in the same area. Rift Prime has a hard time with 500 in the same zone let alone in the same area. Even if there are 500 people in the same area in most mmos you won't see them because of culling to prevent the horrible freeze frame fps stuttering mass concurrency causes. That's true in AAA mmos like Rift, GW2, etc. ESO handles it by never putting more people in a phase than the engine can handle.
He's just trying to derail the conversation into "what is an mmo" so he can go off on long insightful meaningless diatribes.
I'm not trying to derail anything, and the definition was in the same virtual environment.
I don't think I've ever played an MMO that can handle 500 on screen at the same time, but thats not the definition and not what I care about. All the old MMOs could handle 500 in the same virtual environment, certainly the ones I played anyways (swg, ff11, lotro, war etc).
I just want to know whether Shroud is an MMO or not, and gave my definition so that someone could actually answer me directly rather than us getting into a discussion about the definition.
You'll notice that nobody has actually answered my simple question.
If you're not talking about on screen at the same time, then what are you talking about?
Your definition is muddy as hell. Virtual environment - being an area you can play in or traverse can easily be an area that's instanced a hundred times over.
So, be absolutely clear and you can get a clear answer.
That said, I don't think I've ever seen 500 concurrent players online in the game so far
A virtual environment being an area of the game which you can actually play the game (this is to set it aside from lobbies / chat channels where you can't actually play) and which you can traverse without loading screens. It's a pretty self-contained definition, but I'll try to expand to make it clearer.
Basically, any area that you can play the game in is a virtual environment. You are considered to be in the same virtual environment as someone else if you can walk/run/ride/fly to each other without a loading screen. If you have to go through a loading screen, you have left one virtual environment and entered another.
So, to give some real examples.
In SWG, a planet is a virtual environment, but each planet is it's own separate virtual environment because you have to go through loading screens to get there. I think the most I personally witnessed was about 700 players on a planet. This is an MMO.
In LotRO, pretty much the entirity of Eriador is the same virtual environment. I can walk from the western end of the shire all the way to moria without any loading screens. I can walk from the frozen wastes of Forochel in the north all the way to the misty mountains in the east without any loading screens. It is one massive virtual environment. Moria, too, is a massive virtual environment as you can traverse the majority of Moria without loading screens, but Moria is a separate virtual environment to Eriador because you go through loading screens to get between the two. The most I personally witnessed was about 2500 players in Eriador during Shadows of Angmar. This is an MMO.
In SW:TOR, each planet is it's own virtual environment, however, there is a player cap of 75 people. When that cap is reached, a new instance of the planet is spawned and you have to go through a loading screen to change instances. This means that the maximum number of players you can have in a virtual environment in SW:TOR is 75. This is not an MMO.
In WAR, my memory is a bit hazy but iirc each racial pairing was it's own virtual environment (I can't remember if you can walk from each tier to the next one. I know you can in some places). So, I can start out as a level 1 orc and can walk from that starting point all the way through to tier 4 orc vs dwarf zones without a loading screen. However, you need to go through loading screens to change racial pairings or to visit the cities. The most I personally witnessed was about 1500 players in the same virtual environment, about 700 of which were involved in the same fortress fight (yeh, it was a slideshow). This is an MMO.
Now, I don't want to get into a discussion about the definition of an MMO. We've had that many many times here. This is my definition, this is what I care about, which is why I provided it so that someone could answer me. Also, my definition happens to be the same as Richard Garriotts definition, so given that he is the developer of Shroud and is calling his game an MMO, I wanted to see whether he has actually stuck to his own definition, or whether he is misusing it to sell his game, or whether he has changed his own definition to something new.
You have his definition at the top, though he calls it "reality" rather than virtual environment. He specifically states that shards (instances) break the intention of what an MMO is supposed to be.
I can't see his specific number there, I think it might be in the comments or might have been in another thread. His number was set at 250 when he defined the genre 20 years ago, I personally have upped it to 500 but I don't really mind if you use 250 as your baseline. The word "massively" is a comparative word, so you're comparing to normal multiplayer online games. Over the last 20 years, the average player cap in online multiplayer games has increased, so I increased the number required for an MMO. But, the number is subjective, 500 is my subjective line but feel free to pick whatever suits you.
I would also highly recommend reading through that whole post and the comments. Raph Koster joins in the debate in the comments and has the same definition as me (well, its the other way round really, I have the same definition as him, he can explain it so much better than i ever could!).
Also fun reading Bill's and teams comments where they basically dismiss all arguments and settle on "if its fun, online and you can play with lots of different people over time, we'll call it an mmo".
You have his definition at the top, though he calls it "reality" rather than virtual environment. He specifically states that shards (instances) break the intention of what an MMO is supposed to be.
I can't see his specific number there, I think it might be in the comments or might have been in another thread. His number was set at 250 when he defined the genre 20 years ago, I personally have upped it to 500 but I don't really mind if you use 250 as your baseline. The word "massively" is a comparative word, so you're comparing to normal multiplayer online games. Over the last 20 years, the average player cap in online multiplayer games has increased, so I increased the number required for an MMO. But, the number is subjective, 500 is my subjective line but feel free to pick whatever suits you.
I would also highly recommend reading through that whole post and the comments. Raph Koster joins in the debate in the comments and has the same definition as me (well, its the other way round really, I have the same definition as him, he can explain it so much better than i ever could!).
Also fun reading Bill's and teams comments where they basically dismiss all arguments and settle on "if its fun, online and you can play with lots of different people over time, we'll call it an mmo".
I see absolutely no evidence that he's talking about non-instanced single areas. To me, he's talking about a reality - which could very well be the same overall world - but there's no reason it couldn't be divided into instances where appropriate.
Could you please provide a direct quote that clearly states he's talking about non-instanced single areas with 250+ players playing together at the same time.
Otherwise, it would seem you're putting words into his mouth and then potentially accusing him of not living up to that, which is incredibly unfair.
Also, shards in UO weren't traditional instances. They were world servers - which is something completely different.
For instance, ESO doesn't have shards (beyond region servers) - but it's full of instances.
SotA doesn't seem to have shards, either. It's one big world server so far as I have seen (though they might have region servers) - but I think it's divided into several instances depending on concurrent population - though I can't be entirely certain.
You have his definition at the top, though he calls it "reality" rather than virtual environment. He specifically states that shards (instances) break the intention of what an MMO is supposed to be.
I can't see his specific number there, I think it might be in the comments or might have been in another thread. His number was set at 250 when he defined the genre 20 years ago, I personally have upped it to 500 but I don't really mind if you use 250 as your baseline. The word "massively" is a comparative word, so you're comparing to normal multiplayer online games. Over the last 20 years, the average player cap in online multiplayer games has increased, so I increased the number required for an MMO. But, the number is subjective, 500 is my subjective line but feel free to pick whatever suits you.
I would also highly recommend reading through that whole post and the comments. Raph Koster joins in the debate in the comments and has the same definition as me (well, its the other way round really, I have the same definition as him, he can explain it so much better than i ever could!).
Also fun reading Bill's and teams comments where they basically dismiss all arguments and settle on "if its fun, online and you can play with lots of different people over time, we'll call it an mmo".
I see absolutely no evidence that he's talking about non-instanced single areas. To me, he's talking about a reality - which could very well be the same overall world - but there's no reason it couldn't be divided into instances where appropriate.
Could you please provide a direct quote that clearly states he's talking about non-instanced single areas with 250+ players playing together at the same time.
Otherwise, it would seem you're putting words into his mouth and then potentially accusing him of not living up to that, which is incredibly unfair.
Also, shards in UO weren't traditional instances. They were world servers - which is something completely different.
For instance, ESO doesn't have shards (beyond region servers) - but it's full of instances.
SotA doesn't seem to have shards, either. It's one big world server so far as I have seen (though they might have region servers) - but I think it's divided into several instances depending on concurrent population - though I can't be entirely certain.
Maybe I am misrepresenting Garriotts position then, I can't find a direct quote at the moment, what is in that article is the best I can currently find. I thought when he was talking about shards, he was talking about instances. He has definitely talked about instances breaking the MMO definition elsewhere, I just can't find the quote (but, if you want to infer, instances are different realities....)
Anyway, I still don't have an answer to my actual question. Is SotA an MMO based on my definition? Is it actually massively multiplayer?
You have his definition at the top, though he calls it "reality" rather than virtual environment. He specifically states that shards (instances) break the intention of what an MMO is supposed to be.
I can't see his specific number there, I think it might be in the comments or might have been in another thread. His number was set at 250 when he defined the genre 20 years ago, I personally have upped it to 500 but I don't really mind if you use 250 as your baseline. The word "massively" is a comparative word, so you're comparing to normal multiplayer online games. Over the last 20 years, the average player cap in online multiplayer games has increased, so I increased the number required for an MMO. But, the number is subjective, 500 is my subjective line but feel free to pick whatever suits you.
I would also highly recommend reading through that whole post and the comments. Raph Koster joins in the debate in the comments and has the same definition as me (well, its the other way round really, I have the same definition as him, he can explain it so much better than i ever could!).
Also fun reading Bill's and teams comments where they basically dismiss all arguments and settle on "if its fun, online and you can play with lots of different people over time, we'll call it an mmo".
I see absolutely no evidence that he's talking about non-instanced single areas. To me, he's talking about a reality - which could very well be the same overall world - but there's no reason it couldn't be divided into instances where appropriate.
Could you please provide a direct quote that clearly states he's talking about non-instanced single areas with 250+ players playing together at the same time.
Otherwise, it would seem you're putting words into his mouth and then potentially accusing him of not living up to that, which is incredibly unfair.
Also, shards in UO weren't traditional instances. They were world servers - which is something completely different.
For instance, ESO doesn't have shards (beyond region servers) - but it's full of instances.
SotA doesn't seem to have shards, either. It's one big world server so far as I have seen (though they might have region servers) - but I think it's divided into several instances depending on concurrent population - though I can't be entirely certain.
Maybe I am misrepresenting Garriotts position then, I can't find a direct quote at the moment, what is in that article is the best I can currently find. I thought when he was talking about shards, he was talking about instances. He has definitely talked about instances breaking the MMO definition elsewhere, I just can't find the quote (but, if you want to infer, instances are different realities....)
Anyway, I still don't have an answer to my actual question. Is SotA an MMO based on my definition? Is it actually massively multiplayer?
There's absolutely no way you're going to have 500 players concurrently in any single non-instanced area in SotA at this point. This includes the clunky world map area.
So, based on what you seem to demand for a game to be an MMO - SotA is most definitely not that.
Personally, I think it would be best as a cooperative RPG experience.
The engine is far too clunky for large scale multiplayer - and the writing and presentation is way, way too inferior to provide a satisfying singleplayer RPG experience.
But, as a 2-4 player cooperative RPG - I think it could provide quite a lot of fun, with the "MMO" aspects serving as a compelling backdrop and potential interaction platform.
You have his definition at the top, though he calls it "reality" rather than virtual environment. He specifically states that shards (instances) break the intention of what an MMO is supposed to be.
I can't see his specific number there, I think it might be in the comments or might have been in another thread. His number was set at 250 when he defined the genre 20 years ago, I personally have upped it to 500 but I don't really mind if you use 250 as your baseline. The word "massively" is a comparative word, so you're comparing to normal multiplayer online games. Over the last 20 years, the average player cap in online multiplayer games has increased, so I increased the number required for an MMO. But, the number is subjective, 500 is my subjective line but feel free to pick whatever suits you.
I would also highly recommend reading through that whole post and the comments. Raph Koster joins in the debate in the comments and has the same definition as me (well, its the other way round really, I have the same definition as him, he can explain it so much better than i ever could!).
Also fun reading Bill's and teams comments where they basically dismiss all arguments and settle on "if its fun, online and you can play with lots of different people over time, we'll call it an mmo".
I see absolutely no evidence that he's talking about non-instanced single areas. To me, he's talking about a reality - which could very well be the same overall world - but there's no reason it couldn't be divided into instances where appropriate.
Could you please provide a direct quote that clearly states he's talking about non-instanced single areas with 250+ players playing together at the same time.
Otherwise, it would seem you're putting words into his mouth and then potentially accusing him of not living up to that, which is incredibly unfair.
Also, shards in UO weren't traditional instances. They were world servers - which is something completely different.
For instance, ESO doesn't have shards (beyond region servers) - but it's full of instances.
SotA doesn't seem to have shards, either. It's one big world server so far as I have seen (though they might have region servers) - but I think it's divided into several instances depending on concurrent population - though I can't be entirely certain.
Maybe I am misrepresenting Garriotts position then, I can't find a direct quote at the moment, what is in that article is the best I can currently find. I thought when he was talking about shards, he was talking about instances. He has definitely talked about instances breaking the MMO definition elsewhere, I just can't find the quote (but, if you want to infer, instances are different realities....)
Anyway, I still don't have an answer to my actual question. Is SotA an MMO based on my definition? Is it actually massively multiplayer?
There's absolutely no way you're going to have 500 players concurrently in any single non-instanced area in SotA at this point. This includes the clunky world map area.
So, based on what you seem to demand for a game to be an MMO - SotA is most definitely not that.
Nice one, thanks very much for confirmation
Just to give a bit of background as to why I ask the question at all. For me, being massively multiplayer is a feature. It is the only unique feature that the genre has, everything else can be found elsewhere.
I personally love massively multiplayer as a feature. I love the scale! I like nothing more than seeing 100s of other players around me, whether they are just hanging around in social hub like Coronet, or fighting over a keep in WAR, or getting lost in the Old Forest in LotRO. Even now, 14 years on since my first MMO, I still think it's great.
To go with that, I love being a part of strong online communities. I was a guild leader for years, and always enjoyed creating a close knit community within the guild that was then part of the larger server community. I loved competing with other guilds to clear raids. I loved forming alliances with likeminded guilds. I love server events, like in LotRO on my server a guild used to organise chicken races. On one such event, about 50 of us became chickens and raced from the shire to rivendell. Loads of people turned up to watch at the start and finish as well as lining parts of the route. I love the vibrant economies that can spring up with a well designed crafting system. I love pvp when you really get to know everyone, it's so satisfying to be fighting against people who you know, or killing someone who has a bad reputation.
That sense of scale and community just doesn't seem to exist when player numbers get scaled back, which is why I always ask the question about whether something is actually an MMO or not.
If it's not an actual MMO, then I'd rather play a single player RPG. I find that in that middle zone you tend to end up with a subpar game, a game that only comes alive if you manage to play through it with a small, dedicated group of friends. I don't have such a group of friends, plus my own schedule is too varied to commit to it and I'd rather not spend my time in pugs (which is frustrating) or solo (when i could get a better experience playing a solo rpg).
This is purely personal preference of course. I recognise that my demographic is small which is why it is currently underserved (though, I tend to think that the majority of gamers have never been exposed to large scale multiplayer games, so my demographic is small due more to ignorance rather than preference). I also recognise the inherent technical / sales challenge involved - in order to achieve actual MMO numbers, you typically have to sacrifice graphical quality which means it'll be a lot harder to make sales. Most game engines also can't support large numbers of players, so the devs would have to find some extremely talented people to make a new game engine that can support mmo gameplay, and they're hard to find.
Anyways, thanks again for confirmation on SotA, sorry for derailing the thread somewhat but glad we got to an answer in the end!
With a limited budget, Shroud of the Avatar had to compromise somewhere, and nowhere are those compromises more evident than in how the game looks. Built using the Unity engine, it was never going to win any beauty contests //
I stopped reading there. Graphics are subjective , and for me they look absolutely amazing .
Good luck with the rest of your review , bias detected.
Reviews are opinion based and thus subjective by definition.
With a limited budget, Shroud of the Avatar had to compromise somewhere, and nowhere are those compromises more evident than in how the game looks. Built using the Unity engine, it was never going to win any beauty contests //
I stopped reading there. Graphics are subjective , and for me they look absolutely amazing .
Good luck with the rest of your review , bias detected.
Reviews are opinion based and thus subjective by definition.
Reviews should have a good mix of objective and subjective sections.
For example, you can objectively say whether a game has vertical or horizontal progression and objectively describe it, and then subjectively say why you think it works (or not) within the game.
I know personally that I mostly read reviews for the objective information and tend to ignore the subjective parts. Part of the reason for this is that my personal tastes and thought patterns are likely to be very different from the reviewers, so their opinions are unlikely to match my own. The other part is the inherent nature of gaming journalism - journalists have to be positive and give good scores or else they risk being denied early access / free games and therefore cannot do their job properly. It's why I always ignore any final scores that a reviewer gives, because the final scores are always completely meaningless.
Game is a pile of garbage, go buy Legends of Aria and play the Legends of Ultima server if you actually want an "Ultima Online" experience. Pissed I ever wasted my money supporting this.
Sounds like some interesting ideas, but it doesn't seem casual friendly at all. From what I've heard, it sounds like just paying taxes on a house would require hours of game play. I wonder how many people today can put in the time an old school MMO like this seems to require?
I would also expect that it won't be long before players start exploiting the skill based leveling system. Just like in the old days, there will be players who spend their first three hours in-game just hitting practice dummies to get their combat skills up. It won't be long before any kind of PvP is impractical if you haven't done the same.
I love how people like to act like everything is drastically changed and its just so much harder to work a job and play a video game...... It is the same thing just people are lazier now and don't want to put the time in from 15-18 years ago. I was able to work full time job take care of a family and play ffxi just fine and progress just fine on the game. This is exactly what is killing games so fast because you expect things to be handed to you constantly.
Despite what anyone may think of the game overall, the music is goddamn catchy. I had the title screen song stuck in my goddamn head all night at work.
I'm enjoying it so far. It has some weird quirks, but they seem to be (so far) wrinkles that will be ironed out in time, as is typical of the genre... no big deal there. There's a lot to do, challenge and wrap my head around. So, I'm enjoying myself so far.
There is one comment that jumped out at me in this review, not only because it seemed irrelevant to the review, but because it's just so *wrong* in two ways..
"Built using the Unity engine, it was never going to win any beauty contests, but the choice of a pseudo-realistic art style means that SOTA feels dated before it’s even launched."
Errr..
First part, the meme about not winning any beauty contests because of using Unity. Nonsense. Is the reviewer aware of myriad other games that have been made with Unity? Have they seen what it's actually capable of producing? They may not like the art style (more on that), and that's fine - personal tastes and all. But associating their dislike of the artstyle to any failing of Unity3D is ridiculous.
Second part, "choice of pseudo-realistic art style making SoTA feel dated"
So, the author feels "pseudo-realistc art syle" = "dated feeling". Okay. Don't see the connection there. It's an art style. But whatever.
Comments
I'm going into this never expecting to use the store, and not really caring about player housing, though apparently the only way to get housing now is to buy a lot from a player who already owns one? At least they say there are free lodgings and rental services available around.
I'm still on the fence about buying it, and haven't capped out the trial yet, but at least it's B2P and only like $45 for the initial purchase, so it's not terrible, I suppose.
So now that it's launched I thought I would give it a go and I just logged off at about the same place! I'm sorry King Richard but its just not my cup of tea..
Oh that isn't going to be botted to all hell is it? Characters wailing on dummies 24hrs a day, I hope they are ready and have systems in place to stop this ?!
Sort of a hugely flawed mediocre game with some really nice throwback features. I can't see it appealing wide in any way whatsoever - but it's got the potential to be a niche success, if such a thing makes any sense.
While I've only scratched the surface of the surface, I think it's got enough content for a while - and I'm particularly keen to check out the dungeons to see if they resemble the Ultima dungeons.
I love puzzles and exploration in that way, and there's clearly some of that in this game.
I doubt I'll play it all that much, but - then again - I didn't expect to.
It looks like ass in my opinion - and it performs like an amateur-hour Unity game - even with R52.
No one is going to convince me that genuine heart and passion went into this. That's out of the question.
Then again, 9 out of 10 AAA games are made in that very same factory-line product way - so that's not necessarily a terrible thing.
Time will tell, but I'm keeping an open mind for now.
I don't think I've ever played an MMO that can handle 500 on screen at the same time, but thats not the definition and not what I care about. All the old MMOs could handle 500 in the same virtual environment, certainly the ones I played anyways (swg, ff11, lotro, war etc).
I just want to know whether Shroud is an MMO or not, and gave my definition so that someone could actually answer me directly rather than us getting into a discussion about the definition.
You'll notice that nobody has actually answered my simple question.
Your definition is muddy as hell. Virtual environment - being an area you can play in or traverse can easily be an area that's instanced a hundred times over.
So, be absolutely clear and you can get a clear answer.
That said, I don't think I've ever seen 500 concurrent players online in the game so far
That makes it pretty hard to answer either way.
But technology and fidelity have evolved over the years. The times of simplistic interactions with minimal player action updates are long gone.
Back in the day, everything was on a long server-based cooldown for every action - and actions were extremely simple in terms of calculation - because it was a matter of large hitboxes and basic math.
These days, the server has to keep track of a lot more nuance in terms of player action/movement and fine-tuned synchronizations across the board - so it's almost certainly impossible to have 500 players doing advanced interactions in non-instanced areas as small as the ones in SotA.
The Biggest problem and the real dealbreaker, is the loading screens and the developers failing to do anything about them. They last too long, and is needed way way too often.
Basically, any area that you can play the game in is a virtual environment. You are considered to be in the same virtual environment as someone else if you can walk/run/ride/fly to each other without a loading screen. If you have to go through a loading screen, you have left one virtual environment and entered another.
So, to give some real examples.
In SWG, a planet is a virtual environment, but each planet is it's own separate virtual environment because you have to go through loading screens to get there. I think the most I personally witnessed was about 700 players on a planet. This is an MMO.
In LotRO, pretty much the entirity of Eriador is the same virtual environment. I can walk from the western end of the shire all the way to moria without any loading screens. I can walk from the frozen wastes of Forochel in the north all the way to the misty mountains in the east without any loading screens. It is one massive virtual environment. Moria, too, is a massive virtual environment as you can traverse the majority of Moria without loading screens, but Moria is a separate virtual environment to Eriador because you go through loading screens to get between the two. The most I personally witnessed was about 2500 players in Eriador during Shadows of Angmar. This is an MMO.
In SW:TOR, each planet is it's own virtual environment, however, there is a player cap of 75 people. When that cap is reached, a new instance of the planet is spawned and you have to go through a loading screen to change instances. This means that the maximum number of players you can have in a virtual environment in SW:TOR is 75. This is not an MMO.
In WAR, my memory is a bit hazy but iirc each racial pairing was it's own virtual environment (I can't remember if you can walk from each tier to the next one. I know you can in some places). So, I can start out as a level 1 orc and can walk from that starting point all the way through to tier 4 orc vs dwarf zones without a loading screen. However, you need to go through loading screens to change racial pairings or to visit the cities. The most I personally witnessed was about 1500 players in the same virtual environment, about 700 of which were involved in the same fortress fight (yeh, it was a slideshow). This is an MMO.
Now, I don't want to get into a discussion about the definition of an MMO. We've had that many many times here. This is my definition, this is what I care about, which is why I provided it so that someone could answer me. Also, my definition happens to be the same as Richard Garriotts definition, so given that he is the developer of Shroud and is calling his game an MMO, I wanted to see whether he has actually stuck to his own definition, or whether he is misusing it to sell his game, or whether he has changed his own definition to something new.
So, what you're asking for is 500 players in the same non-instanced area at the same time, but they don't have to be on screen at once?
If so, could you provide any direct source for Garriott stating he has that very same definition of an MMO?
You have his definition at the top, though he calls it "reality" rather than virtual environment. He specifically states that shards (instances) break the intention of what an MMO is supposed to be.
I can't see his specific number there, I think it might be in the comments or might have been in another thread. His number was set at 250 when he defined the genre 20 years ago, I personally have upped it to 500 but I don't really mind if you use 250 as your baseline. The word "massively" is a comparative word, so you're comparing to normal multiplayer online games. Over the last 20 years, the average player cap in online multiplayer games has increased, so I increased the number required for an MMO. But, the number is subjective, 500 is my subjective line but feel free to pick whatever suits you.
I would also highly recommend reading through that whole post and the comments. Raph Koster joins in the debate in the comments and has the same definition as me (well, its the other way round really, I have the same definition as him, he can explain it so much better than i ever could!).
Also fun reading Bill's and teams comments where they basically dismiss all arguments and settle on "if its fun, online and you can play with lots of different people over time, we'll call it an mmo".
Could you please provide a direct quote that clearly states he's talking about non-instanced single areas with 250+ players playing together at the same time.
Otherwise, it would seem you're putting words into his mouth and then potentially accusing him of not living up to that, which is incredibly unfair.
Also, shards in UO weren't traditional instances. They were world servers - which is something completely different.
For instance, ESO doesn't have shards (beyond region servers) - but it's full of instances.
SotA doesn't seem to have shards, either. It's one big world server so far as I have seen (though they might have region servers) - but I think it's divided into several instances depending on concurrent population - though I can't be entirely certain.
Anyway, I still don't have an answer to my actual question. Is SotA an MMO based on my definition? Is it actually massively multiplayer?
So, based on what you seem to demand for a game to be an MMO - SotA is most definitely not that.
I won't go anywhere near the online version. But as a single player RPG, it might be ok.
The engine is far too clunky for large scale multiplayer - and the writing and presentation is way, way too inferior to provide a satisfying singleplayer RPG experience.
But, as a 2-4 player cooperative RPG - I think it could provide quite a lot of fun, with the "MMO" aspects serving as a compelling backdrop and potential interaction platform.
Good luck?
I don't know why you would want to do that unless you had no other single player games to play?
This plays like an MMO offline.
Just to give a bit of background as to why I ask the question at all. For me, being massively multiplayer is a feature. It is the only unique feature that the genre has, everything else can be found elsewhere.
I personally love massively multiplayer as a feature. I love the scale! I like nothing more than seeing 100s of other players around me, whether they are just hanging around in social hub like Coronet, or fighting over a keep in WAR, or getting lost in the Old Forest in LotRO. Even now, 14 years on since my first MMO, I still think it's great.
To go with that, I love being a part of strong online communities. I was a guild leader for years, and always enjoyed creating a close knit community within the guild that was then part of the larger server community. I loved competing with other guilds to clear raids. I loved forming alliances with likeminded guilds. I love server events, like in LotRO on my server a guild used to organise chicken races. On one such event, about 50 of us became chickens and raced from the shire to rivendell. Loads of people turned up to watch at the start and finish as well as lining parts of the route. I love the vibrant economies that can spring up with a well designed crafting system. I love pvp when you really get to know everyone, it's so satisfying to be fighting against people who you know, or killing someone who has a bad reputation.
That sense of scale and community just doesn't seem to exist when player numbers get scaled back, which is why I always ask the question about whether something is actually an MMO or not.
If it's not an actual MMO, then I'd rather play a single player RPG. I find that in that middle zone you tend to end up with a subpar game, a game that only comes alive if you manage to play through it with a small, dedicated group of friends. I don't have such a group of friends, plus my own schedule is too varied to commit to it and I'd rather not spend my time in pugs (which is frustrating) or solo (when i could get a better experience playing a solo rpg).
This is purely personal preference of course. I recognise that my demographic is small which is why it is currently underserved (though, I tend to think that the majority of gamers have never been exposed to large scale multiplayer games, so my demographic is small due more to ignorance rather than preference). I also recognise the inherent technical / sales challenge involved - in order to achieve actual MMO numbers, you typically have to sacrifice graphical quality which means it'll be a lot harder to make sales. Most game engines also can't support large numbers of players, so the devs would have to find some extremely talented people to make a new game engine that can support mmo gameplay, and they're hard to find.
Anyways, thanks again for confirmation on SotA, sorry for derailing the thread somewhat but glad we got to an answer in the end!
Reviews are opinion based and thus subjective by definition.
For example, you can objectively say whether a game has vertical or horizontal progression and objectively describe it, and then subjectively say why you think it works (or not) within the game.
I know personally that I mostly read reviews for the objective information and tend to ignore the subjective parts. Part of the reason for this is that my personal tastes and thought patterns are likely to be very different from the reviewers, so their opinions are unlikely to match my own. The other part is the inherent nature of gaming journalism - journalists have to be positive and give good scores or else they risk being denied early access / free games and therefore cannot do their job properly. It's why I always ignore any final scores that a reviewer gives, because the final scores are always completely meaningless.
I love how people like to act like everything is drastically changed and its just so much harder to work a job and play a video game...... It is the same thing just people are lazier now and don't want to put the time in from 15-18 years ago. I was able to work full time job take care of a family and play ffxi just fine and progress just fine on the game. This is exactly what is killing games so fast because you expect things to be handed to you constantly.
There is one comment that jumped out at me in this review, not only because it seemed irrelevant to the review, but because it's just so *wrong* in two ways..
"Built using the Unity engine, it was never going to win any beauty contests, but the choice of a pseudo-realistic art style means that SOTA feels dated before it’s even launched."
Errr..
First part, the meme about not winning any beauty contests because of using Unity. Nonsense. Is the reviewer aware of myriad other games that have been made with Unity? Have they seen what it's actually capable of producing? They may not like the art style (more on that), and that's fine - personal tastes and all. But associating their dislike of the artstyle to any failing of Unity3D is ridiculous.
Second part, "choice of pseudo-realistic art style making SoTA feel dated"
So, the author feels "pseudo-realistc art syle" = "dated feeling". Okay. Don't see the connection there. It's an art style. But whatever.
Overall, what an odd statement.