Kotaku article with Richard Garriott interview infos

For me this is no excuse steering away from the vision so much after having collected money from people getting excited about this description.
And thus they should not be surprised about people being disappointed and upset.

 

Understand completely that you are limited on this topic. Thanks for participating so far. Might be shitty of me to accuse you of lying but i wohldnt have to do it if there wasnt so much confusing and outright false info put out there.

Im looking forward to seeing it cleaned up

 

I do own a house (a humble village home. In Baubbleshire). And I've had the chance to play with and decorate/maintain much bigger plots and even PoTs as well. I must say I enjoyed it quite a bit.

I really feel it's a waste that such fun features are out of the reach of most normal players who don't want to spend many times the box price on a house (and then more of decorations).

Also I got turned off after decorating the 5th or 6th house with the same decorative bits while the rest of the variety of decorations are held behind pay walls despite me crafting my way to a master Carpenter.

And well... Seeing bigger houses that were mainly just achieved with more money instead of more being an in game achievement also sucks the fun out of the game for me. Instead of being in awe of the player for achieving somethjng great in game (an amazingly decorated house for example). All I can think of is how much that player must have spent to achieve this.

That's personally my main issue with this game.

 

It's telling that the best that you can do is to continually call me a troll for giving my opinion on something. This is exactly the reason that there is so much criticism of this game's community outside these official forums, and no not even just on reddit.

I suspect this thread has gone far enough off topic that it will be locked soon so I'm sorry to the OP for my part in that, however I will continue to give my feedback and opinions regardless of being personally attacked when I do.

 

@Chris you asked to keep comments constructive,so this is about as much as I can be. How many threads in the forums do we really need discussing basically the same topic? This topic is becoming like the PVP topics were at one time,there were many and they all basically were the same people saying the same thing. Just curious how many who made comments have PM'd the devs directly with your concerns? Because at this point it seems like "let's pile on the developers day" in the forums.

 

And Steam, Kotaku, PC Gamer, YouTube, MassivelyOP, MMORPG.com, Polygon, and so many others. This is the only safe place where the truth can be told.

 

Yeah, now that they have my money and the money of many others who believed in the things Garriott said in the videos others come and say "Hey, ok. Be upset, it's ok. But now lets take your money and let them make the game I want to play, not you. You did you part, you gave money, now go home."

 

I don't quite understand what you are getting at here.

The SI page stated that players can conquer towns (among other untrue things like establishing trade routes).

The interview in the OP has LB 'clarifying' that "conquering a town" could be construed with lifting seiges from a town or capturing a control point, which as I pointed out is ridiculous and not at all what any reasonable person is going to think when they hear "conquer a town".

I'm not sure what the rest of the stuff with potentially moving seiges into towns has to do with it. Im in agreement with you that would be a bit of a nightmare.

Again, i get that you cant talk about SI related stuff and probably cant comment much more on this, I just dont get what the design choices of seiges inside or outside of towns has to do with what i said about conquering towns being false info

 

Thank you for that first post. May all your Sunday afternoons be as productive.

 

Please tell me what is preventing players from establishing trade routes.

 

I gave money to Kickstarters that didn't even produce a finish product at all. They don't even have forums where you can provide feedback.

This game I LOVE though. This game I'm happy about. Yet you seem to be of the mindset that if you can't have it your way then no one should be happy. I find that to be very mean spirited.

 

You just have to stretch your imagination a little bit. That's all. Like anything in a game just stretch the imagination. Think of when you clear it that you "conquer the town". For the trade routes, just run between two towns nearest to your vendor and kill anything that spawns on the map. That makes it safe and establishes a trade route for people. See?

 

No offence dear Baron, but this might be the reason you have problems to understand the Ultima fans and their complaints. The KS campaign made - among other things - this promise

Shroud of the Avatar is the “spiritual successor” to Richard’s previous work in the FRP genre. Our primary objectives are to tell a story even more compelling than Ultimas IV-VII, create a virtual world more interactive than Ultima VII, develop deep rich multi-player capabilities beyond combat akin to Ultima Online, and offer a bold new approach to integrate them with “Selective Multi-Player”

The Ultima fans knows the lore of Britannia, they are familiar with the former history of the Avatar, they know the companions of the Avatar like Iolo, Shamino, Dupre, Jaana and so on. During the KS campaign one part of the promises was that SotA will tell a story even more compelling than Ultimas IV-VII. So it should be understandable that the single player Ultima veterans have had their expectations. And these fans are frustrated because Port has decided to change the direction of SotA from a story based CRPG like Ultima 7 - which you can play online together with some friends or other people if you like - to a full-fledged MMO with a flange-mounted story which is only an addition. The focus lies clearly on the MMO sandbox aspects.

So Port got some new friends who don't know the Ultima series and also kept many of the UO veterans. For the price that they lost most of the Ultima single player story fans. This is just a fact.

 

I am ok with people having fun with the SotA we now have. Yet still, yes I am disgruntled that I gave my money for a game that was described differently.
It feels as if I was just there to give money so that others could get the game they wanted to have.

It's as if I collect money from friends for getting some Pizza but on the way the guy who accompanies me says that it would be better having some salad so we buy salad instead. The others are not pleased but the salad guy says that he enjoys his meal.

 

What's preventing you from doing this? Isn't that the intent of Friends Online?

Value judgement, but what about the Incomplete story implemented makes the SotA less compeling than the Ultima stories?

 

No offense taken, Sir Cabirus.

I understand that you guys feel a sincere loss. But what I don't understand is why some of you seem to think it's ok to voice that in a way that undermines the gain that others feel just as passionate about.

 

I have empathy for your situation (and others). I also fully support people providing actionable feedback and voicing displeasure in general.

However, where I draw the line is when people start saying "they lied" and painting the development team in ways that is unsupported by the facts. It damages the reputation of the game that I love and I'm happy with, and I don't think that's fair no matter how much some people may be upset at the direction of the game.