Should SotA switch to an isometric view?

Camera angle really has nothing to do with what people want from a single player game. Snide remarks like this deriding people expecting what was actually promised in the kickstarter don't help anyone.

 

How was SWG able to do it without different camera views? Or immersion breaking loading screens for very large areas. I didn't mind traveling overland in that game, but the speeders made it much nicer. Horses? And there sure was a lot of open land even after people all got their houses.

 

I was actually interacting with the person above me during the natural flow of the thread.

I don't agree with your "They lied to us about Single Player " opinions based off you playing I assume, a couple pre-alphas.

In fact, I think they're kind of the worst thing about these forums, i.e., people with a lot of time on their hands coming on here and being negative.

Have you even played the pre-Alphas yet ? You weren't even able to view videos the last time I checked.

Regardless, I don't go around calling your posts snide or other ugly names because I don't like them. That doesn't help anyone either.

Sorry for derailing thread, please continue.

 

While I am a big fan of the isometric view (what Pillars of Eternity will utilize), I think they have come too far to abandon the third person style of play at this stage. Since we probably won't see a switch to isometric view, we seriously do need an improvement in the character model detail before release.Therefore I voted option #2!

You cannot offer a third person perspective game in this day and age with models that look like they're from 2000. This isn't the day of Ultima IX: Ascension, so visuals shouldn't reflect that. Also please don't quote this post with "gameplay is king" responses, because yes, we all know that. The fact remains the environments are coming along very nicely, but the models are not

All of this being said - if there is to be no improvement in character models/detail then I fully support a switch to isometric. Because as it stands, I will not be happy with an SotA that features play-doh hair and happy meal characters pasted into a beautifully rendered environment. It's like putting cheap plastic chess pieces on a gorgeous laquered rosewood and ebony chessboard.

 

I agree with your list, I would totally support SotA being changed to the isometric 3rd person view. They could also do away with the focus of the "chatbox" so that we can see players and NPCs actually have text that is truly associated with them in the form of the chat bubble. This also levels the playing field when it comes to combat as everyone has the same perspective and you don't have to dumb it down so that players can compete from all the varying viewpoints.

 

I don't recall saying "they lied to us about single player". I have however mentioned that they have changed what companions will be since the kickstarter, this is fact not conjecture. My assumptions are comming off info they have released. It is a discussion forum, if I have given some incorrect info feel free to tell me

I played the first prealpha...not sure why that is relevant for info they gave out?

Maybe your intentions wasn't to be snide but that's how it came off, sorry if that wasn't what you meant.

 

Back on topic, Even if you guys "support" them changing the view, does anyone really think it's realistic for that to occur this far into development ?

With only 6 months to go and the state of the game where it was in R4 ? With a ton of 3D assets already in the pipeline ? A touch of sanity I think is in order here.

 

I was paraphrasing. That seems to be the gist of your opinion in the other thread. You wanted a full on Ultima Single Player game and you're unhappy that too much focus is on Multiplayer.

If that's not correct, then I am mistaken. However I don't want to derail this thread any further, so we can discuss it in the other thread if you really want.

Single Player has come a long way since R1. So, yes, you should definitely play it in that mode in R5 and I'd be interested to see if you opinion has improved.

 

For the record I don't think it should switch at all..the have come too far to make that sort of change.

 

Actually, I think the change and locking of the camera view would make things a heck of a lot easier to complete.

 

Is moving to an isometric view simply a matter of changing and moving the unity camera ?

I kind of thought that it was more than that ? I don't know...

 

It is more then that because they never designed the game to have you see certain angles...so some areas would be fine others would need work.... Just think what the caves and mines etc would look like...or inside buildings.

 

I played some single player RPGs for close to five years, its not an issue for me. Its about whether living in the world and adventuring in it is an enjoyable experience in itself vs. the game being about going from point A and point B, and everything in the game being a means to an ends. When everything is a means to an end, yes, everything becomes tedious, and you just want to get through it. My argument has always been that if you give players something to do between locations, like stop and camp or hunt, and offer encounters and adventures, then its not going to be as tedious.

Still, I've never been an opponent of a dual-scale map. In my view, it lets them make the world much larger. Even though in the Ultima series when the move was made to the single-scale map, the game was much more immerse, it also lost a lot. The wilderness areas were much more smaller and much more cramped. Exploring the world was a less interesting experience.

 

In terms of the original question:

The main advantage of an isometric view in terms of gameplay is the ability to have deeper party tactical combat in single player. If the player were meant to have complete control of his party of NPCs like Ultimas III-VI (and Worlds of Ultima) this would be important. It's possible to control the members of a party in first/third person view (see games like Knights of the Old Republic or Brothers in Arms) but a bit more awkward. On the other hand if party members are autonomous isometric view doesn't really offer much of an advantage.

The main disadvantage of a fixed isometric viewpoint is that objects can get lost behind or under walls and other objects. Variable camera is also somewhat more visually appealing and immersive (except when you can see parts of the world that have seen less artist attention, of course).

I'm going to vote "I don't care" with the understanding that I trust Lord British to decide on what is best for the game... as long as he doesn't start neglecting single player, adding jumping puzzles, etc. From what we have seen so far, it looks like Portalarium hopes to heavily leverage the MMO to create the single player experience... which is fine so long as they don't forget what I am about to say next.


Regarding the ancillary discussion:

We should all recognize that Portalarium doesn't have the funds to do AAA game development. What, then, is most important for them to concentrate their money and man-hours on? I would argue what set Ultima apart from other RPGs (early Ultima vs. early Wizardry, middle Ultima vs. the D&D based RPGs, late Ultima vs. Interplay's/Bioware's contemporaneous RPGs and later imitators like the last three Elder Scrolls games) was the world building. Well written, believable NPCs with behavior expressed through dialog and daily schedules, fantasy that doesn't lose touch with reality and become something alien or overly modern, locations with history (Morrowind sort of did this, but only in terms of architectural styles), knowledge gained through exploring, reading or conversing that applied to the world intuitively without quest markers or explicit instructions. Creating content, dialog, art and animation to support this world building is where, IMHO, Portalarium must concentrate their efforts if they are to have any hope of capturing the greatness that was Ultima as a single player game.

 

I don't see how tactical combat would be improved if the game, either way, would real-time. The real-time nature of the game is necessitated by it being multiplayer.

Also, there are other advantages to the over-the-shoulder perspective. * Ranged combat is much simpler, since you can run after things that are a mile in the distance, and shoot arrows at them. Isometric confines you into a small space. Ranged combat either has to be limited, or made capable with workarounds. * Things like hiding behind objects to avoid detection by an attacker is much simpler to implement. * Dungeon crawling is fun. * You can see geographical features far in the distance, like mountains and cities. You have a better awareness of where you are. * You can show celestial events on the main view screen instead of creating a separate interface for it.

There are also advantages to the isometric perspective, too, but I'm not going to focus on that right now.

 

An adjustable third person camera allows tight or distant views. It allows more parallel over the shoulder views, and more overhead, more traditional isometric views.

 

Since apparently it wasn't clear from the replies, I am going to restate my viewpoint again. Camera type isn't important to whether Shroud of the Avatar will be a good Ultima game. Read the second part of my original post to see what is important.

Another Kickstarter project, Wasteland 2, became fixated with iterating on its UI because there was a lot of discussion about it... but at the end of the day it is not UI that will determine whether Wasteland 2 turns out to be a good sequel to the original. Area design, pacing, balance between combat, dialog, and skill use will be far more important. I wouldn't want Portalarium to start down a similar path that leads nowhere...

 

One of the key features of a Lord British "Ultima" is the amount of interactivity you have with the world. In the 1990s - early 2000s, Isometric had this pegged down as well as having a smoother overall look (EQ IMO and even U9 looked very rough compared to UO, 3d THEN was a step BACKWARDS in terms of detail). However, it's no longer the 90s or even the '00s and 3d environments, models, and, as shown by the house decoration system, item interaction have come quite a long ways and have progressed beyond U7 or UO.

So I don't mind leaving Isometric behind for SotA. It still works well for Civ and Path of Exile, and we'll see how Shards looks when the first few ingame screens start to appear.

 

This is the biggest problem. There is definately a lack of understanding of what is possible given what we know about the team, funding and timeframe.

There seems sometimes to be this attitude that if we can just make a loud enough, dissapointed sounding enough and contentious enough thread, then those ideas will somehow magically change this game's ultimate direction by the end of the year.

 

I find it very amusing that you even write such words given how if I am not mistaken you were patting them on the back and supporting such a drastic change to the overworld map despite it being as you say "this far into development".

Also I would like to ask exactly why you clearly have a problem with people who have "opinions based off you playing I assume, a couple pre-alphas." Does you being a backer for far longer or paying significantly more (hypothetically speaking) than someone who may have come late yet took the opportunity to back what they were sold on from watching various videos and what not?

I think not and it would appear to me that there is some degree of snobbery going on here and just fyi I would certainly respect those who manage to achieve a higher stature "in game through game play" than those who "bought it". Although credit where credit is due to those who have the disposable income and did pledge higher in order for this game to be a success.