553 reviews on Steam and 154 Negative

Well I can't argue with that. Kudos

But I said accurate not important.

 

don't think any one here is butt hurt because you don't like the game, I'm simply stating I don't agree with your impression that the game is not impressive. To me it is.
I did not throw in a bunch of cash and defend the game for that reason (that would make 0 sense) I pledged low, soon 2 years ago and have only recently gone up to higher pledge level.

SotA is a game I really want to succeed and I believe it will, that's why I pay a ton for it.
I'm getting tired of hearing "you're only defending it because you're heavily invested in it" how the hell would anyone know my feelings for the game?

 

I am a big supporter of steam. But over the years I have learned that the reviews are meaningless whether positive or negative. The saving grace is Steam's new return policy.

 

This is an interesting comment because the Shroud players who started their Ultima career with the original Ultima games from the 80's indeed belong to the "older crowd". When computers and gaming consoles arrived in households, the target audiences for game developers were kids and young adults. Nowadays, older players make up a considerable market share, and I assume that on average they have more money to spend than teens, so it makes sense for game developers to include them. It will be very challenging for SotA to appeal to all age groups.

Unfortunately, I have sad news for the current "younger crowd". That news is: before you know it, you, too, will belong to the "older crowd". The new generation will be playing fast paced games with holographic headsets, and many of you won't be able to keep up. Your own gaming preferences will be widely maligned

I don't understand this. Are you saying that most of the high-level backers who posted negative comments have already sold their accounts, and the ones who are left who speak positively about the game are deceiving themselves about liking it? This would amount to 100% of the high-level backers not liking the game. If this is your opinion, you are welcome to it, but it seems to me that your own dislike of the game is influencing your interpretation of people's motives.

From what I have seen, some high-level backers not only like the game, but they are working incessantly to shape the world to make it a place that other people will like as well. A great many started out as low level backers and are enjoying themselves so much that they keep upgrading. I myself started out with an adventurer pledge and have ended up with an Edelmann account. For me, that is an insane amount of money to spend on a game, but spread across hourly enjoyment, it has been worth every penny, and the game is still in pre-alpha.

 

There are plenty of players who started their Ultima career from the 80's that would be / are disappointed in the direction this game is going.
Games don't have to appeal to a "younger crowd" OR an "older crowd" as you smugly put it. Great gameplay is unbiased toward age.

I'm not understanding your logic in the second paragraph. Why would it amount to 100% if the majority of high-level backers defend the game? I didn't say all high-level backers sold their game account and don't like the game.

My point was that generally those who have invested a large sum of money and are VOCAL on these forums defend the game from criticism. (such as yourself )

 

I beg to differ. When a game's existence depends solely on the will of a crowd do drop their money to finance it, such as in this case, a project HAS to appeal to a certain demographic. If it weren't for the nostalgic crowdsourced projects we've seen lately, I wouldn't have spent a single dollar on videogames (and like me tens of thousands of people - look at PoE, W2, Torment, Bloodstained, Mighty No 9, etc...). By the way, I'm not a "big" spender, I think my pledge is more in the mid to low tier.

 

I completely agree on that point.

However, I was talking about gameplay mechanics. A game that can appeal to everyone because there are so many different options and opportunities.

 

Uhm of course the majority in a forum are the ones interested in the product and mostly positive. It would be a very strange forum if that wasn't true.

For your high pledgers bias, that only works for the KickStarter crowd. They were the ones who pledged on faith. They might have such a bias. But very very very few of those active in the forums are original high kickstarter pledgers. So the actual data is opposite to what you claim. Let me explain...

Lets look at the "common scenario" here. Since the kickstarter people that bought the game unseen is in minority (see pledger data on main site) we can go with the majority here:

Someone with a nostalgia for Ultima comes along, takes a look at SotA thinks they might want to support that purely on nostalgia. Since they don't have to pay the big bucks, they pay the base $45. (This is backed up by the data - its a miniscule outlier that pledge high right away and most of them already know someone in the game).

They then get access to the game as is right now. They play a bit and try it out. Now the scenario diversifies:
1. They hate it.
-will never pledge even a cent more, will never return to the game, might sell if possible, unlikely to participate in forums
2. They dislike it.
-will not pledge more, might return at launch, might sell if possible, unlikely to participate in forums
3. They like it.
-might pledge more, but usually only a smaller amount, might play more but will usually instead return closer to launch, might participate in forums but wane quickly and mostly lurk
4. They love it.
- will pledge more, might be a larger amount, will play more, will want to participate in forums.

So the vast majority of current high pledgers active in the forums were the ones who researched and tested first and then upgraded.
Putting their money where their mouth is as the saying goes.

This is also backed up by the data as seen on the main site and as released by Dallas every now and then.

So while your claim of a pledge bias could possibly be true for some kickstarter folks, it is simply false for the majority of posters that you have seen in this topic so far. This since they first tested the game and then pledged higher, which is the opposite of a pledge bias.

However the concept you might have used instead is 'echo chamber' to which any official/fan site will definately be guilty of. But if you check out almost any topic on the forums you will see that there is opposition to almost any suggestion ever presented. So I'd say that as far as echo chambers are concerned this forum isn't remotely as bad as it could be. There is a lot of diversity and far more basic pledgers active than most posters realize.

 

There has never been a game which has appealed to everyone. "Great gameplay" is very subjective, and no matter what direction SotA takes, there will be many satisfied and many dissatisfied players. Regarding demographics, you are the one who introduced the term "the older crowd" in a deprecating fashion.

What I thought you were saying was that all (100% of) high-level backers who haven't sold their account only defend it because they are in denial. If you weren't saying that, fine

Your point was that high backers who speak out in favor of the game are in denial. See here:

In my mind, you don't want to give anyone credit for really liking the game. You feel it necessary to ascribe to them some other motives for their positive comments. If that is not what you intended, I apologize for misinterpreting your words.

As to my own "vocalness", I don't "defend the game from criticism". I do defend my right to like the game without having some strangers ascribe motives to me which have nothing to do with reality. I have stated my standpoint and I will let it rest.

 

And that is a perfect example of 'you can not please everybody' right there. I would ~MUCH~ prefer a real 'open world' experience. I don't need a glowing pink arrow showing me where I should go and what I should do. I absolutely hate the fact that Portalarium is trying to carter more and more for that segment (clickable keywords, PoI-compass, level indicators on scenes,...)

 

I wish they could cater to both, you know have the help for morons like me and be able to have an open world for folks that want it, not sure how they could do it. Maybe some on/off toggles and different paths to play.

 

There's always the very nice possibility of a gypsy to figure your preferences and morals though the cards. I'm all for NPCs acting and reacting different to people based on history, standing, gender,...

 

Why do you assume that I'd want a giant arrow pointing to where I need to go? I want the game to properly communicate things to the player.

I love it when people say things like "I don't want things handed to me" when they're most likely the ones who'll look at walkthroughs on the internet for their information. "Game's fine! Who needs an in-game map when I can google that stuff?"

You don't like clickable keywords? I find it a necessity considering that the dialogue is practically broken without it. Lets have this conversation again when NPCs can read english.

That bull!@#$ where the two guards in Soltown didn't know that their captain even existed is infuriating when you're trying to figure things out... How is a player supposed to know if it's intended or not? THE-FIRST-QUEST. Welcome to SotA! Enter your angry review right here!

Can you imagine talking to the Soltown guards without clickable keywords? You'd be spending HOURS, trying to figure out how to make them say information they don't have.

Give me a wooden sword and I expect to be able to find SOMEPLACE NEAR where I can "play soldier" before I can play with the big boys. If my area is surrounded by extremely dangerous wolves, spiders, bandits and undead then the game needs to communicate how I'm supposed to upgrade my equipment.

The game has you started without armour, a locked action bar which completely drains your focus, has your only healing ability on cooldown, while you're being mauled by 3-4 wolves because the AI will aggro from miles away.

When the game gets "tolerable" only once you've reached level 10 or so, can you really be surprised at the negative reviews? If someone goes on google to look at a gameplay footage from the experienced players, they'll see 20mins videos of dude repeating the same attacks/moves over and over on a troll ON FAST-FORWARD.

If you have to rely on other players (either a guildie or a walkthrough online) to tell you what you should do, then the game simply does a poor job communicating that !@#$ to the player.

I don't need giant arrows pointing to where I need to go, thank you. I just want a !@#$ing clue. Keep the obscure crap for the experienced players...

"The game isn't completed yet, doofus, it's in pre-alpha" ~ then don't release it on steam if you want good reviews.

I knew what I was getting into when I pledged, but I sure as hell not going to give a good word until I see a quality product.

 

And that properly is exactly the subjective part.

You're running in open doors with me here. I'm one of the people that keep iterating and preaching about Dev+ backers helping to write NPC dialogue. It doesn't matter how good of a writer Lum/RG/Tracy are three people can not tackle meaningful, detailed and interactive dialogue for thousands of NPCs. The sheer amount of content to write is impossible for three people. It would be possible to write for a thousand people though. I want NPCs to be aware and to react on their surrounding as much as you do, maybe even more. As for clickable keywords and the hours it takes without them, I guess we simply have different experience. I am likely never going to forget how I sat down with three friends trying to solve a puzzle, talking to NPCs in Tibia (back in the days) to be rewarded by being one of two (well, five in total on 'all servers') people who later on obtained a special item (a Horned Helmet). It was well worth the 'effort' and far, far more rewarding than hitting dragons for hours and hours, not by monetary value, but by joyful, remarkable experience.

Again, I'm with you. I've argued how I'd much rather have good AI and a challenge, other than sheer amount of HP on such a special creature. Unfortunately, the thread got moved soon after, else I'd link you to my feedback. Do you have Dev+ access?

Here, we are of very different opinion. I consider communication with other players a key experience of a multiplayer game (yes, I know SotA can be a solo player game as well, but that is where I'D love if Companions took part of the task to lead you around!). Just like if I wouldn't be sure if wrestling as crocodile is a task I should consider when visiting Australia IRL, I tend to simply ask other, more experienced people online as well. Fortunately (there's no good communication UI yet), that was hardly necessary in Shroud of the Avatar, because the creatures one encounters are hardly ever a real threat, zombies excluded. I don't think I've used a guide or walkthrough other than for the 'hat quest' (mainly because they simply aren't fun for me).

Edit:
P.S.: I'm all in favour of adjusting the game and the UI to your preferences in a 'role playing way'. If the gypsy queries you on how resilient you are towards specific 'unpleasant' typical adventurer experiences, it would be totally neat if you could end up moving faster on the map, seeing better in the dark, having a next to eagle vision on the overland map, or moving slower, being nearly night blind and hardly seeing past the next tree on the overland map. As long as such traits (positive and negative) are balanced in 'total achievable power' with other skills you learn later down your travels.

 

While true, you can objectify it to some degree, though. Does the game convey the necessary information for the player to piece it out together? No? Then it's no good.

For a puzzle to work, one must have a clear understanding of what the pieces are. For an RPG, if the puzzle is to find an NPC in town, then the game has to make it very clear that the player can talk to other NPCs and ask around for clues.

It's hard to pin down because it's different for every game. The quest markers stems from the idea that people didn't like running around in a maze while looking for the objectives in first-person shooters; a type of game that focuses more on constant flow of action and less on exploration. Applying a quest marker to an RPG is counter-intuitive because you're putting the player on autopilot when you want him engaged to his or her surroundings rather than a specific objective; picking plants, talk to NPCs, decorate your house, etc.

If you add an NPC that's important to a quest, the least you can do is write dialogue to reflect the added content for the remaining NPCs in the zone... or even just a few key characters like the innkeeper or something. Otherwise, you're actually hurting yourself and you might as well not add in the NPC in the first place.

That would fix some of the issues but, really, that's just one example showcasing the game having a problem conveying proper information. I mean, you can talk to NPCs, you had one in particular for a quest, but you can't talk to NPCs about him... Same thing applies for combat.

It's all good and dandy that they want to do this, but wanting and actually doing it are two different things. Releasing a build that's halfway won't bring you good reviews from the masses.

I do not and I believe it would be a conflict of interest had I access to it considering I'm dev-ing my own RPG.

I underlined a portion of the quote to highlight where our experiences differ greatly. Until I was level 8-9, creatures in the game would gang up on me or straight out murder me.

See, if you actually make the companion AI convey that information, then that means that the game would do its job. Hell, just having NPCs nearby saying things like "You're going outside wearing THAT? It's your funeral" would already be an indication. Even if the game was an MMO, relying on players to share this information is not good. Key word being "relying".

The game has to be able to speak by itself; that's a foundation of solid game design.

 

Keyword here is 'necessary'. I can approach nearly every single 'normal' creature with a 'new' character and survive the first two hits (other than a zombie, simply because of the plague). The size of a Troll alone should somewhat convey the message 'don't touch me'. And that is everything 'necessary'. I go there, take a hit. I hit them, take another hit. By this time I should have a guesstimate of the winning odds. If they are bad, I run and search for another place. If they are good, I test my luck and stand my ground.

And that is what I was talking about. I enjoy the games of an era where it was a given that people playing the game would be expected to come up with the idea of talking to NPCs.

It's hard to pin down because it's different for every game. The quest markers stems from the idea that people didn't like running around in a maze while looking for the objectives in first-person shooters; a type of game that focuses more on constant flow of action and less on exploration. Applying a quest marker to an RPG is counter-intuitive because you're putting the player on autopilot when you want him engaged to his or her surroundings rather than a specific objective; picking plants, talk to NPCs, decorate your house, etc.

That is why they are trying hard to convey that you should not expect to play a game, because a game would, as you pointed out, need content. Right now, you are testing mechanics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Interesting. There's plenty of places with just a single of each creature. Why did you try to run into a bunch of them? (No offence, just curious!) And even if you run into four wolves, you'd have time to run away after the first round of taking damage, by which the outcome should be predictable.

 

It's not that I run into a pack of wolves, it's just that even if you grab a single (remote) one, there's another one from miles away who gets the memo and run straight towards you. By the time that guy reaches you, you end up fighting 4 of them.

For sure. The problem is when you've been looking for HOURS (if not days - not straight, mind you) for another place where you can fight something 1-on-1 with good chances of winning. Also, from a visual standpoint, some bandits, wolves, bears and spiders look identical to more dangerous versions... so going at it by eye isn't ideal at the moment.

I kid you not when I say that, every time there's a character wipe, I have to bash my head against a (proverbial) wall over and over hoping to get a sliver of XP so that I can one day get to level 10 and progress through the content normally... worse part is that I've been doing this since R5; imagine someone who's just trying out the game for the first time.

You might argue that I should be taking notes as to where to go and what-not but the game keeps changing so previous data doesn't apply! NPC doesn't sell the crucial armour I used to buy, moongates don't work (so I can't find my old grinding spot), can't quest because they'll send you to your death, etc.

Yeah but no one should be surprised at the quantity (and quality ~ or lack of thereof) of the negative reviews on Steam and it's the people that say "they don't get it" or "they're just young kids looking for instant-gratification" that really get me because the game has some serious issues.

 

Wow! That's strange, this doesn't happen to me. Is there a chance we'd meet in game and try this? When are you usually found online?

I'd really love to meet you in-game and you'd show me how you were/are seeking. Most interesting to me!

That's exactly the point. There is no game yet, but people expect there to be a game, because of a mutual misunderstanding on the terms 'early access' and '(pre-)alpha testing'.

 

The "Pack Mentality" effect with wolves that Gix mentioned is pretty common in my game-play as well. It makes it pretty dangerous to engage wolves in certain zones.

I am under the impression it is intentional, being wolves and all.

 

I had that happen to me with bandits, elves, skeletons and spiders too. We could theorize that the phenomenon happens if you're too low level in the area where enemies will spot you from a greater distance.

Which is all fine... until you wonder where is the level 1-9 supposed to go?

My playtime is sporadic and we'd have to wait until the next character wipe as I'm no longer at a point where the game is murdering me anymore. Since I managed to level up and acquire the necessary gold to buy heavy armour (the only armour worth wearing). Otherwise, I'd gladly show you around.