Instances or A True Open World?

Actually that overland map reminded me a lot of Ultima IV. And of Mount & Blade. It's really difficult to state wether I like it or not. I want to see it in action, and by action I mean I want to see how encounters and quests work with an overland map.

 

Vote for TRUE OPEN MAP

 

Yes LordDarkmoon, you're right.

I'd vote for an open monoscale world if it was an option.

 

Yes. Please do not make this game using the Dual Map mode.. In all the years I've hoped that RG would come back and make some type of successor to UO if not just another Ultima inspired game.. then having just recently played my second play through of Skyrim.. and I know this isn't Skyrim.. but it was soooo huge and epic in size and 100% fully exploratory and then to see RG is now back and going to make another game.. like I'm sooo happy in so many ways but please don't do the dual map thing.. Make this new game HUGE and let us explore the whole world in third person.. Maybe have a map, sure maps are great. Maybe even allow us to make our own maps.. Yes, cartography in UO was awesome.. but Please make SOTA open world.

 

I agree that the Mini-map reduces immersion.

Players should be able to walk around in the same 3D world!

The player population could be instanced with invisible walls. Then we'll still have a real virtual world.

The mini-map overview for travel is backwards, and a devolution from Ultima and other MMOs.

Garriot's argument against a fully 3D virtual world is the empty areas which requires much work to fill up.
Well they should gradually do that. We don't need a fully-detailed world off the bat.

Please add a real virtual world to Shroud of the Avatar. Many fans will come out of the woodwork to support that!
No abstract 3D map for travel!

 

I'm definitely not a fan of the overworld map however I also appreciate that Richard Garriot is a dangerously insane genius with a vision here.

I'd expect that the overworld map makes this game incredibly easy to expand and scale to player numbers but I agree it does appear to be a step back in terms of immersion.

Even just watching the gameplay vids the jarring effect of transitioning between views felt like hopping onto a ride in a fun-park.

 

I like going into a dungeon in uo and knowing that some reds or faction members could come in at anytime and try to take over the spawn or kill me. That is the true thrill of uo for me. So yeah the point is that i dont think i would like instancing but who knows i havent even played the game yet.

 

LuposDavalte "however I also appreciate that Richard Garriot is a dangerously insane genius with a vision here."

Lets not forget how Garriot's Tabula Rasa failed horribly.

 

"Lets not forget how Garriot?s Tabula Rasa failed horribly."

Valid argument, somewhat. Do keep in mind, the bulk of Richard 'n' Pals? proven successful creations are the sword & shield, fireball flinging, medieval fantasy style RPGs. Which is what SotA will be. You could have included CoV & CoH in your retort as well. Even still, you would be looking at literally 10% (soon to be less with the release of SotA) of Richard's contributions. I would say the odds of pulling this one off successfully are pretty high. This is what they know/do best.

On the other hand, I agree almost entirely with your previous post (#1598), Hadriel.

On topic - I understand and share the same concerns regarding the travel methods. Specifically the fear that it will greatly impact immersion. Valiant, your example perfectly iterates the heart pounding scenarios I haven't been able to experience since UO and truly miss. I can only hope that there will be serious consequences tied in with decisions of grave importance.

Nostalgia is causing me to - "gimmie UO 2" accompanied by line mouth plus brows >:|. So I definitely understand those feels, brethren. Another part of me, (internal battle of epic proportions to overthrow nostalgia) wants to trust that all will make sense once the final product is brought to the forefront. With any luck, clarity will come sooner.

 

Maybe we should start a petition for a monoscale map open world?

I wouldn't even mind of the world would be smaller if this would mean having a monoscale map.

 

Couldn't the game have both the duel map, and an open world? The duel map could even be utilized as a fast travel system to quickly get from 1 known location to another. I like the interactive duel map, in a single player game.

But there's this feeling of trepidation, of danger that comes with setting out in a direction, having no clue what you may encounter or who you might meet. Putting on your traveling gear, checking that your throwing knives are secure in their sheaths. Giving your pack a once over ensuring that you packed lock picks, rations and gathering tools. Then slipping out of your front door, heading for the thickest woodlands to lose yourself amid forest animals and who knows what.

I spend a lot of time solo, sneaking about wilderness areas seeking materials to harvest and sites I can return with a group to explore. There's nothing more fun then knowing that the way ahead is open and waiting for an adventurers footstep to unlock its secrets.

Back when UO was going into beta I was firmly stuck in the Kingdom of Drakkar. Many people left to take part in beta testing, but I, thinking that UO would be a flash in the pan (lol not my smartest hour), chose to stay in Drakkar. Later after I finally wearied of Drak, I came over to UO and realized how wrong I was. Even now, after so many years and so many games, UO holds many many memories, easily being a game that gave me the most fun I've ever had in an online game. SOTA will not be the next UO, but I've every faith that it will be another landmark game that other games will be measured by.

So I add my vote for an open world if its at all possible. Even if its like Eve with areas you must cross, that would be better then separating the world by instances.

 

+1 vote for open world.

 

Argentus... I concur with your disappointment(s). I too exptected better graphics coupled with superior game mechanics.

 

Bowen: I'm a little late saying this, but I had a different issue with wisps in Ultima 7. Basically, *I* knew they are both docile and fully prepared to wreck you. Iolo and Shamino had different ideas about how harmless they are after defeating some of those monkey bat things near Yew. Tried to leave combat mode, didn't do it fast enough. Spark died and didn't appear in Paws, so that was a restart.

Good times.

 

If it were a purely single-player game, I would prefer open world. If it were a pure MMO, I would prefer open world. Since it's a hybrid of these, I'd prefer ... you guessed it ... open world.

 

Unfortunately folks this isn't likely open for a vote. Now for the record I expected open world myself so I was taken back a bit to discover a return to the dual map system. I mean.. who does THAT anymore?

BUT.. and yes it's probably a very big BUT. If my understanding of how the game will probably me is even remotely accurate.. and let's be honest.. none of us really knows or we probably wouldn't be talking to much about every little thing... then there is a very good reason to use dual maps with instances.

Nobody has ever done a game (to my knowledge) quite like this and for now dual maps is probably the easiest way to satisfy the technical requirements of what they're trying to do. Until I learn otherwise, I'm less unhappy about this direction and more simply interested in how it's all going to work (so I can analyze why )

 

Urganite: Oh.. almost forgot sorry. heheh U7 is probably the only Ultima where they were friendly. They were totoally hostile up through U5.
Xorinia .. yup.. that is 'their' 'name'. *nod nod* oh and those flying monkeys are mongbats.

 

I am not too much into games funding, there are projects with open world and even better graphics which cost way less than SotA. Just saying... I believe 1 mill bucks is too much for a dual map, except if they are going to invest all this into gameplay and mechanics, which could ?ompensate the map, but then again, let's look realistically, how many ambitious projects you remember which fulfilled all the ideas and features which were promised in the announcement day? I bet none. Some of you might not be aware of it, but UO itself was released half way before the initial goal. It was unfinished since day one. So what I mean is that I strongly believe we won't see half of the features we are now talking about, so why not just invest more into open world map? At least we could enjoy it..

 

If people who are against an open world with monoscale pa want to focus on the action of the game, then why have cities you can walk around in in the game? Why not have just a map overview of the city on which you can click on an NPC to talk to or on a house to enter it? There seems to be no action in a city so why be able to walk around in it?

 

UO is a bad example. It was EA that pushed it out early. People seem to keep forgetting that what we've seen isn't even in alpha yet. It's the begining of March.. Alpha is planned for December.. That's 9 months out before we even see what the alpha looks like. You can pretty much consider most or all of the graphics right now as place holders until we know otherwise.

And 1 mil is chump change for a large title. They obviously had other sources to get the game to this stage and it wouldn't surprise me if they have more still. (Ok chump change might be an exaggeration but at best I suspect it might be maybe 1/4 of the total budget by the time the game ships.)

Also, RG is not Peter M. (I refuse to look the spelling.. too much of a hassle at 3:13am) and this isn't Fable. I'm not hearing a lot of detailed promises are you? The only stuff I've seen that they've will be in.. is stuff they've actually shown. The rest has been vague descriptions.. maybe those features/ideas are already in.. maybe they're half way done? Who knows?Well the devs do but we don't and they haven't given us a lot of specifics yet.

Why not have a little faith and see what they can do first? It's far too early to be pessimistic.