Single player/offline discussion?

Not one more cent from me until I get the game that was presented in the Kickstarter campaign

 

I have said this before and I will say it again.

The creator of Ultima, Richard Garriott, has said this is the next Ultima single player game HE wanted to create. Then by all means it is.

As UDIC member and a KS backer, I think and feel that with Ultima changing all the time in it's games. SotA is the next evolution of the Ultima games.

Why does many miss what Richard wants us to experience? I am 100% good with the MMO and the Single player game as it is right now.

I started with Ultima 3 way back in 1983, played U1 and U2, then U4 on up. Ultima is always changing. If not we would be be back to the U3 engine and ruleset.

 

Well said. Is what I always heard, or understood, anytime they talked about what they want for this game.

Lot of work to do but the concept remains.

 

Completly out of curiosity, do you follow or play any other games? Played through any of the big named RPGs between then and now?

In no way a personal insult or any follow up, i just find the people happy with the current story have sometimes not touched much since the ultimas. ( nothing wrong with that, its pretty common since the general backer age seems to be a higher age bracket then most funded games) So im just genuinily curious what parts of it make it rank over other games for you?

 

Because lots of people loathe MMOs. Me, I don’t want other people anywhere near the game I’m playing, and I don’t think adding them is really comparable to new rules and graphics. The fact that you’ve been with the series for so long and have, over time, come to appreciate MMOs doesn’t mean that everyone will feel the same. And again, I think it’s great that you have something you’re happy with. But the Kickstarter and backer program were run with the understanding that a genuine, U7-style single-player campaign would also be included, and that’s what we’re expecting.

As for what Lord British said, well, it kinda doesn’t matter... I mean, it’s a nice sound byte, but it doesn't say anything. It simply can’t be both a single-player game and an MMO, by definition. He can call it a hybrid all he wants, but other people=MMO. I don’t want to experience a multiplayer game, and I gave ‘em money on the assurance that it would be more than that. If they’ve altered their plans, it’s up to them to be clear about it.

 

Hmm. I see what you’re saying, but this close to release they must know what “offline mode” is going to look like. Surely the time for making it up month to month has passed by now.

Have they said anything concrete since the AMA a few months ago where they said they were just starting to buckle down on single player?

 

For me an evolution would be to take what we had and expand on this.
For example:

Ultima 7 had very detailed NPC schedules for every NPC. SotA does have very simple schedules - so it is a step back instead of an evolution.

In Ultima 7 we could move objects around, drop items anywhere and find hidden items underneath objects. SotA doesn't have this - it is a step back and not an evolution.

In Ultima 7 the world changed, NPCs died, cities were destroyed. In SotA nothing ever changes - it is a step back and not an evolution.

Just a few examples.

And I am not OK with the game we now have. And looking at magazines, commentaries and player numbers as well as the general opinion of the game I am not the only one.

 

So what’s to be done?

 

I fear that the ship has sailed

 

Hmm. You don’t think if enough people organized we could at least get them to answer a few direct questions?

 

You should really go back through General Discussion forum section and brush up, so you can at least see which questions were already asked, and if / how they were answered. Or summarize and people might have links for ya.

 

I fear that this topic is a no go and lets them see red... I may be wrong though.
But I cannot see how the offline mode and quests and single player narrative can be salvaged at this point.
And before anyone is going to report me for my opinion, I am just anwering his question - it seems that I have to include this nowadays out of fear for saying a wrong word...

 

I thought i skip on this Forum, but this Answer kinda p***** me off, that's why i have to say something. TALK FOR YOURSELF.

The Reason why i bought this Game to begin with, was due it was the first MMO which i found(except Dragon Quest X which is only in Japan released...and only access to limited content in offline mode), which also offers an Singleplayer-Offline Mode. I didn't expect some full-fleshed out cRPG, if i want that, i have enough alternatives. I didn't expect something like Ultima and such... heck i didn't even know before i bought the game, that it is Richard Garriotts Game, which is pretty ironic. Because y'know why i'm so desperated to find MMORPG with offline mode? Due what happened with Tabula Rasa, which was one of my absolut most Favorite MMORPGs. If that would have an optional offline Singleplayer, i could still enjoy the Game. And only because you can't enjoy this games offline, it doesn't mean no-one can(infact i know quite some people who would love this feature in certain games like WoW like myself). Also by the way y'know that most modern MMORPGs are mostly playable solo anyway? There are hardly any mmorpgs which force you to group-play anyway. Why not offer an optional offline SP - for you MMO only folks it won't hurt anyway.

And also that's wrong also. Should Shroud of the Avatar get negatives Critism about the SP, from what i've seen in Forum/Reddit the past weeks, it's not because an offline Mode for MMORPG won't work and people don't understand. It's more due the way how this game was announced on Kickstart which premise was to deliever an full fleshed out SP... if it would have been announced in the first hand as an MMORPG with Offline-Playbility the reactions now to the game would be different. If you throw out hard words like "it will be like ultima 7" and than it goes full MMORPG route with offline playbility, it's pretty normal that you triggered the wrong target audience.

So Suma-Sumarum:
If RG and Co cut the Offline-Mode, for me this Game is literally dead, because it was the main selling point for me. I was looking for that since a long time, and thought there where Games where it resembles a bit of an MMO (Kingdoms of Amalur, Dragon Age Inquisition) or Games which catch up the scenario of an MMORPG(Sword Art Online, .Hack) and deliever that MMO Story in an RPG, there wasn't any kind of RPG which felt truly like an MMORPG to me. SotA however is the first Game it truly feels MMORPG and that's why i enjoy this Game so much. I like the MMORPG Concept itself, the way how this Games work are different than RPGs, i like the way how the world is handled, some Gameplay aspects, and the easygoing nature of that, due most modern RPGs are overstuffed with story, cinematic cutscenes, voice acting, graphical effects and so on, that's pretty exhausting. I want to have the simplicity of some classic games again. To enjoy simply the Combat so grinding make fun, crafting, exploring and so and so on.

 

These will always be the exception. It probably won't change, ever. Unless maybe, the most popular MMORPG in the world adapts some kind of single player offline mode. I understand why you'd want that mode, considering Tabula Rasa's disaster several years ago. But then again, I don't see a problem with someone uttering that their dream would ideally be, a solution where the MMORPG is a wholly different game. At least that doesn't upset me. Maybe that is only because I haven't been burned by something like that yet, but from the perspective of a single player campaign lover, I would wholeheartedly agree that the best singleplayer game is born as a singleplayer game, not a hybrid, because a lot of the mechanics will be shared, and feel alien to one or the other side of both audiences.

SotA still promised to deliver on both fronts.

I'm disillusioned, because in it's current state, it will be highly unlikely that it can. Or that the development process is even trying to, in all honesty. I wish I had more reason to cheer and put trust in it all. But I am very much invested in a design philosophy that feels like it has been discarded soon after the end of the Kickstarter. I'd take it all back and just wait and see, if I only could. Now that I've been invested emotionally and financially as much as I am, as are plenty of others, I feel a continual need find out if I should be getting my hopes up.

It's not just about me voicing my displeasure. I'm trying to change this in what measly way I've got left. Makes you wish Kickstarter would let you invest, and take back, if you see this is going nowhere. Not as a threat, but to make sure your voice is heard. Not trying to be mean, just to be heard, like you.

You may think the MMORPG style approach will in turn make the single player better, but I don't. I like how they are overstuffed with story, cinematic cutscenes I don't care for, voice acting I can do without, graphical effects are a nice to have, not a must have. But I need coherency and a game that isn't overstuffed with the multiplayer details. Guess I'll be getting that anyway.

 

This is an important point. Most of the strife today is a result of poorly managing backer expectations. Kickstarter talked about a bunch of generalized, bold ideas and then allowed backers to fill in specific expectations with their own imagination. Once it became apparent that some general promises would be fulfilled with specific mechanics not consistent with what backers specifically imagined would be implemented, lots of dissonance occurred.

The core problem with this whole project has always been funding. The Devs never knew how much they could raise, and wanted to remain fluid with their development plan so that they could adapt to the amount of resources they were able to raise. They listed a bunch of goals with a 2 million dollar price tag; the dissonance is that they envisioned minimal achievement of those goals with that funding while backers envisioned maximal achievement with that funding. In order to develop what the backers envisioned in their various camps in terms of story, offline mode, PvP, guild functionality, sieges, trade routes, economy, etc. they probably would have needed 50x or more their original funding estimate. I used to talk a lot about the importance of the 'funding goal' statement on kickstarter, and this is why. We will get a functioning offline mode for single players and therefore fulfill the kickstarter promise. Will that satisfy the single player enthusiasts that backed based on the general vision that was presented at kickstarter? My opinion is that for a majority of that camp, it will not, because their expectations were not managed well due to the degree of fluidity in the development plan not being well communicated. As in, 'You will get an offline mode, it might be just like Ultima 7 or it might be very basic depending on how much money we actually raise.'

 

On the other hand there also were some very clear statements, for example:

"...create a virtual world more interactive than Ultima VII..." - Is it?

"...Players will adventure in an interactive world where their choices have consequences..." - Do they?

"...A fantasy role-playing game that will focus more on player choices and discovery than on level grinding..." - Is it?

"...Players will be free to choose their path, but must then live with the consequences of their actions..." - Do we?

And of course the classic "...Though Shroud of the Avatar won’t be a massively multiplayer online role playing game, it will be a multiplayer game..." -

 

I interact with my keyboard in SOTA more than Ultima VII.

You can choose to just stand there and not fight back, and die, with the consequence of experience decay.

You don't grind levels. You grind experience.

You can choose to be critical and risk the consequence of being moderated.

We clearly did not read what they really meant by that classic quote. That is of course our fault.

 

I'm not about to tell you that you are not justified in your opinions as to the effectiveness of their attempted implementation of these features (I largely agree with them). All I'm saying, is that in their mind, they can say, "Look you can choose between two different spirit talkers, and the consequence is that you get different dialog...see, choices and consequences." They have many avenues to subjectively defend most of these boxes as being checked off, even if some find them no where near their expectations. I think all of those statements, are unfortunately, more subjective than we would like them to be. Despite that, I don't think you should feel in the wrong for thinking the way you do. They made no effort to dissuade very rational interpretations of all of those statements that turned out to be at least somewhat different than what was delivered. And the consequence is that they lost a substantial portion of the PVP and Offline playerbase.

One of the biggest advantages I can see for EPI 2 is the higher degree of transparency that will take place, simply because we have a track record of stated goals vs. actual outcomes to review.

 

Like i said, the good thing for me is, i don't care what they promised. I mean from a principle standpoind i get the critiques, i really do. I mean if you buy an game for certain reason, and don't get that, that's pretty problematic. The thing is however, that people have to learn how Kickstarter Works. SotA isn't the first Game which happened such thing, and believe me alot of Games happen it as well - but the difference is you don't know it. Diablo started (as example) out as an classical Roguelike/Dungeoncrawler, until the devs decided to pack more action into it etc... and now we have this whole (amazing) Hack'N'Slay Genres. Ideas change over time, sometimes devs see their intented Vision won't work they imagined, or its an Budget issue and have to go an different route, which seems that way in SotA. Maybe it will change in the future, maybe it will be more "Ultima 7" as the pledged Supporter hope, but maybe not. And even if i feel for ya, in my hones opinion its something which you should have known beforehand, that it's an risky investment and things can change or expectation can't meet over the time. For people who aren't up for such an risk, shouldn't mindlessly throw money at Kickstarter, and wait for the full release of the Game. But to suggest to cut certain features which are already in and works, like offline playbility for the sake of avoiding negative critiques is also the wrong way. SP Backers will be pissed anyway and i imagine if they cut this feature for this sake, the shitstorm/nagetivity would be even more...

However if you ask me, the Critique was to expecting from begin with. Even IF SotA would be objectively better than Ultima 7 (or as good quality wise) - people would be angry at the game, because it never would be ultima 7. A lot of people are pretty nostalgic on such cases, and not the good way. THats why remasteres work better than Remakes, due Remastereds with its polished graphics and better resolution still reminds you at the nostalgic feeling had with games, while Remakes would remodel the game complete, even if it is ONLY the Graphics, people would still not like the modern artstyle, bla and bla and bla. I mean y'know what the first critique was about the new Final Fantasy 7 Remake was? People dislike the way how cloud looks... yeah... better they would've oriented on the orgianl than we would have an popeye with Yellow Hair Spikes... Remakes only work for newcomers and people who are open minded, and that's also which happen in such cases. Pillars of Eternity example splits into two categories, the one who hate the Game because it isn't baldurs gate and blinded by their nostalgic, and than the other ones who like/enjoy PoE as much as BG - due they are fans of the genre and know that this kind of RPGs had it's own charme.

That's how i feel with SotA. I like it, not because i'm an diehard Ultima 7 Fan who expected an copy&pasta of Ultima 7 and so on, but moreover that the overall Game have an classical Gameflow. Is it perfect? Hell no, i have enough issues and cirtiques to the Game. I really hate the UI, i can't say how ugly i find it, i really do. But the way how the Dialogue System works, the overall aesthetics approach and some gameplayconcept(i really love the skillsystem) it's enjoyable and feel classic. And the Point which i appreciate the most as classical JRPG Gamer and fan of Mount and Blade... this amazing overworld-map. It needs alot of polishing and work to be done, and most of the things which needs works are things you know better than me, because most of you have way more playtime. But it doesn't change the fact that i have fun with the Game... and that is the only thing which matters to me(as well offline playbility) - and i don't care about any mainstream-hate or fanboyism from either side...

 

A new Outlander here... came across SotA yesterday not having heard about it till then. Just spent several hours reading the forums here and on steam... decided to buy and well... as I'm not in for a long I can't say if I will enjoy or not. But be first impression is that this is this kind of game which I was looking for a darn long time. And what was the reason I took a deeper look? Right... Singleplayer - Single- and Fiends Online in particular. Knowing those play modes from ELITE: DANGEROUS it's EXACTLY what I and my friends are looking at.