Massively OP update

This section is not really appropriate. This is repeating what others have said not reviewing his actual in game experiences. He states he has heard this not seen it firsthand. In the 3-4 hours he has played he hasn't seen enough to know this for sure. If he had extrapolated where the systems were leading himself it has a place here but not just repeating what was said in last weeks comment section.

It is an important point and shouldn't be dismissed. It just was not appropriate in a "my impressions playing a few hours in a game" style review.

 

I'd argue that if he thinks Destiny 2 beta is boring, it's not surprising that he also doesn't like SotA. Someone who would like SotA for the story would probably enjoy Destiny 2 because it does a better job at conveying it. This is the same as how film critics can dissect a movie;

Remember how World of Warcraft was (and still is) ridiculed because the vast majority of the quests involved killing a certain amount of a particular enemy? SotA's story involves talking to particular NPCs in a particular order... you're essentially less involved compared to being Martin Septim's escort in TES4:Oblivion... or the Nephalem who's hunting down Diablo but always a step behind in Diablo2.

You can also don't like something and still accept whatever it is your don't like for what it is because you can objectively see some good design principles backing it up.

• I don't like how World of Warcraft turned into since Wrath of the Lich King, but I understand why people still play it and thus I'll never claim that it's a bad game. I could even be able to recommend it with a straight face.
• I don't like Minecraft but it does a lot of things right.
• I don't like Path of Exile but I wish Diablo 3 had that much randomized (and challenging) content as PoE does. And it's not just quantity either.

You can also like something that is total trash too. Like the 2016 Ghostbusters movie or the Micheal Bay Ninja Turtles movie. Like the Final Fantasy franchise. It doesn't make it less trash. SotA essentially has two things going for it at the moment: the non-instanced housing and some of the non-linear dungeon designs are a breath of fresh air. Everything else is in desperate need of rework and fine-tuning.

So yeah... "taste" but at the end of the day, every opinion matters. If Portalarium isn't grabbing the audience they want, they need to revisit some of their design choices despite how many (or little) people enjoy what's currently on the table. "Revisit" doesn't necessarily mean to "change", but to pay more attention to it.

It's actually kind of hard to call SotA a "game" at this point, much less a "good" or "bad" game.

... and it'll be an even smaller audience if they don't get their act together and make it right.

I was giving examples on how context can change a message; I wasn't implying that he did reviews on shooters nor RTSs...

I don't even think they need to be that intelligent; they just need character.

 

I call shenanigans! NOBODY likes the MB NT movie.

Otherwise, yeah. Pretty much agree with what you posted. 8^D

 

Hahaha, it was supposed to be a true mmorpg and now it turned out to be something random. Straying from its path doesnt give this title any credit

 

It was never supposed to be a "true mmorpg". Per Kickstarter:
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”.

Nowhere in the Kickstarter description for the game is MMO mentioned. For a long time, the dev team veered away from using MMO terminology as they were pushing “Selective Multi-Player” as the catch phrase for their game design intention. So it never strayed from its path, it just never had a path to begin with.

 

Absolutely cannot agree with that copy and paste, as per what was promised during thousands of days of forum feedback and telethon ideas. That copy paste from the past is just used IMO, as a way to defend a game that hasnt progressed into a real game yet.

We even have devs eager for content to full fledge this into a mmorpg.

 

Wrong...do your homework.

 

You can completely disagree with it all you like. That doesn't change the fact that it was not originally supposed to be a true mmorpg. The change in focus towards that is (as you pointed out) from more recent forum posts and telethons and not the actual original intent.

 

Actually MMORPG was mentioned during the Kickstarter. There it reads in the FAQ:

"Shroud of the Avatar won’t be a massively multiplayer online role playing game"

As for "that copy from the past"... this was when money was collected for the game which was described back then. Many gave money because of this description. So they better stick to it.

 

Actually i know for sure i am right about it being a mmorpg, there is no way to argue with concrete evidence and conversations with devs, private messages even. This is supposed to be a mmorpg by episode 2

There is no reason for actual devs to state full fledge mmorpg content when there apparently shouldn't be any?

 

Odd when I logged into game last night I still had the option for single player, friend only, and multiplayer... strange. It very much still looks like the "Selective Multi-Player” game they've been pushing since day one.

So the log in options at the start of the game screen are not really there. Thanks. I appreciate that your concrete evidence of private messages over comes the wishy washy non-existent hallucination of the selector screen whenever anyone boots up the game. Thanks for the clarification and pointing out the error of my ways.

 

SOTA did what a lot of startups do when the original assumptions behind the project change - they executed a pivot. From a minimal emphasis on mmorpg mechanics during the kickstarter phase to a software infrastructure that is obviously meant to handle hundreds to thousands of players online.

And yet unless the strong & complex storyline and more intelligent NPC behavior (the trademark of single player offline rpg games) is fully realized in the mix - the mantle of "spiritual succesor to UO and the Ultima games" may never sit well on SOTA's sboulders.

The irony is that just like the best of avatar builds are hybrids, the game itself is a hybrid. And hybrids are the most difficult to nurture and balance to a state of elegance and beautiful functionality. The bar for success for this game is higher and riskier than many people realize.

 

Lol that makes no sense. Diablo has teh same options and its an mmorpg. What is your true intent. To keep this as a casual game and a small player base? Thats All i can muster from your points.

 

Completely agree with this. I'm just pointing out it was never originally intended to be a true MMO. Our hybridization I believe hurts us significantly due to an attempt to be all things for everyone instead of actually being a UO successor, or proper MMO, or amazing single player experience. Even if the push is for Episode 2 to completely abandon the selective multiplayer mode and go full MMO (which would create a lot of issues), that still doesn't mean the original intent was to get there.

 

Elder Scrolls Online. Story mode is 100% single player. I think , actually i know i proved my point.

 

You misunderstand what I'm saying then. I have no interest in keeping this casual or hard core or whatever. I personally would like to see the developers move in a specific direction to provide what they were funded to provide that causes the people that play it to enjoy it, have fun, get excited, and draw more people into it.

Yes, they have recently changed much of their focus towards MMO features and no longer go out of their way to say they are not an MMO like they did in early interviews and on their kickstarter. But believing that being an MMORPG was the intent from day one is just wrong.

To clarify any misunderstanding you have, my intent in my post was to correct an incorrect statement:

The devs may be swinging that way now, if they believe it to be the best way to deliver the promised product that people have funded. I have no issues with that as long as they follow through on what the backers paid for.

***Edit*** The problem in my opinion is what you summed up in the second half of your first sentence:

We STARTED here and now the devs are trying to recover things and give it what focus and direction they can. There was no path because they were trying to be trailblazers...

 

So your intent was to prove that in the beginning it wasnt supposed to be an mmorpg. Why are we even talking. Omg.

This game is a mmorpg and thats my point.

 

Um, I've never said anything BUT this in any of my responses and thought I had been very clear about that. How it could be misunderstood for anything else... I genuinely do not know.

It was originally an attempt at communication. Apparently, the attempt failed.

 

Not exactly.

source: http://m.ign.com/articles/2017/06/06/the-elder-scrolls-online-morrowind-review

"But playing solo brings up one of Morrowind’s central disconnects between its gameplay and its otherwise strong storytelling: the desire to live up to its Elder Scrolls single-player heritage in a multiplayer setting. ESO has struggled with this duality, and it feels further exacerbated within the confines of Vvardenfell.

One of the long quest chains in Suran, in which you’re asked to find out who is at the center of an illegal slaving ring, serves as an example. It’s a quest that continually makes the point that you – and no one else – are the hero. Yet every time you zoom out of the conversation with the quest givers, you’re presented with the image of crowds of other people, all identically costumed (as one part of the story requires you to dress up), all huddled around the same character being told the same story. It’s a feeling that came up more than once, especially in the main questline, as I worked through the PvE content. In a game that has always been more single-player or small-group focused like ESO, it’s not a huge issue. But it does sour the experience some."

 

Um... no it wasn't. Not only did it almost shipped with no multi-player at all (because it was originally designed to be a turn-based roguelike and the battle.net component was rushed), having thousands of players in a chat and have them group together in a 4-player coop game is not recognized as an MMO by the industry as a whole.

If the chat is the thing that makes Diablo an MMO, then Discord would be too.

Diablo's nothing more than an Action-RPG. You should ask David Brevik; he's one of the original developers.

We're at a point in time where first person shooters have RPG components to them and we still label them as "FPSes"...

SotA may very well be one of the first hybrid. It's a single-player RPG that supports MMO play. It's an MMO that allows you to play offline. It's both.