Release 5 Impressions & Release 6 Revised

@Darkstarr,

Thanks again, to you and the team, for working so hard to put together another great release; as well as taking the time to summarize your feelings on how the release went from a developer's perspective.

I think @High-Baron-O-Sullivan's sentiments were accurate when he said, "I don't think a single person actually thought this game would be released on time". So no surprises there. Personally I prefer that the game is released when it is ready. Obviously we can't have an indefinite release date but if I had to wait another year I wouldn't be bothered at all. A good solid game released later is better than a half-baked one now.

I also think your quarterly "polish builds" is a great idea and the right move. For many, perception is reality, so the tighter and more polished the graphics and implemented game elements are, the better the perception will be throughout the development process.

 

Just wanted to thank Darkstarr for addressing the release date issue. Great news.

 

I think most people know that I've long supported and argued on behalf of the decisions the developers have made for various systems they have designed.

This is finally something I can't agree with.

The animations, textures won't improve the feeling of the map. It's like Don't Starve, I played that quite a bit, I didn't care for the art style but I forgave them as it was a small company with limited budget that made it, and the entire game had that same consistent art style so it worked, although the world felt very artificial to me. I can see no reason to change the art style in the middle of a game.

The primary issue I have with it, is my adventure stops as soon as I enter that map view. There is nothing fun about my adventure stopping. The 3 month and 6 month demos promised a lot of features where it seemed like I could and would want to spend most of my time on the "map". Things would pop up I'd investigate, random encounters, gyspy wagons, rare events would trigger while I'm out there. I'd expect to have full control of my character while I'm out there.

We probably have around half the people saying they like the new look and half saying they don't. It's split so whatever RG and team wants for a look I guess works(I personally don't like inconsistent art styles). New look aside, what plans do you have to make it fun to be in the "map"? Because at this point I hate going there.

 

Thank-you. very well put and understood.

 

Many thanks Starr! I too had a nagging concern about the October release date, but your words here have laid it to rest. As Dermott has said in an earlier post, participating in the incredibly complex process of building the game is a very rewarding learning experience. However, I've also discovered that pre-alpha testing ain't for the faint of heart! Your's, Richard's and Chris's patient, honest and open posts are helping make the whole thing a lot less harrowing.

 

Im not sure if we are 50/50%. I think that more people like the old style.

 

According to this poll.....https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...updated-overland-map.10074/page-8#post-174070

47- Like the current map.
11- Do not like it.
31- Would like it if there we're improvements.
22- Do not like it and never will.
60- Want to revert to the older 3-D style map.

I count 47 that like the current map, and 124 that do not like it in it's current format.

 

I count it as 78 who think the current direction is proper (map style) and 93 who like a consistent art style. so could be like a 40/60 split. Close enough that LB can wield his supreme executive power to choose which he likes since it's his game. If it was 20/80, he'd have a tough time making a case.

edit: I'd like for us to have a chance at the old 6 month demo style and then for those who play it to vote on which they preferred.

 

My calculator also gets 78 for the present map direction and 93 against. However only 2 categories are for and there's three against. A bit biased maybe by the poll maker

 

Us canadians have to stick together

 

Well I don't think it skews it; I don't like it, and I don't like it and never will, are pretty much the same. (If it were multiple choice option then yes, you'd be right, but we could only choose 1) A simpler: Keep the Map style, Revert to 6 month Demo style, and I don't care about style give me functionality, might be more fair. Polls don't fit everyone. My primary concern is functionality, second concern is visual style - but I believe they both impact my enjoyment of that part of the game.

 

I personally am 100% all for an extended release date. When did the project start anyway?? The kickstarter was in the beginning of 2013 right? I think that setting the official release to the fall of 2014 would really limit the ability of the devs to create the best game for us. Of course there will be those 5 expansions and all, but I don't think that we should count on expansions to develop the game at the same time it is being played.
Was there any development before kickstarter going on? If not, why not wait till 2016 for the big release. I remember diablo 3 having new release dates every 5 months after first being advertised around 2009 i beleive? And yea, they set the release for about a year later, ended up being may 2012 or so I think.
I dont think any of us backers should pressure the devs to hurry it up. Lets enjoy developing the game for the next few years. No need to be like a publisher pushing an author to get their next novel done. Its done when its done! If your all getting bored play UO with me. You can sink ships on the server I play >=-P,

 

Yes we do

 

Hehe, and then they didn't even get Diablo 3 right, the players got ahold of it and cried foul, and they finally fixed it with the expansion last month -Giving players what they ask for is a double edged sword though, better to make a game you think players need, then players can tell you what they want changed so they can have the game they deserve

I think Sim City was another example of that. (As soon as players got in they saw things that were obviously screwed up, simulations didn't work properly and the online-only cities were a bad idea, I think our limited city size is an issue too, they should have allowed-at great expense- city expansions so we didn't feel so confined)

 

I think the issue with people liking or not liking the overland map, and how much effort the dev team should or should not put into it, would be best decided by them thinking through just how much time will actually be spent ON the overland map by the players once the game is done. If players will only be using it to travel to different areas/zones/etc and will be spending (example, here, just for the purpose of this post) 85% of their time adventuring/playing IN said areas/zones/etc, then not nearly as much effort/polish will be needed to be spent on the overland map. This would also free up the devs to be able to spend that time on other things to make the actual gameplay, interface, level of immersion, graphics, interactive things that much better and polished. Now if the final game ends up showing that (again, just a semi-random number here) 50% of the players' time will be spent on the overland map, then perhaps they'd want to put an appropriate level of time/effort into it.

Basically, it will all be dependent on how much time we'd be spending on the overland map, as to how much they put into it.

 

But isn't that a "chicken or the egg" argument? IF the map is immersive and has many different functions (especially if they are map-exclusive functions) aren't people going to spend more time there than if it has limited functionality and immersion? It definitely cuts both ways.

 

Not necessarily. It depends on what role in the story/interaction the dev team wants the overland map to play for us players.

 

Folks, once and for all it is NOT the art style which is the issue here. Its whether the darn thing is "just a map" or if it is a game play layer, operative word being "play". If it is and only ever will be "just a map" then frankly all the discussions can go away since even the most vocal detractors (and you know who you are) will agree that a map which looks like a map is in and of itself not a contentious issue.

The crux of it is that many thought (ambiguity of what its been called notwithstanding) that it was not going to be a map in the static sense, but rather a 2nd game play layer, or view if you want to call it that. THAT, not the artwork, is what really sparked the initial strong reaction after R4: We saw what we thought was to be a game play layer make its first appearance looking like....a plain ol' map. I for one was like "oh crap....Portalarium was thinking 'map', not game play at all....well....darn it..."

Now whether we were right or wrong pre-R4 to think the way we were is immaterial now. The fact is the idea has been tabled that the game, in the opinion of some, could REALLY use a 2nd level of game play distinct from the in-instance play. I have no idea if this is even possible in terms of the framework they have already laid down etc. but I still hold out hope that it might be because frankly, hanging out in a totally diced up world doesn't sound fun to me at all (certainly cant be called Ultima'esque).

 

I'd just like to echo the support for pushing back the release date as far as necessary to build the game we all (devs & community) want. Look no further than the last couple Ultimas for examples of what happens when a game is called "finished" based on a date instead of its actual readiness. Anyone who would complain about the date slipping has COMPLETELY missed the entire point of why this game was funded through Kickstarter instead of through a studio.

As far as the map controversy, I've been very supportive of the dev team on nearly everything they've done, but they're just wrong on this, and being extraordinarily stubborn about it for some reason. All I would ask is, let us play the old map for one release, warts and all, and then do a formal, unbiased poll to see which style the community prefers. If people prefer the new one, case closed. If they prefer the old one, in spite of the scale issues and uncanny valley effect they've reported, then maybe the issues aren't as big a deal as they think they are. If there are other reasons why the old version won't work, then explain those to us, maybe in the form of an hour-long hangout on the topic with Chris, Starr, & Richard. People citing a 20-second clip from the week-long anniversary hangouts as evidence that they've already addressed the outstanding questions is just laughable. Whatever way we ultimately go with this, it's in everyone's interest to have an open dialog on the topic and I think the lack of that so far is what is causing so much frustration.

 

So you want to play the game entirely in map mode? I really don't get it. I don't think the game was ever billed as a 20,000 foot game play surface. Yes, there was a 3D map overlay that RG zoomed in and out of, but it never seemed like the primary game playing mode. Even as a "2nd level" as you put it, it's just your character walking around. There was never additional functionality shown in that demo.

I really hope the devs don't waste their time trying to re-imagine the map to satisfy the want to three dimensionally wander about between towns.

Also, as for letting the release date slip...great! I've followed a number of games where this wasn't communicated until the last minute. Nor was anything really ever communicated until the last minute. Thank you DarkStarr, RG and team for communicating this as soon as it became obvious - well done! I have a lot of faith that this is the right course of action, and that continued communication will cure many ills.