The more I read about this game. The more i go OH OH..8(

The first thing I did and enjoyed in UO, was that I got the NPC girl in Moonglow to fall in love with me.

The second thing I did and enjoyed in UO was going out and tipping a cow.

The third thing I did and enjoyed was talking to wisps and orcs.

The forth thing I did and enjoyed in UO, was playing UO

Then I stayed playing UO, and watched all those things similar to the first three things be all programed away....

Then I got a new game
~Time Lord~

 

Time lord. I could not have said it any better, myself.

Yup, it's not UO. Or even loosely built around UO combat, ect. Im going to pass on paying for a knights pledge.

 

Theres quite a few hesitant like us. I coulfntbring myself to donate based off blind faith even if i had the money to donate. Ive pre paid for games i didnt try out and got burned. You made a wise choice. If i had the money and it turned out being the game i wanted it to be then id have no problem donating. But seems like my ideas are just not pracical or the way devs want to go they have the idea where they want to take it and prolly wont listen to any singular fan. Sure they tweak things based on feedback but mostly its still their ideas

 

That's like saying no one should have pre-ordered UO because the combat was nothing like Ultima VII, which they loved.

 

I think there is a large population that want better UO like combat, and alot of distrust for the current idea of combat systems.

I would like to see the devs give their idea a shot, trust them. However if its horrible, nobody likes it etc then they should trust us and give us a classic style gameplay.

 

Not really. Ultima 7 didnt claim to be a spiritual successor of UO. One would think with that terminology that they would at least have loose similarities

 

Ultima Online claimed to be an online version of Ultima, so one could expect to be more of a direct sequel than a spiritual successor.

When it turned out to be quite different from all previous Ultimas, people didn't panic or freak out and demand that it be exactly like the old games.

Heck, when Ultima VII was completely different from Ultima VI, people didn't demand that it have to be like the old game.

 

I guess you just can't get around anonymous assholes.

 

You are comparing an mmo to single player game of course theyre not alike they have to be different just to design them. We are comparing two online games. Big difference

 

Except SotA isn't an MMO either. It is an RPG with selective multiplayer.

 

Ive come to the realization that we probably aren't going to get either extreme with this game. I think RG hears us all, he does not want a WoW clone. He doesnt want a felucca/trammel split. He does not want old school UO, as indicated in one of his interviews where he had an encounter with one of the players in his game stealing from another player and then he threatened to ban the thief for this, but the thief told him something like "Look RG im just playing the game the way you made it". Someone feel free to post this video if they can find it, because im having a rough time with that... =(
Now we have this PvP slider thats been invented by us and been picking up speed among the people in the forum here. Of course theres much debate on how exactly that will even work if it is used at all. From the sound of it, RG doesn't want to give too much out to either side, he's looking to try something new, revolutionary, and something that is his own creation. Im fairly certain he is taking into consideration what those of us who back the game, and participate in conversations in the forums have to say. And hes going to surprise us with something that will end up working out after all. Gotta remember his background and qualifications. This guys an official pro at making big hit video games.
Ive said this before and Ill say it again: Forget terms like: PvP, PvE, full loot, trammel/felucca, PvP slider, WoW clone, MMO. I feel that this is going to be new and totally outside the realm of what we are used to when it comes to online gaming, or gaming period. You just gotta trust the devs, and trust RG's background.

 

Depends on what you mean by AAA. Highly rated good selling games? Ni No Kuni, Fire Emblem, super mario 3d world, bravely default, tons of games. They still use the system in all sorts of games for good reason, gives a perspective of scale beyond what a 1:1 world could do and still be interesting. There are even more reasons for this game to do it.

If by AAA you mean the big $$$ games that the big publishers are pushing out? Who cares about that garbage..terrible games... none of them are innovating, none of them are breaking any molds.

For the OP: Use based skill systems are terrible. Macro them till you master. boring. That was the worst thing about UO for me.

 

This was not billed as a AAA game. Keep saying that and you'll be ahead of my husband on the PK list!

 

Like I said...there's quite a few people sitting in watch for some key announcements... I Pledged. I figured that RG brought me into my love for MMO's so I'd gamble on this one knowing that it will either renew or break my interest in the genre completely. I have been patiently waiting around (nearly giving up on MMO's) for a long time, so if this goes bad...Oh well...it was worth a last shot.

 

Pretty sure one of the devs or RG has said it was

 

In all fairness, I'm not sure anyone really knows what a AAA game is anymore. I don't like any self proclaimed AAA games, so who cares what we're calling it?

That goes for anyone calling this a AAA game too. Who cares? It's either good or it's not.

 

I did some searching of sota and shroud of the avatar and aaa and seems like all I can find is results from people saying it isn't a triple a game... In the context they used it in, it meant Big budget.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_A_(gaming)#Triple_A

 

Yeah just cause somethings on wiki doesnt mean its truth to everyone. To me AAA means not rinky dink and properly funded

 

You're creating your own definition, but it is not the one the industry uses. And Wikipedia is right more often than not. In fact, repeated blind studies have found it is just as accurate as traditional encyclopedias. I don't understand why people are always immediately dismissive of Wikipedia.