Why does this game appeal to you?

First of all I'm not writing this to troll or provoke anyone in case you folks are wondering but that's how it's usually perceived because of the skeptical and somewhat negative nature of the post. I've also read a few features lists without dwelling too deeply in them so I've a general idea but no indepth knowledge about game elements. I guess this is why I ask the question. I see a lot of stuff that exists in other games. I also see a lot of stuff that I suspect will drop the game into niche market category.

However I freely admit I'm more a themepark MMO player, and a complete customization and visuals nut so I'm probably not the exact target audience for a game that looks more like a sandbox game. Still I think it ends up more as a MMO than a single player game.

Below are a list of things I found noteworthy:

Game by Richard Garriott. I know the guy is a legend for people who lived the relatively short history of PC games but I'd say his name is more recently associated with failure of Tabula Rasa. For folks born in 90s the name probably doesn't say much at all. I also hope Mr. Garriott has this time more solid plans and doesn't keep changing the "vision" in mid development.

Tracy Hickman as the lead story designer. Terrific book writer but does not have experience in developing computer games as far as I know. Big names usually mean big money sink but in the end not necessarily any better product. This usually just translates to walls of text in quests and "backstory" instead of interesting game mechanics where the story plays out. Doesn't do anything to me but maybe for some this is one of the reasons?

Ability to play offline, online or in multiplayer mode. Ok cool. This is somewhat new. Funcom sort of planned to do this with AoC but failed. This is definitely one of the more interesting ideas IF they manage to pull it off because to me it seems a bit like developing three games at once. A definite point of interest for me. Maybe for others as well?

Pets, Crafting, Player housing. All pretty standard mmo stuff. Except perhaps for the fact that housing space is limited which probably means that big guilds could own entire cities, and new players end up into separate newbie towns. Still I could see social elements as one of the reasons but the thing is that they exists in other games as well, so what makes this one special?

Graphics look like something from the 90s game to be honest. Since I like pretty graphics this is a major negative mark from me but probably won't be an issue to most folks. Still graphics are one of the first things people notice when they look for a potential new game if nothing special pops out oherwise.

Character development information is pretty lacking. There's also no clues about character customization that I could find. To what extend I am able to customize character appearance? Does this also extend fully to look of armor and clothing? There's so little info that I don't think anyone would automatically have "character system" as the reason for liking the game.

Somehow I suspect most of the backers combine legend worship with nostalgia. Basically "Dude. It's being developed by the guy who coined the term massively multiplayer online!" and "I hate all modern ******** games. Bring back the good old games!"

 

I am mostly interested in the fact that it appears that Mr Garriot and his crew are trying to go back to some older gaming ideals that appeal to me; things like less hand holding with quests, more story driven gameplay, and exploration. These things may not be for everybody, and that is ok, but I enjoy them.

As far as graphics go, we have only seen the prototype. It is not even in alpha yet, so I don't think we have any clue what the game is going to look like at this point.

 

The sandbox environment appeals, as most MMOs nowadays are either theme park driven, or incomplete.

The single player aspect of the game, which should be like reading a good novel, and supported by an author that has experience in interactive story telling as Tracy was deeply involved int he original D&D settings and modules.

A complete, interactive virtual world where things have consistency and work logically.

An environment where the player actions are reflected in how the game respond.

It's a game from Richard Garriot, for crying out loud, that will be unmolested by publishers.

What's not to want?

 

I'm interested in seeing what the team can accomplish without a publisher getting in the way. Garriott is responsible for some of my favorite all time games (Ultima VI, Savage Empire and Ultima VII), so he gets instant credibility despite the debacle that was Tabula Rasa.

My biggest concern is how well the Unity engine stacks up for this type of game. I've never seen a game of this scope using Unity (I've used Unity for some iPad game development). I also think the design by committee (or community) could create some issues down the road and ultimately create a group of very vocal dissidents. We're still in the honeymoon period, but I'm curious to see how this pans out.

The great thing about Ultima is that LB seemed to be the benevolent dictator, but once EA added their two cents everything went south. I'm hoping the the community doesn't ultimately become a negative force ourselves.

 

The graphics shown aren't indicative of the final product. Richard has stated many times that they bought art assets from the unity store to put together the proof of concept. Please view the concept art to get a real feel of what the game will look like.

 

I want my Ultima games of old....I'm here for the games that made RG famous and I know he can still tell. I think perhaps I may get involved in some of the online play and hope that it isn't intrusive on the main game

 

I'm looking for the next great MMO.

1) There's clear brand equity there without the baggage. If this were UO2, it would have to appeal to UO players. It isn't and it doesn't. There also isn't lore here that can't be scrapped if in makes the game play poorly (e.g. Warhammer made far too many compromises for lore no one cared about.)
2) I feel that there's a competent team that can design a good single player game with some online and MMO as upside. GW2 was a really good game, but they were trying to shoot the moon. If they failed, they would fail very, very hard. I'm hopeful that they don't feel the pressure to do to much. Do 1% of the stuff people talk about on these boards in the simplest possibly way and add depth over time as funding increases and answers become clear.

 

-Richard Garriot
- Ultima Online being my first MMO blew me away - how I couldn't tell the difference from player and NPC was fantastic the role playing in the game was so good.
- Taming animals - first farm ville ever lol I could just tame animals for hours hopefully there is benefits from doing this, if i ever feel like being a master tamer
- Soloing - i could actually do things alone i was never forced to join a guild, I was never forced to be in a massive team to feel accomplished or have l33t armor..it made me feel good that i could do things my way.

 

-A team that seems both competent and enthusiastic about what they are doing (no "Lucas-effect" of turning everyone into yes-men)
-A story from Tracy and RG (the other known for great books and other for great games, and both are great story tellers)
-Actively involving the community. Combined with the afore mentioned competence, the fact that they are willing to listen to input and ideas, and as long as they remember to keep true to the few corner stone ideas that they themselves intend to have in the game, this can become something very special.
-The single player, though the multiplayer does sound interesting as well.

And I'm sorry, but every time somebody complains about the graphics I feel like punching someone. This reeks to me like FPS-mentality, which misses the point that unlike in FPS games where the two main focus points are graphics and gameplay, in an RPG they are gameplay and story. This is not to say that an RPG shouldn't or couldn't look good, only that it is not the aspect which it should judged by. Take one of my favorite games for example: Dragon Age Origins. I remember seeing watching the trailers and being less then convinced by the graphics (and I wasn't the only one), though I eventually bought it, and I can't even count the hours which I've spent playing and enjoying it. And now with SotA, like others have already said, it hasn't even hit Alpha and the footage used in the KS video was used to prove a concept.

/rant

Sorry, this is just something that has been getting on my since the KS....

 

I have to agree a LOT with what's already been posted, but I will also add:

- No forced grouping: I'm liking the fact that the game doesn't push you into Raids.
- Understanding that you can separate crafting from adventuring instead of it being a sub-set of skills
- Gypsy Wagons! (Let's just say that the friends I have told about that are excited at the idea)
- If the world is built the way I'm understanding it, it will not only be huge, but dynamic, immersive and amazing.

I think that RG does ahve a LOT riding on this one, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm game to see it through.

I do wish people would actually watch the various interviews that explain the issues he had with Tabula Rasa, Ultimas 8 and 9 and so on and the fact that the graphics as shown for the initial unveiling are NOT the graphics that will be used in the game before making statements about RG's recent history and the graphics they have seen so far.

 

In a way I'm sort of holding out that this makes me feel the feelings I felt when I played UO
- being able to do things alone
- not following a path that you are forced to take
- crafting
- PVP it's a must for me.
- the mass playerbase this is going to have even at launch.

 

I'm here because of the single-player-part. I'm hoping for a deep SP-RPG like Ultima VII with a great story and all of the elements that made this game great.

I not very interested in the MMO-part. Maybe I will go online now and then but my focus lies with the SP-part.

 

<blockquote>
However I freely admit I?m more a themepark MMO player, and a complete customization and visuals nut so I?m probably not the exact target audience for a game that looks more like a sandbox game. Still I think it ends up more as a MMO than a single player game.
</blockquote>

This is the first reason this game appeals to me. I hate themepark MMOs. The most fun in any online game I ever had was Neverwinter Nights by Bioware. This game has wonderful, small communities that are dedicated to my playstyle which is RP focused. This game is like a larger MMO with smaller communities because the game won't show you everyone, but only a small subset which it believes will give you the best experience.

<blockquote>
Game by Richard Garriott. I know the guy is a legend for people who lived the relatively short history of PC games but I?d say his name is more recently associated with failure of Tabula Rasa. For folks born in 90s the name probably doesn?t say much at all. I also hope Mr. Garriott has this time more solid plans and doesn?t keep changing the ?vision? in mid development.
</blockquote>

This has been brought up a lot. For those of us who know Richard Garriott, we know what happened to his games when he went from owning Origin Systems Inc to working for EA. We have also been gaming long enough to know what games were like before big publishers. Not only has RG said there was massive pressures from publishers that lead to these failures, there is also well documented ass-hattery (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/06/richard-garriott-sues-nc-soft-over-millions-stock-options) he had to deal with.

Those of us that has followed him know the quality of his work and funded this game to keep it from the typical big publisher dumb-down.

<blockquote>
Tracy Hickman as the lead story designer. Terrific book writer but does not have experience in developing computer games as far as I know. Big names usually mean big money sink but in the end not necessarily any better product. This usually just translates to walls of text in quests and ?backstory? instead of interesting game mechanics where the story plays out. Doesn?t do anything to me but maybe for some this is one of the reasons?
</blockquote>

Hickman is very involved in gaming in general and is a heavy role-player. Although this is probably the first time he has been this involved in a computer game, he does have significant gaming creds.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Hickman:
<blockquote>
"The Hickmans have been publishing game designs together for over twenty-five years including the popular and innovative Advanced Dungeons &amp; Dragons Ravenloft module in 1983. "

"In 1999 Pyramid magazine named Tracy Hickman as one of The Millennium's Most Influential Persons "at least in the realm of adventure gaming." The magazine stated that Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis are "basically responsible for the entire gaming fiction genre." Hickman was inducted into the Origins Hall of Fame in 2002, recognized in part for "one game line turned literary sensation: Dragonlance.""
</blockquote>

I think there are some professional, big budget story designers that don't have this kind of bragging rights, so I am sure he will do fine.

<blockquote>
Graphics look like something from the 90s game to be honest. Since I like pretty graphics this is a major negative mark from me but probably won?t be an issue to most folks. Still graphics are one of the first things people notice when they look for a potential new game if nothing special pops out oherwise.
</blockquote>

This is a prototype with programmer art, so its very early to start speaking about the graphics or the quality of the engine. Those of us here have watched the lead concept artist take our suggestions and create drawing based on that, and I for one am not worried this will be a good looking game. Most people do not see games this early in development, so I understand you having concerns over these things. However, many people will regret not getting more excited once more of the game is put together.

There probably is some nostalgia involved from those of us who remembered when games were more rich and innovative, instead of just making boobs bigger, polishing armor thongs and dumbing down the story to make for a more "mass market" rating. Some of the games elements do appeal to a niche market but this is truly the future of gaming because big budget games are not sustainable in the long run: especially when gamers like myself are pushed away from them as the games become more shallow.

If you like traditional MMOs then you are correct that this game may not be made for you. What this game is doing is something revolutionary in the forms of matchmaking multiplayer and in bringing some hard-core RPG mechanics to the MMO space. I am tried of "watching" a game and I am looking forward to one that will allow me to actually "play" it.

 

I think Umbrae said it better than I could have. Just a couple things to add:

1) Yeah, a lot of it is nostalgia (though PC gaming is far from dead, so calling it a "short" history is pretty silly. I played my first Ultima game 31 years ago). However, there's nothing wrong with that. Quite the contrary, gameplay was way better back in the day. Most game producers these days cut a lot of corners and only create the basics of a game rather than the attention to detail and interactivity of the environment. Themeparks are a great example of that. Why create an entire environment to explore and a sandbox system when you can just do "This is your place for levels 1-10. Then go to that spot for levels 11-20. Then go to that spot for..."? Sure, there are some exceptions (thank you, Bethesda!), but they are few and far between. When was the last time that a game had, for example, a crafting system as involved as UO? The closest I can think of was SWG, and we all know what happened to that...

2) For years I have been saying, "If someone made a game as in-depth as Ultima Online with updated gameplay and a 3D engine, I would buy it in half a second." Well, Mr Garriott heard my prayer.

 

Basically most of the points stated before apply to me to.

I felt somewhat let down by MMOs I played after Ultima Online regarding roleplay, specifically the impossibility of specializing into crafting.

On the downside, I am slightly concerned about the dual-map concept. With the Fallout 3 / New Vegas and Skyrim I greatly enjoy just wandering the world looking for interesting spots. In Ultima-Online I found running from city to city enjoyable as it created the immersive feeling that places were actually <em>separated</em> by a distance.

That said, I am also interested in the potential of the dual-map concept for focusing on story hotspots.

 

I will be honest and say that it is only because the name Lord British is on it.

The Ultima games were so great and nearly 20 years after them I still have good memories of them. So much that I would back his kickstarter simply because his name is on it.

Edit: Their slogan "We create worlds" could not be any more accurate. The worlds of Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld and Savage Empire really felt like living in a virtual world.

 

- Fond memories of Ultima series, especially Ultima 7 on the game play, graphics, and the tunes
- Lord British's name
- Exploration

 

It's RG. One of my favorite memories as a kid was playing Ultima, and I still remember the sense of accomplishment I got when I completed U:III, U:IV, and U:V. Saving LB at the bottom of Doom felt so amazing, and so different from every other game I had played. I remember when I played that I listened to the radio all the time, and the station played a very limited set of music (actually, it seemed like the same playlist just set to repeat), and now whenever I hear one of those songs I immediately think of these games.

I also remember my disappointment at U:IX. I really hope this doesn't go there.

So, it appeals to me for the memories. And also, by participating, I feel it gives me a way to say thanks. As far as I'm concerned he defined the computer RPG genre.

 

1. Lord British.
2. Ultima 4-7.

 

I would say I'm looking for some of the freedom we had back in UO.
UO you could
Freely drop items wherever you wanted
So many ways to decorate your house
Free to place houses all next to each other to form a guild like city
Free to run all over the map no matter what level you were
Lots of ways to craft/gather items
Free to kill anyone anywhere - well almost
Loot everything they have on them
Lots of ways of using items in the game
Don't have to worry about any story
Can collect things, join guilds, guild wars, craft all day, play around attacking each other, etc
Place vendors around sometimes selling regs like 10x the price right outside a dungeon
Cast spells that turn you into creatures
Trap chests, poison food
Kill birds for feathers, deers for hides, chicken for food, etc
Steal from anyone
Grow plants
Make your pets fight each other
Throw snowballs at each other
Kill npc's and take their clothes
Release high level creatures in newbie areas

For me is just about having fun with the freedoms in the game.
I'm not here for any story, I don't care if there is one.
I'm just here to have fun playing a game.

Whether or not they give us this kind of freedom is yet to be seen.