World Maps: The Minimum Expectations of 21st Century RPGS

You're right. They didn't just suddenly decide a week before R4 to change it.

It was two days before. Therefore, the representation we saw is early and can change. I hope they consider suggestions in this and other threads, but I doubt it's going away. I like the previous version better, but I think this version can be good too, if it's modified some, functionality is added, and the game is tweaked to explain the map view style.

Perhaps some cities have a magical model of the world in some center location that looks exactly like the overland view? Maybe something like a cross between these two? With a SotA flavor, of course.

 

@Cantebury

If the devs decided to suddenly change the style of the player character on the screen to that of a Stick man for example, and yes i am aware this is an extreme and unlikely scenario, would you still be happy that the devs changed that and just put it down to the fact that we should have no control or input here Cantebury, and don't say that this would be different because it wouldn't. Now i can see why they have to make money stretch out, but its not like it has been a slight change, it as obvious as night is to day. Let me give you another example of something that has been changed from the 3 month video too, chopping down trees. Now this is a less obvious change but it is still one where corners in animation have been cut from the 3 month video. Now when you chop a tree down you just see the tree fall over and then the wood is in your bag, i actually prefer what they showed in the 3 month demo.
Save money by not implementing or promising something you cant deliver for episode one, coconuts for horses for example, but obvious changes for the worse, i really don't want to roll over and play dead and pretend everything is fine, when it isn't.

 

Dark Age of Camelot - $3.1 million - Mythic cofounder Mark Jacobs told Gamasutra in 2008 the fantasy MMO cost $2.5 million to develop and an additional $650,000 to market, indicating a combined launch spend around $3.1 million.

I really don't know what to think, please reassure us...

 

I might be the only one, but I was expecting an Ultima 1 - 5 style world map that was animated and had wondering monsters on it that you may need to run away from if they were too strong for you to defeat, and if they caught you you would be taken to a scene where you fought the creatures. Also, a fog of war is a must have as one shouldn't be able to walk 3 tiles from their current position without clearing the fog of war for all the tiles before it. Plus if you already can see all the points of interest right from the start the world map does not give the feeling that anything needs to be explored/discovered as it is all already known.

 

A lot of you are not understanding that many of these features are not polished at all yet. They are just there, for now, so we can actually test the game properly. If you get this upset over sudden changes, it does not bode well for you in the long run, for there will be many more. This is why most developers gladly opt out of doing such a public project.

Be my guest and express your concerns on the forums, but try to do so in a less aggressive tone, please. You can get your point across without being insulting, and I am quite certain, that point will be much better received without all the negativity.

 

I will have to read Darkstarrs post again. But what I mean is that while the design might not have actually been complete until very recently. The plans to change the world map probably happened quite some time ago. I mean I have a hard time believing just two days before R4 they looked at the map and said you know we need to change this! Now I realize what we are seeing isn't exactly what we are going to get. It is an early version. Personally I think they should have waited till they could come up with a more finished prototype of the new style before showing us anything.

 

Fog of War will probably be added at least I hope.

 

You talk about being insulting and then patronise people by saying "A lot of you are not understanding that many of these features are not polished at all yet", i think the words Pre Alpha is self explanatory. We know that this is just testing out systems, that was not the point that was being made about the overhead map. We have been told now that this new overhead map is the direction they want to take, and the point that some of us made here was that it is sub standard to what was shown. And thank you for inviting us to express our concerns on this forum, it is what we were doing before your post and what we will continue to do. I personally have not insulted anyone in these forums, and i cant really see where anyone else in this thread has insulted anyone in person. If expressing our disgust at what we feel is a bad change to the game is what you find aggressive or insulting then that is your probelm, but i suggest you consider your own words without patronising people which can also be taken as insulting.

 

I was talking generally about the tone in this thead, since some people are being out of line. Other things, along with the map, are being complained about in a fashion that sounds like everything should be perfect right away. From what I can see, the term Pre Alpha is not self explanatory at all.

 

The plans to change the world map were described by Starr to have been last minute. Maybe they had the idea previously, but they didn't actually throw it together until two days before. I think it was better to do it before we got used to seeing the previous version because even though this was a shock, it would have been 10x as bad in R5 if we first saw this cloth/paper map then.

 

I'd be really interested to hear more from the devs about why this change was needed. Of course die-hard dev supporters will find a way to rationalize and defend anything they say, but if it was put to a vote before any dev comment, I doubt this new map would've garnered even 25% support vs the old version. Of course one can say it's unfair to judge because it's incomplete and a bunch of features Darkstarr mentioned have not yet been implemented, but that seems like a red herring to me because based on past chats, I was expecting most if not all of those features ("animations like waves, turning windmills, flowing water, volcanos and under siege cities", "pan, zoom, fog of war, etc.") to be present in the old map anyway. At the end of the day, what are we gaining from this new approach?

Starr's comments suggest that attempts at the old map "were not going anywhere quickly" so they just gave up, which is discouraging to say the least from a team we're all counting on to deliver the "Ultimate RPG". Chris' comments about not being reasonable to expect Civ5-level quality are well taken, but still don't address why there was a need for a complete overhaul rather than merely tempering expectations. And while I sort of understand what he means as a developer, the comment about the map being merely a "travel mechanism" really rubs me the wrong way. That's the world that all of us are going to be living and adventuring in, not just some technical implementation that provides a mechanism for players to teleport between zones. When I think back to other classic dual-scale games, the overland map wasn't just an afterthought or a means to an end; it was the world. And even in those most primitive of games, it always felt more real than any paper or cloth map. For a game which in all other aspects seems to focus on immersiveness above all else, it's just bizarre that they'd willingly choose such a crude metaphor rather than building a more realistic living world. Honestly, it feels more like cutting corners in response to a tight development schedule than a principled design decision, though I'd welcome them to explain exactly why it's superior to the alternative.

 

uh oh... you guys have awoken the dreaded queen of eternal slumber...

 

I think then what they should have done then is let us know that changes are going to be made to the map. Let us know some of the ideas they have for the changes and most importantly let us know that that they are going in a completely different direction from the original map. So that way in R5 when the map was shown it would not be such a huge shock. Also be honest about their reason(s). I seriously doubt that they just suddenly decided after months of development the original map wasn't just original or Ultima enough. I mean someone correct me if I am wrong but weren't Ultimas 1-5 dual scale with the travel map just being a zoomed out version of the regular game? I suspect the real reason is because of time and money but that is just my opinion. My point is they really could have and should have handled this situation much better then they did.

 

I think this is the real reason they are doing this. It makes more sense then any of the explanations they have given.

 

Obviously many people have strong feelings about this. Again, I should probably just avoid this topic rather than post inflammatory things. While it is not a popular opinion, I like the current overland system better than what I saw in the early demos. *let the stoning for blasphemy begin* I thought the zoom in/zoom out thing was disorienting and silly. Sorry to those of you who liked it, just my opinion. But the main thing that bothered me was that things where supposed to be separated PvP, PvE whatever. So, you are walking along in overhead view with your friends (who you can see) you both go into a "hex" and because you are tagged different they disappear??? How is that not breaking immersion? But, if everyone gets their own map and we get separated it makes a little sense to me. (not total, I mean are we traveling together or not?) Now, I know I am not the best at following direction, and so find myself consulting a map when going places I am unfamiliar with and so, the overland map seems to make sense to me.

But the main issue I have is that overland travel without some kind of pull back (while being totally immersive) is terrible for gaming. I have played games where you spend 20-90 min running overland being harassed by every little puny agro MoB to get to an appropriate level dungeon (or whatever). A trip there and back to town could be 3 hours with nothing that would gain you any xp. Immersive, perhaps, but not how I want to play a game. I get total immersion when I go out camping, but if the truth be told, I wouldn't mind an overhead map for reality too. How nice would it be to click and be at a cliff face for an ascent and not have to hike 2 days? *gets a dreamy look ... which is good, I won't feel all the stones that way*

 

*throws a well aimed piece of aerogel*

 

Well what they could do is keep the current map we were shown as sort of a fast travel map. So once you have been to a location you can use that map to fast travel to it. Kind of like in Skyrim.

 

I think that with a crowdfunded project that devs are obliged to ASK those who gave them money about such drastic changes.
When I want to buy a car and I am shown one with a metallic blue color and I give the car dealer money up front, BUYING it, because I want the car that he has shown me, he cannot deliver a yellow car because he thought the blue one looked odd without even asking me about this.

 

It's not really that good of an example, because the car in question would already exist. It's nonsensical for someone to not give you something that already exists, if that's what you want.

But when we have things like these half-done maps, that aren't finished, everything is in a state of flux. You might not like it, but developer's have the right (and indeed the obligation), to chase the best solution for the game, in their opinion. They are the ones at the wheel; not us. They cannot (and should not) be referring every possible change to us as, (1) It would waste a lot of time and, (2) We aren't on the board, anyway. These aren't our choices to make.

Crowdfunding is the support of a project. It is not buying the right to get on a forum and say how everything should be done with the expectation that anything we want to happen, will happen. Even when that privilege is sometimes extended to us, we cannot confuse that with it being an ongoing invitation to do so on every single topic. I don't know how else to say it, but we aren't in the driver's seat on this. That's not how crowdfunding (or game development) works.

In the final wash-up, I will get onboard with whatever the developers decide. Have you noticed that, even though I'm a fan of the paper map, I haven't tried to suggest that the original map being used would be a game breaker for me?

 

I've posted a request for a response directly to RG regarding the R4 OM

link

It seems from his post he is aware of the concerns about combat and the World Map which is encouraging:

(Richard Garriot)