In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.
Discussion in 'UHall' started by Trebr Drab, Jul 24, 2010.
as a new game, where do you think they should start the lore at?
As a WHOLE new game...?
Well, year 300, I'd suppose.
(NetDragon are supposedly launching a 3D "Ultima Online" in 2011 though, having bought the rights from EA)
Hm I never heard of NetDragon...well, I'm waiting out on Dragon Age Online . But I guess if they started it over, a 3D T2A, the best time ever .
I say they start it at the Shattering. Have the new UO servers be forgotten shards of the gem and Lord British was lost to the void in these lands. or have current uo lore have it so we somehow recreate the Gem of Immortality and it absorbs all our shards, and is eventually re shattered to begin the new era
Yes, as a whole new game. A restart of UO doesn't seem like the best idea to me, but I don't know where else you could take it, except from the end and build a whole new lore of of the UO history.
EA needs to get an idea of where they are going with MMOs. The old idea of WoW clones (i.e. EQ clones) is failing. And many players want something different and more elaborate.
Take a look at this....
[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-ARqR4nftHA&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-ARqR4nftHA&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
This is a game in early development by a guy who was a founding Dev for Lineage. He wants to make a game with freedom and whole world interaction. In other words, UO expanded and modernized, in my opinion.
This is the future. EA needs to get things going in the worldly direction. Times running out, but there's likely a few years yet.
It's nice to know EA has somebody else making a 3D UO. They certainly haven't been able to get it right. The EC is what, their 3rd or 4th attempt?
It's not just 3D. It's the world. In that game, you'll be able to build anywhere, and also destroy. To do that and not just have players running around destroying the whole game, you have to have ownership rights to what you build, and you have to have a justice system that is harsh enough to keep players from just doing that whenever they want. And you also have to have a warfare system that works in a much more advanced way.
By the way, notice that the horse stays when dismounted. UO the way it was, on that idea.
Oh, and you also need NPCs with intelligence to repair their own constructions. I'd take that even farther and say that they should build new stuff, too. An advanced AI would be required.
Another video from that game....
[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TNZpjrjd0S8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TNZpjrjd0S8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
That's certainly a game I'll be keeping an eye on Trebr. The graphics and environment physics look superb for an online game.
Ultimately, I suppose it depends on how well all the game mechanics and systems pull together, as to how well the overall package works and plays.
I doubt that EA are likely to do anything like that with Ultima Online. I think that ship set sail a long time ago when the pulled the plug on the sequel to UO, even when it was in the latter stages of development. I watched an interview with some of the developers of that sequel recently, they all seemed pleased, proud and really into what they were working on. Such a shame it didn't get a chance.
That said though, I still maintain that snazzy graphics aren't always the making of a great game. Sure, eye candy can be appealing to the masses, but there's so many games I've played in recent years, which looked great, but weren't too difficult to complete.
Mass Effect 2 was an excellent game. It looked great and had a good plot and story to it. To complete it, was very easy though. One thing that I would love to see taken from that and dropped into an online game, is the real feeling that your actions as a player have consequences.
In the Mass Effect games, your interactions with NPC's are remembered. How they react and respond to the player, depends entirely on the approach you took with them, actions you did or didn't perform.
Think about it...
How cool would it be, if the more intelligent species in UO responded to you, based upon your interactions with them. If species like orcs for example, remained neutral towards you if you left them alone. Attacked you on sight if you had been killing them. Aided you in battles, if you had defended them against other creatures and players.
Or, if different races of creatures, responded to you based upon the race of your character. In most fantasy orientated games or stories, there are always usually racial alliances or enemies. Although in "stories" within UO, there is such, there isn't really when it comes to game play.
That truly would offer immersive gaming experiences and make the player feel a part of their world.
The only way EA could do this for the USA croud would be to shut down the current UO totaly. I mean shut it off and dump it.
If they did that I for one would Never Ever use a EA product again. Id outright snub them on every game and I know many others who would do it too.
If you like this soo much wait till it comes out and go play it.
KR and the rest of the 3d stuff they have tried to push down paying players over the years have made alot of enemys for EA products.
So the "USA crowd" is the only important location to market games right?
Also - and correct me if I'm wrong here - but isn't the largest proportion of UO's current player base, in Asia?
As for getting in a huff with EA, I doubt they're too concerned. Look at the amount of times they've pulled the plug on more popular products online presences. So I don't think they'll break into a sweat over a few thousand Americans who enjoyed playing UO.
Granted, they simply don't seem to grasp the bond that the players of games associate with their products, but it's never likely that a corporate entity will.
The only games of any appeal to me they've released in recent times, are the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games. Both by BioWare. I've not touched any of their sports titles in years, because frankly, there's much better alternatives out there.
The Sims franchise seems to be their best captive audience, but look at how they release the Sims. One basic game, followed by countless add-ons that people feel compelled to buy, because the initial release feels so devoid of content.
So nope, I don't think you need to worry about EA stopping you using the classic client to play UO. They've bigger fish to fry.
They skipped the opportunity to launch a "new" UO a few years back. Now they've sold the rights to do just that to NetDragon.
As for clients, much as I preferred "classic" pre-Renaissance and pre-AoS gameplay, I think client improvements are always important for the appeal of a game, especially the user interface, if nothing else. Unfortunately implementation of client "upgrades", has been botched all the way along. This is a great shame, because I think all the developers over the years, have felt shackled by the classic client.
I'm assuming you're a staunch "classic client only" person? If that's the case, then I can understand that preference from one aspect, being consistency, compared to the various failed attempts with the newer clients.
The heart of the problem though, has always been making an alternative client, which works in tandem with the classic client. Much better, would have been to have had a cut-off point for the classic client, after launching one of the newer clients. Yes, there would no doubt have been wailing and gnashing of teeth from some quarters, but I don't think it would have harmed subscriptions as much as some claim it would.
I would argue that they did more harm to subscriptions, with sweeping changes to game-play many didn't want.
Meh, any new form of UO is almost certainly doomed to the usual derision from the "I don't want graphics newer than 1997" crowd that has constantly derided any attempt to update UO's graphical technology and as such is most likely doomed to failure.
Sorry, but UO's best chance for a true upgrade was taken away and previous attempts at "true 3d" have been a complete disaster (U9, UO2, UX:O).
UO's worst enemy seems to be the very people that play the game.
I say YES lets get a real 3D UO world , as far as they dont do it in first person and you can have a 3rd person view is ok for me.
100 years after British left
they should re-do pagan and start from there.
I have NO idea why EA has not made single player Ultimas.
here's a link:
may only be for China.
After UXO was axed, and Tabula Rasa turned out the way it did, I gave up really caring about new MMOs.
Why does anyone want a 3d UO type game? This is simply ridiculous. I find age of empires 2 fun, Red Alert 2 fun and many other isometric games fun. Monkey Island 2 was just released on XBLA (and steam) and it sold pretty well I'd guess, given how they released the first and that did well.
UO has so much going for it still and if that can be communicated to more people, the better a game it will be overall. Free to play would be fantastic - have a free account but with a lot of limitations:
No house (because ANY limitation on size would be unimportant in the face of the thousands of accounts that people may create just to play one)
Lower skill cap (e.g., 600)
Cannot use vet reward cloaks, robes or dye tubs
Cannot trade for, or use, powerscrolls
Cannot leave Trammel (aka bring back WBB!)
Other restrictions could be included too, but this would bring a large number of "lesser" players to populate UO. Some may only stay a short while, some may go on to upgrade their accounts and pay for UO. But I think this will bring a more steady flow of potential customers in to UO for sure.
Combine this with a browser version of UO (and come on, it seems everyone likes facebook games or flash games) and you could reach loads of people through social networking sites etc.
I think this would allow UO to cross markets and reach more casual gamers in places that other games, such as WoW or EQ, wouldn't.
A 3d UO may sound appealing to some but I think they need a decent 3d single player Ultima first. I can only hope that Garriott will one day want to make another Ultima game - If he really wanted to, I bet he could do it, and I am sure there are plenty of developers who would jump on board and help.
Someone just has to make him want to do it first!
I would be more than pleased if Ultima Online (our current game) was upgraded to something reminiscent of Diablo 3.
Our enemy isn't the isometric view. Successful games are still being released with it. Our enemy is the tile based movement and mapping system.
I agree. It's clunky and inefficient. It's the real-time movement equivalent of turn-based play - step, step step - and the tiling generates enormous overhead. These are both out of place and detrimental when they've tried updated clients.
There's no genuine reason a 3D isometric couldn't be successful. A recent example of 3D-iso would be Alien Swarm, the freebie bug hunt on Steam. The actual game itself is class/quest based, but there's no reason it couldn't work with skill/item-based characters and open play.
They really must look outside the (100K?) people who currently play and develop for a broader market if Ultima is to have a future, and I guess that's what's happening in China. Maybe it'll go worldwide and we can try it too.
Being "upgraded to something reminiscent of Diablo" is what ruined this game back with the release of UO:AoS.
I'm not talking about the item system. I'm talking about the graphics.
Take a look at some of the in game footage for Diablo 3. It is isometric. The graphics are smooth and the textures blend. The music is atmospheric. And there is no moving from one tile to the next. That means movement is smooth. That means particle effects and special moves can be designed to look nice.
The tile based movement system is detremental to Ultima Online. It holds us back. It is the one major obstical to a Pirate Expansion or Siege Warfare.
It could also be a huge boon to decorators to do away with fixed co-ordinate tiles. Being able to nudge an item sideways by fractions of a traditional "tile" width, and not being locked into whatever placement offset the original artwork used.
The 2D client is and will forever be UO. EA can design and market new clients in three dimensions if they want...but if the 2D dies, so does UO. I could be wrong, but I would guess the vast majority of the current UO playerbase are the same people who have left and come back over the course of the last 7 years....they continue to return to the game they knew from years past. That will not be the "3d game" that may come in the future.
That will be another game that will have to compete with WoW and every other 3D game that is already out there. What is the point?
Spot on Dermott!
It's not that we want the 2d, but the 3d option they've given looks like arbage and we might as well just stick to what we have. We would all love nice graphics, but the new enhanced client isn't going to cut it. Unfortunately, Ea doesn't have the money to make the sort of client that they should and that the players want.
So I don't think it's the playerbase, but they need to ramp up the graphics to something like you see in the video, or even less.
Final Fantasy Online is actually a good online game with good graphics that has the same (maybe less... I think it's like 10.99 a month as opposed to 12.99 a month) monthy subscription, but they've got Sony and possibly one of the most famous game creators behind them (SquarEnix). Right now, I don't see it ever getting to that level.
if that is true i hope they dont make it another fail mainstream game.... lets face it, not alot of games can compete with blizzard on resources, and resources = game quality and wow wins hands down in the mainstream genre.
only way other games can get a serious amount of subscribers is to make it free2play which is what they have been doing.
for a new uo i am looking for in particular:
+ skill systems
- level grinds
atm the best alternative to uo in terms of gameplay is darkfall online, but it fails a bit cause of small company taking on a way to big a task. but in many ways its like uo.
Quite frankly EA should have Years ago made UO2.
Fully 3d top graphics and everything you kids want.
That way the rest of us who didnt want it from day one would all still be here.
I was there when Sunsword swore 3d was how uo was going to be whether any player liked it or not. That week I watched people close accounts down by the drove. I watched with each try at 3d players leave. Each mismashed add on to the game drove more away.
You think I dont like 3d?? Wrong I like WoW and play it alot. played EQ, DoaC, and a ton of other games. But each time UO pulled me back as it is. It makes me happy.
Netdragon just might be what you all want so when it is finally out I am sure they will happly take your cash.
Define Siege Warfare. Keeping control over territories can be done now. Even destroying Walls is possibe as freeshards and later on Magincia showed.
I disagree. UO's graphics are from nearer 1992 than 1997.
But yes, this is why I said they must look outside the current user base to create a new game. Even if 100% of current players wanted more-of-the-same, clearly a massive bulk of gamers do not. Retain the essence of what makes Ultima Online unique and build on it.
Here's the press release that appeared on many gaming and MMO sites:
Other games NetDragon operate, are 3D isometric and I would assume (given there's no early teasers or images), that their version of UO will also be 3D isometric, without the restriction of "tiles".
I'm also thinking that it will likely be FTP based, rather than subscription based, which means that it will also probably be item-centric.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if at some point, depending on its initial regional success, that it will roll out to other areas, including the wider Asian markets, the Americas, Oceania and Europe. Potentially, it could be the "UO2" that replaces Ultima Online as we know it.
So as the comments from EA Asia's Jon Niermann seem to suggest, they are already looking "outside the current user base to create a new game".
Personally, the only option I see for Ultima Online to sustain longevity in it's current format (certainly in Europe and North America), is to release a selection of "classic" orientated shards, in order to encourage former players to return.
It will still be a relatively small niche market, but one that should easily double subscription figures for North America and Europe, irrespective of graphics.
As for upgrading the graphics for "current" UO, I think you've had your lot with SA and the "Enhanced" client. I really can't see EA investing any more time and resources in any further client upgrades.
That's where NetDragon comes in with the new game. They have bought rights to make a new game. They invest the resources to produce that game. EA make a profit from initial rights purchase, whilst also retaining a healthy percentage of the profits.
NetDragon is making the new release for only asian countries, it seems. I don't think you will find this in European/North American markets.
Living in Korea, I've seen several Korea only games, or at least designed to run in beta for quite some time only here in Korea. This being China, I'm almost sure it will be the same case.
replying only to the subject:
I would not buy it. And any other game I bought that was later bought by EA I would stop playing.
I love UO, but I despise EA's handling of it.
What we have now isn't complex or fleshed out enough to be labeled a functional siege system.
Alot of the particle effects and monsters are one tile. Those that extend past that one tile limit have to be designed in several parts and often break into pieces. (Swamp Dragon Tails.)
If the system were to move away from a tile system to a free movement system with a greater XYZ Axis, the complexity of adding new things to the game would be greatly reduced while the animation possibilities would be maximized. We could see larger monsters and siege vehicles. It would open the door for new special moves and abilities.
Think Diablo 2 and Baldur's Gate.
Draconi: Absolutely... assuming this is done from scratch and not simply IRIS porting in the 2d graphics.
is never a good idea
Draconi... If by original Britannia you mean the familiar game world (atlas and so forth), sure.
If by original UO you mean the same old textures applied over boxes and lumps, yecch. I've seen that done a dozen times and it still looks awful.
The KR textures were a nice departure from the crayons and sparkles look, but otherwise the standard "art" is still pretty dated, even if it were in 6D.
Evlar... Thanks for the copy, that's encouraging news. I would love nothing better than a UO2 done faithfully to the core Ultima mythos, with a modern game client and a healthy user base. By healthy I mean both large in size, and without all the baggage and animosity toward the developers the current userbase seems to harbour. I've never seen so much misery expressed by a group of willing participants, except maybe in office drones who get paid to be miserable anyway.
If UO2 needs to come from a totally different origin (heh!) and make a clean break from the existing world, then so be it. It would be great if it could use the existing databases for housing, characters, and "stuff" in general, many more current players would consider adopting, but I think the franchise really needs a cold reboot in terms of public perception and fandom.
I look forward to seeing it Draconi.
Is is possible to revert back to an earlier version of the map? Or are we stuck with this?
Edit: I swear these threads drain the life out of me. This is the same debate rehashed for the millionth time.
One crowd is about Doom and Gloom; convinced that if Britannia doesn't change to imitate EverQuest or Dark Age of Camelot or Warcraft or Darkfall or the latest Asian game then we're all dead.
The other crowd is Conservative to a Fault; they are so in love with their perfect little game in their perfect little corner of the world that they'd rather see them pull the plug than see any meaningful change to the game. These people would ruin it for the rest of us given the chance.
The majority of folks - the rational majority of players - wants to see some meaningful change made while maintaining the core of what is Ultima Online. Those players want to see updated graphics but don't mind if the game still maintains the classic isometric view. Those players want to see new systems and ideas adapted from other games without completely Jumping the Shark. These folks want to see Ultima Online last another decade and become more than a niche. The problem is that those players don't scream loud enough.
Uhhm... YES x2
By 3D, are we talking isometric type 3D, or first/third person "full" 3D?
Either way, this is going to make for interesting viewing
I just don't understand the "it's the players fault" arguments. Do either of you remember when this was announced? Folks... all folks were mad crazy for it. These boards were filled to the brim with excitement and nearly 100% positive feedback. Folks were begging for more with each perfectly selected screen shot.
I spent so much time browsing any board I could find for some glimpse of the new UO. More time than any event in UO history that I had known of. I read hundreds of excited post from all sorts. The new client was heavily downloaded as folks clawed and scratched every available kb of bandwidth they could muster.
These are not the actions of people who cling to 2d. These are the actions of nearly the entire playerbase that wanted it to be a great success.
What we got was the exact and equal opposite. Poor graphics, poor sound and a completely foreign interface.... a completely foreign game. KR was a disappointment... to put it mildly.
But I do agree with you on one point. 2d needs to go away. The enhanced (beta for a year) client is barely a contender as it is now. You have both put a lot of effort into kr/ec and I am very grateful for that. Your positive posts have inspired me to try new things out quite a few times in the ec. I have discovered how much easier gardening and (my style) of BoD running is to do in the EC. But you need to admit the client sucked and move on past telling folks what they should or shouldn't like about the games they play
I don't blame the players. Generally speaking they just want UO to be UO, whatever that means in practical terms, or they wouldn't still be here. I just happen to think Ultima is - or should be - bigger than the current playerbase.
However, there exists a vocal minority who have a false sense of entitlement, regarding UO as an "investment" rather than recreation. Listening faithfully to player wants in the past has at best yielded questionable results, let alone listening to those vocal few who believe "UO" means "You Owe", their edict to the developers. Their demands tend to be skewed in their favour, rather than for the overall good of the game.
I don't know how you made these assumptions.
I've never said the client was an unbridled success and, in fact, I'm one of its harshest critics. I don't think one can be a genuine critic and NOT be an EC user (that's just pancakes), and I don't think one can be a genuine EC user and NOT be a critic (that's blind fandom).
I think the EC is very good at its strengths and abysmal with its weaknesses. No, I don't believe it it "sucks" any more than I think CC is a "dated a mediocre piece of abandonware", but I do think it has failed to garner the support the devs were hoping. I'm enthusiastic about the concept, dubious of the execution, and disappointed with the response.
In any case, I was talking about moving beyond mere client rehashes and creating a whole new game, as the OP said. For my tastes, I like the actual UO2 story with the Meer, Juka, and Exodus. http://youtu.be/BXpnAs8Z9g4
I don't believe I've ever dictated what other people should or shouldn't like. I've only ever expressed my opinions and I welcome argument. I certainly don't have a forceful voice. If I've ever intimidated or bullied anyone into thinking a certain way, that speaks of a weakness in their mind rather than strength on my part. Do you feel threatened or overwhelmed by my words?
Yes, I recall. They had promised that would be fixed sometime, though that never came to pass.
... Are you saying you are going to render it, or, just asking? ...
I thought Iris/OGRE was quite good
Given the fact it was made on the side, AS A HOBBY, yes... it was quite amazing. Imagine what a real dedicated team could envision!
I thought my post for a bit and I kind of lumped you in with Dermott's op. For that I apologize. I do not feel threated or overwhelmed by your words in the slightest... though I will admit I've had to look a few of them up from time to time.
I've been no angel in the past... here on the forums. I've been rude, abrasive... just plain mean. The mining nerf cheesed me smooth off... KR was a big let down... I don't think I posted here for 6 months after Draconi.... left.
If it's a good game, folks will play it. If it's a bad game, they won't. As far as my support for potential... the FFXIV beta is beautiful. You can download the benchmark for a glimpse. Though though the voice over is a little strange... I just bought a new pc this weekend because my old one was really struggling with it. So ya I bought a new pc to play a beta... and starcraft will be here soon.
It will be interesting to see how FFXIV pans out because it does have a predecessor... FFXI. This (FFXI) was a successful MMO released in 2003 and peaking at around 500k subs, until square announced their new MMO. Subs for FFXI dropped fast and they started merging worlds. Of course there is no housing so this went much smoother than UO. When the PS3 came out square decided to make a new MMO (I think) because porting the old game to PS3 would not come anywhere close to realizing the potential of the PS3.... so they decided to build an entirely new game.
FFXI vs FFXIV will be sort of an example of what would happen if UO was rebuilt from scratch. Still UO has become personalized to a lot of people. Maybe if NetDragon gets it right it will make its way to America.
I think SOE said once that naming their game Everquest 2 was a huge mistake.
Players expected a similar but better game and were not prepared that it was different.
I also see no reason why EA would make a new UO a skillbased game when all successful games at the moment are levelbased (EvE has skillgain over time is an exception)
And if the Korean UO is not a grinding levelbased game then I will be very very surprised.