ATTN: Goblinworks- For the love of god, do not make this game like Ultima Online

[Alouicious]

Ultima Online was not a good game. Saying Ultima Online was a good game is a concession of nostalgia. It was only played because it was the only option. When other MMOs were released, users fled like the world was burning. It was unfun, overly-complex, ugly, and completely inaccessible to anyone who hadn't been playing for years. If you weren't already at the top, there was essentially no reason to play.

Devs, if you are going to look at UO, look at it as an example of what not to do. Thank you.

[Coldman]

Alouicious wrote:

Ultima Online was not a good game. Saying Ultima Online was a good game is a concession of nostalgia. It was only played because it was the only option. When other MMOs were released, users fled like the world was burning. It was unfun, overly-complex, ugly, and completely inaccessible to anyone who hadn't been playing for years. If you weren't already at the top, there was essentially no reason to play.

Devs, if you are going to look at UO, look at it as an example of what not to do. Thank you.

I love how you prescribed Ultima Online as an item of nostalgia, then through the same contemporary perspective, attacked it for being nothing more than a creature of its time.

Ugly? Over Complex? These are simply symptoms of the time and are not features which any developer would in their right mind seek to recreate. Unfun is a term I would not use considering its the longest living mainstream MMORPG to date. Primitive? Yes. Unfun? Perhaps today.

Ultima Online was the only MMO to date which allowed a player freedom in dictating objectivity; there was nothing to dictate the outcomes of any single players experience. From a fisherman to a PK, a roleplaying bard to the owner of a player made museum; these were all possible and nobody was to say who was playing the game 'optimally' or not. Owning a house, owning wealth, commanding the respect of players or killing them all. The game did not tell you what to do, yet it excelled in its given genre as a MMORPG.

Ultima was a world. It allowed you to play how you wanted and achieve the goals you desired; however primitively. This is what Skyrim does today and demands the gaming equivalent of a Nobel Prize. Ultima achieved this in relative terms in 1998.

Don't miss the point.

[Ettin]

Ultima Online was actually pretty terrible though.

[Alouicious]

Having played Ultima Online when it was at it's peak, I can tell you, the same criticisms rang true then as they do now. Even before Everquest, WoW, and other MMOs changed the landscape, Ultima Online was Not A Fun Game. Which, really, is the most important thing here. Skyrim is different, if solely for the fact that it is a single player game. It's also, y'know, fun to play.

[A Man In Black]

Coldman wrote:

Don't miss the point.

I thought the point was that everyone fled Felucca like a sinking ship when UO:R came out.

[Coldman]

Okay now everyone is missing the point and this debate is becoming increasingly complicated. Lets set a few things straight.

Ettin wrote:

Ultima Online was actually pretty terrible though.

In many aspects it was yes. I am not trying to argue that Ultima Online brought anything to gameplay, as a matter of fact it took a lot of backward steps. I am saying that it is the only game to date, despite its failures in many aspects, to create a world. Given it's very nature, it was impossible for it not to. This is what we desire in our sandbox games and none since have been created. To this tune I cannot see how you can disregard this aspect of Ultima Online when it infact established the MMORPG legacy of sandbox functionality.

Alouicious wrote:

Ultima Online was Not A Fun Game. Which, really, is the most important thing here. Skyrim is different, if solely for the fact that it is a single player game. It's also, y'know, fun to play.

We can't compare the gameplay of Skyrim and Ultima Online. Ultima Online by all reasonable expectations, should never have existed given the technological possibilities at the time. I'm comparing ideological qualities to the game worlds, both of which share similarities which other MMORPG games do not (in regards to sandbox RPGs such as Skyrim). Skyrim relied on developer created content to feed experiences in the specified world, Ultima online relied on the playerbase; both NEEDED to create a rich, free and tangible roleplay environment in order to succeed.

Ultima Online is in retrospect, a terrible game. In 1998 it was not, it was revolutionary whether you liked it or not, despite its primitive gameplay mechanics. Today, it is far less appreciated, and rightly so it should not be remembered for a number of things, but to forget the only arena to exist in a virtual world to which a diverse and truly breathing community of players has co-existed within a sandbox environment - is this not the aim?

A Man In Black wrote:

I thought the point was that everyone fled Felucca like a sinking ship when UO:R came out.

This is not relevant. We are not discussing UO in regards to open pvp specifically; if we are then lets have a new debate. Ultima Online experienced it's highest growth after the release of Everquest and its subsequent release of the Trammel facet; we can have that debate too.

[Alouicious]

You yourself admit that Ultima Online was terrible. My point was for Goblinworks to not emulate Ultima Online, I.E., not make a terrible game. You seem to be arguing something completely different.

[Coldman]

Alouicious wrote:

You yourself admit that Ultima Online was terrible. My point was for Goblinworks to not emulate Ultima Online, I.E., not make a terrible game. You seem to be arguing something completely different.

I'm trying to clarify that emulating Ultima Online is precisely what Goblinworks needs to do. Both combatant and none combatant paths of progression, player driven economies, integrated player crafting, a persistent world free from instances, an authentic and rich geography etc etc etc etc etc.

If you think for a moment that I am suggesting a 800x600 isometric view, low quality textures, double click combat mechanics, a lack of GUI, a poorly coded client and an open environment for unrelenting PKing, griefing and scamming... then we're not understanding one another. To put the ball in your court, if Goblinworks does not emulate fundamental elements of Ultima Online, then it has already failed at becoming a 'sandbox' game.

[Starfell]

Alouicious wrote:

Ultima Online was not a good game. Saying Ultima Online was a good game is a concession of nostalgia. It was only played because it was the only option. When other MMOs were released, users fled like the world was burning. It was unfun, overly-complex, ugly, and completely inaccessible to anyone who hadn't been playing for years. If you weren't already at the top, there was essentially no reason to play.

Devs, if you are going to look at UO, look at it as an example of what not to do. Thank you.

I don't know what they teach people in school these days but how can you expect to be taken seriously with a statement like this? Too general and provides for nothing constructive. Your claims have potential merit but the generality prevents anyone from taking your comments seriously. If we want to make this the best game it can be, then you need to provide more than what you've provided. So if you wish to be taken seriously by development then provide something substantial and measurable.

Coldman wrote:

I'm trying to clarify that emulating Ultima Online is precisely what Goblinworks needs to do. Both combatant and none combatant paths of progression, player driven economies, integrated player crafting, a persistent world free from instances, an authentic and rich geography etc etc etc etc etc.

If you think for a moment that I am suggesting a 800x600 isometric view, low quality textures, double click combat mechanics, a lack of GUI, a poorly coded client and an open environment for unrelenting PKing, griefing and scamming... then we're not understanding one another. To put the ball in your court, if Goblinworks does not emulate fundamental elements of Ultima Online, then it has already failed at becoming a 'sandbox' game.

You probably would be better off not bothering further as you are arguing against the wind. Until they can give examples they won't be taken seriously. If Alouicious wishes to debate how good of a game Ultima Online was, I will certainly comply. But as of yet I've posted several things showing the good things about UO while he simply states "It is unfun, overly-complex, ugly ..." etc. etc.

You can get more headway making a political debate than what he has offered. I can go into a big essay on what UO has done good and what it has done bad. Move along to the discussions that the Devs can actually take something away from. This will only turn into a troll cave if you throw them a bone. However, if they start to give something more than "it was a terrible game", then reconsider. Move along now.

[Ettin]

Starfell wrote:

You probably would be better off not bothering further as you are arguing against the wind. Until they can give examples they won't be taken seriously. If Alouicious wishes to debate how good of a game Ultima Online was, I will certainly comply. ...

I don't know what they teach people in school these days but how can you expect to be taken seriously with a statement like this? Too general and provides for nothing constructive. Your claims have potential merit but the generality prevents anyone from taking your comments seriously. If we want to make this the best game it can be, then you need to provide more than what you've provided. So if you wish to be taken seriously by development then provide something substantial and measurable.

[A Man In Black]

Coldman wrote:

I'm trying to clarify that emulating Ultima Online is precisely what Goblinworks needs to do. Both combatant and none combatant paths of progression, player driven economies, integrated player crafting, a persistent world free from instances, an authentic and rich geography etc etc etc etc etc.

Et cetera means "and others". You can say it once, we get the point.

Anyway, it turns out you're in luck! Goblinworks already has most of these vague, meaningless generalities in their statement of intent already, except for the one that is kind of a dumb idea because it is hopeless anachronism from a previous century. Good on ya.

Everyone else wrote:

wordswordswords

Okay. UO was good! It was bad! It was good! It was bad!

Say what you liked or hated about UO and why it applies to PFO or stop making noises.

I hated pre-Trammel PKers and especially looting bodies and doubly especially stealing player housing. It was a swarm of rabid dogs everyone was happy to escape, and those mechanics were hopelessly punitive for the terrible crime of not having the "skills" to avoid B0N3D00D and pLaTeDeWd quickly enough.

[Doggan]

Alouicious wrote:

Ultima Online was not a good game. Saying Ultima Online was a good game is a concession of nostalgia. It was only played because it was the only option. When other MMOs were released, users fled like the world was burning. It was unfun, overly-complex, ugly, and completely inaccessible to anyone who hadn't been playing for years. If you weren't already at the top, there was essentially no reason to play.

Devs, if you are going to look at UO, look at it as an example of what not to do. Thank you.

Actually, the userbase of UO steadily increased from release. It hit it's peak a couple of years after Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot and Asheron's Call were all out.

Like AMIB said, people fled Felucca once Trammel was available. The chance for new player housing, and gank free adventuring was a big draw for most people. There was still a huge core of people that stuck to Felucca on my Shard at least. Almost all of the role players, oddly enough, also stuck to Fel. But the carebear mentality won out over time. Things like item insurance (so your special items wouldn't drop on your corpse) were eventually introduced.

Personally speaking, I enjoyed my time in UO (pre Fel/Tram split) more than any other time in any other MMO to date. It had its problems for sure. But what game doesn't?

[Alouicious]

If you want more specific criticisms, here they are!

First point of order: The gameplay was boring as hell. Even aside from one click combat, you had some really dull mechanics and gameplay choices. Oh boy! The concept of trudging out to a random cliff face, clicking on it a whole lot to get an arbitrary amount of ore, then loading it onto a pack animal (and if you don't have a pack animal, screw you!) and bringing it back to town so you can smelt it into ingots! Whoopie, who cares.

Second point of order: Great pains are made to point out the "choice" players have with regards to playstyle. Problem is, unless you have a great deal of knowledge of how the game worked, how the economy worked, what was useful/useless, etc, it was basically impenetrable.