Shroud of the Avatar & Richard Garriott

[crpgnut]

I was extremely skeptical and didn't pledge, but if it ends up being a good single-player game I still win and will be glad to plop down my money. I'm totally indifferent to Garriott's involvement, since he's not coding.

 

[rune_74]

His historical contribution is not relevant to my complaint. He used the single player hook (along with the online functionality) in the kickstarter and on Steam, and yet all the updates and interviews are focused on multiplayer only.

I have no objection at all to making an online game, but it is dishonest and disrespectful to mislead people to give out money on the promise of a full fledged single player rpg and then, on every update and interview, blatantly call the game an 'online fantasy rpg'.

Maybe one day we will get an interview where they will talk about the 'promised' offline single player (I certainly forgot about it)!

Pretty sure I submitted a newspost not to long ago on an update on single player....it even mentioned companions...so, not sure what to say here.

 

[Lucky Day]

Oh come on. The level of hate for this is silly.

I hate the SP vs MP that's been going on for the last 10 or so years. The fact of the matter is that UO was his biggest and most radical success in almost 20 years of radical success (including a big hollywood movie being made for one of his games).

Ever since UO, a genre he virtually invented, he's been nothing but about MMOG's. This thing started off as a FB game. He left that behind. The only reason he has a SP option is because too many haters want one. Its not the focus, it never was.

If its any good I might buy it. If you backed it, well caveat emptor. Some folks are starting to sound like Fallout fans complaining when Bethesda first bought the rights.

 

[Moriendor]

- The only update on single player offline came after community pressure, it was boarder line rude, and it felt that this is just a tacked on committment and not carefully considered as implied by Starr Long's replies on their forum regarding the single player offline rpg features.

You mean this one? Where is the rude part in that? Are you referring to the part where he reminds people to post constructive feedback instead of flames and baseless accusations?
Also, for someone you consider to be rude, he has very actively participated in the thread afterwards and answered many questions in great detail (example given here and here). So his update on SP was not one of those fire&forget here-you-go-now-leave-me-alone messages.

 

[rune_74]

You mean this one? Where is the rude part in that? Are you referring to the part where he reminds people to post constructive feedback instead of flames and baseless accusations?
Also, for someone you consider to be rude, he has very actively participated in the thread afterwards and answered many questions in great detail (example given here and here). So his update on SP was not one of those fire&forget here-you-go-now-leave-me-alone messages.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[SpoonFULL]

The ONLY update from the many tens of updates on player housing and what not - that is what you mean:

"This post is intended to be a quick update on some future plans for how we will handle Single Player Offline and how it will differ from the Online modes of play. None of this is set in stone but it is our current thinking so, as always, feedback is welcome!

.... Please be patient and know we are as committed to the Single Player Offline mode of play as we are to online, we just have not gotten to it yet."

If they have not gotten to it yet after all this time, then why did they put the single player feature at the top of their feature list? What is their progress on this front? What is their time plan for release? I call this rude, and indeed implies "here-you-go-now-leave-me-alone messages" since no other single update on single player offline was made after this text.

This campaign was misleading from the beginning despite any other arguments (for raising funds, keeping single player development secret and in the background .. etc.) and their statement above about "not gotten to it yet" is clear.

That is their business model, some people are happy with this, some feel otherwise and voicing their view.

 

[rune_74]

The ONLY update from the many tens of updates on player housing and what not - that is what you mean:

"This post is intended to be a quick update on some future plans for how we will handle Single Player Offline and how it will differ from the Online modes of play. None of this is set in stone but it is our current thinking so, as always, feedback is welcome!

…. Please be patient and know we are as committed to the Single Player Offline mode of play as we are to online, we just have not gotten to it yet."

If they have not gotten to it yet after all this time, then why did they put the single player feature at the top of their feature list? What is their progress on this front? What is their time plan for release? I call this rude, and indeed implies "here-you-go-now-leave-me-alone messages" since no other single update on single player offline was made after this text.

This campaign was misleading from the beginning despite any other arguments (for raising funds, keeping single player development secret and in the background .. etc.) and their statement above about "not gotten to it yet" is clear.

That is their business model, some people are happy with this, some feel otherwise and voicing their view.

I wasn't happy with them being silent on this for awhile as well. However, a lot of the systems work the same in both.

Your post feels like you just ignored everything and went on a tirade.

This post wasn't that long ago...I think a couple of weeks old. How often do they need to post about it after that(which they also posted in the thread, which I'm sure you read...right?). I'm sure there will be more updates, and waiting this long for a update sucked, but man 2 weeks is hardly enough time to fault them for not having another update.

 

[CelticFrost]

I went back and watched Kick Starter Video and re-read the pledge page a few times.

Here is what on the kick starter page right at the very beginning.

"Shroud of the Avatar is the “spiritual successor” to Richard’s previous work in the FRP genre. Our primary objectives are to tell a story even more compelling than Ultimas IV-VII, create a virtual world more interactive than Ultima VII, develop deep rich multi-player capabilities beyond combat akin to Ultima Online, and offer a bold new approach to integrate them with “Selective Multi-Player”.

•Shroud of the Avatar is infused with rich storylines, deeply integrated into game play, developed by Best Selling Author Tracy Hickman and RPG legend Richard Garriott.

• Players will adventure in an interactive world where their choices have consequences, ethical paradoxes give them pause, and they play a vital part in weaving their own story into the immersive world and lore surrounding them.

• Shroud of the Avatar is a Selective Multiplayer game, allowing players to choose how they want to play! Whether in Single-Player Offline mode or any of three online modes, the main quest line will provide greater than 40 hours of focused, story driven content."

So it would look like while some or most of us wanted a Single player game, the focus seemed to be more on Multiplayer right from the beginning.

 

[SpoonFULL]

I wasn't happy with them being silent on this for awhile as well. However, a lot of the systems work the same in both.

Your post feels like you just ignored everything and went on a tirade.

This post wasn't that long ago…I think a couple of weeks old. How often do they need to post about it after that(which they also posted in the thread, which I'm sure you read…right?). I'm sure there will be more updates, and waiting this long for a update sucked, but man 2 weeks is hardly enough time to fault them for not having another update.

I have seen your original update about the single player, and gone through their forum post regarding this update. I know about it, and was also not impressed with the replies from Starr which mostly included "wishlist, we will consider it, not in EP 1, perhaps .. etc.) which is consistent with "we have not gotten into it yet".

They produce updates on multiplayer almost weekly, in addition to interview, so not having time to make an update on single player I find difficult to accept.

I did try the game a while back, and was content with the online single player mode and saw potential for the offline mode. These posts are not against you or others; I am just voicing my disappointment due to being mislead by these developers due to the constant barrage of their multiplayer focused updates and media coverage, despite their fundamental promise of single player offline experience.

I will just have to stop looking at their intimidating updates and wait for the final release to see how it will turn up.

 

[CelticFrost]

They produce updates on multiplayer almost weekly, in addition to interview, so not having time to make an update on single player I find difficult to accept.
.

See above.

 

[rune_74]

Online in singleplayer online you are playing a single player game...though logged into the server.

 

[Stingray]

yes, this post had nothing to do with it.

Right on, because nobody is allowed to have an opinion about SotA that differs from your own. It's actually pretty amusing how defensive you are about this particular game.

 

[rune_74]

Right on, because nobody is allowed to have an opinion about SotA that differs from your own. It's actually pretty amusing how defensive you are about this particular game.

Listen, I'm not sure why you posted this on this again, I thought we moved on. I'm not interested in continuing it.

I'm perfectly fine with having an opinion, not so cool on making stuff up and calling it facts.

If you want to talk the game or whatever then cool, if you want to fight I won't bother.

 

[Deleted User]

I had a very weird synchronicity happen today. I happened to be downstairs watching TV with my dad (which I never do), and he turned on a show called "Oddities", which is about some odd hobby shop that sells very strange and weird oddity items. Well, guess who walked into the store? Richard freaking Garriott! I couldn't believe it! He started talking about his new game and saying that he was hosting a party or something and wanted to buy a skeleton or something or other. It was bizarre. He's the last person I'd expect to see on that show, yet there he was. Funny moment, for sure.

 

[Stingray]

Listen, I'm not sure why you posted this on this again, I thought we moved on. I'm not interested in continuing it.

I'm perfectly fine with having an opinion, not so cool on making stuff up and calling it facts.

If you want to talk the game or whatever then cool, if you want to fight I won't bother.

Actually, let's be clear, I only said I wasn't interested in discussing Shroud of the Avatar. And I haven't. Discussing your behavior is something altogether different. And based on what you just said, I will assume you won't reply to this, which sounds great to me.

 

[rune_74]

I'm actually pretty hard on the devs in the main forums. I continuously fight for singleplayer features etc. Don't believe me? Look up my name on the official forums. If you think I'm just thinking they can do no wrong then you really have no idea what I think.

I do take exception to made up facts and that goes for any game.

 

[TheMadGamer]

I don't think SotA is a bust/scam but *could* end up being a bait n' switch. Like others have already mentioned, I believed their kickstarter to be primarily a single player game in the spirit of U6/U7. But ever since then, the vast majority of info and buzz about the game is about multiplayer. True, there is some talk about single player. But I thought that the game would primarily be a single player game with some multiplayer aspects to it.

That all said, I don't hate Garriot and I'm taking a wait and see approach. If the game ends up having a fun solo experience then I really don't care if others enjoy a multi-player version of it. But if the solo experience feels tacked on, I certainly won't be a Garriot backer in any future endeavor of his.

 

[CelticFrost]

I don't think SotA is a bust/scam but *could* end up being a bait n' switch. Like others have already mentioned, I believed their kickstarter to be primarily a single player game in the spirit of U6/U7. .

Please see my above post. The RED shows how many times multiplayer was talked about in kick starter and the Blue single player. It never seemed he wanted to make a single player game.

 

[TheMadGamer]

Please see my above post. The RED shows how many times multiplayer was talked about in kick starter and the Blue single player. It never seemed he wanted to make a single player game.

I think perhaps I'm recalling impressions from news and info leading up to the kickstarter where I'm certain there was emphasis on 'single-player' specifically.

I can't remember how well I paid attention to the kickstarter info when it launched. With the impressions I had at that point, accurate or not, I jumped into the pool so to speak.

But lesson learned… forget whatever you think you read and hear about prior to a kickstarter but DO actually pay attention to what you read and hear about from the official kickstarter.

 

[Couchpotato]

I can't remember how well I paid attention to the kickstarter info when it launched. With the impressions I had at that point, accurate or not, I jumped into the pool so to speak.

But lesson learned… forget whatever you think you read and hear about prior to a kickstarter but DO actually pay attention to what you read and hear about from the official kickstarter.

Yeah it was launched as a multi-player game then Portalarium announced you could play an offline solo mode later on. I bet the developer regrets promising that now.

All it did was confuse many potential backers. Anyway I have lost all interest in the game this year, but won't call it a failure. I may change my mind in the future.

PS: Thank you Rune for asking the tough questions on the games forum.