<blockquote><hr>
There's nothing wrong with the 2D overview mode, I like it! I'm just saying there really is no difference. It's the same perspective with "upgraded" graphics. - Which begs the question, why make Stygian Abyss KR only? It makes no sense to leave out a segment of the population (those who have not adopted KR) simply because you want them to use a graphical client they do not like, when both clients are so similar. (i.e. nothing groundbreaking was done to make KR stand out above the original client)
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason is to do away with aclient that doesn't feature a modern interface and updated graphics. The main issue is to attract new mainstream players. Problem is they can't appeal to both. Hence needing a sequel.
UO has proven for the past few years that it's still worth investing. So a sequel has no chance of destroying UO. As EA believed 6-7 years ago. Everquest 2 and Lineage 2 have proven this.
Ultima Online is about living a virtual life in Britannia. Ultima Online 2 was going to be about living a virtual life in Sosaria which has suffered a cataclysm resulting in the past (Sosaria) the present (Britannia) and the future all merging into one setting. It'd have no chance of destroying UO as it's a different setting. Some people will want to venture in the world they enjoyed in the Ultima series (UO). Some will want to see how the story of Ultima has progressed (UO2). Personally I might play both.
Garriott and his team were ALWAYS explaining things through fiction. They even had fiction to explain such a simple metagame issue as the need for more than one server/world.
<blockquote><hr>
It is the quality! Pure and simple, it's the quality. Trees, boats, docks, spell effects, etc etc all pale in comparison to other similar 2D games.
[/ QUOTE ]
KR is well above Lineage. Especially in the animation department. Lineage is a powerpoint slide show in comparison to KR's animation detail.
<blockquote><hr>
No problem. Go to this thread, see first 20 posts for myriads of bugs/problems using KR:
http://boards.stratics.com/php-bin/uo/postlist.php?Cat=1&Board=kingdreborn
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Unfortunately UO has suffered poor support for a very long time. I left in 2002, came back in 2007 and it's even worse.
<blockquote><hr>
Yes they did make a graphical overhaul. The value of which is under intense scrutiny in this thread and many others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep I agree. THey did make a decision though and personally I think it was a decent effort, better saved for a sequel. The new Hildebrant artwork is fantastic. Such an attractive piece, would have looked good advertising a sequel.
<blockquote><hr>
UXO was far from finalized... But really I'm just saying if they want some type of awesome graphical experience they need to begin on a new product. Not try to revamp the 2D UO client.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep I agree. Just not with UXO. The story and setting are very poor. The avatar/guardian saga was wrapped up properly by Garriott. Why revive it? It's stupid. It shows a very strong lack of creativity.
UO2 however had agoot setting. It's true to Ultima as Garriott designed it, it can also be tailored in anyway without influence from the current series and it's set in a futuristic/unique time span. So stupid additions such as ninjas, Lord Blackthorn dying, Lord Blackthorn's Revenge (which is recycled UO2), ELVES (wtf were they thinking) can all be rectified.