Are you a game developer? If not than maybe you should take your own advise and stop telling others what they should or should not do.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Graphics still matter...
- Thread starter Dermott of LS
- Start date
- Watchers 10
Cool post. The spelling error adds an ironic edge. 8/10.
Armchair programmers with no experience in what they're discussing shouldn't actually waste dozens of sentences explaining something that they know absolutely nothing about.
It would NOT take a complete server re-write to update UO with new graphics, or for that matter, even to take it fully 3D. The server already houses all of the information necessary for any server-side actions. The client is completely separate, and only transmits the necessary data back and forth. ANY client could do that, from a 4-bit Atari 2600 based client to a modern, fully-3D based client.
The problem is not the client, the problem is having a team of programmers and art designers to accomplish it.
However, make no mistake... the client could be completely rewritten from the ground up to fit the UO server architecture's data needs and it would function just fine. If that weren't true, we wouldn't have had five different clients already (CC, T2A-CC which ran concurrently with the CC for months, 3D, KR, and EC). It's new client features that often (but not always) require server-side code to make them function.
It would NOT take a complete server re-write to update UO with new graphics, or for that matter, even to take it fully 3D. The server already houses all of the information necessary for any server-side actions. The client is completely separate, and only transmits the necessary data back and forth. ANY client could do that, from a 4-bit Atari 2600 based client to a modern, fully-3D based client.
The problem is not the client, the problem is having a team of programmers and art designers to accomplish it.
However, make no mistake... the client could be completely rewritten from the ground up to fit the UO server architecture's data needs and it would function just fine. If that weren't true, we wouldn't have had five different clients already (CC, T2A-CC which ran concurrently with the CC for months, 3D, KR, and EC). It's new client features that often (but not always) require server-side code to make them function.
Yes if they just weren't total ****** bags for charging 200Dollars to use the Dark Elf race I'd be playing that not UO. But I'm not paying 200 bucks for that. Was a MAJOR turn off for me.
I bet, in the not-so distant future, the Drow will become available in some other ways: buying the class on its' own through the company store (similar to UO upgrades), or they'll just release it to the public.
Little too late for me I've all ready written it off in disgust. And I had such high hopes for that game... ah well.
I do not have to be a programmer to see how UO creat the illusion of depth it is a lot of items stacked on top of eachother and this is not only player houses it is all of uo
and the perspective in uo is distorted it do not imitate 3d objects very good even correcting that would cause a mess of things
and you talk about slapping a fully 3d client on this ?
Personally I really don't see much of a difference there... The guy sits a bit further back on the horse in the EC and the horse isn't black?
And anyway I was talking about animations which you obviously can't see from a screenshot
...
This above EVERYTHING else that we may snipe about at each other. Thank you, RaDian.
I guess love really is blind.
But to make your point that The Ec horse look bad you did take the worst horse in ec to compare with
The white/grey one with short black mane look nice if u face it northeast u can realy see how detailed it is
Its nice how you chose to zoom in as close as you can just so you can make something look as bad as possible in order to support your jaded opinion. No one would ever play it like that,ever. Why would they aside from decorating perhaps? You`d never see anything until it was a couple tiles away. In its correct zoom which IMO is a tad past default is the sweet spot. But I`m sure that wouldn`t matter to you because by doing that, the EC char models and even the horses don`t look that bad and some of them are straight up awesome, like the ki-rin or swampy for example.
Love isn`t blind,just hafta have your eyes open enough to see it.
if game is too survive cc needs to expire !!! ps i play classic
this isnt 1990 but a world of hd monitors new players will never adapt, give up cc and drop your wonderful extra programs and convert, maybe push for a wow like add ons but if game stays in 2 clients will die
Last edited:
why i spoke very clear game atracts old players not holding newer players, needs a one client base i play old client and can confirm thisHands Petra the noggin knocker.
this game in hardcore need of a spark for new life as i ride my bora ethy into sunset
We just had a go around on this in the client poll thread and it might be a good thing to avoid any posts about client killing for a while. We apparently pushed it to the point of irritating Petra which is not a gentlemanly thing to do, nor is it likely a wise thing to do.
Last edited:
...
Which in itself is funny because the more heated the graphics argument gets, the more it proves the point of the original post in this thread.
Which in itself is funny because the more heated the graphics argument gets, the more it proves the point of the original post in this thread.
sorry i didnt particapate in that lol but was stating, what i ahve seen heard and like i said i play classic client also, uo needs bit bullet and either kill classic or sa and or make total new one with fewer players needs of all trumps old habits like game but old game is dying new things need happen to make players want to play and not meaning the em lotteryWe just had a go around on this in the client poll thread and it might be a good thing to avoid any posts about client killing for a while. We apparently pushed it to the point of irritating Petra which is not a gentlemanly thing to do, nor is it likely a wise thing to do.
that is also more game killer than a benefit as makes certain in link players billionares which when talk of on forums discourages rest ps am worth a few billion gold lol
actually i think u have strayed, when game started it was a challenge to raise enough gold to place a house, get a guild started etc survive a hunt!!!!!!!
there realy isnt a hardship in game now this is real lack in game!!!!!!! any item new too spawn older players can just buy over hunting doing quest for the adventure, contest etc is gone!!
this is what really hurts game !!!!!!!!
they developers need to add something, many somethings that require play time, over em events that give 100m gold for item buy suits to do more em events on more shards!!!!!
gold pickaxe is example of well built dynamic!!!!!!!
also posible make em and hard to get things sole bound to account though i dislike idea
I think a big part of our not seeing new players is that most modern online games and standalone games lead the player through the game with the player required to do little or no thinking or choice making. His skills are set, the quest he does next is set, the monsters he fights are set, and his equipment choices are likely set or very limited. UO however is a sandbox game with a very steep learning curve and you are handed little of the information you need to play. The player has to make the effort to figure things out, what skills to choose, gear to use, where to explore safely because he can easily run into monsters that he can't handle, and has to make a serious effort to learn the game. I suspect most people who scoff at UO's having too old graphics to bother playing just don't want to get into a game that they can't quickly advance through and win, much less that takes a mental effort on their part. UO is a world you live in, not a level based game you just do as your told in order to reach an end and win the game. It's like having a Tiddly-winks player suddenly finding himself having to play Chess. I suspect many potential players get into UO, see that they have to think to play, and go to another game.
LMAO Did I take that picture? I guess you both are so blinded that you couldn't see who posted those. Have a nice day behind your rose colored glasses.Its nice how you chose to zoom in as close as you can just so you can make something look as bad as possible in order to support your jaded opinion. No one would ever play it like that,ever. Why would they aside from decorating perhaps? You`d never see anything until it was a couple tiles away. In its correct zoom which IMO is a tad past default is the sweet spot. But I`m sure that wouldn`t matter to you because by doing that, the EC char models and even the horses don`t look that bad and some of them are straight up awesome, like the ki-rin or swampy for example.
Love isn`t blind,just hafta have your eyes open enough to see it.
What you think I am a cheater now. There is only one extra program I run and that is UOA so get your facts right b4 you open your mouth. The CC can and will only expire when they fix the graphics in the EC or UO shuts down.
...
Beyond that, one of the problems UO has is one of perception in the game-oriented media. When you see the name even mentioned on sites other than Ultima-based sites, it's always in the past tense or followed by the surprise of "That's still around?". The question is... how do you turn that around given the state of things at EA and EA's effective stance in regards to UO which RG also states EA was very much against even at the start.
Richard Garriott has been talking about this a lot in his SotA interviews. It's one of the reasons he's going in the direction he is with that game. It will be the combination o fthe free-form snadbox of UO, but will have the storyline content of the Ultima series where you WILL have a certain storyline to follow, but there will be a lot of seemingly random instances where you are given choices of actions by NPCs that may or may not have any meaning immediately or down the road. He's stated outright that he wanted to stay away from the "click on all of the ! NPCs, get the quests, fill the 'orders', lather, rinse, repeat" concepts of the EQ/WoW model.
Beyond that, one of the problems UO has is one of perception in the game-oriented media. When you see the name even mentioned on sites other than Ultima-based sites, it's always in the past tense or followed by the surprise of "That's still around?". The question is... how do you turn that around given the state of things at EA and EA's effective stance in regards to UO which RG also states EA was very much against even at the start.
DUDE! Look what I just found:
"All the available races at launch will be free. We are planning to release the regular Drow for free post-launch (after at least 60 days to allow for Founder's Pack exclusivity). Note that only the regular Drow race will become available; the Menzoberranzen Renegade will always remain exclusive to Hero of the North Pack purchases."
Here's the link to the forum post: http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?18401-Neverwinter-Extended-FAQ
XD
Basara
UO Forum Moderator
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Wiki Moderator
UNLEASHED
Campaign Supporter
I was a computer science/teaching major when health knocked me out of school. So, yeah, I can't speak as a full-blown programmer, but can speak as someone with experience in computer programming.
Thinking that the servers already hold all the info needed for a graphics upgrade is sadly mistaken. They are built to handle ONE perspective, and even the mobile window is limited so that in the EC or a modified CC (including where a dev experimented with widening it) some things will just APPEAR at the edge of where the game keeps track of such things. That the devs weren't confident enough to try to change the server code for that ought to tell you something.
Repeating for the third time this thread, there will also be the fact that any client-side graphics upgrade WILL (not "may") screw up existing graphic tricks BECAUSE you are redrawing everything, much like how people howled and screamed they were quitting when the KR/EC screwed up player created deco.
Simply, it would take totally rewriting the server and client from scratch for modern tech, to CHEAPLY modernize the game, because the people who created the old, proprietary, code are long gone and there are plenty of limitations hidden in the old code that would prevent being brought up to modern standards. It would cost more to redo the existing code in its current form, simply because you'd have to hire people to do the equivalent of software archaeology to try to figure out HOW to rewrite the server code, as even the current devs aren't really 100% in comprehension of the code as it is.
Thinking that the servers already hold all the info needed for a graphics upgrade is sadly mistaken. They are built to handle ONE perspective, and even the mobile window is limited so that in the EC or a modified CC (including where a dev experimented with widening it) some things will just APPEAR at the edge of where the game keeps track of such things. That the devs weren't confident enough to try to change the server code for that ought to tell you something.
Repeating for the third time this thread, there will also be the fact that any client-side graphics upgrade WILL (not "may") screw up existing graphic tricks BECAUSE you are redrawing everything, much like how people howled and screamed they were quitting when the KR/EC screwed up player created deco.
Simply, it would take totally rewriting the server and client from scratch for modern tech, to CHEAPLY modernize the game, because the people who created the old, proprietary, code are long gone and there are plenty of limitations hidden in the old code that would prevent being brought up to modern standards. It would cost more to redo the existing code in its current form, simply because you'd have to hire people to do the equivalent of software archaeology to try to figure out HOW to rewrite the server code, as even the current devs aren't really 100% in comprehension of the code as it is.
...
Was someone asking to change the perspective of UO? As far as I know, outside of getting the KR graphic set back, most EC followers are wanting simply for the High Res update to be completed so that zooming in doesn't cause the graphics to be distorted and pixelated.
As for myself, my absolute favorite timeframe graphically for UO was a brief period during KR's development when they opened up the gameplay window to widescreen settings (you still had to set it in options, it was not yet click and drag the way it is now), however, the gameplay window was NOT set to stay at the 4:3 standard resolution so it stretched the image to widescreen aspect creating a different perspective. The character models of course looked a bit... off... but the static map (terrain, plants, buildings, and items) looked awesome to me. I was sad to see it changed back to ONLY the 4:3 ratio.
Was someone asking to change the perspective of UO? As far as I know, outside of getting the KR graphic set back, most EC followers are wanting simply for the High Res update to be completed so that zooming in doesn't cause the graphics to be distorted and pixelated.
As for myself, my absolute favorite timeframe graphically for UO was a brief period during KR's development when they opened up the gameplay window to widescreen settings (you still had to set it in options, it was not yet click and drag the way it is now), however, the gameplay window was NOT set to stay at the 4:3 standard resolution so it stretched the image to widescreen aspect creating a different perspective. The character models of course looked a bit... off... but the static map (terrain, plants, buildings, and items) looked awesome to me. I was sad to see it changed back to ONLY the 4:3 ratio.
Last edited:
This.
You need also ability and motivation, if either are missing even after 5 years you will have nothing.
What if Basara is right and that's why every new client has wound up dropped or been left unfinished. Not because of the jurrasics, last century player computers, etc, but because the newer client and game code has just never meshed really well with the old server code? It can be gotten to run pretty well but not run properly. Maybe that's why new additions to the game tend to have problems as a matter of routine. You can call the Dev's 'incompetent' or whatever other derogatory term you want, but 15 years of various devs can't all have been that. Newer games can upgrade things because the server, game, and client code isn't so different. A game written five years ago can likely still turn up programmers who are experienced with the still commonly used programming language involved, in the case of a game that they likely began working on and programming 20 years ago, finding people who know such an old programming language is likely a lot more difficult. Current server hardware may have capabilities that the old code involved with UO isn't even set up to work with. Perhaps we should just stop armchair quarterbacking and start figuring there are valid reasons why what we would like to have be just can't happen the way we 'know' (cluelessly) that things damn well can be done (Not!).
I think threads like this one and the last one that got closed do nothing for anyone. The pipe dream that is making UO better and able to attract new players is just that. A pipe dream. The Dev team is to small and the resources are to limited. We are in a game game thats being maintained and still gets content added. Be happy with that and stop complaining about something that will never be.
The lights are on,the games being updated and content gets added. At this stage of the game..... thats all (realistically) one can ask for. Everything else is just pointless debates about things that will never see the light of day.
Accept UO for what and how it is...or don`t and move along.
The lights are on,the games being updated and content gets added. At this stage of the game..... thats all (realistically) one can ask for. Everything else is just pointless debates about things that will never see the light of day.
Accept UO for what and how it is...or don`t and move along.
And look which client has out-lasted them all.You really should know what you are talking about when trying to make a point
. The Atari used a dumped down version of the 6502 chip called the 6507 and is an 8-bit microprocessor from MOS Technology, Inc.
So much for your credibility on your knowledge of operating systems and if you can't get the basics right then how much do you truly know.
Actually, you wouldn't even have to be a programmer to understand that every tile and every object in the game exists in three dimensional space. Each tile has an X and Y coordinate, and the objects within it have a Z coordinate. Free internet cookies to the first person who can tell me exactly how many coordinates something would need in order to exist inside of a 3D client.
LOL. I suppose I should feel busted, although referencing the Atari 2600 as "4-bit" is an oft-used reference to its graphic capability rather than its processing capability, and is essentially a misnomer/throwback to the very obvious difference in graphics that was present between the 2600 and the NES and Master System, the two predominant 8-bit systems (or even the 5200 or 7800, both of which were superior in power to the 2600).
You really should know what you are talking about when trying to make a point
. The Atari used a dumped down version of the 6502 chip called the 6507 and is an 8-bit microprocessor from MOS Technology, Inc.
So much for your credibility on your knowledge of operating systems and if you can't get the basics right then how much do you truly know.
Of course, you could have just as easily pointed out that the Atari 2600 had no dial-up, internet, or even home networking capability, and been just as quick at diffusing the off-handed remark I made.
And I suppose, technically, the client that outlasted them all is the T2A client, although it hasn't looked like the T2A client in many years.
I am afraid knowing the exact place of an object in uo is not enough
The perspective in uo allow for illusions
It is impossible to say by looking at a red line going from right to left diagonal across the grid is
Flat on the ground
Going straight up in the air
Or if it realy is there at all
This flaw in the perspective uo have is in use in any way one can imagine all over the game
And if you do not want big piles of objects one would have to creat new artwork for every time more than one object was used to creat a single one
So onewould have to make the artwork for every existing object (many does nothing to make the game look better) + alot more only to keep the existing game look good
And how many red lines are there in UO? You're sort of talking hypothetical rather than actual gameplay. The map itself also contains 3D information, though it's based on particular tiles (ie: the tiles align themselves in the map based on the z-coordinate of the tiles surrounding them, essentially.
As far as items go, yes, knowing where they are in game is precisely enough. The illusion is in how the objects are drawn, not in how the server locates them.
Um... well, to be frank, there would have to be a great deal of new artwork created. What you're talking about, I think, is how say a bottle placed on a surface may be in one spot, and a plate on the same surface at the exact same z-coord would look to be in another spot (say right next to the bottle).
This wouldn't be difficult to fake in 3D at all, mind you. To turn UO fully 3D would, in fact, require a bit of 3D fakery anyway, because you'd have to design the client to operate in 3D, but restrict it to a 'tile-based' boundary system so that it still operated in expected confines -- not impossible to do, by the way. But here's the thing... even with 3D artwork, you can set a particular registration point (we call it a pivot point) that is off-set from the object itself. So say you've got a bottle, but when placed wihin a certain tile framework, you want it always in the upper-right, you would simply alter its pivot point so that it would center in that tile.
Now, one thing I'd like to clear up, I guess, is that I'm in no means saying that this could be done overnight. It would take a couple of years of solid development, no doubt. My simple point is that the naysayers who say that these things are impossible have no actual idea what they're talking about. With 100% certainty, it could be done.
Yes it could - and the development time would depend on many factors too....
True... I suppose I'll simply say that the development time of a well-staffed client-production development team containing a handful of artists, UI programmers, and software engineers each (meaning a handful of each type) could do it in a couple of years. Sure, with testing and bug removal and all of that, plus potentially updating the test client to work with any server-side changes occuring during the natural progression of the game, that might add another year, but it would be three years well spent. Frankly, it's three years that should have already been well spent, but instead, poor decisions were made in tackling the KR client, outsourcing all of the artwork to China, and so forth, and, well, I'm not even sure how many years it's been since the SA client was dropped on us, but I'm fairly sure it's quick approaching four years.
To be frank, the game should and could be in a better state than it is today, but... well, that's the way the cookie has crumbled.
The irony of it all is that the 2D and a fully 3D client could co-exist just fine, and use the same art assets for future stuff simply by exporting the 3D assets to 2D assets, and then people could play whichever version of the game they wanted. To essentially have spent the better portion of 8 years in trying to create a second 2D client is... well... sort of crazy, to be honest. And let's not pretend that SA or even KR were ever anything other than new 2D clients.
Sure, the one big difference would be in how people PvP. And it might seem funny that most of the doors in a fully 3D client face south and east, but, you know, you would get over it pretty quickly by comparison to the rest of the world.
Like I've said elsewhere... UO has sooooooo much untapped potential.
...
1. The perspective argument (which you seem to be using in your post) where isometric is considered "2D" and "over the shoulder" as seen in games like WoW, etc would be considered "3D".
2. The display engine argument where 2D is based on pixel-created artwork using stop-motion animation and 3D is based on polygon frames with textures mapped onto them and particle effects where necessary.
I don't think UO would be served well with argument #1. I think in order to really retain its identity and the basics of how it works, UO would want to stay in an isometric perspective regardless of the engine used to display it. With that in mind, UO should have been progressively updated on a more coherent track than it had been so that we wouldn;t have to be having these arguments/debates.
With argument #2, I believe this is the area where they screwed up with KR/SA. One area where the Third Dawn client got it right, but done FAAAR too technologically early was using polygon models for mobiles. This allowed for easier addition of new items and artwork and had much smoother animation. Unfortunately, since it was rolled out in the early days of polygon-based graphics, it clearly suffered in terms of art quality compared to the smoother 2D artwork (which itself was very high poly-count 3D model renders that were "screencapped" into the needed images.
Personally, I REALLY wish the KR devs would have stuck to the initial vision of the KR/SA expansion in which the new areas would have been accessible by the new client ONLY and removed the tile-based restrictions of the game in those areas. Secondly, again I would NOT have gone back to the stop-motion method of animation even if they did it in a "hybrid" system of projecting the image on a polygon as graphics capabilities have gotten MUCH better since Third Dawn's launch and by the release of Civ 4 they could have had models that looked exactly like the 2d client using polygonal processing with a much smaller client footprint. Finally, it's really all-for-naught when the development and release of a new client is so mismanaged that the client (again) gets released well before it is effectively ready for release and even worse to basically abandon work on improving said client shortly after the release.
It really depends on what definition you're using for 2D/3D as you can effectively use two different ones in regards to UO and the client(s):
1. The perspective argument (which you seem to be using in your post) where isometric is considered "2D" and "over the shoulder" as seen in games like WoW, etc would be considered "3D".
2. The display engine argument where 2D is based on pixel-created artwork using stop-motion animation and 3D is based on polygon frames with textures mapped onto them and particle effects where necessary.
I don't think UO would be served well with argument #1. I think in order to really retain its identity and the basics of how it works, UO would want to stay in an isometric perspective regardless of the engine used to display it. With that in mind, UO should have been progressively updated on a more coherent track than it had been so that we wouldn;t have to be having these arguments/debates.
With argument #2, I believe this is the area where they screwed up with KR/SA. One area where the Third Dawn client got it right, but done FAAAR too technologically early was using polygon models for mobiles. This allowed for easier addition of new items and artwork and had much smoother animation. Unfortunately, since it was rolled out in the early days of polygon-based graphics, it clearly suffered in terms of art quality compared to the smoother 2D artwork (which itself was very high poly-count 3D model renders that were "screencapped" into the needed images.
Personally, I REALLY wish the KR devs would have stuck to the initial vision of the KR/SA expansion in which the new areas would have been accessible by the new client ONLY and removed the tile-based restrictions of the game in those areas. Secondly, again I would NOT have gone back to the stop-motion method of animation even if they did it in a "hybrid" system of projecting the image on a polygon as graphics capabilities have gotten MUCH better since Third Dawn's launch and by the release of Civ 4 they could have had models that looked exactly like the 2d client using polygonal processing with a much smaller client footprint. Finally, it's really all-for-naught when the development and release of a new client is so mismanaged that the client (again) gets released well before it is effectively ready for release and even worse to basically abandon work on improving said client shortly after the release.
I'll acknowledge both your and Dermott's expertise in the specifics of the challenge to update the client graphics... It would take work - and work = $$
-but -
-but -
If only the people that call the shots at Mythic could see what we see... UO could be incredibly successful because of what's already here and does indeed represent hugh untapped potential... It's hard for me to understand how they can NOT see that!
Last edited:
...
If what Richard Garriott has been saying in the interviews for SotA about the creation of UO are true, the existence of UO has been more in SPITE of EA than because of EA, and that still seems to hold true 15 years later.
OH THEY SEE IT ........... just dont have the funds and permission to do anything about it. UO Dev is a ghost of its former self... proof is in the numbers of them... past teams were choc full of people... now...well lets jsut say they do very well for so few people.
***EA stole UO.. Not in the conventional theft of it but in covert actions and promises they never intened to keep, so they did steal UO right from under Garrott and company... EA yes funded them when it was needed but the minute they saw millions of dollars comming in the door they put in place their own people and booted him and all out to "run it right". From that day UO was in trouble. We were a mega cash cow back then...Not that EA needed the funds they were doing well with box games... but the potential was seen and that was too tempting a piece of eye candy.
***EA stole UO.. Not in the conventional theft of it but in covert actions and promises they never intened to keep, so they did steal UO right from under Garrott and company... EA yes funded them when it was needed but the minute they saw millions of dollars comming in the door they put in place their own people and booted him and all out to "run it right". From that day UO was in trouble. We were a mega cash cow back then...Not that EA needed the funds they were doing well with box games... but the potential was seen and that was too tempting a piece of eye candy.
Last edited:
A great deal of thought and energy has been devoted to this subject (and not for the first time). Of course it's true that much of what is being discussed could be done. However, the real question is will EA choose to invest the capital and manpower required in order to accomplish it? I think the only way it will ever happen is if EA decides the upgrades in question would guarantee a subscription and revenue explosion that would bring back UO's glory days and leave newer games effectively eating UO's dust. I'd love to see it happen. I just don't think it will.
To be fair, at some level, about EA's more recent expenditures into UO -- IE: KR -- it was handled poorly by some bad management decisions along the way. SA... I'm not certain if SA was simply devolving the KR client or if there was more involved, but either way, the money that went into creating the KR client was largely a waste on ROI. Not that everything should be ROI related, but something as large as a new client should be attracting new customers to the game, not causing players to look at it and declare that they'll never play UO if it comes down to being only that client. But then, this is what happens when you turn your artwork over to a third party and then don't supervise it. As I've been directly told by one of the people involved, by the time they got the KR artwork back to implement it, they basically had to accept what it looked like because there was no time to change it. Now, one can easily argue, "No way I'd have let art go unsupervised," and I completely agree... such should never have been the case, but apparently it was.
As for EA spending money wisely on an MMO? Well, look... we've seen them mess it up time and time again. Even SW:TOR, which looked like it might actually succeed is not doing so well -- of course, in my opinion that's equally EA shooting the bullets too soon on release and Bioware developing a primarily single-player experience into an MMO. It's a beautiful game that focuses way too much on single-player and forces the moments that require grouping up. /shrug Point is, EA still hasn't learned any of the key, valuable lessons in MMO development, and it's looking less and less likely that they ever will.
As for EA spending money wisely on an MMO? Well, look... we've seen them mess it up time and time again. Even SW:TOR, which looked like it might actually succeed is not doing so well -- of course, in my opinion that's equally EA shooting the bullets too soon on release and Bioware developing a primarily single-player experience into an MMO. It's a beautiful game that focuses way too much on single-player and forces the moments that require grouping up. /shrug Point is, EA still hasn't learned any of the key, valuable lessons in MMO development, and it's looking less and less likely that they ever will.
So you wanted a repeat of UO3D, look how well that went over. Forcing people to use a client is a total fail and UO would not get enough new players to cover the ones that would have left. UO closes it doors but that is ok because we got our new shiny client before it did.
...
We don't know HOW the original vision of the KR expansion would have been since it wasn't put into play. The concept is not always the problem as much as the execution.
UO3D suffered from the same execution problem in two different ways... it was released too early. First, the actual release of the client was long before it was really ready to be released (this is a BAD habit that has plagued the game all the way around) and second, the technology itself was released too early. UO3D was shoved out the door for the earliest uses of 3d polygonal modelling, especially for an always online game. This of course led to the need to reduce the quality of the 3d models which in turn made the designs look far inferior than they should have been. Oddly enough, one of my biggest complaints about the Third Dawn client is the same one I have with the EC... Low Resolution graphics that pixelate and distort when zoomed in.
Again, we can't know exactly how KR COULD have performed under the original concept because it was changed mid-stream again again the client was shoved out the door FAAR too early. If the client was completed correctly and the gameplay good enough, it could very easily have pulled in more than enough new and returning subs to cover for any other losses. As it was set up, you would have only needed the new client for the new areas, so there was little "forcing" people to use the client if they simply wanted to play the UO they always knew. Granted they would attempt to ENTICE people to try the new client to experience the new areas... welcome to marketing!
Or maybe it wouldn't, but at least it would have TRIED. As it is, UO is simply surviving... and really how well at that? How many new players do you get in with "Come try our 15+ year old client!"? I was showing UO off a lot more during KR than I have since. I have convinced people to chip in on Shroud of the Avatar lately, but the excitement for UO itself just isn't there.
Basically, the mindset that a new client dooms UO to failure is the end result of one of two lines of thinking: 1. UO is already doomed and just dying a death of subscription attrition and can't be saved so why try, or 2. a certain segment of the UO population refuses to allow the game to move forward technologically due to their own comfort levels. If it's both, then really, there is no hope for the game and all of this is academic.
We don't know HOW the original vision of the KR expansion would have been since it wasn't put into play. The concept is not always the problem as much as the execution.
UO3D suffered from the same execution problem in two different ways... it was released too early. First, the actual release of the client was long before it was really ready to be released (this is a BAD habit that has plagued the game all the way around) and second, the technology itself was released too early. UO3D was shoved out the door for the earliest uses of 3d polygonal modelling, especially for an always online game. This of course led to the need to reduce the quality of the 3d models which in turn made the designs look far inferior than they should have been. Oddly enough, one of my biggest complaints about the Third Dawn client is the same one I have with the EC... Low Resolution graphics that pixelate and distort when zoomed in.
Again, we can't know exactly how KR COULD have performed under the original concept because it was changed mid-stream again again the client was shoved out the door FAAR too early. If the client was completed correctly and the gameplay good enough, it could very easily have pulled in more than enough new and returning subs to cover for any other losses. As it was set up, you would have only needed the new client for the new areas, so there was little "forcing" people to use the client if they simply wanted to play the UO they always knew. Granted they would attempt to ENTICE people to try the new client to experience the new areas... welcome to marketing!
Or maybe it wouldn't, but at least it would have TRIED. As it is, UO is simply surviving... and really how well at that? How many new players do you get in with "Come try our 15+ year old client!"? I was showing UO off a lot more during KR than I have since. I have convinced people to chip in on Shroud of the Avatar lately, but the excitement for UO itself just isn't there.
Basically, the mindset that a new client dooms UO to failure is the end result of one of two lines of thinking: 1. UO is already doomed and just dying a death of subscription attrition and can't be saved so why try, or 2. a certain segment of the UO population refuses to allow the game to move forward technologically due to their own comfort levels. If it's both, then really, there is no hope for the game and all of this is academic.
I think that everyone here, well almost everyone anyway, has some degree of concern regarding the future of UO given its painfully slow decline in population... As a 4 account 14+ year vet, I certainly share those concerns... But if what Mesanna said recently regarding Vendor Search comes to fruition, that will at the very least keep both the youngest and oldest of us around longer. Let's face it - the longer the revenue stream continues, the more likely the chance of good things happening to UO.... Maybe 15 years isn't enough, but I'll bet 20 would be... I know I'd sure love to see it...
Last edited:
I share your hopes for UO.
I also want to address something Dermott said: "Basically, the mindset that a new client dooms UO to failure is the end result of one of two lines of thinking: 1. UO is already doomed and just dying a death of subscription attrition and can't be saved so why try, or 2. a certain segment of the UO population refuses to allow the game to move forward technologically due to their own comfort levels. If it's both, then really, there is no hope for the game and all of this is academic."
Given EA's track record, expressing misgivings regarding the likelihood of EA doing an about face is not the same as thinking "UO is already doomed". Nor is preferring the CC over the EC the reason for UO's decline. I believe CC and EC users alike would gladly embrace a new client that preserved the integrity of UO while providing the players with unquestionably superior graphics. Nothing EA has attempted to date has accomplished that.
Last edited:
EA never tried to make a new great client, they just made KR with the scraps of warhammer so they could earn some extra with an engine (and dev team) bought for another game -.-
Last edited:
I know. And that is precisely why nothing that has been attempted so far has succeeded in convincing CC users (of whom I am one) to abandon their present client. If a new client was developed with graphics far superior to both the CC and EC, even I would make the transition. Until then, I'll stick with the CC.
Just so such a 4th try at a new client with a better look has a feel more like the CC than the EC. While many more will be willing to switch if the 4th client doesn't have the EC's graphics problems, some would still shy away from it if it's just not a good UI.