Actually, you couldn't have been more vague.
Thanks Oriana. Walter, no intent here to "troll" your post sir, but again, three folks posted on the other thread, including you, making accusations and allegations that I don't understand - but sincerely am trying to. When you toss something into the court of public opinion, which these boards are, if you expect any dialogue there needs to be some background info available. I apologize if my earlier response irritated you in some way - emotions seem to be high on this one, it was not my intent.
Thank you very much Uriah. Then the "friction" lies somewhere within the process of granting a petition, a "handshake" that may not have been honored? Boy oh boy, if correct this is a true can of worms then. No wonder emotions run so high, and there is such animosity directed toward JC, valid or otherwise. I'd like to see JC's take on this one....you still out there?
It's a fact you type faster than I, you got this repsonse up far quicker than mine below yours/ above this one
EA is not likely to respond, we all know that. While many may not accept your view, many will. Give it a shot, you've never been known for being bashfull!!!
UO history is not a selling point. The only people that actually care about UO history have been playing it for those 10 years it was being made. New players could care very little about history. If those 10 year accounts decide to leave the game then I doubt that history is going to stop them from leaving. History in MMORPGs is pointless except when it comes to pointing out why a developer mistake is so blatantly stupid because they've already made it.
I can only speak for myself, but when I picked a game to sign up for, I had to choose been UO and WoW ... and I choose UO because of its history.
That would make you a minority in the player base and if you chose UO over WoW then you need to learn how to make better choices. One game has players and the other does not. One game has function systems and tech support and the other does not. One game reminds me of playing consoles in 1992 and the other does not. So, I guess if you really dig history then this game would be for you. If you dig relics then this game would definately be for you. But, you don't have to see long gone exploited items in game for that sense of history just log into the legacy client and you see all the history you want with its pretty 1992 graphics.
Correction, history in mmorpgs is pointless to you. Many people enjoy the history of UO, myself among them. Even new players that I have met are impressed by UO's history. Not all, but enough to prove your statement to be inaccurate.
Yes because when you ask our plethera of (young) players why they want to play UO they all say because of the history. The only history that matters to most of them is the fact the graphics themselves are simply history. That explains why we don't get any (young) players to ask I reckon.
I have no problem with those people enjoying TRUE EVENT rares. I have a huge problem with them enjoying rares that only exist due to exploits and then complaining about exploiters and dupers. I read the list and for a lot of those items I can tell you which bug or exploit created them. Thats a huge issue for me. You can't complain about current exploiters then look at a list or rares and say those items are all cool although they all came from exploits and bugs.
You lost me when you claimed UO has new players. Ok, so maybe 10% of the population actually gives a crap about the history of UO. That is still not a reason to justify that those rares were mostly obtained through long ago exploits. My bigger issue is that the same people whine about the current state of exploits have no problem with the rares market which is filled with duped items and the items that aren't duped were gotten from exploits in the first place. One of the biggest issues in this game that allows cheaters to thrive is that the rares market exists in the first place.
Doing the math, which I have done in another thread, WoW made enough money to buy UO while they were still selling boxes of the inital game. That would mean that WoW's success so eclipsed UO's success that it becomes questionable rather UO ever had any success at all.
So... a guy was given a couple of accounts by another guy. And is now selling some totally unrelated items. And somehow someone has decided to make a conspiracy theory about it?
That's like saying that a millionaire isn't successful because of billionaire's. Doesn't make any sense. UO is successful because it is still profitable enough to remain in the business they are in after 10+ years.
Elvis ain't got nothing on this guy!
It is debatable how much longer it can limp along. Its been hemoraging players for at least the last 6 years and 6 years ago it dropped 150k players in about 2-3 months because of insanely stupid development decisions. That doesn't sound successful to me. Its also only like comparing millionaires to billionaires only if those two people were in the exact same business and one entered into the market first and still made less money than the person that came later in a long period of time. If UO wouldn't have had a craptastic development team it could have easily kept this game going, came out with an actual UO2 before WoW did and probably would have gotten more than 100,000 players by riding the WoW wave. That didn't happen however.
Lol. It might see a new player every month or so, and even then its probably someone on the 14 day trial and they probably don't even actually last the 14 days before quiting because the game is antique.
Oooh you got me. Here, let me fix it...THE MAJORITY OF UO PLAYERS BOTH OLD AND NEW COULD CARE VERY LITTLE ABOUT UO HISTORY. There, does that fly with you?
Read what I just wrote (yes I understand that you wrote this before I wrote that so it would be impossible) and its very similar but thank you for the suggestion. Plus, I don't diss UO, I simply tell it how it is. I have nothing personally against UO, so I am not at all dissing it. It was once a great game but because of designer stupidity it turned into the crap that it is today. If they never would have introduced Age of Stupidity they would probably be rocking 300k+ players today imo.
I've never actually talked to new players because to my knowledge they don't even exist, so I wouldn't want to make stuff up.
UO is based on Ultima lore, starting with the first game in 1980. The current event story arc is based on Ultima V (1988).
Oh...my bad. I mean, yes I can totally see how releveant crap that happened in a video game when I was 9 is. The difference between Ultima lore and WoW lore is that people actually played WCII and WCIII. Ultima games sucked almost as bad as Ultima Online does today. Few people paid any attention to the lore because they were busy reaching for games that because of game play aspects eclipsed UO (FF comes to mind). Also, the first Ultima was created before I was born, so I would have a hard time trying to care about that lore.
good luck e-mailing Jeremy and getting a reply right away. I e-mailed her about a game exploit I think 3 days after the San Deigo townhall and still have not got a reply back. I even e-mailed [email protected] and Messana and have not heard back from those either.
WoW making more money in the same business doesn't make UO not successful. UO closing today doesn't mean UO wasn't successful either. It just means that it was successful for 10+ years then it folded. You can't take away initial success because of future successes or failures. If you think that UO lasting for 10+ could be called a failure, you don't know much about business.
Not unless you can back up that sentence with sources for where you came about that information. How do you know what hundreds of thousands of players care or don't care about?
You may be right. There have been changes made to the game that may have caused the numbers to dwindle. Just like there have been new games that caused the numbers to dwindle. But the fact that the people that own the game still make enough money from it to keep it going means that its still successful.
Then you can't say that new players don't care about history. That's like me saying that martians love bacon. I don't believe in martians so how can I comment on what they like or dislike?
Make up your mind. Saying that UO sucks is dissing UO. You are entitled to your opinion but you shouldn't feel the need to lie about it. Accept that you do in fact diss UO and keep doing what you want to do. No one can stop you really. I just bring it to your attention.galefan2004 said:
I was buying ginseng and spider silk in Moonglow, so I could cast heals while hunting monsters in Despise, on a Commodre 64 in the 1980's.
When did I ever say that UO was a failure? I never did. What I said was that it wasn't a success. You see two options and I see shades of grey. UO made enough to pay the bills and support the staff for 10 years. If that is the definition of succes to you then great...that would make UO a success. However, my definition is that for the game to actually be a complete success it had to have at least once posted record profits when it had actual competition, and the truth is that EQ took over the majority of the market as soon as it came out and it was UOs first real competition. Putting WoW numbers asside becasue they blew everyone completely away, UO isn't even really a success even by EQ standards. That being said, going 10+ years without shutting down is a sign of a step towards success...maybe if we didn't have craptastic developers creating stuff like Age of Stupidity this game would still have 250k+ players as well. Before February 2002, I was a die hard UO fan and never saw myself going anywhere in this game then after that month I haven't been able to play Age of Stupidity type systems for more than a month without getting burnt out.
You are right. I don't. However, do you realise that in almost 8 years of me reading these boards that this post is one of the only ones I remember actually discussing UO history in the last 4-5 years. I know that doesn't count for much, but if people actually care about UO history they certainly aren't forthcoming with that statement. They are forthcoming with bashing cheaters and exploiters (anyone from the afk scripter to the macro looter) over and over and over and over again, and I am simply saying that you can't bash exploiters without bashing the rares market because a good many of the items are duped and the ones that aren't duped were gotten from exploits in the first place. You can't have it both ways, so pick a side. Just because its a really old exploit doesn't necessarily make it history.
That seems to be your definition of success, and I don't agree with you at all. I also would like to revisit this conversation in 3 months when WAR comes out.
I am taking an inference based on the plethera of people that complain about UO graphics. I assume that if they can't even play the game because the graphics are outdated then they probably don't care much for history of the game or of games in general. I won't say that some players don't want to go retro, and those players might actually care about the history.
I said as UO does TODAY. That is not a diss that is an accurate statement. To me, dissing is when you are spouting off stuff that is inaccurate as a way to try to bring things down. The fact that UO sucks today is not a diss it is a completely accurate statement.
If I'm being 100% honest about the honest state of things its not a diss sorry.
Disrespect, insult, and criticism ALL imply that you are not being honest. I am simply being honest. I'm not being disrespectful, I'm simply telling it the way it is. I'm not insulting, I'm simply telling it the way it. I'm not criticising, I'm simply telling it the way it is.
Good for you...I was 1. Then I grew up and played games that didn't suck. Sorry, but the Ultima game series itself totally and utterly blew. The game was already eclipsed by FF as soon as the FF line came out and pretty much everything SquareEnix made has done around 100% better than Ultima games.
Because I have every right to be. After paying for this game for 8 years I feel every right to post about it. If you don't like my oppinions then feel free to ignore me. Also, I'm not breaking the TOS because I'm not intentionally trolling anyone. I'm simply stating my opinions in the manner that I see fit and having an open and honest discussion with anyone replying to me. That would be what these boards are for. These are not the "imafanboiofuoanduocandonowrong" forums.
Sorry but I stopped making an effort to be constructive when the development team of UO picked up the stupidity system and ran with it. When the developers decide to put down the stupidity system and consider returning UO to a playable condition then I will gladly get constructive again.
UO could fold tomorrow and it wouldn't change the fact that it was successful for 10+ years. It may not be a complete success based on your definition because it didn't achieve the numbers of WoW. But doesn't mean it wasn't a successful game, and still is.
Sure, UO doesn't have the graphics of a WoW. And it doesn't have the account numbers of a WoW. But you can't base every definition of success on one success. You claim that you see shades of grey yet you follow the 'it wasnt as money making as WoW so it must not have been successful" logic. Why would you continue to play a game that hasn't been successful in 10+ years? I wouldn't.
Love the new account, aren't you that person that was on the ATL forums pancakes about this? Go QQ more and post on your main account you troll.
Disrespect doesn't inherently imply dishonesty. Sure, some disrespect may be based on dishonesty. But that doesn't mean that you can't diss something without being dishonest.
No, I want you to tell the truth. You don't have to admit that you are dissing UO. The evidence and the definition of the word already show that. Heck, I diss UO in some ways. I think its too item based and that there is not enough dev support for RP. Neither of those are dishonest, they are my opinions. But, unlike you, I can admit to dissing the game in that way. UO could use a lot of improvement in the areas I mentioned.
Pretty sure this is little campaign of theirs is "OMG WE WANT FREE RARES!!"
I agree his defensiveness implies guilt.
While not being constructive intentionally is not prohibited in the ROC, it definitely should be. Stratics didn't make UO what it is today, neither did the posters or readers on this board. Flooding the boards with your admittedly non constructive posts serves no purpose except trolling, even if you don't direct it at a specific person.
I never once said it had to have the numbers of WoW to be a success. I said that WoW is successful because it has those numbers. UO hasn't even had the numbers of EQ though and they have competed for players MUCH MUCH longer. UO does not have to be a success for me to play it. I play it because it was once one of the best games ever made. It has been utterly destroyed since 2002 starting with the Age of Stupiity expansion. I still hold out hope (6 years later) that some day they will see how stupid the AoS expansion really was and rebalance items and do the work actually needed to get this game back on the ground it was on 6 years ago. Apparently, this game still holds my attention 8 years after I started and its the only game that has ever done that.
Lol whatever.
The point you're trying to make here is that Ultima is an older game, therefore the young people of today haven't heard of it. Keep in mind that not only young people play games.
I don't agree at all. Honesty is ALWAYS the best policy, and these forums exist for us to express our true feelings, and if those true feelings are that UO hasn't been a great game for 6 years then thats what I'm going to say. Sorry if that seems like a diss to you.
Yes it could, and unlike you I feel that being honest is the best way to handle any situation, and regardless of the denotation of the word I feel that the conotation of diss is synomynous with the word slandar, and that word requires dishonesty in its definition.
No, it really should not be. If everyone on these posts were 100% constructive no one would post here becasue it would be boring as hell to read all of the "I love UO and here is why" posts. The beauty of these boards not being ran by EA is that you can lay into the game when you don't like the way it is headed.
No, EA did, and as history has shown us time and time again, EA never listens to its customers. Which is actually kind of hilarious because DAoC has a long history of almost always listening to customer feedback. How can the same compnay (Mythic) have two completely different stances on the two different games.
You don't have to be 100% constructive to not be trolling. You just have to present actual unique points of view instead taking the easy way out. These are not the Iloveuobecauseitsperfect boards and trust me when I tell you that you don't want them to be.
No, that is part of the point I'm trying to make. The other point I'm trying to make is that Ultima games were never really successful, so the majority of old school gamers never really got invested into Ultima either. I believe that more people played Final Fantasy 3 then played the first 3 Ultimas. On the flip side both WCII and WCIII were run away hits.
I couldn't disagree more. The company that refined RPGs was Squaresoft and no games have ever come close to the Final Fantasy line of games. I also was a huge fan of strategy roleplaying games and espcially Shining Force I and II.
So every once inawhile people join the game because of Ultima lore. That still doesn't change the fact that a good deal of players never even played the Ultima series and that UO itself plays nothing like the original series did.
Unfortunately most of them are symbolic of popular exploits in the game. Most of the "true rares" are results of exploits. The only actual exceptions are event rares and old school daily and monthly rares.
I feel strongly that because of the nature of orgin of many of the items and because of the fact that many of these items are nothing more than fodder for dupers that these items should be removed from the game. Because of these same issues these items should have never been allowed to be in the game for as long as they have been in the first place.
It doesn't seem like a diss to me, it is a diss based on the definition of the word diss.
The definition says nothing about dishonesty being a requirement. You can be honest and diss something at the same time. As far as "unlike you I feel that being honest is the best way to handle any situation" show me one place where I have been dishonest. That statement in itself is dishonest in that it implies that I don't feel that being honest is the best way to handle any situation.
Actually, some people can actually point out areas that need improvement AND be constructive at the same time. You admit to being unable to do that, which is fine. But don't assume that everyone is like you in that regard.
Origin.
No one said anything about being 100% constructive. You said you gave up being constructive long ago. If what you meant was that you gave up being 100% constructive and are now 80% constructive, you should have said that instead. If you want to change that statement I will accept that even though I haven't seen 80% constructive posts from you yet. But pick whatever % you feel is accurate.
