EA acknowledges UO (gasp!)

[Cirno]

Well, you can lecture all you want. Doesn't change the fact the artists make it look bad.

And it isn't simply circular items. The art is just plain bad. Period

Lecturing was far from my intent, and perhaps was a poor choice of word. In truth I was trying to avoid a Captain Picard "This is becoming a speech".
The way the world in UO is projected is just not easy to explain in few words, and it does play a key part in why the perspective of much of the art is off.

 

[canary]

Lecturing was far from my intent, and perhaps was a poor choice of word. In truth I was trying to avoid a Captain Picard "This is becoming a speech".
The way the world in UO is projected is just not easy to explain in few words, and it does play a key part in why the perspective of much of the art is off.

And I'm telling you the art is panned for more than simple poor execution of perspective. It is, to many, just plain aesthtically bad. And while art is subjective, it is, if you look around, very much is the subjective favor that the current UO artists do a poor job.

And you may state 'mathematical reasons' why perspective cannot be 100% accurate I get, but there is 'looks okay' and 'does not look ok'... and most will tell you that, from the way they SEE things, the newer art is far from ok.

 

[Sevin0oo0]

The art is just plain bad. Period.

export out that pre-login screen picture, or the jewelry type box opened up, put them on a say a neon lime green background (to see screw-ups) - Nasty! ...Just for an example

 

[Woodsman]

Your analysis mirrors my own, more or less. Whether or not you consider this a good, poor, or neutral reflection on the analysis is up to you. *chuckles*

EA in general seems to behave very irrationally; Martyna's player once said something like "EA as an institution is crazy" and I think that remark is fair.

My stock example for this has been Tetris. They spent millions to purchase Tetris so they could make money from it as a cellular phone game. It's perfect for phones, and it's a familiar property. Then they changed it; at least on the phone I saw it on, they added a feature as the default setting where you have a guide at the bottom of the screen showing where the piece in play could go. Helpful once you get used to it but very distracting and greatly detracts from the familiarity of the property to players.

I think EA wants to treat a lot of their games either like they're out of EA Sports or from The Sims franchise. I don't know if it's due to a lot of the EA Sports people making their way up the chain while a lot of the UO/Origin people were pushed out, but it seems that way. It's ironic that WoW does so well, because Activision Blizzard is run the same way that EA is - focused on long-standing franchises that can generate sequels or expansions. UO/Camelot would seem to fit that. The Camelot folks must be really confused because unlike UO, Camelot/MMO was the primary focus of EA's acqusition of Mythic.

I was going to list some examples like the one you mentioned, but the most damning thing is that EA's biggest competitors in the MMO market have all used past UO devs to beat EA every step of the way.

I also can't figure out for the life of me if it'll be better for us or worse for us if it succeeds or fails.

I go back and forth on the impact if it succeeds. Either it's left mostly alone, BioWare takes the initiative to improve it, or EA sticks to their fewer/bigger/better mantra and ditches UO/Camelot and dumps those resources into Star Wars. I don't really see the last happening.

If it fails, there is absolutely no way it will be good for UO or Camelot. We saw what happened with Warhammer and the bloodbath that followed. Plenty of BioWare execs would be exiting the company, including probably some of the past-UO developers that are attached to BioWare.

 

[Cirno]

And I'm telling you the art is panned for more than simple poor execution of perspective. It is, to many, just plain aesthtically bad. And while art is subjective, it is, if you look around, very much is the subjective favor that the current UO artists do a poor job.

And you may state 'mathematical reasons' why perspective cannot be 100% accurate I get, but there is 'looks okay' and 'does not look ok'... and most will tell you that, from the way they SEE things, the newer art is far from ok.

I did not come here to argue with you, or to make any subjective assessments.
In all my time on these forums, I have never seen an explanation for the perspective issues, and since the subject of perspective issues arose, it seemed like a good time to insert one.
From the disproportionately confrontational nature of your responses, I shall assume that it was not a good time, and take my leave.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

If it fails, there is absolutely no way it will be good for UO or Camelot. We saw what happened with Warhammer and the bloodbath that followed. Plenty of BioWare execs would be exiting the company, including probably some of the past-UO developers that are attached to BioWare.

You don't think there's a realistic, if distant, possibility that if the Star Wars game fails EA dumps it entirely and then leaves UO and DAoC more-or-less as is, just so it can have some kind of presence in the online game world and have a steady revenue stream to make payroll with?

-Galen's player

 

[Woodsman]

You don't think there's a realistic, if distant, possibility that if the Star Wars game fails EA dumps it entirely and then leaves UO and DAoC more-or-less as is, just so it can have some kind of presence in the online game world and have a steady revenue stream to make payroll with?

I would see it as EA having two of their most hyped titles in the past five years failing, and the fact that they were MMOs and wanna-be WoW killers would leave an incredibly sour taste in their mouth and it would really **** off the stockholders.

You think the CEO or the head of EA Games is going to step up in front of the stockholders and admit that EA leadership just can't figure out this MMO thing and that they've now wasted hundreds of millions of dollars with no result at a time when EA is hurting financiallly? No, they'll do what they did with Warhammer, and they will lay waste to BioWare Mythic. The idiotic stockholders will want blood and EA executives will offer up the corpse of BioWare Mythic, all the while sacrificing the future of UO and Camelot.

The artwork and new player stuff aren't enough either. They are a good start to bringing new players in, but unless EA starts hiring, it's going to be painful for all players because every time the devs do something in one area, that means another area will be neglected. The EC needs a lot of work, and it's frightening to think what it would be without Pinco.

I get the feeling that if Star Wars fails, when EA talks about online gaming, they'll be talking about crappy web games.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

I would see it as EA having two of their most hyped titles in the past five years failing, and the fact that they were MMOs and wanna-be WoW killers would leave an incredibly sour taste in their mouth and it would really **** off the stockholders.

You think the CEO or the head of EA Games is going to step up in front of the stockholders and admit that EA leadership just can't figure out this MMO thing and that they've now wasted hundreds of millions of dollars with no result at a time when EA is hurting financiallly? No, they'll do what they did with Warhammer, and they will lay waste to BioWare Mythic. The idiotic stockholders will want blood and EA executives will offer up the corpse of BioWare Mythic, all the while sacrificing the future of UO and Camelot.

The artwork and new player stuff aren't enough either. They are a good start to bringing new players in, but unless EA starts hiring, it's going to be painful for all players because every time the devs do something in one area, that means another area will be neglected. The EC needs a lot of work, and it's frightening to think what it would be without Pinco.

I get the feeling that if Star Wars fails, when EA talks about online gaming, they'll be talking about crappy web games.

Your case is persuasive.

And since I think Star Wars is going to fail worse than Warhammer?

That may well be that.

Let us hope at least one of us is wrong.

-Galen's player

 

[RaDian FlGith]

The main points of it are that the oblique projection the game uses is "impossible", and all the floor circle artwork is "wrong" (the old ones are rendered in an isometric perspective which is different to the world, and the new ones are correct relative to the floor but not the walls (because it is impossible)).
I don't think the artists themselves are to blame, since the main flaw is with the perspective they're rendered at, and not the art itself. Getting the correct perspective would likely require more mathematical input than is a requirement for artists.

There's a fundamental flaw with this, however.

Let's presume that UO has an art production standard, and part of that standard is, "This is the 3D modeling program we will use for our base artistic assets." If that is true (and god, let's hope it is), then everyone is using the same base for their art.

Now, if that first part is true, then the next step is cake.

They only need to create an isometric camera that will place the asset in the correct perspective ONCE. That camera information can then be used along ALL of the created assets to create a cohesive perspective angle.



And... the idea that isometric, just because it isn't mathematically "proper," is somehow more difficult to do is a bit, well, 1996. There are plenty of games that still use an isometric view with an ACTIVE 3D model base (ie: not sprites, but 3D models) and they look proper. So how it would be somehow more difficult for UO to accomplish this is beyond me.

But, truthfully, that's been my big issue with UO art for years: Why the hell is all of this so difficult? They have no gump standards -- gump objects that are dyable get created WITH a full color instead of the grayscale base, which makes no sense. There are no item standards -- perspectives vary wildly between figures. There are no interface standards -- someone creates a new way of doing interface stuff, and there's nothing to update the rest of the interface.

In short, UO's problem is a lack of standards, not a lack of available technology.

 

[Woodsman]

Your case is persuasive.

And since I think Star Wars is going to fail worse than Warhammer?

That may well be that.

Let us hope at least one of us is wrong.

I enjoyed the previous BioWare Star Wars games, and they have spent a lot of time on the back-story and in-game fiction. They've got some talented people working on it, including some ex-UO devs and have even had current UO devs working on it. But they are also betting too much on it and they are playing a game that everybody has so far lost at. WoW dominates for a reason.

Not to doom-and-gloom further, but Star Wars was in development when Warhammer fell apart. EA was already on track to spend hundreds of millions on Star Wars and Warhammer fell apart during all of this. UO and Camelot were still turning profits, Star Wars was still in development.

Did they leave those three other MMO games alone? They left one of them alone.

They left the unproven one alone. If anything, from what I remember reading about Star Wars during that time, things picked up, and they placed more importance on it.

If EA was run by competent/rational people who were able to see past the sports games or the mass-market sequels or past the next financial quarter, they would have invested in the games that were making money in addition to Star Wars. Instead they gutted the very games that were making them money in the MMO market.

$300 million for Star Wars. And rather than toss a few extra million to UO and Camelot as an investment, they gut Mythic overall.

I'm not going to pretend that UO would be in the millions of users range if EA had taken care of UO the way that Blizzard has taken care of WoW, but I can tell you that there would be hundreds of thousands of players, easily. There would be enough resources and actual demand to have had a classic shard or two. We'd be on one client, we'd have a live team, we'd have an expansion team, we'd have people dedicated to wiping out client bugs, Mesanna would have a large staff of full-time EMs and in-house UO GMs under her. We would have experienced an art upgrade that actually took hold. People would still leave to try other MMOs, but they would be coming back to UO, instead of going back to WoW. But EA doesn't know how to competently manage MMOs and they drive away the very people who could do it for them, with the last being Mark Jacobs.

I've said it before, if I was a stockholder, I would have been furious with EA over the years for the amount of incompetence displayed by the people at the top. EA has had all of the ingredients to be much more successful in the MMO market than they've been, and the stockholders are either too dumb to realize it, more than likely didn't care as long as there were profits.

Their current CEO has been running the show since around 2006 or 2007, and so he can't pawn off the incompetence and ignorance onto the previous CEO - he's shown that he's just as short-sighted and ignorant of the MMO market as Larry Probst was. The only good thing that would come out of Star Wars failing is that the CEO would probably be ousted by the board along with everybody in BioWare that he lays off.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

But, truthfully, that's been my big issue with UO art for years: Why the hell is all of this so difficult? They have no gump standards -- gump objects that are dyable get created WITH a full color instead of the grayscale base, which makes no sense. There are no item standards -- perspectives vary wildly between figures. There are no interface standards -- someone creates a new way of doing interface stuff, and there's nothing to update the rest of the interface.

In short, UO's problem is a lack of standards, not a lack of available technology.

Thank you Radian, you may smile as I say ...
couldn't have said it better myself ...

It isn't like "art" has not been around since the caves of the Upper Paleolithic
Huh !?! and the noob poster MUST be unaware that Cal has already mooted the point
about why some issues like art are acceptable and or "debateable"
"I have no excuse Sir!"
Applies to an entities entire LIFE ... period. (not just a botched media transition)



Besides ... no one with an avatar like

has any rational business trying to go technical about art ...

I said no and that is a Rational decision.
I mean comon ...
Ever seen a sixth grade boy's medieval design doodles?
open the classic client ...

nuff said

 

[Cirno]

"Just when I thought I was out... They pull me back in"

There's a fundamental flaw with this, however.

Let's presume that UO has an art production standard, and part of that standard is, "This is the 3D modeling program we will use for our base artistic assets." If that is true (and god, let's hope it is), then everyone is using the same base for their art.

Now, if that first part is true, then the next step is cake.

They only need to create an isometric camera that will place the asset in the correct perspective ONCE. That camera information can then be used along ALL of the created assets to create a cohesive perspective angle.



And... the idea that isometric, just because it isn't mathematically "proper," is somehow more difficult to do is a bit, well, 1996. There are plenty of games that still use an isometric view with an ACTIVE 3D model base (ie: not sprites, but 3D models) and they look proper. So how it would be somehow more difficult for UO to accomplish this is beyond me.

If UO were in an isometric perspective, the biggest problem we would likely encounter is one of aesthetic taste. An isometric projection can accurately describe 3D objects, albeit without vanishing points.
UO is not isometric.
The projection UO uses is called oblique, which differs from isometric projections primarily in the sense that it's not really good for anything.
An oblique perspective cannot accurately describe 3D objects, and so there is no standard that can be applied. Such a standard results in things like the previously mentioned 13th anniversary circle, and other items that seem to miraculously find a kind of uncanny valley for inanimate objects.

I must admit to being at something of a loss to find words to describe the things I've already described in a way that makes more sense, short of pictures.
The XY plane of the game world, and most objects, is described as though looked at from above (that is, the ground, and the tops of boxes and such things).
The XZ and YZ planes are described relatively to the XY plane, as though from an angle more like 45°-60° from ground level.
The disparity between the planes is where the problem lies, and there is no consistent standard for making things look right. Boxes can be drawn obliquely, while a circle on the floor drawn by the same standard is a proper circle (in the same way the floor tiles are proper squares).
To render a 3D object to look right, you would have to use some unwieldy trigonometry to calculate the facing correctly (with the camera located at the proper height and distance, regular 45° or 90° intervals wouldn't be correct relative to the ground. The models or rendering may even need some forced perspective applied to compensate (although my every instinct says it would still be impossible to meet the technical and the aesthetic criteria completely).

and the noob poster MUST be unaware that Cal has already mooted the point

Besides ... no one with an avatar like

has any rational business trying to go technical about art ...

I think you might be confusing those two things with something relevant.
Although I am curious about the mooted point. If it has rendered anything I've said as erroneous, then correcting that is of interest to me.

I do agree, however, that standards should exist and be adhered to.
Base items being coloured, especially in dark tones which diminish the contrast when hued in a lighter colour, has always bothered me.

 

[G.v.P]

the reason why WoW has so many subscriptions is because of the company that made it, a good majority of their players are life long blizzard followers because of how successful warcraft, starcraft and diablo were so they will play any blizzard game, if blizzard made my little pony online, those people would probably play it

I'd be so down to play my little pony online.

If they looked like this, haha.

Speaking of ponies, I've always been jealous of zebras in WoW. I want zebras :<.

 

[Silverbird]

If Ea really wants to attract more and new players to uo, they should start with getting a license for the Iris client.
But I have to admit, that I ve only seen some screenshots of it. Pictures like:

 

[Aran]

I don't play SA, I wouldn't play Iris either.

UO2D is the only client in my world.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

If Ea really wants to attract more and new players to uo, they should start with getting a license for the Iris client.
But I have to admit, that I ve only seen some screenshots of it. Pictures like:

Really? hummm ...

What Game titles are out under iris?
compared to current license?
Gamebryo | Industry-Leading Cross-Platform Game Development Engine

 

[olduofan]

Maybe he finally see the potential Uo has

 

[Cirno]

Really? hummm ...

What Game titles are out under iris?
compared to current license?
Gamebryo | Industry-Leading Cross-Platform Game Development Engine

It is not only down to the pedigree of the engine that determines a game's quality.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if the weakest link is the way the engine is used, then the engine will not live up to its potential. In much the same way as a poor engine can be utilised exceptionally.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Really? hummm ...

What Game titles are out under iris?
compared to current license?
Gamebryo | Industry-Leading Cross-Platform Game Development Engine

It is not only down to the pedigree of the engine that determines a game's quality.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if the weakest link is the way the engine is used, then the engine will not live up to its potential. In much the same way as a poor engine can be utilised exceptionally.

doesn't "quite" answer my question ... which was amazingly simple and direct.

Surely you meant that posting in reply to Silverbird's statement?

 

[Taylor]

*kicks door in*

Ok. Who's being mean to mah ME?

:gun:

 

[Cirno]

I did assume that your question was rhetorical, and so answering it did not come high on the list of things to do.
It seemed an awful lot like you were implying a lack of comparative merit on the part of Iris, based on the popularity of the engine (which I think is Ogre, for Iris). If that was not the case, then I do apologise for the misunderstanding.

 

[Cirno]

*kicks door in*

Ok. Who's being mean to mah ME?

:gun:

That would be Tom

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

I did assume that your question was rhetorical, and so answering it did not come high on the list of things to do.
It seemed an awful lot like you were implying a lack of comparative merit on the part of Iris, based on the popularity of the engine (which I think is Ogre, for Iris). If that was not the case, then I do apologise for the misunderstanding.

wait ... whuat?
"assumptions aside" ... are you saying Ogre is the engine for iris the engine?
*furrows brow*
maybe you should allow the poster I queried to answer ...

Maybe he knows what He was talking about.

 

[Cirno]

The Iris client (Iris2, technically) uses the Ogre3D engine, in the same way that the Enhanced Client uses the Gamebryo engine.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

The Iris client (Iris2, technically) uses the Ogre3D engine, in the same way that the Enhanced Client uses the Gamebryo engine.

alrighty then ...

What Game titles are out under/on/with iris? (Iris2, technically)

 

[Cirno]

Projects using OGRE : Ogre Wiki
This would be a list of projects using OGRE, as the URL would seem to suggest.

Most notable among them would be Torchlight

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Projects using OGRE : Ogre Wiki
This would be a list of projects using OGRE, as the URL would seem to suggest.

Most notable among them would be Torchlight

Very well then

If Ea really wants to attract more and new players to uo, they should start with getting a license for the Iris client.
But I have to admit, that I ve only seen some screenshots of it. Pictures like:

silverbird ... seems the "license" is free/open source
*shrugs*
And aside from re-training the bioware mythic UO team up on a different than gambryo engine/client ...
no "obvious" advantages to obtain.

Or a manner to re-coop the (essentially) wasted costs already incurred.
_________________

I think you might be confusing those two things with something relevant.
Although I am curious about the mooted point. If it has rendered anything I've said as erroneous, then correcting that is of interest to me.

I do agree, however, that standards should exist and be adhered to.
Base items being coloured, especially in dark tones which diminish the contrast when hued in a lighter colour, has always bothered me.

The mooted "point" would be when Cal Stated
here

The answer to a "Why" question at the Academy is "No Excuse." So let's just go with that.

"going with that ..." covers all things Cal/UO
Standards should exist ... No Excuse for them not to ...

Doesn't render anything "erroneous" ... JUST renders all discussion/topics MOOT
Arguable and debatable (as the hall generally IS)
Just NO "resolution / decisions" will ever accrue ...

Do you want this? No ... here ya go! a bucket of this ...
Would you like to change this? Yes? can't do it ... too hard
moot
debatable arguable research-able ... subject to grand soliloquies of viewpoints mixed of fact and opinion and faith and belief and grammar disjunctions and topical errors of spelling and intent.

"Fix" UO ?

not so much

 

[Woodsman]

You know GalenKnighthawke, I was wrong about Star Wars being the end-all/"eggs all in one basket" of EA's MMO attempts.

EA is working with others on a long-term MMO. I did not realize that EA's biggest upcoming new fantasy IP (they are the publisher, not the developer), Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, is meant to be the prequel to an MMO.

General Article - Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning - Informing the MMO - MMORPG.com

It has R.A. Salvatore handling the in-game fictin and Todd McFarlane handling some of the concepts/artwork, but the main thing that interests me is that it has the designer from Morrowwind and Oblivion behind it. So EA is looking slightly past Star Wars. Of course if Kingdoms of Amalur does't pan out, then the MMO won't happen. It's a lot different than having it in-house like BioWare/Mythic, but still.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

"Just when I thought I was out... They pull me back in"If UO were in an isometric perspective, the biggest problem we would likely encounter is one of aesthetic taste. An isometric projection can accurately describe 3D objects, albeit without vanishing points.
UO is not isometric.
The projection UO uses is called oblique, which differs from isometric projections primarily in the sense that it's not really good for anything.

We can sit and debate whether it's isometric, oblique, orthographic, or something more or less obtuse all day long. The fact remains that UO certainly is not the only game that uses the projection, and there are, indeed, games that use the projection with fully 3D models actively used rather than sprites.

However, as a point in case, since UO doesn't use a shortened length dimension on any axis, and in fact, the axes don't change dimensional correlation at any point throughout the projection itself, it definitely is not an oblique projection.

Maybe what UO uses is something rather more unique.

It's still not the only game that uses it.

An oblique perspective cannot accurately describe 3D objects, and so there is no standard that can be applied. Such a standard results in things like the previously mentioned 13th anniversary circle, and other items that seem to miraculously find a kind of uncanny valley for inanimate objects.

No... what caused the previously mentioned 13th anniversary circle isn't anything other than artistic laziness. If you visit the chamber of the slasher wherein the original piece of artwork is contained, you can see that the original circle is projected properly.

What happened had nothing to do with projection, and everything with some genius artist deciding not to re-render that particular piece of artwork and make a new tile out of it, and instead, used the previously rendered piece of artwork and tried to shrink it to fit a lesser space. When you take an accurately rendered piece of artwork and shrink it in a manner in which it is impossible to maintain its proper perspective, you get the 13th anniversary circle.

By the way, the standard I'm speaking of is a standard that would be internally developed for the toolset they are using that would then be applied to all pieces of artwork. If you set a particular camera in a 3D program, you can save those settings for use across a multitude of models. Once you have it projecting the proper perspective, you don't have to continually readjust it, you use it across various objects.

I must admit to being at something of a loss to find words to describe the things I've already described in a way that makes more sense, short of pictures.
The XY plane of the game world, and most objects, is described as though looked at from above (that is, the ground, and the tops of boxes and such things).
The XZ and YZ planes are described relatively to the XY plane, as though from an angle more like 45°-60° from ground level.
The disparity between the planes is where the problem lies, and there is no consistent standard for making things look right. Boxes can be drawn obliquely, while a circle on the floor drawn by the same standard is a proper circle (in the same way the floor tiles are proper squares).
To render a 3D object to look right, you would have to use some unwieldy trigonometry to calculate the facing correctly (with the camera located at the proper height and distance, regular 45° or 90° intervals wouldn't be correct relative to the ground. The models or rendering may even need some forced perspective applied to compensate (although my every instinct says it would still be impossible to meet the technical and the aesthetic criteria completely).

You're spending an awful lot of time trying to describe something that you seem to think is impossible when it definitely is not so. I don't disagree that perhaps isometric isn't the right word... neither is oblique... orthographic is probably the best representation. People commonly interchange the three, and regardless, the truest meaning of all three remains in tact: a 2D representation of a 3D projection meant to imply depth. Obliques, while common of the 45-degree angle used in UO rather than the 120-degree of an isometric, still vanishes toward a horizon line of sorts... the further back the projection gets, the shorter the distances on the changing axes.

I think you might be confusing those two things with something relevant.
Although I am curious about the mooted point. If it has rendered anything I've said as erroneous, then correcting that is of interest to me.

I do agree, however, that standards should exist and be adhered to.
Base items being coloured, especially in dark tones which diminish the contrast when hued in a lighter colour, has always bothered me.

Yeah... I'm not sure why we STILL have full sets of artwork that are colored on their base when someone could have sat down with a limited palette YEARS ago, grayscaled them while maintaining highlights (ie: the gold part of the fancy dress), and correcting the color issues with them.

Internal standards are always a good thing. Why they seem to be lacking in the art department is a very, very sore subject.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

It is not only down to the pedigree of the engine that determines a game's quality.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if the weakest link is the way the engine is used, then the engine will not live up to its potential. In much the same way as a poor engine can be utilised exceptionally.

Well, and let's be honest... there's some rather interesting magic trickery going on between parts of the EC and the 2D client. I mean, they gutted the KR client's menus and dropped the 2D client's right in. And strangely, though one would think that the two clients are dependent of each other, they share similar bugs in various parts of the interface.

It's certainly enough to make someone go "hmmmm..."

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

You know GalenKnighthawke, I was wrong about Star Wars being the end-all/"eggs all in one basket" of EA's MMO attempts.

Good good.

Slightly better for us; because I still think Star Wars is going to fail badly.

-Glaen's player

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Good good.

Slightly better for us; because I still think Star Wars is going to fail badly.

Truthfully, as long as EA keeps their hands out of Bioware and let's them finish the product PROPERLY and give it a good push out the door (something, given the recent interview wherein EA suggests WoW has set the standard, you'd hope they'd realize was an important step by now), I think TOR will do fine. It won't be a WoW killer, but it will receive an acceptable level of players, and will sustain itself for some time. In fact, while it won't be a WoW killer, I suspect at some level, it will be an SWG killer (I don't see everyone at SWG leaving, but I suspect a good 25-50% of the population will).

Now, that previous statement is the rose colored glasses "on" version.

Do I think EA will keep their hands out of Bioware?
Ask Mythic how well they did in regards to WAR.

Do I think EA will refrain from forcing a premature shipdate on TOR?
Ask Mythic how well they did in regards to WAR.

Do I think early misfires in TOR's release will repeat the WAR effect?
Oh, without a doubt.

 

[Aran]

SWG already had a mass exodus a few years ago.

 

[Silverbird]

If Ea really wants to attract more and new players to uo, they should start with getting a license for the Iris client.
But I have to admit, that I ve only seen some screenshots of it. Pictures like:

Really? hummm ...

What Game titles are out under iris?
compared to current license?
Gamebryo | Industry-Leading Cross-Platform Game Development Engine

I guess you all took me wrong. I wanted to point into another direction ...
I know that Iris runs under open source licenses and there is shurely not any chance, that EA would adapt from that client anything in any way.
If you havent recognized .... my posted picture is UO on a freeshard. (I dont know which one and I also dont know, how accurate the Iris client really is. BUT that client is used on free shards for playing uo. You can use the CC or Iris on them, so there must be some kind of compatibility between them. So it should be somehow possible with only little modifications to use that client on official servers and bringing UO into the direction of modern computer games.)

 

[Cirno]

I am in a quandry over this, Radian.
I have been really enjoying this discussion. Any discussion that makes me think is awesome to me, and this has been a good one.
However we're at a point where we're just going to be repeating what we've already said in disagreement of one another without finding a common ground, which is about the point where discussion becomes argument, and arguing on the internet is not awesome to me
So, I shall take my leave (again)

Strange as it may sound, I hope we can do this again some time

 

[Surgeries]

And that's great, but Joe Q Customer, by and large, disagrees.

Art has been a sore spot for a LONG time for UO in terms of attracting (and keeping) players. They had a chance to get some redemption with KR and failed. Let's hope that whatever art direction Cal has approved starts to remedy that.

People like things (generally) that are attractive and fresh looking. You need style AND substance.

As Mr. Peart says it:

So much style without substance
So much stuff without style
It's hard to recognize the real thing
It comes along once in a while
Like a rare and precious metal beneath a ton of rock
It takes some time and trouble to separate from the stock
You sometimes have to listen to a lot of useless talk

I really think that does sum it up. A pig with lipstick, as they say. And the treasure found within all things. The Yin and the Yang. One man's meat...

I do want better graphics for UO. I am hopeful they will occur. I sure wouldn't trade away our freedom for it, but hopefully we won't have to.

I love this game and have for about 25% of my life so far.

I look forward to hopefully many more years...with even better graphics and content!!

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Truthfully, as long as EA keeps their hands out of Bioware and let's them finish the product PROPERLY and give it a good push out the door (something, given the recent interview wherein EA suggests WoW has set the standard, you'd hope they'd realize was an important step by now), I think TOR will do fine. It won't be a WoW killer, but it will receive an acceptable level of players, and will sustain itself for some time. In fact, while it won't be a WoW killer, I suspect at some level, it will be an SWG killer (I don't see everyone at SWG leaving, but I suspect a good 25-50% of the population will).

Now, that previous statement is the rose colored glasses "on" version.

Do I think EA will keep their hands out of Bioware?
Ask Mythic how well they did in regards to WAR.

Do I think EA will refrain from forcing a premature shipdate on TOR?
Ask Mythic how well they did in regards to WAR.

Do I think early misfires in TOR's release will repeat the WAR effect?
Oh, without a doubt.

I will declare my prejudice.

I think the Star Wars MMO will fail in large part because I have come to consider Star Wars dead artistically since the last 30 minutes or so of Attack of the Clones.

If enough millions of people disagree with me, then the game could easily stand a chance.

And furthermore, I am noticing a pattern where people who have played the single-player games set in that universe (Star Wars pre-Empire) think the MMO could work.

The other reason I think it will fail, though, is that I see no evidence EA is institutionally capable of doing what you describe.

-Galen's player

 

[Woodsman]

I will declare my prejudice.

I think the Star Wars MMO will fail in large part because I have come to consider Star Wars dead artistically since the last 30 minutes or so of Attack of the Clones.

So a year from now when Phantom Menace is in the theaters in 3D, you probably won't be waiting in line for tickets?

And furthermore, I am noticing a pattern where people who have played the single-player games set in that universe (Star Wars pre-Empire) think the MMO could work.

Guilty, although I have seen SW:TOR in person and while I didn't get a chance to play it, I found it at least visually appealing. YouTube doesn't do it justice. Visually, it looked like a $300 million game. With that said, I've really only liked BioWare's Star Wars games and have to go back to the DOS games to find single-player Star Wars games that I liked prior to BioWare's games.

I'm also giving it a chance because the person who showed it to me said there was a resemblance in some of the combat mechanics to Tabula Rasa, which I enjoyed.

However, I still can't believe that the space combat is literally on a rail. As in, you don't control all aspects of it and you're literally moving along like you are on a rail. That means the DOS games that are over 15 years old had better combat/gameplay mechanics than this $300 million beast.

Larry Holland may not have had much success with his games lately, but if they had given him $20 million or so, I'm sure that he could have come up with better space combat than the roller coaster ride they have. I think there is video floating around that shows the whole rail thing. Probably the worst example of style over substance in the game.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

So a year from now when Phantom Menace is in the theaters in 3D, you probably won't be waiting in line for tickets?

No. **** no. Hell no. I guess if I get talked into it by someone else I might see it, but not of my own free well.

I think 3d is stupid, let alone those Star Wars prequel films. Comic Brian Posehn had the following to say about the prequel films. (Close paraphrase.)

I spent all this money over the years worshiping George Lucas, but those movies sucked compared to other movies that suck. I may not even see the third one, I'm worried it's not even really a movie, that it's just a plot to get me in a dark place, that when I step into the darkened movie theater and I'm the only one there, the doors are gonna lock and ****ing Lucas is gonna come out and **** me. And then when I'm a crying nerd pile on the floor he's gonna put on a Greedo mask and do it again and call it the special edition.

He was exaggerating. I enjoyed the prequel films as well-done SyFy channel movies. But I certainly have no wish, based on those, to play an MMO set in that universe.

I may not even see the original 3 films in 3d of my own accord.....Let alone the prequel films.

Guilty, although I have seen SW:TOR in person and while I didn't get a chance to play it, I found it at least visually appealing.

Encouraging, if UO's future is in any part tied to it as you persuasively argue it is.

I'm taking it as a good sign, btw, that people who've played the Star Wars prequel games think the MMO can work. I base my supposition on prejudice; others base theirs on experience with a similar product, which is a far superior method.

However, I still can't believe that the space combat is literally on a rail. As in, you don't control all aspects of it and you're literally moving along like you are on a rail. That means the DOS games that are over 15 years old had better combat/gameplay mechanics than this $300 million beast.

Oh dear God are you serious?

*sighs and beats head on a wall*

You know, forget the DOS games (I remember those, never played but seen 'em played, I liked seeing people try to charge Star Destroyers in X-Wing fighters and get owned)....That means in the $300m+ MMO you have mechanics not dissimilar to what you saw in arcade games that are 30 years old.

-Galen's player

 

[Kaladin]

WoW visually is more stunning, cartoony aesthetics to some aside. UO is often criticized for its bad graphics and art team.
You play in Azeroth. You live in Sosaria.

Wow is getting old.... have you seen their graphics engine lately. When it comes to "old" wow graphics and "old" UO graphics, I'll take UO.

They've already acknowledged there are bugs from limitations which they can do with their client.

I'll take UO where I can actually feel ownership over a piece of land over wow.

Also the amount of time wow takes is borderline insane. Playing wow it takes 6 hours of raiding (minimum) and another 12 hours of doing the same dang random dungeon every single freaking day. And, if I only did 18 hours a week, I would be viewed as a "casual." The weapons I could be picking up today are worthless in just a few months.

I don't "have to" put in that much time playing UO just to stay current. If I didn't play wow for a few months I would come back and my gear would suck and I would get all sorts of grief for being a "scrub."

In wow, you get this sick type of elitism. People spend hours on end bank sitting with their most current mount/and title. Then, people start to think that getting game achievements as something more desirable than anything they can achieve in real life.

People who are good at raiding in WoW, feel like they can treat anyone else like trash. The elitism in that game is shocking. And, the key words are IT'S NOT REAL. SAY IT AGAIN: IT'S NOT REAL. Yet, people get so confused that they are treating the game like their "NEW TYPE OF LIFE."

You ask someone who plays wow "how many days have you played." ANd, you'll get answers like more than 400.... or 300+...... that's 9,600 FREAKING HOURS! Seriously, how many languages could a person learn in 9,600 hours? How much money could you make in 9,600 hours?

It's just shocking..... for a game which might have a "real life" of a maybe a few more years before the next "shiny, new" game comes in and takes the market. Blizzard is already working on a game to come out possibly in 2015 to make sure they keep market share.

 

[canary]

Wow is getting old.... have you seen their graphics engine lately. When it comes to "old" wow graphics and "old" UO graphics, I'll take UO.

They've already acknowledged there are bugs from limitations which they can do with their client.

I'll take UO where I can actually feel ownership over a piece of land over wow.

Also the amount of time wow takes is borderline insane. Playing wow it takes 6 hours of raiding (minimum) and another 12 hours of doing the same dang random dungeon every single freaking day. And, if I only did 18 hours a week, I would be viewed as a "casual." The weapons I could be picking up today are worthless in just a few months.

I don't "have to" put in that much time playing UO just to stay current. If I didn't play wow for a few months I would come back and my gear would suck and I would get all sorts of grief for being a "scrub."

In wow, you get this sick type of elitism. People spend hours on end bank sitting with their most current mount/and title. Then, people start to think that getting game achievements as something more desirable than anything they can achieve in real life.

People who are good at raiding in WoW, feel like they can treat anyone else like trash. The elitism in that game is shocking. And, the key words are IT'S NOT REAL. SAY IT AGAIN: IT'S NOT REAL. Yet, people get so confused that they are treating the game like their "NEW TYPE OF LIFE."

You ask someone who plays wow "how many days have you played." ANd, you'll get answers like more than 400.... or 300+...... that's 9,600 FREAKING HOURS! Seriously, how many languages could a person learn in 9,600 hours? How much money could you make in 9,600 hours?

It's just shocking..... for a game which might have a "real life" of a maybe a few more years before the next "shiny, new" game comes in and takes the market. Blizzard is already working on a game to come out possibly in 2015 to make sure they keep market share.

All the same things you note are also criticisms railed at UO.

And as far as 'elitism', that concept also exists in UO. They are also often referred to as 'bank sitters' with their shiny gear or pets they hardly use.

The part about talking trash. You have pvp'ed before, right?

I've known people to spend hours redoing Lady M, Stygian Dragon, Champ Spawn, etc etc. for items. And, tbh, raids and WoW quests are much more engaging and fun (and I say that as a current non WoW subscriber).

Art? You may take UO graphics over WoW graphics, but I'm pointing out the fact that most people (not you, but overall here) will choose WoW graphics over UO graphics. You may hate WoW graphics, and that is fine. But if we are attempting to build something to get more customers into UO, your personal opinion, one that is not the majority, is nil.

UO has housing, WoW doesn't. That is, imo, a strong selling point.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

SWG already had a mass exodus a few years ago.

I'm aware of that... it was the NGE that "killed" it. However, due to the lack of any other comparable Star Wars MMO, the game has continued to exist. Were TOR to be a strong, quality product, this could change.

It depends largely upon how TOR is received, how it is released, and how little bungling EA does to it along the way as to whether or not that changes.

Still, SWG is much like UO in that it has some features that other games lack -- features it tends to share with UO.

 

[Trebr Drab]

The thing I really liked about WoW's "graphics" was the animations. The movements were fluid, the jumping was just right (talking about non-Elf, two knees up, and just the right up/down/arc movement that looked and felt right), swimming was great (add the underwater mode with breath and all), and the e-mote animations, it all over road what I initially thought was horrid cartoony art. I think maybe the animations are more important than the actual art.

And that's something that drives me nuts about UO's EC. Horse steps are so far out of whack, and characters stop on a dime with nothing so it makes the animations seem extremely choppy. It makes the movies an embarrassment, in my opinion.

 

[Trebr Drab]

SWG already had a mass exodus a few years ago.

I'm aware of that... it was the NGE that "killed" it. However, due to the lack of any other comparable Star Wars MMO, the game has continued to exist. Were TOR to be a strong, quality product, this could change.

It depends largely upon how TOR is received, how it is released, and how little bungling EA does to it along the way as to whether or not that changes.

Still, SWG is much like UO in that it has some features that other games lack -- features it tends to share with UO.

TOR is going to be an eye opener. Players everywhere are talking about how they don't want more of the same, meaning more level grind and quest driven controlled game play. How they want "worlds" instead of Single Player games. It's been so bad that I've even gotten the sense that most of these gamers have simply stopped complaining, and are on the verge of giving up on MMOs. The last few years have shown that players don't want it with other recent new additions, Rift is in trouble from everything I've heard just the same as the others. Guild Wars 2 and SWTOR are next up, and what they offer as "new" is just another way of presenting the old that players don't want and have proven so.

 

[Woodsman]

I think 3d is stupid, let alone those Star Wars prequel films. Comic Brian Posehn had the following to say about the prequel films. (Close paraphrase.)

Red Letter Media summed up my views on the prequels.

I'm taking it as a good sign, btw, that people who've played the Star Wars prequel games think the MMO can work. I base my supposition on prejudice; others base theirs on experience with a similar product, which is a far superior method.

I think it can work, but I just don't know how long it can work. I also think if EA pushes it out to early, it's done. Because of the hype, if it has a bad launch, it's not going to recover very well if at all and EA likes to panic and start laying off people. On something this massive, any mass layoffs would definitely shorten its longevity. I think BioWare can make it work, but it's EA.

The fact that they are launching it sometime after March 31st, so that it's in the 2012 fiscal year instead of the 2011 fiscal year is interesting: STAR WARS: The Old Republic - Release window for Star Wars: The Old Republic

Oh dear God are you serious?

Yeah, I am. I found a video clip, the space combat is referred to as a tunnel shooter:

Space Combat in Star Wars: The Old Republic | TOR Universe

Not only is it a wasted opportunity, it will reinforce any feelings of being on a rail that people have, regardless of how much BioWare works to try and stay away from that feeling. I understand that its the player's base of operation and that maybe there are game engine limitations, but there are a lot of people who heard that everybody gets a space ship and automatically thought they could be doing all kinds of crazy stuff in space.

 

[Kaladin]

All the same things you note are also criticisms railed at UO.

And as far as 'elitism', that concept also exists in UO. They are also often referred to as 'bank sitters' with their shiny gear or pets they hardly use.

The part about talking trash. You have pvp'ed before, right?

I've known people to spend hours redoing Lady M, Stygian Dragon, Champ Spawn, etc etc. for items. And, tbh, raids and WoW quests are much more engaging and fun (and I say that as a current non WoW subscriber).

Art? You may take UO graphics over WoW graphics, but I'm pointing out the fact that most people (not you, but overall here) will choose WoW graphics over UO graphics. You may hate WoW graphics, and that is fine. But if we are attempting to build something to get more customers into UO, your personal opinion, one that is not the majority, is nil.

UO has housing, WoW doesn't. That is, imo, a strong selling point.

You don't have to spend 18 hours a week to stay current with the gear. In wow, if you don't play for a few months you come back and people call and treat you like a "Scrub." In UO, I'm still using gear I got 5 years ago. That's simply not possible in a game like wow.

I can log into UO and still be competitive (with 30-60 minutes a week) without having to spend 18-80 hours a week like I would have to do with WoW. And, I didn't even mention daily quests and/or gathering which would take additional time in WoW.

"All the same things you note are also criticisms railed at UO."

Good job at lumping everything together in a single sentence like that.

You really DO NOT KNOW ELITISM until you've played wow or interacted with some of those "top players." Then, you'll realize how bad it really is. I've ***never*** in 14 years experienced that same type of atmosphere/attitude in UO.

People don't play UO for 400 days of total game time. In a few years people are going to be looking at 800 days of total game spent between their man and their alts.

WoW's graphics are getting creaky and old. It's only a matter of time. UO and WoW's graphics are both going to look old to everyone.

Have you ever seen that Death Knight starting zone in WoW? I logged in and it looked horribly outdated and that was just made a few years ago. The clock is ticking on games like wow. It's remaining life of being at the top are numbered before the next MMO with it's "shiny new" graphics comes out.

When it comes to playing with an old engine and especially with time considerations I choose UO.

At least with UO, they are trying to improve the graphics. They've already said with WoW that they have no intention of revamping the graphics because it wouldn't look "right" to players.

 

[canary]

You don't have to spend 18 hours a week to stay current with the gear. In wow, if you don't play for a few months you come back and people call and treat you like a "Scrub." In UO, I'm still using gear I got 5 years ago. That's simply not possible in a game like wow.

I'm sure your skin is thick enough you can survive the insults. rolleyes:

You'd get teased possibly in UO if you went around only choosing to fight in Greymist armor.

 

[Kaladin]

I'm sure your skin is thick enough you can survive the insults. rolleyes:

You'd get teased possibly in UO if you went around only choosing to fight in Greymist armor.

From the armor and weapons I've seen people use, I still have pretty damn good stuff. Yes. I can show screenshots.

 

[Woodsman]

At least with UO, they are trying to improve the graphics. They've already said with WoW that they have no intention of revamping the graphics because it wouldn't look "right" to players.

They also have no incentive too - with 12 million players who accept the graphics as they are and work starting on their next MMO, they are in a good position.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

I am in a quandry over this, Radian.
I have been really enjoying this discussion. Any discussion that makes me think is awesome to me, and this has been a good one.
However we're at a point where we're just going to be repeating what we've already said in disagreement of one another without finding a common ground, which is about the point where discussion becomes argument, and arguing on the internet is not awesome to me
So, I shall take my leave (again)

Strange as it may sound, I hope we can do this again some time

I'll take a liberty and say that Radian's "point" about graphics, can probably be best shown with "pictures"

IF I can use off the shelf technology
and do this


[youtube]4sCnFSgrf1g[/youtube]

Then the grand graphics wizards of EA ... should be able to deliver
on a bug free platform

THIS

No Excuses ... Please!

after 13 years ... it would be insulting (all around) to allow as to why LESS is present.
Or to try and justify why the AI is soooo remiss in the npc's
not to mention "the mobs" lack of evolution re: spawners and loot tables ...
Or the long promised (as a base principle/theme) "the virtues"
A King ...
A vast empire of "game play" lays barren without a "King" and a court of nobels
Palace intrigue, petty baronial wars/conflicts ... a "Great Darkness" to war against
what do we gots: ?
board drama is the "best we can do" ...
and usually of late ... that "drama" is about the griefing of blues ... oh my ...

All rolls back to a lack of direction ...
Ironically, there is a skill in the game called "focus" ...
and "progress" in the real world shows lack of same.

No Excuses ... Please!
Need some help?
Take some aspects "open source" ... just like the EC UI >is<
Need a "system overhaul"? Which one? Layout the block diagram of the process flow ...
we'll throw back more than one >viable< variation ... complete with hooks for interlinking.
need to batch process the entire library of graphics assets?
craft a batch file widget for prep and manipulation ...
we already have "original prints" to work against
Make a competition/contest ... everyone wins from mass participation.

We create worlds ... okay ...
needs some polish ... got a rag?
I gots the spit and elbow grease
and an entire population to recruit from for assistance
and inspiration.

How is it that "some new thang" gets created in a brainstorm
sketched/scripted out in its software format
Put through its "hello world" compilation into "the world"
run through the inhouse Q&A
Then the TC ... then Origin ... and is then released
with a "bug"
and is NOT pulled within 1 day of verification? (sooner) ???
No Excuses ... Please!

How about "community building"?
'tain't like it is "impossible" to pick up and move entire houses ... to a beach somewhere ...
*ahem*
Need some help with the "definitional difference" twixt Persistant and Permanent?
How about the concept: "Interactive" ?
Open sourced referendum on the creation of "property rights" and
forcible eviction ... comon ... player Justice anyone?
No Excuses ... Please!

Single minded purpose.

Single minded? Lord o Lord like mammal's in a skinner box
Repetitively flipping a lever ... pushing a button
to get a bit of corn down the chute of the RNG ...
*light* -click- /bing!/ ... pixel crack has been rewarded
"You Pwnzers player! would you like to play again?"

ooooo yes! my precious; I have friends! to share my treasures with!
*light* -click- /bing!/ ... pixel crack has been rewarded
"You Pwnzers player! would you like to play again?"
oooo yessssss
*light* -click-
*light* -click-
*light* -click-
*light* -click-
*light* -click-
its gots stuffs !

No Excuses ... Please!