V
Vyal
Guest
3D UO BABY
Sign it -
First goal is 100 Sigs!
Sign it -
First goal is 100 Sigs!
I Don't know much about UO2 but i heard it would be better then UO is today and SA will be I only have one problem I don't want to start over from scratch i invested over 7 years into UO so i would only sign this if i could transfer all my charcters and items to it then again why not just convert UO to UO2 so no one loses there characters or items or houses at least and go from there.3D UO BABY
Sign it -
Because UO2 would be a new and different game, you wouldn't see that. That's like asking to transfer characters from UO to Warhammer Online. Just because it'd be a sequel doesn't mean it's the same in everything but graphics.I Don't know much about UO2 but i heard it would be better then UO is today and SA will be I only have one problem I don't want to start over from scratch i invested over 7 years into UO so i would only sign this if i could transferfer all my charcters and items to it then again why not just convert UO to UO2 so no one loses there characters or items or houses at least and go from there.
Content was never UO's strong point. It was always the freedom and the tools that were made available to you.You're all assuming it would have all the content UO currently has in it. Would you sign it if it only has, say, a 4th of the content? Be a bit realistic and understand UO's depth of content came over 11 years of development. The idea is nice, but how many UO players would be disappointed with it?
Content was never UO's strong point. It was always the freedom and the tools that were made available to you.
If you were here at launch, you probably don't remember, but you couldn't even have HOUSES at that point, (Or maybe you could, but not keeps/castles, etc. - my memory is a bit rusty) let alone customize it. And only 1 land mass - Fellucca. From that bare-bones start, UO expanded.
The tools a sequel gives to players to create it's own content is far more valuable than static content created by the developers. It fosters community and creativity. That is what keeps UO going, at least in my opinion.
Add into that modern graphics and programming techniques, and you won't need a lot of "content" from the get-go - Just the tools to let users make their own adventures.
More to do is not the same as content. More to do is what I meant by freedom. Your defining "content" differently than you should be, I believe. Here's a quick and dirty fictional example.Content was never UO's strong point? There is more to do in UO than any other MMO. When you hear returning players, that is often what they site as a reason for missing the game. You yourself talk about freedom and much of that freedom is based on a large number of things to do in-game.
Who said anything about fresh and new? I want the fundamentals that made UO great brought up-to-date in a way that a simple client change can't fix.11 years later, there are thousands of MMOs. You'll never have that wow factor that UO had in the beginning because it won't be new as it was back then. It will never feel that fresh and new.
The problem here is, you think the community is fine the way it is. This is a difference of opinion.Community is a huge part of UO, I agree, but how will the community carry over into a new game?
The way I look at it, the tools we have now would be added in over time, just like they were with the current UO. I'd be more than happy to start back before all of these "tools" existed and wait for them to come as needed, hopefully improved in ways that the current UO simply wouldn't allow.You talk about having the tools to do things for yourself in-game, but that is my point. If they created a new game, they wouldn't be able to redevelop all the content of UO into the new game. What gets left out? What if the things that get left out sorely disappoint old UO players?
True of each and every game that will be ever be made, ever. There is no escaping this. More to the point, some people complain that OTHER games STILL can't do what UO does.This board is full of complaints about the smallest thing. Can you imagine the complaints for a UO2? "Why can I do this in an ancient 11 year old game, but I can't do it in a brand new UO?"
It may be smaller in scope, but not necessarily smaller in difficulty. The argument has been made REPEATEDLY in these forums why KR was a failure, and it was in no small part due to the fact that the legacy client code, the back end server code, EVERYTHING is a pile of spaghetti.Finally, look at how KR went. It's a smaller scope project than starting UO over from scratch, yet it still didn't fare too well.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. No one knows for sure. But then again, it wasn't a sure thing that an MMO based on an RTS would be successful.I'm just not sold that UO2 would succeed as everyone imagines.
+1 on that. I've only been in DF for a few hours now but its easy to see its everything that UO2 would be. It felt immediately like UO and not like the other new level-based MMOs.I thought UO2 = Darkfall Online??
Of course though, while Darkfall has all the great freedom and PvP aspects of UO, and more aspects that UO never had..... The game lacks depth, there is no wildlife, big empty world, no taming, no musicianship/provoking type skills, can't own a pet, no NPC hirelings, no housing, you can build houses when you build a player city, and there really is no clothes for you to wear either..
But the game reminds me a lot of UO in many ways..![]()
I...think that IS content.Content was never UO's strong point. It was always the freedom and the tools that were made available to you.
/shrugI...think that IS content.
Yeah they started on UO2 years back then scrapped it.Sorry guys, never going to happen.![]()
Actually when the folks developing it got the word it was canceled and they were being let go, they burnt all the development notes.Id love to see this /sign
however, im sure all the progress got lost when they stopped development on it and moved offices, it was never seen again apparently!