While not explicitly wrong, it's more than a little dishonest to review a game and not put a disclaimer in that you are on the development team. In fact, that might actually pull people in ("Hey, this developer appears to care! Maybe I should try it...")
> If you liked UO and EQ1 before all the nonesense, then this is for you.
As a person who played those, not sure what they are talking about. Admittedly, I played very little of UO but I played a ton of EQ1. The game at release was what TVTropes calls "Nintendo Hard". It was punishing. You really had to want it. And that was one reason WoW destroyed it as it literally took the list of gripes people had with the game and addressed each one. And then EQ1, once their market share went from 75%ish to 25% in a year, drastically changed many mechanics to address what people had asked for.
People don't have time for EQ1 type mechanics these days and the average player won't have the desire to spend so much time on it. There's a reason Progressquest was created and it wasn't because grinding was fun and easy.
/u/radi_v + /u/rune_74
hell, the steam description today is still
<em>"It is the spiritual successor to Richard Garriott’s Ultima games"</em>
..."Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues is a multiplayer fantasy RPG and the spiritual successor to Richard Garriott’s wildly successful Ultima and Ultima Online games."
..."Shroud of the Avatar is developed by the veteran Portalarium team that includes Richard "Lord British" Garriott, the creator of the Ultima series, Starr Long, the original Director of Ultima Online"
..."As a revival of the classical in-depth RPG, Shroud of the Avatar binds together many of the key features that made the Ultima series so popular:"
The question starts at 1 hour in exactly. They go to prizes for a moment, but return to the question at 1 hour 8 minutes 45 seconds.
He initially says he only interacted with 5 or 6 people and that what he is saying doesn't represent everyone on reddit.
"People not playing the game" was a reference to the comments on this mmorpg article, not reddit. http://www.mmorpg.com/shroud-of-the-avatar/news/limited-free-trial-through-march-9th-1000043445#vanilla-comments
Starr agrees that there are some people that talk trash without playing the game, but says there is a lot of valid feedback.
Also I think Atos says "Never play the game" - not implying that they don't own it, but played it on an old release and they haven't come back to it.
Also worth checking out Tyranny if you're in to P:T. It has more mixed reviews than the games /u/Tinnis_ mentioned but it's worth reading those reviews to see if you agree with them.
Take a look at just how the free trial is already going on
Look at this reddit. If we post on the SoTA forums it comes under attack, posts being deleted, or being banned. People have tried giving feedback to SoTA for so very long and we aren't being heard. Hence why the reviews, such as Steam, are no down in the 50% positive range. That isn't healthy.
In all honesty you should make a post on Reddit where we can ask you questions.
I downloaded the latest patches today and am currently on it. And I can tell you there are so very many things that are just wrong with this game that are being voiced by many other people.
Well, it actually largely depends on how you choose to define "carnality". If you look at the Merriam-Webster definition of "carnal", for example, you can see that both definitions are valid. It can either mean pertaining to sensual bodily pleasure, particularly sexual, or simply bodily, as in the sense not spiritual. The second definition would work as a reasonable antithesis to Spirituality, but, obviously, it is the first one that brings the rather unfortunate connotations.
I'm actually fine with them calling it "Carnality", it is more or less the correct word to use, but if they choose to do so, they need to clearly emphasize that they do not mean this in a pleasure-stigmatizing, prudish way, but as a simple antithesis to Spirituality. In other words, an all-excluding preoccupation with the material world and material concerns.
Wrong again. MMORPG this one they came in 9th place in 2016. So no they were not the greatest ones unless you ignore the other games and just leave that. But again your ignoring everything you can to make yourself look good.
For that to be vitriol, you'll need to point out how those judgement statements wrap up violence or hate.
> There is a skill cap, soft and hard
What is the total Hard cap on points that may be allocated to skills?
For example, in Ultima Online the Hard Cap is 720. What is SOTA's?
> Your opinion isnt considering the sandbox nature of sota
Balancing of combat encounters isn't a sandbox specific issue. It doesn't change whether you are playing FFXIV, SOTA or Dungeons and Dragons at a kitchen table.
> or the consideration of further episodes.
Clearly my stance is that future episodes/expansions may cause older content to become more trivial and I am OK with that. What I think is worth criticism is when content is still 'current' and it is trivialised through lack of a meaningful skill cap,
> Soloing encounters is definitly inevitable and I dont see why you need to argue about it
Achieving this through mechanics that are so straight forward as to allow circle strafing and abusing bad AI pathing to be viable strategies as why I '*feel the need to discuss' on a *discussion board.
If you're not OK with hearing other peoples opinions, don't post on a public board.
This review shares a lot with what I think:
Clunky would be pretty accurate. I even mentioned years ago that the UI was bad and was told it was a placeholder. It seems to be still being held.
I find it really funny, but sad in a way that Baron Drocis is calling it out as well as those that agree with it.
Yes Drocis, it is clunky. We have been saying that for years. It is brutal what you get away with.