Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

KickStarter Shroud of the Avatar - Lord British's Not-Ultima Online 2

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,752
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
SotA_TimberStone_Basement_5_Floors_small30d95f.jpg
This is simply ridiculous...

To be fair, this could be really useful if the game has special functions for different rooms. for instance you might need a room to craft magic items, another to scribe spells in your spell book, another to work as a smithy, etc.
 

Stabwound

Arcane
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,240
Wow, I was about to say that I respect Richard for sticking to what seemed to be good intentions with the game, and then I see this shit. He's first and foremost a huckster and always has been. He's probably laughing with his buddies right now about how he's selling virtual real estate to people that see him as actual royalty.
 

Zep Zepo

Titties and Beer
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
5,233
taxalot ,

Thanks for getting in there and taking one for Team Codex!

I finally watched it (Still trying to scrub the "Fire Blotus" image from my retinas (retenae?)


What I came away with.

RG: Really, you single players are really, really, REALLY gonna like
Single Player Online.(wut?) (Shoots out mind controlling rays while real money store cash registers ring the the background. Joyful Dollar Sign tears fall, dripping from his eyes)

And that was pretty much it.

Zep--
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
14,022
Location
Platypus Planet
But there will always be fags who will tell you that this is what Ultima was always about, not the adventure or virtues etc. but the ability to chop virtual wood and make dragon dildos.
 

Humanophage

Arcane
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
5,058
I don't intend to check out this game, but housing worked really well in Ultima Online. It would be good if it were re-introduced to the genre.

Housing was a way for players to leave a visible impact on the world around them. There is no way you can leave any lasting mark on the world in games like WoW, KOTOR, or Everquest II. Nor can you see any marks that other players left. If you play alone, these games could well be single-player, apart from the auctions.

Houses were important to practically every aspect of the game, be it economy (vendors), exploration (marked runes from which you can teleport), PvP (safe haven for PKs), PvM, crafting, chatting, or RP. You could have player towns, popular shops, player-killer strongholds, crafting centres, libraries of teleportation runes, libraries of books, etc.

Comparing it to The Sims is as inadequate as saying that a game which features talking is trying to copy a chat.
 
Last edited:

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,802
I don't intend to check out this game, but housing worked really well in Ultima Online. It would be good if it were re-introduced to the genre.

Housing was a way for players to leave a visible impact on the world around them. There is no way you can leave any lasting mark on the world in games like WoW, KOTOR, or Everquest II. Nor can you see any marks that other players left. If you play alone, these games could well be single-player, apart from the auctions.

Houses were important to practically every aspect of the game, be it economy (vendors), exploration (marked runes from which you can teleport), PvP (safe haven for PKs), PvM, crafting, chatting, or RP. You could have player towns, popular shops, player-killer strongholds, crafting centres, libraries of teleportation runes, libraries of books, etc.

Comparing it to The Sims is as inadequate as saying that a game which features talking is trying to copy a chat.

none of that matters to players who want a single player experience, but it was obvious from the start that Garriott liked the extra-money from fools
 

BigWeather

Augur
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
271
Well, I ended up pledging at the level that got me some physical goods (particularly a cloth map) because I'm a sucker for that sort of thing and I have lots of nostalgia for Ultima. I'll be playing (and evaluating) this game solely on the single-player experience, and most likely completely off-line at that, provided by the base game -- no purchases (including real estate and such) from me. Hopefully it'll capture a bit of the magic to make it worth the purchase.
 

BigWeather

Augur
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
271
Yeah, not that impressed so far. Of course we still don't have any idea about the game, as this release just focused on wandering around and looking at housing. I guess we do get to see a little bit of the conversation system and I do like that it is keyword based, at least. Never been a fan of the U7/UO bag system, shame that is here as well.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,436
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Controversy in New Britannia: http://ultimacodex.com/2014/02/on-t...ar-pledges-or-how-to-become-an-early-founder/

On the Purchasing and Gifting of Shroud of the Avatar Pledges, Or How To Become an Early Founder
WtF Dragon February 3, 2014 Shroud of the Avatar

So late last week, someone by the name of Xaeos put up a lengthy post over at Hardforum, in which he claimed to be able to provide “Special Founder Edition” pledges for Shroud of the Avatar “at cost”. Basically, he was offering to let people who hadn’t pledged to Shroud of the Avatar do so a) at Early Founder1 prices, b) without attaching his own processing fee, to that c) these new backers might receive Early Founder rewards rather than Benefactor2 rewards.

Let’s just clarify the terminology a bit:
  1. Early Founders are those who pledged to Shroud of the Avatar prior to May 20th, 2013…basically, Kickstarter backers and the first group of people that backed the game through its website. Early Founders not only paid a bit less for their respective pledge levels than Benefactors (e.g. $40 for the basic “Adventurer” pledge level, instead of $45). Early Founders also get several exclusive items, some of which have Benefactor equivalents and some of which are exclusive. Founders also take priority over Benefactors in terms of e.g. in-game lot selection and house placement.
  2. Benefactors are those who pledged to Shroud of the Avatar after May 20th, 2013. It was at this time that pledge level prices increased (in some cases by a bit, and in other cases by a significant amount), so in general Benefactors have paid more than Early Founders for…almost the same in-game rewards. I say “almost” there because Benefactor-specific reward items (and houses) often differ aesthetically from Early Founder reward items (and houses). Additionally, there are certain rewards that Benefactors simply do not receive.
Given the above, I’m sure you can all well imagine that there has been more than a little bit of “Founder vs. Benefactor” tension on the Shroud of the Avatar forums, as well as in its IRC chat. Especially because some people have sunk a considerable amount of money into their SotA pledge, the distinctions — little and large — between what an Early Founder gets at a particular reward tier and what a Benefactor gets at the same (or equivalent) tier have provoked numerous arguments, and more than a few feelings of bitterness.

But I digress. Let’s return to the matter of Xaeos and his post on Hardforum. Because you see…it wasn’t a scam. What he was offering was something he was — and still is, actually — legitimately able to do. As an Early Founder of the game himself, he could send Early Founder pledges (at Early Founder prices) to other people using the pledge gifting system that Portalarium had put in place. And so, if you sent him the money to do so, he would gladly set you up with an Early Founder pledge of your choosing. And the reason he wasn’t charging anything extra for doing so was because for each gift pledge he sent out, his own pledge toShroud of the Avatar would receive a $25 bonus.

Sure, there’s plenty of room to dispute the ethicality of Xaeos’ methods. What he’s doing doesn’t really feel right somehow, even though there are no technical hurdles in place to prevent it, and even though the system in place at the Shroud of the Avatar website was actually designed to let him do what he is doing. Or, well…it sort of is designed for it. Here…let’s let Starr Long explain the intent of the system as it exists today:

During our Kickstarter campaign we got numerous requests from the community to allow the purchase of multiple pledges on a single account so they could purchase pledges for friends and family. We added that ability and included it in the one year grace period at the end of the Kickstarter campaign (https://www.kickstarter.com/project…of-the-avatar-forsaken-virtues-0/posts/448973). The intent of this functionality was purely for that type of social philanthropy.​

Recently, we fixed a bug where the purchase of additional Founder pledges was at Benefactor pricing and this raised this issue to a more public discussion. We do realize that there is potential for abuse in that system but we cannot go back on this promise we made to our 22K+ Founders. We can and will however police any abuse of this system that we see. Specifically, if you observe individuals charging other players a fee to receive a Founder pledge please send a ticket to support@portalarium.com and we will address the situation.

We realize that this can feel like it sets up an unfair situation where those of you who are Benefactors, and heavily invested, would see others receive Founder status when you cannot. However, we also hope you realize that you now have a tool that lets you network with the community to upgrade your pledge to Founder status by finding a willing Founder patron. That patron can gift / transfer you a Founder pledge before the cutoff date which you can then merge with your existing Benefactor pledge to turn it into a Founder pledge.

So, looking at what Xaeos is doing, there’s really no…room to complain about it, except (again) at some ethical level (perhaps). He’s operating within the limitations articulated by Starr Long, and would probably (given the above) defend his actions as a massive exercise in social philanthropy. Granted, he’s probably made a tidy sum off of the referral bonuses, and I think it’s this more than anything that gives rise to the ethical dubiousness of his actions…but even so, from a purely technical standpoint, what he’s doing is legitimate.

Moreover, note too the end of Starr’s post:

That patron can gift / transfer you a Founder pledge before the cutoff date which you can then merge with your existing Benefactor pledge to turn it into a Founder pledge.​

Well, as you can well imagine, a market for Early Founder pledge upgrades sprang up on theShroud of the Avatar forums within a couple of hours of Starr writing that. Some people are offering to do the same basic thing that Xaeos is (that is: set you up with an Early Founder pledge, for which you reimburse them the exact amount and not a cent more). Some are offering a bit of a cut rate on pledge gifting (e.g. an “Adventurer” pledge for $30 instead of $40). I suppose the theory there is that in the end, all they’re really doing is cutting their referral reward from $25 to $15, saving them some money versus increasing their pledge total entirely out of their own funds.

Either way…if you’re a Benefactor looking to upgrade to Early Founder status, there’s now a veritable marketplace full of people just waiting to help you out with that.

Unsurprisingly, not everyone is happy about this turn of events, although people can’t seem to agree whether it’s the extant Benefactors or those who actually pledged prior to May 20th, 2013 — the “true” Early Founders, I suppose one might say, for lack of a more descriptive term — who get the raw end of this deal.

Personally, I think this is a bit disappointing to see…and by that, I am mostly referring to the upgrade marketplace and the rapidity with which it sprang up. The idea of referral rewards, in the form of pledge upgrades, was arguably a good one…and I don’t think Portalarium could have done much to improve on their execution of that idea. But as with any human-facing system, people turned what could — should — have been an exercise in (as Starr Long puts it so well) social philanthropy into something…greedier. I suppose the prices of obtaining real estate and housing has something to do with that in turn, and indeed that’s a wholly different controversy that I’ll have to write a primer on at some point.

Fortunately, this whole controversy will go away in early April; come April 8th, all gifted pledges will have Benefactor status, and the list of who is and isn’t an Early Founder will be locked in and final. Until then…we can expect to see more of the above.

Which, admittedly, has had one positive outcome: Shroud of the Avatar had a couple of quite excellent days of fundraising over the weekend.
 

Delicieuxz

Cipher
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
558
I didn't engage any of the Ultiima's in their day, and I still haven't played them more than a cursory loading of VII to watch the intro and feel an aversion to the graphical look.

Shroud of the Avatar seemed to be on people's dis-approval sides earlier on, apparently not living up to the name, and Garriot's contemporary potential has been read as questionable, given his near-history products.

I'm interested in Shroud of the Avatar, but I'd like to know what current impressions are. I'm subscribed to the mailing list and have seen a lot of updates since earlier naysaying impressions were impressed to me.

Listening to the Garriot interview recently posted on these forums, it sounds like the games have an amazing amount of player choice influencing all quests and their outcomes - something that is virtually absent in most modern RPGs. That sounds exciting, and I'd hope that this characteristic would be present and core in Shroud of the Avatar.

What do people think of the current state, and the promise and potential of the game? Is this shaping to be a game that bears resemblance in elements to the Ultima games that made the brand's fame?
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom