|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
Underworld Ascendant - New Save System
December 19th, 2018, 01:04
Bail faster, ye scurvey dogs. Arrgh.
| +1: |
December 19th, 2018, 15:27
Originally Posted by TheMadGamerI couldn't have said better man
I'm in the middle of playing the original Ultima Underworld using the unity mod. I put in maybe 10 hours into Underworld Ascendant. They can patch that game until the pigs fly UA does not play like the original UU. The original UU is a real place, a world underground and it changes as you progress. There are NPCs with interesting things to say along with factions that have their own interests. The two games feel nothing alike.
Watchdog
| +1: |
December 21st, 2018, 15:08
I'm waiting for all the patches before I play my backer copy of this game. My hope is this will be a great game once all patched up like No Mans Sky did. Ultima was my favorite dungeon rpg back in the day :-)
December 21st, 2018, 15:54
That's my plan, exactly. I usually wait quite a bit these days before exploring a newly released game, but this one I might give an entire year or so. I think that they've made some good updates and I'll be waiting to see what they do next to improve things. It can never be as good as the classics were to me, but perhaps it can be somewhere in the ball park.
SasqWatch
December 21st, 2018, 16:05
Lazy_dog
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin 2 Donor
Original Sin 2 Donor
December 22nd, 2018, 00:27
YES, because you'll read about it HERE!!
--
If God said it, then that settles it!!
Editor@RPGWatch
If God said it, then that settles it!!
Editor@RPGWatch
December 23rd, 2018, 19:22
I still can't decide if this is a case of ultra incompetence or deception - but you kinda have to laugh a little when a developer is making a feature list out of a standard set of save game features - like it hasn't been the standard for decades.
Guest
December 27th, 2018, 19:43
Originally Posted by Darth TagnanMy impression is they got really bogged down with the physics based game play and every other aspect of the game suffered, including basic stuff like saving. It's a real disappointment. I am a huge fan of UU1 and 2 and was looking forward to an interesting world to explore. This is the first crowdfunded game I backed that really bit me, I contributed $300 and that stings a bit.
I still can't decide if this is a case of ultra incompetence or deception - but you kinda have to laugh a little when a developer is making a feature list out of a standard set of save game features - like it hasn't been the standard for decades.
--
If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
December 27th, 2018, 21:16
I'm in similar straits, I truly had high hopes for the project, and I thought it would be a glorious way to revisit two older games. Right now though, on top of knowing that the game isn't truly finished, I'm more concerned about the utter disappointment that might hit me when I first attempt to play the thing. When I pledged to the project, it may have been the quickest pledge agreement I've ever done, based on hope alone.
SasqWatch
| +1: |
December 28th, 2018, 00:31
I haven't touched it since it was released and won't try it again until after Update 2 in February. That said, the fix list for the first update released a few days ago is quite expansive.
Spoiler – Full changelog
December 28th, 2018, 04:42
I totally agree JDR, and it's seeing a huge patch/fix full of real impacting changes that gives me hope for the future. I'll gladly wait another six months, heck, take a whole bloody year if you like, if they continue to improve the game I will hold off playing with a smile on my face, and keep hoping for the best.
SasqWatch
December 28th, 2018, 11:06
Originally Posted by TheMadGamerA lot of the physics can be handled relatively easily by Unity - so I'd be surprised if that was the problem. Even if they wanted more sophistication, they should have been able to implement it without too much work.
My impression is they got really bogged down with the physics based game play and every other aspect of the game suffered, including basic stuff like saving. It's a real disappointment. I am a huge fan of UU1 and 2 and was looking forward to an interesting world to explore. This is the first crowdfunded game I backed that really bit me, I contributed $300 and that stings a bit.
But I don't want to speculate too hard on this.
I don't really dwell on failures - and it's, by far, not the only game I've backed that turned out less than expected.
My "success" ratio in terms of backing games is still pretty decent, and this is just another lesson learned about not trusting "old veterans" blindly - which I probably did, in this case.
Guest
December 28th, 2018, 20:34
Originally Posted by Darth TagnanWhat I mean by "focusing on the physics" is they put a great deal of emphasis on players being able to solve problems in a variety of ways which in this game means using the various physics the game employs.
A lot of the physics can be handled relatively easily by Unity - so I'd be surprised if that was the problem. Even if they wanted more sophistication, they should have been able to implement it without too much work.
It's not a bad idea. However, my impression is that this bogged them down a great deal and retarded efforts with other aspects of game play.
I loaded up the original UU and I'm currently playing it using the Unity mod. The atmosphere of the original UU is what you want to capture in a remake. The sense of danger, a persistent world, exploration and discovery, and the various factions of the inhabitants.
I've put about 10 hours into UA and my view at this point is that they can patch this game until cows fly, it's not going to capture the atmosphere. Revisiting the same levels again and again with everything resetting… bleh… it's just awful.
I hope I'm wrong… but with $300 worth of "horse in the race" it's a bit of a letdown at this point.
--
If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
December 28th, 2018, 20:47
Originally Posted by TheMadGamerYeah, I think I got that. But, as I said, it shouldn't have been that hard to accomplish.
What I mean by "focusing on the physics" is they put a great deal of emphasis on players being able to solve problems in a variety of ways which in this game means using the various physics the game employs.
We're talking pretty seasoned developers with 3 years and an engine that's very well suited for the job - given their low target for fidelity and performance.
It's not a bad idea. However, my impression is that this bogged them down a great deal and retarded efforts with other aspects of game play.Well, you might be right - it's not like I actually know. But I use Unity myself - and you can implement relatively sophisticated physics surprisingly easily - for the most part. I mean, you can't magically make things burn with a button click - but you do get a lot of help in terms of basic physical forces.
I loaded up the original UU and I'm currently playing it using the Unity mod. The atmosphere of the original UU is what you want to capture in a remake. The sense of danger, a persistent world, exploration and discovery, and the various factions of the inhabitants.Agreed.
I've put about 10 hours into UA and my view at this point is that they can patch this game until cows fly, it's not going to capture the atmosphere. Revisiting the same levels again and again with everything resetting… bleh… it's just awful.I very much agree with this.
I hope I'm wrong… but with $300 worth of "horse in the race" it's a bit of a letdown at this point.
I have enough experience with games to recognise a "totally broken turd" when I see one. With this, I more or less had to give up all hope upon seeing the beta for the first time.
Of course, I've learned that games really CAN change from beta to release - even if it's exceedingly rare.
However, playing the release version - I'm 99.9% sure this game will never - ever - capture ANYTHING like the original UU.
Forget the fact that it doesn't evolve anything in any way - it doesn't even partially meet a game that's 26 years old!
As I said, I don't like to dwell on failures. But my "gut" and my experience tells me something went wrong here in a way that's beyond the usual over-reaching and mild incompetence.
I can't say whether it was deceitful and intentional - or if Neurath really is a completely inept dunce who never really contributed anything of value to the old Looking Glass games in terms of game development.
I don't see much in the way of alternate explanations, though.
That's what I meant by blind trust on my part. I made the mistake of assuming Neurath was "Looking Glass" level material, even though I never actually followed his work - unlike how I followed Levine and, say, Doug Church.
Which is why I will be extra careful backing games from "veterans" in the future, except when I have significant insight into their motivation and skill-set.
Guest
| +1: |
December 29th, 2018, 04:56
Originally Posted by Darth TagnanThat's what got me with both UA and SotA… went ahead with the blind trust in "seasoned developers" thinking remakes would be a slam dunk and to the tune of $600 I've had to learn that isn't the case. Anyway, from now on, at least for me, contributing to a crowd funder that markets itself with "seasoned professional X is involved" will have zero value to me from here on out.
That's what I meant by blind trust on my part. I made the mistake of assuming Neurath was "Looking Glass" level material, even though I never actually followed his work - unlike how I followed Levine and, say, Doug Church.
--
If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
| +1: |
December 29th, 2018, 06:18
Originally Posted by TheMadGamerLately I find I agree with you TheMadGamer.
That's what got me with both UA and SotA… went ahead with the blind trust in "seasoned developers" thinking remakes would be a slam dunk and to the tune of $600 I've had to learn that isn't the case. Anyway, from now on, at least for me, contributing to a crowd funder that markets itself with "seasoned professional X is involved" will have zero value to me from here on out.

Can't add much that you haven't said already except it's shameful when an unknown small developer with a third of their project earnings makes a better game.
--
“Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.”
“Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.”
| +1: |
December 29th, 2018, 11:14
Originally Posted by TheMadGamerYeah, I know what you mean. 300$ is also a very large amount - so I can certainly see how it might hurt even more.
That's what got me with both UA and SotA… went ahead with the blind trust in "seasoned developers" thinking remakes would be a slam dunk and to the tune of $600 I've had to learn that isn't the case. Anyway, from now on, at least for me, contributing to a crowd funder that markets itself with "seasoned professional X is involved" will have zero value to me from here on out.
The only game I've backed at that level and beyond is Star Citizen - but, in that case, it's very much a case of knowing the skill-set of the key people involved and agreeing with the leads in terms of what they're doing every step of the way (at least, so far). Certainly, I'm very confident it will be worth my money - and then some.
I didn't back Star Citizen for more than a year, because I was so sceptical they could pull it off. After hundreds of interviews and videos involving the people in charge - I became convinced it was worth a great deal of support. Here's hoping I'm not wrong

For UA and SotA - I just backed them and didn't pay much attention until they were nearly finished. I prefer to not spoil myself following development too closely - even if I can't always help myself.
I can't even remember how much I backed them for. I think SotA was around 100$ and UA probably the same.
I will say, though, that SotA has improved lately - and it's not what I would consider a spectacular failure on the same level as UA. It's more like a really, really underwhelming and mediocre result - based on the Garriott pedigree.
But it's not really about the money for me. I'm fully aware that I'm taking a chance - and even if Star Citizen ends up being a failure against my expectations, the money won't be a factor in my disappointment.
I have this rule for myself that I never back something unless I'm already ok with it being a failure.
I think that's what you have to do - to keep this funding model alive.
That's because I very much want to keep crowd-funding around. I still see it as the only potential escape from the way capitalism has all but strangled creativity and daring in modern gaming.
I mean, when I see the kind of mainstream no-challenge and ancient game design games being declared best of all time these days, I almost shed a tear. If RDR2 and W3 is the best we can do in terms of gameplay, then it's a sad world indeed.
Don't get me wrong, I really like both games - and consider them good to great. But 10/10 - best of the best? Not even close to being in the vicinity of being close to that.
Guest
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:50.

