Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues

[BruceVC]

 

What rumours would that be? It's been reported in wired quite a few months ago that he has the 7 million for this game already?

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/07/ultima-forever/

 

"Garriott’s current company Portalarium is also developing a spiritual successor to his past work called Ultimate RPG/New Britannia. The company said this week that it had secured $7 million from investors to support this and other game projects."

Well, that's a bummer. While it was clear that something like this would happen at some point, I don't know why it had to be Garriott to corrupt the KS model. Forsaken virtues alright

 

 

 

 

What rumours would that be? It's been reported in wired quite a few months ago that he has the 7 million for this game already?

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/07/ultima-forever/

 

"Garriott’s current company Portalarium is also developing a spiritual successor to his past work called Ultimate RPG/New Britannia. The company said this week that it had secured $7 million from investors to support this and other game projects."

Well, that's a bummer. While it was clear that something like this would happen at some point, I don't know why it had to be Garriott to corrupt the KS model. Forsaken virtues alright

 

I did not know that he already has 7M for the damned project.

 

This is going to make me re-think my pre-existing low tier pledge as there is nothing to feel guilty about!

 

If anything, Mr. Rocking the Rat's tail should be a little ashamed that unlike his friend Chris Roberts, he didn't cough up this info as part of the KS campaign.

 

Guys lets not jump to conclusions, there are many reasons that they could need additional funding through KS. I want to hear the official response from Richard Garriot around this before I say his KS campaign is disingenuous

[Sacred_Path]

Guys lets not jump to conclusions, there are many reasons that they could need additional funding through KS. I want to hear the official response from Richard Garriot around this before I say his KS campaign is disingenuous

In that case I'd expect him to be up front about i.e. the game needing more polish, or them needing more people because satisfying both offline and online players is demanding. Even one of the most ridiculed kickstarter campaigns, that of Grimoire, was upfront about the game being finished, but if you gave them moar moneez it would go towards very specific enhancements. 1mil actually seemed pretty low to me for a Garriott project, I was wondering about that all along.

[TSBasilisk]

That was Series A round funding. The money raised went into building the company and producing initial offerings; it couldn't last forever. Either they shopped SotA around and found no interest, or didn't want to risk it on publisher demands.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Guys lets not jump to conclusions, there are many reasons that they could need additional funding through KS. I want to hear the official response from Richard Garriot around this before I say his KS campaign is disingenuous

 

 

I agree that you can't jump to conclusions. It's why I said in my posts:

 

1. There's also been claims that the game is already funded with private investment of at least 7 million.

2. It's been reported in wired quite a few months ago that he has the 7 million for this game already?

 

My first point has the word 'claim'. It's not certain. My second point has a question mark at the end, asking a question? And I was referencing the wired news article from a few months ago. The 'evidence' doesn't look good.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

That was Series A round funding. The money raised went into building the company and producing initial offerings; it couldn't last forever. Either they shopped SotA around and found no interest, or didn't want to risk it on publisher demands.

 

 

The company has been around since 2009. http://www.portalarium.com/index.php/about

 

Isn't Series A funding more to do with start up companies? How much money did it need to 'build up' the company to make one game from KS? It seems there's more to it than that.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hurlshort]

Castles are not very energy efficient, so the money is probably going to pay the energy bill.  

 

7 million doesn't go very far when you look at his team, actually.  InExile and Obsidian have the benefit of being established studios with money already coming in from other projects to keep the doors open and the light on.  Plus they've developed some products already, nothing fancy, but it costs money to make anything.  If they said they secured funding from a publisher or something, then I would be worried.  This is from their website, btw:

 

We are pleased to recognize our leading investors in Portalarium. Their financial participation in the company has helped us raise $3.6 million dollars in the last two years, money that is currently being used to develop and launch Ultimate Collector: Garage Sale, as well as to further build out our technological platform and backend infrastructure.

[Luridis]

 

-It steals backers and pledge amounts from Torment

 

 

Do you realize how silly that sounds? Or, how it sounds? It sounds a lot like, "Torment should be the only Kickstarter allowed right now so that no one can steal from them." No, really, that's exactly what came to mind. People are grown ups, well mostly, and have the right to do as they choose with their disposable income. It's not exactly like the publishers are giving us much to throw money at, with debacles like the Sim City launch. I backed Torment and two other projects this week. And, I am now considering this one as well. The only one I held back on for a maximum pledge was Torment due to the lack of options in the 150-300 range.

 

What will I get for tossing a few sawbucks around? Hopefully a decent library of well made computer games between now and 2015. After all, there's not much to look forward to being announced by the Activisions, EAs and UBI softs of the world. And, with what they have decided are acceptable ways to treat their customers, I think I'll pass on their offerings; even if they look half decent. I've started to look at pledges as a pre-order of sorts. Sure, some of these crowdfunding projects might fail. But, losing my pledge is still far less an act of throwing good money after bad than would be buying the exciting new standards of mediocrity being sold off of store shelves presently.

Luridis, it was all written in good fun on my behalf, and your second paragraph here, I wholeheartedly agree with on this. As the rest of the list shows I'm annoyed that it is even considered for being a KS project. Like others have pointed out, it was already funded - it's just advertising. Also, I was, despite my age, perhaps a bit childish in feeling it stole the limelight and potential upped pledges from Torment, which I believe in a lot (too lot?). Basically, it was a statement based on emotioon rather than fact. I do get carried away sometimes, and this was one of those cases.

 

Oh... I didn't realize it was tongue-in-cheek.

 

But, as far as your comments on graphics... I just played through Dreamfall, a 2006 game that is obviously pretty far behind in graphics. But, I still enjoyed it immensely. We've sort of come to a point where the industry wants us to believe that graphics quality are a benchmark for a good game. It's an almost automatic way of thinking these days. But, I completely disagree with it. Graphics are important, yes but, not as important as they use to be. Video games have lost so much in the areas of narrative, challenge and game play that I'm more than willing to sacrifice cutting edge graphics at this point for the sake of those lost fundamentals.

 

Look at it this way... If you happened to play games back in the 1980's like I did, did you ever once think, "Oh my god these games suck because their graphics are so far from photo realistic?" I certainly never did. Because, back then, with 2D and sprites the norm, those other qualities are what made the game worth playing. And, to me, in contrast, today's games look great but, many of them just leave me with a feeling that they are shallow and unimaginative.

[alanschu]

 

We've sort of come to a point where the industry wants us to believe that graphics quality are a benchmark for a good game. It's an almost automatic way of thinking these days.

 

Is it the industry, or the general gaming population, that wants this?

 

I have been happy with graphics for a long time now but I feel like I am somewhat unique in this regard among my friends.  To be fair, too, there are certainly "old classics" that I have a hard time going back to due to how dated they look.  Nostalgia can help me look past it, but if it is a game I didn't play at the time, it can be hard sometimes.

[Keyrock]

 

We've sort of come to a point where the industry wants us to believe that graphics quality are a benchmark for a good game. It's an almost automatic way of thinking these days.

 

Is it the industry, or the general gaming population, that wants this?

 

I have been happy with graphics for a long time now but I feel like I am somewhat unique in this regard among my friends.  To be fair, too, there are certainly "old classics" that I have a hard time going back to due to how dated they look.  Nostalgia can help me look past it, but if it is a game I didn't play at the time, it can be hard sometimes.

Same here, while I'm certainly not opposed to beautiful graphics and they can certainly add to my experience, it's hardly the dominant benchmark I rate games by, in fact it's very far down the list.  Look at a game like Mount & Blade.  It looks like a PS2 game, yet I think it's a fantastic game.  I do ultimately think that it's in large part due to the general gaming public that TEH GRAFX seem to be so important these days, which is ironic since we've reached the point where a designer can put pretty much anything into a game and make it look believable and even have fine details.  How much more is is throwing however many more shader cores and vertex pipelines and such at our games going to enhance immersion and enjoyment?  In my opinion "flat" graphics are rapidly approaching maximum capacity.  The next level of immersion lies in virtual reality like Occulus Rift and such.

[Luridis]

 

We've sort of come to a point where the industry wants us to believe that graphics quality are a benchmark for a good game. It's an almost automatic way of thinking these days.

 

Is it the industry, or the general gaming population, that wants this?

 

I have been happy with graphics for a long time now but I feel like I am somewhat unique in this regard among my friends.  To be fair, too, there are certainly "old classics" that I have a hard time going back to due to how dated they look.  Nostalgia can help me look past it, but if it is a game I didn't play at the time, it can be hard sometimes.

 

 

 

 

We've sort of come to a point where the industry wants us to believe that graphics quality are a benchmark for a good game. It's an almost automatic way of thinking these days.

 

Is it the industry, or the general gaming population, that wants this?

 

I have been happy with graphics for a long time now but I feel like I am somewhat unique in this regard among my friends.  To be fair, too, there are certainly "old classics" that I have a hard time going back to due to how dated they look.  Nostalgia can help me look past it, but if it is a game I didn't play at the time, it can be hard sometimes.

Same here, while I'm certainly not opposed to beautiful graphics and they can certainly add to my experience, it's hardly the dominant benchmark I rate games by, in fact it's very far down the list.  Look at a game like Mount & Blade.  It looks like a PS2 game, yet I think it's a fantastic game.  I do ultimately think that it's in large part due to the general gaming public that TEH GRAFX seem to be so important these days, which is ironic since we've reached the point where a designer can put pretty much anything into a game and make it look believable and even have fine details.  How much more is is throwing however many more shader cores and vertex pipelines and such at our games going to enhance immersion and enjoyment?  In my opinion "flat" graphics are rapidly approaching maximum capacity.  The next level of immersion lies in virtual reality like Occulus Rift and such.

 

I meant in the general sense of things, from both the players and developers. I've seen plenty of game sites gripe about graphics not being cutting edge, and then the commenters agree en masse. Diablo 3 was a good example of that, "graphics look muddy" etc., when that was the absolute least of the game's troubles. Likewise, I've seen more than box with a fold open top and big bold lettering saying, "taken from in-game footage."

Edited March 14, 2013 by Luridis

[BruceVC]

 

We've sort of come to a point where the industry wants us to believe that graphics quality are a benchmark for a good game. It's an almost automatic way of thinking these days.

 

Is it the industry, or the general gaming population, that wants this?

 

I have been happy with graphics for a long time now but I feel like I am somewhat unique in this regard among my friends.  To be fair, too, there are certainly "old classics" that I have a hard time going back to due to how dated they look.  Nostalgia can help me look past it, but if it is a game I didn't play at the time, it can be hard sometimes.

 

 

 

 

We've sort of come to a point where the industry wants us to believe that graphics quality are a benchmark for a good game. It's an almost automatic way of thinking these days.

 

Is it the industry, or the general gaming population, that wants this?

 

I have been happy with graphics for a long time now but I feel like I am somewhat unique in this regard among my friends.  To be fair, too, there are certainly "old classics" that I have a hard time going back to due to how dated they look.  Nostalgia can help me look past it, but if it is a game I didn't play at the time, it can be hard sometimes.

Same here, while I'm certainly not opposed to beautiful graphics and they can certainly add to my experience, it's hardly the dominant benchmark I rate games by, in fact it's very far down the list.  Look at a game like Mount & Blade.  It looks like a PS2 game, yet I think it's a fantastic game.  I do ultimately think that it's in large part due to the general gaming public that TEH GRAFX seem to be so important these days, which is ironic since we've reached the point where a designer can put pretty much anything into a game and make it look believable and even have fine details.  How much more is is throwing however many more shader cores and vertex pipelines and such at our games going to enhance immersion and enjoyment?  In my opinion "flat" graphics are rapidly approaching maximum capacity.  The next level of immersion lies in virtual reality like Occulus Rift and such.

 

I have a limit with Graphics around what I can accept, so for example I played Torment recently and with the Wide Screen Mod that was fine. But anything worse than that I would battle with

[IndiraLightfoot]

Look at it this way... If you happened to play games back in the 1980's like I did, did you ever once think, "Oh my god these games suck because their graphics are so far from photo realistic?" I certainly never did. Because, back then, with 2D and sprites the norm, those other qualities are what made the game worth playing. And, to me, in contrast, today's games look great but, many of them just leave me with a feeling that they are shallow and unimaginative.

 

I was an avid gamer already back then. I played D&D on Intellivision (Cloudy Mountain), the Atari console, and I played Alley Cat etc in workplaces on the pc, and of course I played my Commodore 64 so hard, I had to get another one, before I moved on to Amiga 500. Some games were brilliant back then, and they will remain that way. Question is, does this claim work for old adventure games and CRPGs? All in all, one thing is certain, I used my imagination to feel in the graphical suspension-of-belief gaps when it came to adventure games, and it sure worked. One year I was entirely caught up in two games. I played them over and over: Cauldron II and Bard's Tale. Let's say, I've tried them today, and it's only Cauldron II, where the graphics feel a bit bearable. That actually seem true for all platformers and action games. I tried Wizball the other day, another favourite back in the days, and it's fun enough today too, perhaps because it's a soundly engineered interface system that is the game. The "feel" is still there. So, I agree with BruceVC here, there is a bottom line for graphics. I'm also playing through IE-classics at the moment, and I draw the line where Bruce draws it. Those old Ultima games with just dots just wouldn't cut it by a mile after having played, say, NWN 1&2 or Skyrim.

[BruceVC]

 

Look at it this way... If you happened to play games back in the 1980's like I did, did you ever once think, "Oh my god these games suck because their graphics are so far from photo realistic?" I certainly never did. Because, back then, with 2D and sprites the norm, those other qualities are what made the game worth playing. And, to me, in contrast, today's games look great but, many of them just leave me with a feeling that they are shallow and unimaginative.

 

I was an avid gamer already back then. I played D&D on Intellivision (Cloudy Mountain), the Atari console, and I played Alley Cat etc in workplaces on the pc, and of course I played my Commodore 64 so hard, I had to get another one, before I moved on to Amiga 500. Some games were brilliant back then, and they will remain that way. Question is, does this claim work for old adventure games and CRPGs? All in all, one thing is certain, I used my imagination to feel in the graphical suspension-of-belief gaps when it came to adventure games, and it sure worked. One year I was entirely caught up in two games. I played them over and over: Cauldron II and Bard's Tale. Let's say, I've tried them today, and it's only Cauldron II, where the graphics feel a bit bearable. That actually seem true for all platformers and action games. I tried Wizball the other day, another favourite back in the days, and it's fun enough today too, perhaps because it's a soundly engineered interface system that is the game. The "feel" is still there. So, I agree with BruceVC here, there is a bottom line for graphics. I'm also playing through IE-classics at the moment, and I draw the line where Bruce draws it. Those old Ultima games with just dots just wouldn't cut it by a mile after having played, say, NWN 1&2 or Skyrim.

 

 

Its funny you mention Ultima but thats exactly what I was thinking about when  I made my point, I was looking at the earlier Ultimas on GOG and I just couldn't imagine playing it

[Theobeau]

 

Guys lets not jump to conclusions, there are many reasons that they could need additional funding through KS. I want to hear the official response from Richard Garriot around this before I say his KS campaign is disingenuous

 

 

I agree that you can't jump to conclusions. It's why I said in my posts:

 

1. There's also been claims that the game is already funded with private investment of at least 7 million.

2. It's been reported in wired quite a few months ago that he has the 7 million for this game already?

 

My first point has the word 'claim'. It's not certain. My second point has a question mark at the end, asking a question? And I was referencing the wired news article from a few months ago. The 'evidence' doesn't look good.

Mr RG (no more rat tail references, I'm feeling a little more generous tonight) touches on this in the latest RPS article.

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/13/garriott-on-shroud-of-the-avatar-why-he-needs-ks/

 

In the earlier post, I made a Chris Roberts aside deliberately.  Roberts was very open about seeking funding for Star Citizen from multiple sources in addition to two different crowd funding campaigns he described chasing funding from the traditional sources:  industry and finances from memory. 

 

Broadly I have no problems with RG having already funded SoTA to X million but it is a little disingenous not to disclose this in his KS campaign but instead to draw heavily on gamer nostalgia for his classic series in the pitch and to imply that are funds are vital to completing some sort of spiritual successor to Ultima (I know he doesn't use the exact phrase but it is very heavily implied). 

 

I get the appeal of crowd sourced funding: for gaming companies they get great publicity, de facto pre-orders, probably attracts co-matching funds from traditional sources or can be used as collateral for loans and importantly charges no interest and has very little legal rights in case the project falls over. 

 

All I ask is that they are up front about it; more so for a man who is seriously independently wealthy as by not doing so, they appear dishonest and attract controversy.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Theobeau

[BruceVC]

 

 

Guys lets not jump to conclusions, there are many reasons that they could need additional funding through KS. I want to hear the official response from Richard Garriot around this before I say his KS campaign is disingenuous

 

 

I agree that you can't jump to conclusions. It's why I said in my posts:

 

1. There's also been claims that the game is already funded with private investment of at least 7 million.

2. It's been reported in wired quite a few months ago that he has the 7 million for this game already?

 

My first point has the word 'claim'. It's not certain. My second point has a question mark at the end, asking a question? And I was referencing the wired news article from a few months ago. The 'evidence' doesn't look good.

Mr RG (no more rat tail references, I'm feeling a little more generous tonight) touches on this in the latest RPS article.

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/13/garriott-on-shroud-of-the-avatar-why-he-needs-ks/

 

In the earlier post, I made a Chris Roberts aside deliberately.  Roberts was very open about seeking funding for Star Citizen from multiple sources in addition to two different crowd funding campaigns he described chasing funding from the traditional sources:  industry and finances from memory. 

 

Broadly I have no problems with RG having already funded SoTA to X million but it is a little disingenous not to disclose this in his KS campaign but instead to draw heavily on gamer nostalgia for his classic series in the pitch and to imply that are funds are vital to completing some sort of spiritual successor to Ultima (I know he doesn't use the exact phrase but it is very heavily implied). 

 

I get the appeal of crowd sourced funding: for gaming companies they get great publicity, de facto pre-orders, probably attracts co-matching funds from traditional sources or can be used as collateral for loans and importantly charges no interest and has very little legal rights in case the project falls over. 

 

All I ask is that they are up front about it; more so for a man who is seriously independently wealthy as by not doing so, they appear dishonest and attract controversy.

 

You make some good points and I can't disagree with everything you have mentioned, the reality for me is I feel we are not seeing the full picture around funding. But I suppose the other point is "does it matter". End of the day I want to play entertaining and old school PC based RPG. I don't mind if RC has already raised additional funding for this game. I will only contribute less than $50 anyway to this project. Some people will say it does matter as its the principle of being misinformed about the funds he needs. But in this case the principle isn't that important for me. I would be much more upset if this has happened during the PE and Torment KS 

[Theobeau]

 

 

 

Guys lets not jump to conclusions, there are many reasons that they could need additional funding through KS. I want to hear the official response from Richard Garriot around this before I say his KS campaign is disingenuous

 

 

I agree that you can't jump to conclusions. It's why I said in my posts:

 

1. There's also been claims that the game is already funded with private investment of at least 7 million.

2. It's been reported in wired quite a few months ago that he has the 7 million for this game already?

 

My first point has the word 'claim'. It's not certain. My second point has a question mark at the end, asking a question? And I was referencing the wired news article from a few months ago. The 'evidence' doesn't look good.

Mr RG (no more rat tail references, I'm feeling a little more generous tonight) touches on this in the latest RPS article.

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/13/garriott-on-shroud-of-the-avatar-why-he-needs-ks/

 

In the earlier post, I made a Chris Roberts aside deliberately.  Roberts was very open about seeking funding for Star Citizen from multiple sources in addition to two different crowd funding campaigns he described chasing funding from the traditional sources:  industry and finances from memory. 

 

Broadly I have no problems with RG having already funded SoTA to X million but it is a little disingenous not to disclose this in his KS campaign but instead to draw heavily on gamer nostalgia for his classic series in the pitch and to imply that are funds are vital to completing some sort of spiritual successor to Ultima (I know he doesn't use the exact phrase but it is very heavily implied). 

 

I get the appeal of crowd sourced funding: for gaming companies they get great publicity, de facto pre-orders, probably attracts co-matching funds from traditional sources or can be used as collateral for loans and importantly charges no interest and has very little legal rights in case the project falls over. 

 

All I ask is that they are up front about it; more so for a man who is seriously independently wealthy as by not doing so, they appear dishonest and attract controversy.

 

You make some good points and I can't disagree with everything you have mentioned, the reality for me is I feel we are not seeing the full picture around funding. But I suppose the other point is "does it matter". End of the day I want to play entertaining and old school PC based RPG. I don't mind if RC has already raised additional funding for this game. I will only contribute less than $50 anyway to this project. Some people will say it does matter as its the principle of being misinformed about the funds he needs. But in this case the principle isn't that important for me. I would be much more upset if this has happened during the PE and Torment KS 

 

Fair enough and agree to disagree about whether RG should have been more up-front about the nature of his funding for SoTA.

 

What we can agree upon is that as fans of the golden age of cRPGs, we hope that the SoTA is a decent game (even it is a funny offline single player/MMO hybrid) and that PE and TToN kicks some serious gaming a*se!

Edited March 14, 2013 by Theobeau

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

What we can agree upon is that as fans of the golden age of cRPGs, we hope that the SoTA is a decent game (even it is a funny offline single player/MMO hybrid) and that PE and TToN kick some serious gaming a*se!

 

Well said, I concur

Edited March 14, 2013 by BruceVC

[Theobeau]

@ BruceVC,

 

Who said the internet couldn't be civil!

[alanschu]

 

Look at it this way... If you happened to play games back in the 1980's like I did, did you ever once think, "Oh my god these games suck because their graphics are so far from photo realistic?" I certainly never did. Because, back then, with 2D and sprites the norm, those other qualities are what made the game worth playing. And, to me, in contrast, today's
games look great but, many of them just leave me with a feeling that they are shallow and unimaginative.

 

No.  I often remember saying "Those graphics are awesome!"  Take a game from today and plop it in the 1980s (assuming it could magically run) and suddenly the games we thought looked awesome aren't going to look so hot.  It's all relative.

 

After looking at the NES games, it was more difficult to go back to the Atari to play.

[Tigranes]

I remember saying 'these graphics are awesome' when I played Conquests of the Longbow for the first time. It was a big part of how the game drew me in.

 

 

 

The game was released in 1992. I first played around 2010.

[TSBasilisk]

Apparently, they've brought Tracy Hickman on board as lead story designer.

[Sacred_Path]

Get Margaret Weis on board too, and drop the Ultima plans. Dead horse is dead anyway. Instead, make Death Gate 2: The RPG. I've always wanted to own a house in the Labyrinth.

[Humanoid]

Huh, never knew Hickman was a guy.

 

 

[Your geek cred has dropped by -10]

Edited March 16, 2013 by Humanoid

[TSBasilisk]

New post about types of solo- and mulitplayer types

 

So two types of single-player setups exist, with the online variant sounding more interesting as the world will be more dnyamic(houses appearing, changing, etc.)

[BruceVC]

http://www.portalarium.com/images/docs/Words%20Taken%20Out%20of%20Context.pdf

 

Here is some good insight from Richard Garriot into designing game worlds and him clarifying a ccontroversial comment he made.