Mortal Online inspired by PreCU SWG?

username509

We all know Mortal Online is the spiritual successor of Ultima Online, but it seems like they're planning on adding a few features taken straight out of the StarWars Galaxies pre combat upgrade playbook.

We know that SWG had a very awesome housing system which in turn I'm sure was influenced by UO's housing system which it seems as if both games influenced MO's housing system.  SWG crafting system was revolutionary and many features from SWG crafting can be seen in MO's crafting as well.  SWG fishing system was also very fun and now MO has a fishing system of there own.  This is all old news and already implemented in the game.

The new features that looks like it was influenced by SWG were talked about in a recent developers chat.

 

[4:08 pm] <Anubis>  19. <[EXSO]Ruuhl> Will Survival be more profitable in the near future?

[4:09 pm] <HenrikNystrom>  Survival will get more love for sure eventually. Camping and fishing is just some of them, both of those features will get pretty big, fishing will get big in the next patch

[4:09 pm] <HenrikNystrom>  and camping will tie into other system such as hunger and healing long term wounds

[4:09 pm] <HenrikNystrom>  so as you can see those skillsets will be vital for players as well.

 

So it seems not only will MO's have a tent system like SWG had, it will also have a wound system like SWG had.  It also looks like food will play a factor in MO providing buffs much in the same way it did in SWG.  This seems awesome to me because I LOVED preCU SWG.  

 

In SWG you had to heal most wounds in cities but tent and camp sites were useful to heal quicker and get buffs before going into combat.  In MO it appears that you will not have to go back to the cities to get your wounds healed which seems like a plus for me, the more time raiding the better.  It's looking like when you go out on a combat raid with a few friends you might want to bring a few non combat oriented characters into your group to do some buffs, heals, and make camp sites were you can rest up at.  

 

IMHO SWGpreCU had it's problems, but it looks like MO is leaving the bad features behind learning from other games mistakes and only using the good features of previous sandbox games.

NeerDoWell

Originally posted by username509

We all know Mortal Online is the spiritual successor of Ultima Online, but it seems like they're planning on adding a few features taken straight out of the StarWars Galaxies pre combat upgrade playbook.

We know that SWG had a very awesome housing system which in turn I'm sure was influenced by UO's housing system which it seems as if both games influenced MO's housing system.  SWG crafting system was revolutionary and many features from SWG crafting can be seen in MO's crafting as well.  SWG fishing system was also very fun and now MO has a fishing system of there own.  This is all old news and already implemented in the game.

The new features that looks like it was influenced by SWG were talked about in a recent developers chat.

 

[4:08 pm]   19. <[EXSO]Ruuhl> Will Survival be more profitable in the near future?

[4:09 pm]   Survival will get more love for sure eventually. Camping and fishing is just some of them, both of those features will get pretty big, fishing will get big in the next patch

[4:09 pm]   and camping will tie into other system such as hunger and healing long term wounds

[4:09 pm]   so as you can see those skillsets will be vital for players as well.

 

So it seems not only will MO's have a tent system like SWG had, it will also have a wound system like SWG had.  It also looks like food will play a factor in MO providing buffs much in the same way it did in SWG.  This seems awesome to me because I LOVED preCU SWG.  

 

In SWG you had to heal most wounds in cities but tent and camp sites were useful to heal quicker and get buffs before going into combat.  In MO it appears that you will not have to go back to the cities to get your wounds healed which seems like a plus for me, the more time raiding the better.  It's looking like when you go out on a combat raid with a few friends you might want to bring a few non combat oriented characters into your group to do some buffs, heals, and make camp sites were you can rest up at.  

 

IMHO SWGpreCU had it's problems, but it looks like MO is leaving the bad features behind learning from other games mistakes and only using the good features of previous sandbox games.

Food and tents does not  make up for killing pigs and big hairy things that walk on their heads.

HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

So, is MO a copy of, or a spiritual successor to UO.  Because a copy of something, is different then a spiritual successor of something.  

 

That car would be a good car for you want to do with, and from it.

HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

So, is MO a copy of, or a spiritual successor to UO.  Because a copy of something, is different then a spiritual successor of something.  

 

That car would be a good car for you want to do with, and from it.

The devs proclaimed it as the spiritual successor to UO, because it copied all their systems and tried to put it into a different game.

 

And that car would be no good if the brakes didn't work, the engine kept overheating, and the wheels came off. To be clear, it's one thing if an experienced team tried to piece together the parts and make them work, but it's quite another when you have people with no experience in software development trying to make the pieces work.

 

But I will wait until the Epic patch is integrated to illustrate that best, though there have been more than a few "super" patches that were supposed to fix a bunch of things, and we clearly have seen they have broken more than they've fixed.

EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

So, is MO a copy of, or a spiritual successor to UO.  Because a copy of something, is different then a spiritual successor of something.  

 

That car would be a good car for you want to do with, and from it.

The devs proclaimed it as the spiritual successor to UO, because it copied all their systems and tried to put it into a different game.

 

And that car would be no good if the brakes didn't work, the engine kept overheating, and the wheels came off. To be clear, it's one thing if an experienced team tried to piece together the parts and make them work, but it's quite another when you have people with no experience in software development trying to make the pieces work.

 

But I will wait until the Epic patch is integrated to illustrate that best, though there have been more than a few "super" patches that were supposed to fix a bunch of things, and we clearly have seen they have broken more than they've fixed.

So, it is a spiritual successor and a copy of UO.  Because if were a copy everything would look the same.

 

Expect the car part you talk about would work.  The engine would overheat, the brakes would work.  Because how they were engineered.  Tanks do not have wheels, they have tracks.

You mean Epic's engine up grade as the "epic" patch.

HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

So, is MO a copy of, or a spiritual successor to UO.  Because a copy of something, is different then a spiritual successor of something.  

 

That car would be a good car for you want to do with, and from it.

The devs proclaimed it as the spiritual successor to UO, because it copied all their systems and tried to put it into a different game.

 

And that car would be no good if the brakes didn't work, the engine kept overheating, and the wheels came off. To be clear, it's one thing if an experienced team tried to piece together the parts and make them work, but it's quite another when you have people with no experience in software development trying to make the pieces work.

 

But I will wait until the Epic patch is integrated to illustrate that best, though there have been more than a few "super" patches that were supposed to fix a bunch of things, and we clearly have seen they have broken more than they've fixed.

So, it is a spiritual successor and a copy of UO.  Because if were a copy everything would look the same.

 

Expect the car part you talk about would work.  The engine would overheat, the brakes would work.  Because how they were engineered.  Tanks do not have wheels, they have tracks.

You mean Epic's engine up grade as the "epic" patch.

You can copy the design, but not the mechanics. You can copy the mechanics, but not the design. The idea that it's a 100% copy of UO is a game of semantics that you want to play, and I don't. If you don't think that most of MO's core design isn't basically stolen from UO, then that's your right to think so. But it is, and now they are out stealing from other games in the hopes that the stolen designs will actually improve their game.

 

As for the car, the analogy was a quick one and not really meant to go into depth. And since it's clear you don't have software development experience, I am not going to debate it with you because I'd have to explain every point I make. Suffice to say, SV not having any development experience *at all* shows in every patch because of how many things they've "broken" rather than the patch fixing. Proper development environements really minimize this risk, and the hows and whys I'll let you Google.

ChinaCat

Originally posted by username509

We all know Mortal Online is the spiritual successor of Ultima Online,

Mortal Online is not even remotely close to UO yet alone its spiritual sucessor.   Where are the runes, portals, moongates, capes, dyes, or hunreds if not thousands of of things.   The state of the game is sad enough as it is but to suggest this wanna-be game is the "spiritual sucessor" is misleading to the extreme.

-CC 

keitholi

Funny how MO and Darkfall claim to be successors of UO, yet both games suck and can't hold a candle to a game that was put out 15 years ago with 2d, isometric view graphics. More like throw out the name of a successful game to try to get interest in their shitty games.

HerculesSAS

Originally posted by keitholi

Funny how MO and Darkfall claim to be successors of UO, yet both games suck and can't hold a candle to a game that was put out 15 years ago with 2d, isometric view graphics. More like throw out the name of a successful game to try to get interest in their shitty games.

I think part of this is a nostalgia of an era that is gone forever. UO worked 15 years ago because it was the only game of its kind, with almost no competition. People seem to forget that when Everquest came out, UO was scrambling to change its entire game world to keep the subscriptions alive, because they were losing a lot to EQ.

 

Games that are PvP heavy are great, and EVE is a great example. The thing with EVE of course, is that the majority of people run "missions" which are basically the equivalent of PvE content. This is explained adequately by CCP a while ago, who dissected their own game and explained how it worked. EVE adds another layer of course, which is deep, balanced PvP that has a lot of skill involved in it on top of the existing "mission" system. It also was built in an era of course, where there wasn't a lot of competition.

 

I think a game like UO in the way we want it, with PvP and thievery and such, only works in small, small, small capacities. It's why you can find a freeshard have maybe 300 or 400 online users at a time, and for that -- it's a resounding success. It's quite another of course, to fashion that model into a suitable MMO environment. DFO seems to be sustaining -- for how long, I don't know, but their developers are trained thoroughly and they built their own engine and gameworld from scratch. Having that experience at least takes them away from making the simple mistakes that currently plague MO and SV, and will continue to because their code is not written in a way that any experienced developer would do.

 

That said, even if MO's code was great and the gameworld was coming together without problems, the persistent "consequences" based MMO is a tough sell to make any amount of money. It's why games like M&B Warband are great, because you have your fun and if you die, you just respawn. No big deal. It's why games like WOW are popular, because if you die, you don't really lose anything. It's also why shooters are popular for the respawn ability too. EVE is the one exception here, but it's got a pretty deep PvE system that the majority of the players play for most of their online time.

 

With the odds stacked against them, with their lack of development experience, their shady business practices, I don't think the future bodes well for MO and for SV. That said, it's been a great source of entertainment over the last year or so, and I think it will continue to be. Of course, my interest would have been dashed a long time ago if SV just saw fit to refund my money, but they didn't, and so here I remain.

HerculesSAS

Originally posted by ChinaCat

Originally posted by username509

We all know Mortal Online is the spiritual successor of Ultima Online,

Mortal Online is not even remotely close to UO yet alone its spiritual sucessor.   Where are the runes, portals, moongates, capes, dyes, or hunreds if not thousands of of things.   The state of the game is sad enough as it is but to suggest this wanna-be game is the "spiritual sucessor" is misleading to the extreme.

-CC 

I think it's easy to get a bunch of 30 year old gamers excited about bringing up the words "Ultima Online", because there will be a mad dash to get back into that game world. I have been through DFO with disappointment, and now MO with even more. I have come to accept that the best UO experience I'm going to get is simply going to be a free shard.

 

Beyond that, pulling the idea of UO is just one to get people to buy into your idea without having any idea what you are actually capable of producing. That's why a lot of people pre-ordered MO without knowing a thing about it, based solely on the invokation of "UO" and "PvP". But I'm pretty jaded at this point, so if somebody else comes up with an awesome MMO that is going to be another supposed successor to UO, I'll have them show me the goods before I slap down any money and fund their horrible development.

username509

I believe some of you guys are a bit confused as to what spiritual successor actually means.

A spiritual successor to a game does not mean it's supposed to be a clone copy of the original game.  Spiritual successor means it's more of an unofficial sequel to the original game.

 A spiritual successor is heavily influenced by the original game but adds it's own enhancements and features.

 

Originally posted by username509

it looks like MO is leaving the bad features behind learning from other games mistakes and only using the good features of previous sandbox games.

Slapshot1188

UO was a huge success (for it's time) because it was ULTIMA.. and you played it ONLINE!!!

 

Ultima was the king of RPGs back then.   The idea of actually being able to play in a persistent Ultima world with other friends was unique.  

 

Mortal is in no way shape or form a successful "spiritual successor" to Ultima Online.  Heck.. it doesn't even have much of it's own lore finished yet.  Ultima Online wasn't based on  throwing random strangers into a game and saying "FIGHT!!!"...   it was based on allowing hundreds (maybe 1500?  I forget the cap) players interact together IN THE WORLD OF ULTIMA.

 

The fully fleshed out world was as big of a hook as the novelty of playing together online with others.   

 

 

As far as being "inspired by SWG"... well... only the designers can tell you what insires them.   Inspiration though.. doesn't mean anything more that getting ideas from something else.   I was "inspired" by Star Wars to make my own Star Wars home movie (true story) many... many years ago.   Let's just say that while Star Wars was my inspiration.. what resulted was ummm...  well.. let's just say it wasn't Star Wars...  even though it had a "Jedi" and "Rebels" and "Imperials".

 

 

osmunda

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

Once again proving that there is no comment so innocuous that it can't be used as a platform to criticize MO.

 

SWG built on ideas from UO.  Now MO is trying to build on ideas in both of those games, including ideas that SWG borrowed from UO.

With regard to the survival skill and camping specifically referenced by the OP, UO had a camping skill but the game mechanics limited just how much utility a camp could have. http://uo.stratics.com/php-bin/show_content.php?content=30593 In UO setting up camp allowed you and anyone in the immediate vicinity to log out instantly, even when combat-flagged.   In designing a game from the ground up the designers for SWG took that idea and added more utility with the long term wound and entertainers being able to use a camp site to raise morale/buff. It is not that "MO is a horrible copy of UO" so they "are just copying a different game"  They are copying ideas from  UO as expanded on in SWG.

osmunda

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I think part of this is a nostalgia of an era that is gone forever. UO worked 15 years ago because it was the only game of its kind, with almost no competition. People seem to forget that when Everquest came out, UO was scrambling to change its entire game world to keep the subscriptions alive, because they were losing a lot to EQ.

 Subscriber numbers peaked at around 250,000 in July 2003,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online  The changes were due to a change in the design team, many of whom went to other projects (UO2, SWG)

 

Games that are PvP heavy are great, and EVE is a great example. The thing with EVE of course, is that the majority of people run "missions" which are basically the equivalent of PvE content. This is explained adequately by CCP a while ago, who dissected their own game and explained how it worked. EVE adds another layer of course, which is deep, balanced PvP that has a lot of skill involved in it on top of the existing "mission" system. It also was built in an era of course, where there wasn't a lot of competition.

 I think a game like UO in the way we want it, with PvP and thievery and such, only works in small, small, small capacities. It's why you can find a freeshard have maybe 300 or 400 online users at a time, and for that -- it's a resounding success. It's quite another of course, to fashion that model into a suitable MMO environment. DFO seems to be sustaining -- for how long, I don't know, but their developers are trained thoroughly and they built their own engine and gameworld from scratch. Having that experience at least takes them away from making the simple mistakes that currently plague MO and SV, and will continue to because their code is not written in a way that any experienced developer would do.

You speak as if SV hasn't already said that they expect MO to be a "niche" game.  Also they are putting in place things to allow players to focus on the PVE aspects of the game. They may need to adjust that balance, but they at least  acknowledge the need for that balance. 

That said, even if MO's code was great and the gameworld was coming together without problems, the persistent "consequences" based MMO is a tough sell to make any amount of money. It's why games like M&B Warband are great, because you have your fun and if you die, you just respawn. No big deal. It's why games like WOW are popular, because if you die, you don't really lose anything. It's also why shooters are popular for the respawn ability too. EVE is the one exception here, but it's got a pretty deep PvE system that the majority of the players play for most of their online time.

And yet there is an unmet desire for that type of game (persistent "consequences" based MMO) as illustrated by the fact that EVE steadily grows, and Darkfall is expanding and the number of people who bought first Darkfall and then MO (including you)

With the odds stacked against them, with their lack of development experience, their shady business practices, I don't think the future bodes well for MO and for SV. That said, it's been a great source of entertainment over the last year or so, and I think it will continue to be. Of course, my interest would have been dashed a long time ago if SV just saw fit to refund my money, but they didn't, and so here I remain.

 Previously discussed. If they think your behavior warrants not giving a refund, that is their prerogative.  http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/members/hercules.html

EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

So, is MO a copy of, or a spiritual successor to UO.  Because a copy of something, is different then a spiritual successor of something.  

 

That car would be a good car for you want to do with, and from it.

The devs proclaimed it as the spiritual successor to UO, because it copied all their systems and tried to put it into a different game.

 

And that car would be no good if the brakes didn't work, the engine kept overheating, and the wheels came off. To be clear, it's one thing if an experienced team tried to piece together the parts and make them work, but it's quite another when you have people with no experience in software development trying to make the pieces work.

 

But I will wait until the Epic patch is integrated to illustrate that best, though there have been more than a few "super" patches that were supposed to fix a bunch of things, and we clearly have seen they have broken more than they've fixed.

So, it is a spiritual successor and a copy of UO.  Because if were a copy everything would look the same.

 

Expect the car part you talk about would work.  The engine would overheat, the brakes would work.  Because how they were engineered.  Tanks do not have wheels, they have tracks.

You mean Epic's engine up grade as the "epic" patch.

You can copy the design, but not the mechanics. You can copy the mechanics, but not the design. The idea that it's a 100% copy of UO is a game of semantics that you want to play, and I don't. If you don't think that most of MO's core design isn't basically stolen from UO, then that's your right to think so. But it is, and now they are out stealing from other games in the hopes that the stolen designs will actually improve their game.

 

As for the car, the analogy was a quick one and not really meant to go into depth. And since it's clear you don't have software development experience, I am not going to debate it with you because I'd have to explain every point I make. Suffice to say, SV not having any development experience *at all* shows in every patch because of how many things they've "broken" rather than the patch fixing. Proper development environements really minimize this risk, and the hows and whys I'll let you Google.

You are the one that called it a copy, and a spiritual successor.  So, I called you on that one in which is not semanics.  semanics would one in which you called it a copy, or a clone.  Then, it would be semanics.

You analogy failed like the tamoca narrows bridge did in 1940. 

I do have some software development experience.  Star Vault is not a software development company,  because they are useing the Unreal game development engine.  Star Vault is one of the few companies useing it in a MMORPG.  When did I say that there are not bugs in the game?  Please go ahead and name everything that is broken (as in not working at all). 

username509

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

So, is MO a copy of, or a spiritual successor to UO.  Because a copy of something, is different then a spiritual successor of something.  

 

That car would be a good car for you want to do with, and from it.

The devs proclaimed it as the spiritual successor to UO, because it copied all their systems and tried to put it into a different game.

 

And that car would be no good if the brakes didn't work, the engine kept overheating, and the wheels came off. To be clear, it's one thing if an experienced team tried to piece together the parts and make them work, but it's quite another when you have people with no experience in software development trying to make the pieces work.

 

But I will wait until the Epic patch is integrated to illustrate that best, though there have been more than a few "super" patches that were supposed to fix a bunch of things, and we clearly have seen they have broken more than they've fixed.

So, it is a spiritual successor and a copy of UO.  Because if were a copy everything would look the same.

 

Expect the car part you talk about would work.  The engine would overheat, the brakes would work.  Because how they were engineered.  Tanks do not have wheels, they have tracks.

You mean Epic's engine up grade as the "epic" patch.

You can copy the design, but not the mechanics. You can copy the mechanics, but not the design. The idea that it's a 100% copy of UO is a game of semantics that you want to play, and I don't. If you don't think that most of MO's core design isn't basically stolen from UO, then that's your right to think so. But it is, and now they are out stealing from other games in the hopes that the stolen designs will actually improve their game.

 

As for the car, the analogy was a quick one and not really meant to go into depth. And since it's clear you don't have software development experience, I am not going to debate it with you because I'd have to explain every point I make. Suffice to say, SV not having any development experience *at all* shows in every patch because of how many things they've "broken" rather than the patch fixing. Proper development environements really minimize this risk, and the hows and whys I'll let you Google.

You are the one that called it a copy, and a spiritual successor.  So, I called you on that one in which is not semanics.  semanics would one in which you called it a copy, or a clone.  Then, it would be semanics.

You analogy failed like the tamoca narrows bridge did in 1940. 

I do have some software development experience.  Star Vault is not a software development company,  because they are useing the Unreal game development engine.  Star Vault is one of the few companies useing it in a MMORPG.  When did I say that there are not bugs in the game?  Please go ahead and name everything that is broken (as in not working at all). 

Your lack of knowledge of MMORPG's is leading me to believe your lying about your experiance in the software development field.  Many companies use Unreal development engine in there MMO, and have been using it for years.  Star Vault is a software development company.  They make a videogame based off the unreal engine as well as grome and atlas.  To argue this would be inane.  

EmperorBeld

Originally posted by username509

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

Originally posted by EmperorBeld

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I have to admit that I'm entertained that since MO is a horrible copy of UO, the logic now is that they are just copying a different game?

 

I guess whatever floats your boat, but if the devs came out and wanted this to be the spiritual successor to UO, they have failed miserably. And I find it highly unfortunate that now that they can't achieve what UO did, they are now trying to incorporate multiple games into one in order to try to give a fun experience. The problem of course, is that when you have no real underlying design it's not going to work very well.

 

It's like taking the size of an SUV, the brakes of a Formula1 car, the engine of a Ferrari and the wheels from a tank and trying to make a good car. All the parts may be good, but the sum of the parts is a total piece of garbage. That's what MO is now.

So, is MO a copy of, or a spiritual successor to UO.  Because a copy of something, is different then a spiritual successor of something.  

 

That car would be a good car for you want to do with, and from it.

The devs proclaimed it as the spiritual successor to UO, because it copied all their systems and tried to put it into a different game.

 

And that car would be no good if the brakes didn't work, the engine kept overheating, and the wheels came off. To be clear, it's one thing if an experienced team tried to piece together the parts and make them work, but it's quite another when you have people with no experience in software development trying to make the pieces work.

 

But I will wait until the Epic patch is integrated to illustrate that best, though there have been more than a few "super" patches that were supposed to fix a bunch of things, and we clearly have seen they have broken more than they've fixed.

So, it is a spiritual successor and a copy of UO.  Because if were a copy everything would look the same.

 

Expect the car part you talk about would work.  The engine would overheat, the brakes would work.  Because how they were engineered.  Tanks do not have wheels, they have tracks.

You mean Epic's engine up grade as the "epic" patch.

You can copy the design, but not the mechanics. You can copy the mechanics, but not the design. The idea that it's a 100% copy of UO is a game of semantics that you want to play, and I don't. If you don't think that most of MO's core design isn't basically stolen from UO, then that's your right to think so. But it is, and now they are out stealing from other games in the hopes that the stolen designs will actually improve their game.

 

As for the car, the analogy was a quick one and not really meant to go into depth. And since it's clear you don't have software development experience, I am not going to debate it with you because I'd have to explain every point I make. Suffice to say, SV not having any development experience *at all* shows in every patch because of how many things they've "broken" rather than the patch fixing. Proper development environements really minimize this risk, and the hows and whys I'll let you Google.

You are the one that called it a copy, and a spiritual successor.  So, I called you on that one in which is not semanics.  semanics would one in which you called it a copy, or a clone.  Then, it would be semanics.

You analogy failed like the tamoca narrows bridge did in 1940. 

I do have some software development experience.  Star Vault is not a software development company,  because they are useing the Unreal game development engine.  Star Vault is one of the few companies useing it in a MMORPG.  When did I say that there are not bugs in the game?  Please go ahead and name everything that is broken (as in not working at all). 

Your lack of knowledge of MMORPG's is leading me to believe your lying about your experiance in the software development field.  Many companies use Unreal development engine in there MMO, and have been using it for years.  Star Vault is a software development company.  They make a videogame based off the unreal engine as well as grome and atlas.  To argue this would be inane.  

I said some (as not a lot).  So, what knowledge am I missing in MMORPG's?  Yes, many companies use the Unreal development engine.  As I have also downloaded on my computer.  As I said  "Star Vault is one of the few companies useing it in a MMORPG."   Notice the RPG so I was not refering to all MMO's.  So,  what software did Star Vault develop?  All I know is that they programmed MO.  Unless they code a program that works with UDK.  Then, they are not a software development company.  They are a program development company.

bunnyhopper

We all know Mortal Online is the spiritual successor of Ultima Online....

 

Sorry old chap, I stopped reading there.

osmunda

Well, in an attempt to direct this thread back on topic, here's a little relevant info...

The lead designer of early UO and the creative director of Pre-CU SWG are one and the same...  http://www.raphkoster.com/cv.shtml  Therefore they do share a similar approach to some aspects of the game.

MannyMana

I do think that this game is the closest spiritual succesor to UO. However I don't think it launched properly.

The best thing a UO succesor could do to bring back the game would be to stop trying so hard to make the game a graphics intense game with combat as the initial focus. That is what Darkfall did and it ruined it for me.

What made UO so special was that players could do a variety of things outside of combat. It had plenty of fluff to keep players amused and a very fleshed-out world with plenty of variety and wide assortment of skills for many different instances.

One example of a different game that fills the complete other spectrum from Darkfall would be Xsyon. The game has an extremely high focus on enviromental interaction. You can deform land and build structures anywhere and even if the game does contain quite a few glitches and problems with combat it is the only game to really aspire to the full "constructive" sandbox nature that UO also shared.

 

A true succesor to UO would be a 3D game with simple graphics (perhaps cel-shaded cartoonish) with exactly all the same skills and features that UO had. Such as:

~Extensive crafting of all sorts (includes baking, tinkering, alchemy, etc.)

~Fully interactive objects on the floor (includes corpses, bushes, trees, moss etc.)

~Player-owned housing and crafting (Architects, Masons, Carpenters, etc.)

~Interactive furniture and items (such as chairs, stadiums, board games, dice, etc.)

~Full player-looting (Gives a purpose to banks and owning a home)

~Taming!

 

If the game included all those things, started with a veriety of monsters and wildlife (at least 50 completely different creatures),  was 3D with average graphics (don't have to be top-notch as long as artistic design is good), had minimal bugs, had plenty of fluff (minigames galore!) and threw in decent combat mechanics with a similar death penalty to UO... Then we would have a winner.

 

Sorry for the wall of text guys!

DLangley

Lets stay on topic guys. Also, refrain from baiting other users in your posts. This is against our Rules of Conduct, which I am sure you have all read . Thanks.

username509

Originally posted by MannyMana

I do think that this game is the closest spiritual succesor to UO. However I don't think it launched properly.

The best thing a UO succesor could do to bring back the game would be to stop trying so hard to make the game a graphics intense game with combat as the initial focus. That is what Darkfall did and it ruined it for me.

What made UO so special was that players could do a variety of things outside of combat. It had plenty of fluff to keep players amused and a very fleshed-out world with plenty of variety and wide assortment of skills for many different instances.

One example of a different game that fills the complete other spectrum from Darkfall would be Xsyon. The game has an extremely high focus on enviromental interaction. You can deform land and build structures anywhere and even if the game does contain quite a few glitches and problems with combat it is the only game to really aspire to the full "constructive" sandbox nature that UO also shared.

 

A true succesor to UO would be a 3D game with simple graphics (perhaps cel-shaded cartoonish) with exactly all the same skills and features that UO had. Such as:

~Extensive crafting of all sorts (includes baking, tinkering, alchemy, etc.)

~Fully interactive objects on the floor (includes corpses, bushes, trees, moss etc.)

~Player-owned housing and crafting (Architects, Masons, Carpenters, etc.)

~Interactive furniture and items (such as chairs, stadiums, board games, dice, etc.)

~Full player-looting (Gives a purpose to banks and owning a home)

~Taming!

 

If the game included all those things, started with a veriety of monsters and wildlife (at least 50 completely different creatures),  was 3D with average graphics (don't have to be top-notch as long as artistic design is good), had minimal bugs, had plenty of fluff (minigames galore!) and threw in decent combat mechanics with a similar death penalty to UO... Then we would have a winner.

 

Sorry for the wall of text guys!

While mortal online isn't cell shaded and the graphics look really nice it still has everything else you listed.

Extensive crafting over 10million different combinations of weapons and armor to craft.  This number of combinations will go up to billions in latter patches as more armor types are introduced.  Alchemy is going to be implemented in a couple of weeks and butchery will be added probably shortly after.

You can interact with corpses by by chopping them up into little pieces and playing soccer with it's head.

Player housing is in game right now.  Architect skill is needed to initially place a house, but anyone can help build it after that.

Furniture has been promised in future patches.

Full player looting has been in since early beta.

Mortal online has taming and it's actually really fun.

 

I haven't counted how many different types of creatures are in moral online, but I'm guessing it's around 50 right now with more planning to be added in future patches.

The developers mentioned minigames in taverns in future patches.

 

Right now it looks like Mortal Online has most of what your looking for in an MMO and the rest of what your looking for is planned on being implemented in future patches.  

According to your definition of a true successor to UO Mortal Online fits in nicely.  

 

While Mortal Online can never be a true successor to StarWars Galaxies because it's not a starwars based scifi game it does seem like it's heavily influenced by many of the sandboxy features of SWG.

Rohn

Originally posted by username509

Originally posted by MannyMana

I do think that this game is the closest spiritual succesor to UO. However I don't think it launched properly.

The best thing a UO succesor could do to bring back the game would be to stop trying so hard to make the game a graphics intense game with combat as the initial focus. That is what Darkfall did and it ruined it for me.

What made UO so special was that players could do a variety of things outside of combat. It had plenty of fluff to keep players amused and a very fleshed-out world with plenty of variety and wide assortment of skills for many different instances.

One example of a different game that fills the complete other spectrum from Darkfall would be Xsyon. The game has an extremely high focus on enviromental interaction. You can deform land and build structures anywhere and even if the game does contain quite a few glitches and problems with combat it is the only game to really aspire to the full "constructive" sandbox nature that UO also shared.

 

A true succesor to UO would be a 3D game with simple graphics (perhaps cel-shaded cartoonish) with exactly all the same skills and features that UO had. Such as:

~Extensive crafting of all sorts (includes baking, tinkering, alchemy, etc.)

~Fully interactive objects on the floor (includes corpses, bushes, trees, moss etc.)

~Player-owned housing and crafting (Architects, Masons, Carpenters, etc.)

~Interactive furniture and items (such as chairs, stadiums, board games, dice, etc.)

~Full player-looting (Gives a purpose to banks and owning a home)

~Taming!

 

If the game included all those things, started with a veriety of monsters and wildlife (at least 50 completely different creatures),  was 3D with average graphics (don't have to be top-notch as long as artistic design is good), had minimal bugs, had plenty of fluff (minigames galore!) and threw in decent combat mechanics with a similar death penalty to UO... Then we would have a winner.

 

Sorry for the wall of text guys!

While mortal online isn't cell shaded and the graphics look really nice it still has everything else you listed.

Extensive crafting over 10million different combinations of weapons and armor to craft.  This number of combinations will go up to billions in latter patches as more armor types are introduced.  Alchemy is going to be implemented in a couple of weeks and butchery will be added probably shortly after.

You can interact with corpses by by chopping them up into little pieces and playing soccer with it's head.

Player housing is in game right now.  Architect skill is needed to initially place a house, but anyone can help build it after that.

Furniture has been promised in future patches.

Full player looting has been in since early beta.

Mortal online has taming and it's actually really fun.

 

I haven't counted how many different types of creatures are in moral online, but I'm guessing it's around 50 right now with more planning to be added in future patches.

The developers mentioned minigames in taverns in future patches.

 

Right now it looks like Mortal Online has most of what your looking for in an MMO and the rest of what your looking for is planned on being implemented in future patches.  

According to your definition of a true successor to UO Mortal Online fits in nicely.  

 

While Mortal Online can never be a true successor to StarWars Galaxies because it's not a starwars based scifi game it does seem like it's heavily influenced by many of the sandboxy features of SWG.

 

I agree with the list you've provide above.

I also agree that MO is indeed a kind of "spiritual successor" to some of the great sandboxes of the past, though it is its own game.  Newer games often build upon elements found in earlier games, with this one being no exception.

Ultimately, I believe that Mortal Online provides an experience that gives the same "feel" of games like UO and SWG - much more so than the vast majority of other MMOs currently available.  Right now, it's not as robust as either of those earlier games, but it is definitely heading in that direction as the game improves.