The best SoT review I have seen

@jimmy-voorhees said in The best SoT review I have seen:

Cool. If you don't like it, don't play.

Quit polluting the forum with [mod edited] about it.

Those of us who ate having fun are tired of your endless need for attention.

Go back to Fortnite.

Bye.

Just an fyi but that type of attitude is what's going to kill this game sooner than anything. It's already pretty much made this community heavily toxic so good job on contributing your part.

@dark-shadow9056 said in The best SoT review I have seen:

@jimmy-voorhees said in The best SoT review I have seen:

Cool. If you don't like it, don't play.

Quit polluting the forum with [mod edited] about it.

Those of us who ate having fun are tired of your endless need for attention.

Go back to Fortnite.

Bye.

This is literally the stupidest reply I’ve ever seen on these forums.

People are expressing their opinions, saying where the game is lacking, etc. hopefully the devs will listen and take notes.

“go back to Fortnite”???

Buddy, if I spend 60 bucks on a game which is really lacking I will criticize it so it can improve. Not, just leave and forget about it. That’s $60 down the drain.

Stop these types of replies. Please.

Seriously, it's almost ironic saying stuff like that when it just makes them look like a toxic immature child who probably belongs on Fortnite rather than further continuing to pollute the Sea of Thieves community. :|

I really hate how pathetically toxic this place has become since new players flooded in, and it's only growing worse because it's serving to turn away everyone else.

@mudweller said in The best SoT review I have seen:

You can literally sail for 20 minutes and get a castaway chest for a voyage you paid over a 100 gold for. It's a pathetic system to cover up from their lack of content.

Pirate Legend is a painful empty process.

These two statements right here sum it up for me. The game as a whole feels empty. Don't mistake me, I still find some fun it. But truthfully, nothing in the game "motivates" me to keep playing. right now, it is an occasional one hour session, once or twice a week.

@natsu-v2 said in The best SoT review I have seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WApMtubfBM

This guy really gets it in my opinion. The video itself is more intellectual than the title lets on. I don't necessarily agree with all the random spitballing of content ideas towards the end, but it was just that: spitballing. Some of them were actually good.

This video expresses perfectly how I view SoT in its current state. The video covers two major points: Creating your own fun and progression.

Creating your own fun is very much a cop-out excuse. Like Actman said, creating your own fun is something you do when you're bored. A lot of people in this community like to insinuate that you just don't have a good imagination if you find fault in SoT's gameplay. I'd like to counter that with a short personal story:

When my friends and I were around 10 years old, we played with action figures quite heavily. We would play with them in a "normal," story-driven way, but when we got bored of that, we used our imagination. One game that I came up with was called "army spies surprise." We would have one kid sit in a bedroom and play pokemon or something while the other kid hid humanoid action figures around the living room. They would be arranged in such a way to where they were mostly hidden, but their lines of sight would peer across the room. The hider would keep a mental note of their minions' sightlines, and think of them as tripwires. Finally, the other kid would come out and need to move across this room, trying to carefully plan their next step while staring at potted plants, the fireplace, bookshelves, and any other notable hiding spots so as not to be spied upon.

Let me just say that I have an amazing imagination, and that has extended into a lot of things I have done in SoT. Creating your own fun is not a valid gameplay metric. It is a cherry on top of the core game, it should never be marketed in and of itself.

Moving towards progression, Actman really opened my eyes with the Starcraft analogy. Starcraft's campaign really would have been terrible if you only had 3 basic units throughout, and it's a perfect analogy to SoT's quest structure.

Many in this community are terrified of the term "progression" because they immediately equate it to MMORPG stats and such. I'm not sure where this absolutist narrative is coming from, but it needs to stop. In Actman's video, he showcases a handful of progression systems that almost don't even feel like progression systems. The Stars in Mario (or jiggies in BK) are actually harder to get the further through the game you are. Climbing Mumbo's Skull for a jiggy vs. swimming into the Rusty Bucket's fanblades for one is an element of progression. There was also a good point about stretching the content you have by making you do the same thing but faster. That's also an element of progression. SoT is an open world game, so like Actman said, why isn't there a portion of the game world that you actually have to prepare to get into? Why is the spooky Wilds just as neutral as anywhere else?

SoT has nothing of the sort. The only thing we got was the poorly designed Order of Souls missions where a basic skeleton takes 8+ bullets to kill instead of 2. That's artificial difficulty and it's one of the only forms of progression that gamers tend to hate. And by "hate" I mean pretty much no one finds it to be redeeming. I don't like MMORPG stat-like progression that much, but I can see why its audience likes it. Artificial difficulty has no fans in that same sense.

Overall, this was a very enlightening review that expressed many of my thoughts perfectly. I know there's still plenty of players that love SoT, but I would really like it if people dropped the extremist tribes that they are assigning themselves to. You can say all this negative stuff about the game like I do and still like it for what it is now.

Yeah, I agree. This review did a really good job of eloquently listing off why I've been having trouble with it. As he says, it's fun to play with friends but that's it. Solo can be exciting at times, and I've been mostly a solo player through alphas/Pioneer/launch... but it gets tiring/stressful, playing with randoms is so incredibly hit/miss where it's mostly negative experiences, and playing with friends is mostly done in occasional spurts. There's no reason to really keep playing beyond creating self goals or creating own fun... but as he says, I can literally do that in any other game that has more compelling content.

Also, looking through the comments section of that video, this pinned comment really nailed it on the head further:

"Let's take that tag line: Create your own fun.

That's something someone would tell you to describe how to get into a pen and paper rpg (D&D, Deathwatch, Rogue Trader, Edge of the Empire, etc.). But the difference is that in those pen and paper rpgs, you have a plethora of different stuff to do, you just have to either try to look for thing and throw your Game Master a bone, or step in and pretend that while trying to flirt with that peasant lass you learn that something has been killing her livestocks, or if you play a merchant crew in a sci-fi setting, you are a trying to avoid bankruptcy but the only way to get your cargo to the market in time is to gamble by going into that uncharted nebula full of aliens and pirates.

So yes, you can have people create their own fun, but they need to have the tools to do it as well as being given the opportunities to do so. A game like SoT gives you all the opportunities you need, but doesn't give you any of the tools needed to really get creative because they aren't there. At the same time, a pen and paper rpg gives you all, and I mean all the tools you could dream to get creative, but if you have a bad Game Master that thinks he has come up with this amazing adventure and doesn't let the players explore or do anything that isn't approved or decided by him, then you simply don't get any opportunities to use those tools.

Tools and opportunities, this is what game developers working on stuff like SoT need to get both right, not one or the other, but both those things into the very core of the game."

@captnjaq said in The best SoT review I have seen:

What I don't understand is why this Reviewer is asking, "What happened to Sea of Thieves?" If he was an Insider.. Beta Tester.. Founder, he would have realized that SOT hasn't changed from what was told and promised to us.

Points of Argument:

• He compares SOT to OverWatch, Call Of Duty, The Last of Us. -- SOT isn't just a First Person Arena Shooter. And SOT didn't promote a game narrative system. -- TO ME, SOT is in parallel with a MMO Minecraft.

An MMO Minecraft that gives you a sword, a bow with infinite arrows, and a boat to explore, sure. That's it though. You can't carve your name out in the world when nothing is persistent outside of your personal character. Minecraft gives you actual tools to build towards whatever you want, and Survival mode gives you compelling gameplay when it comes to having threats, risks, and adequate rewards. You have actual progression in that game, where you go from punching trees to eventually fighting the End Dragon in your decked out enchanted Diamond gear. Or if you don't want to be adventurous, there's progression in terms of building whatever you set your mind to build. Sea of Thieves just has cosmetics and numbers that have no weight or meaning beyond cosmetic value.

• Incentives to Play. To sail ships within a 1st POV and choose to either attack or let other players be in order for you to explore the world and test yourself. This Game relies on People growing and becoming better in mental skills. SOT the Game doesn't progress player skills. SOT the Concept forces people to take what they've experienced and apply it when they enter the game in future sessions and overcome a sandbox of possibility.

Um.. you didn't list any incentives there. Your argument is that it helps you improve as a person...??? It really doesn't, especially when the popular mentality is "kill on sight" because, as folks love to say, "this is called Sea of Thieves not Sea of Social Activity" or whatever.

• When he compares SOT to Mario Kart, he mentions the game loop, incentives, not-getting-bored. Aye, the tracks get progressively harder but it's YOU against the world in attachment to instant gratification due to success i.e. the end of a race, the end of the tournament/getting to the top of a global leader-board. SOT isn't like that. The focal point was community. Aye, getting in game to play with your friends, getting on a ships and relying on eachother for success, getting on the boards and sharing your stories and build reputation. The selling point of the game IS community and living life as a ne'er-do-well- rogue sailor. But sadly, being a pirate back then wasn't as exciting as Hollywood has made it out to be.

Okay but when the community has become utter garbage and most folks either flee or fight right away, what's the point? That sounds like a mission failed on Rare's part. Also you cannot accurately feel like you're living the pirate life when your own life is expendable with no consequences to death. You make this sound like this game is meant to be a sandbox MMO akin to EVE Online and yet there is absolutely nothing in this game that allows such depth.

• He also compares SOT to this childhood game called, 'FLARP,' which it's winning trait is to physically each other with a basketball as if it was a dodgeball. They were bored and created their own fun ergo they had fun by hurting each other. SOT has that, but it's not as easy as others make it out to be. The Helmsman doesn't have control of the broadside; the helmsman has to rely on the crew to man the cannon; the helmsman has to rely on their mental skills and not their game-based skills. The same can be applied to map reading, scoping, and swashbuckling. The game does progress your skills in order to kill other players, skullies, or beasties. The game doesn't give you progressively beefed up weapons, ammo, armor, health, etc. The game only traits your ranking in the 3 Guilds. It's up to the human behind the controller/keyboard to do the rest.

Okay but these things don't mean much in the long run, and this game is not designed in a way that adequately allows a skillful player to be notably better due to reliance on others. You can have the deadliest aim in the sea and land all the headshots perfectly, but it doesn't mean anything when you have limited ammo, a significant delay between shots, and have to fight multiple players at once. Also like you said, for a Galleon at least you have to actually be coordinated with others. That can be incredibly difficult in random matchmade scenarios. Doesn't matter if you're the best sailor around if your three crewmates are sacks of potatoes who can't even call things out or properly lower/angle/raise sails when needed.

• He also provides "solutions" that evoke POTC and Blackflag... Ruinscape economies .. PvP (Trouble-Waters analogy 19:34 is what the open ocean IS in SOT i.e. anything DOES happen and players DO loss all what they've been working toward within a 4-6 hr gaming session aka The Game Risk-Reward "sys" is what SOT is all about [not even the OutPost are safe havens; it all relies on the generosity or greedy of a fellow human being]).. More Content desires do not take into account "Game as Service" .. Updates don't "fix" the game; updates prolong a multi-faceted concept.

I mean he concludes that ultimately updates aren't going to be enough to do anything for him personally. Games as a Service is just a pretty cheap moniker these days to describe online games that get periodic updates while relying on microtransactions to keep revenue flowing. Also players only lose all that they've been working on if they're stupid and don't turn in chests at outposts whenever they can. I know people love to post pictures on Reddit of all the treasure they amassed over 4+ hours, but that is just those folks taking purposeful risks for the sake of trying to make extra fun.

• Personal Observations on The SOT BackLash: Gamers are reacting the same way as "die-hard" Star Wars fans criticized THE LAST JEDI. Johnson wanted to take the franchise in a very different direction, and "fans" didn't like that direction. Aye, some did, but those that didn't were very vocal and started fantasizing their own headcanon about The Last Jedi that never was but could have been. RARE took the "Overwatch"/"Instant Gratification"/"Game as Product" gamer culture in a direction they weren't ready to go into, and now, those gamer are very eager in expressing their distaste yet desire of a game they wanted to get...

I think it's more that much like you have done in your post, Rare dramaticized and envisioned some sort of utopia pseudo-sandbox that has infinite replayability... while giving players little reason to form social structures, cooperate (unless they're part of the same crew), or pursue the 'ultimate goal' of attaining Pirate Legend. They somehow believed that players would behave better than they would in every other game that has had open PvP without real consequences/risks/rewards.

Fluff if up how you want but Rare made a bare bones game and expects people to make their own fun with it while not actually giving us the tools or any compelling reasons to do so. This is nowhere close to being the game that Rare said it would be.

@mysticdragon297 said in The best SoT review I have seen:

honestly, most of these reviews are about how these reviewers want vertical progression in a game that is not meant to have vertical progression.

yeah, i agree with his point that he game has no reason to keep playing beyond pirate legend. i personally believe that the Pirate legend rank should have unlocked an entirely different game experience, such as unlocking the final stage of the Kraken or discovering secret locations/secret paths. perhaps their own shop with even more unique legendary cosmetics than they have now. on top of all this, i also hope that the legendary rank will not be the only rank in the game in the future.

i also agree that the game should have had a few small things. such as more food types, gathering, more enemy types, more cannonball types, and more cursed chests.

but i dont really agree with anything else. people are just not used to the unique direction Sea of Thieves is heading because there has been nothing but vertical progression games.

He wasn't strictly arguing for vertical progression though. Some of his ideas included essentially new tools to fight things with and stronger types of enemies that could require new tools to tackle. Also who's to say vertical progression can't be in the game? It could easily apply to PvE only and PvP could ignore it like it already ignores the rest of the game.

@captnjaq dijo en The best SoT review I have seen:

What I don't understand is why this Reviewer is asking, "What happened to Sea of Thieves?" If he was an Insider.. Beta Tester.. Founder, he would have realized that SOT hasn't changed from what was told and promised to us.

Points of Argument:

• He compares SOT to OverWatch, Call Of Duty, The Last of Us. -- SOT isn't just a First Person Arena Shooter. And SOT didn't promote a game narrative system. -- TO ME, SOT is in parallel with a MMO Minecraft.

• Incentives to Play. To sail ships within a 1st POV and choose to either attack or let other players be in order for you to explore the world and test yourself. This Game relies on People growing and becoming better in mental skills. SOT the Game doesn't progress player skills. SOT the Concept forces people to take what they've experienced and apply it when they enter the game in future sessions and overcome a sandbox of possibility.

• When he compares SOT to Mario Kart, he mentions the game loop, incentives, not-getting-bored. Aye, the tracks get progressively harder but it's YOU against the world in attachment to instant gratification due to success i.e. the end of a race, the end of the tournament/getting to the top of a global leader-board. SOT isn't like that. The focal point was community. Aye, getting in game to play with your friends, getting on ships and relying on eachother for success, getting on the boards and sharing your stories and build reputation. The selling point of the game IS community and living life as a ne'er-do-well- rogue sailor. But sadly, being a pirate back then wasn't as exciting as Hollywood has made it out to be.

• He also compares SOT to this childhood game called, 'FLARP,' which its winning trait is to physically inflict pain on each other with a basketball as if it was a dodgeball. They were bored and created their own fun ergo they had fun by hurting each other. SOT has that, but it's not as easy as others make it out to be. The Helmsman doesn't have control of the broadsides; the helmsman has to rely on the crew to man the cannon; the helmsman has to rely on their mental skills and not their game-based skills. The same can be applied to map reading, scoping, and swashbuckling. The game does progress your skills in order to kill other players, skullies, or beasties. The game doesn't give you progressively beefed up weapons, ammo, armor, health, etc. The game only tracks your ranking in the 3 Guilds. It's up to the human behind the controller/keyboard to do the rest.

• He also provides "solutions" that evoke POTC and Blackflag... Ruinscape economies .. PvP (Trouble-Waters analogy 19:34 is what the open ocean IS in SOT i.e. anything DOES happen and players DO loss all what they've been working toward within a 4-6 hr gaming session aka The Game Risk-Reward "sys" is what SOT is all about [not even the OutPost are safe havens; it all relies on the generosity or greed of a fellow human being]).. More Content desires do not take into account "Game as Service" (Updates don't "fix" the game; updates prolong a multi-faceted concept [there will always BE update as long as the game lives -- aye, lives, because when an online game closes, it dies with only its surviving community members willingness to ban together and do something about it]).

• Personal Observations on The SOT BackLash: Gamers are reacting the same way as "die-hard" Star Wars fans criticized THE LAST JEDI. Johnson wanted to take the franchise in a very different direction, and "fans" didn't like that direction. Aye, some did, but those that didn't were very vocal and started fantasizing their own headcanon about The Last Jedi that never was but could have been. RARE took the "Overwatch"/"Instant Gratification"/"Game as Product" gamer culture in a direction they weren't ready to go into, and now, those gamers are very eager in expressing their distaste yet desire of a game they wanted to get...

He is not comparing SoT with Overwatch, The Last of Us, etc, he says that all those games keep the players interested in the long run, because you want to know what happens with Joel and Ellie, or you want to improve new heroes in Overwatch, you want new perks or gadgets in CoD, etc.

In games like Minecraft, 7 Days to Die, Subanutica and other survival sandboxes there are countless mechanics, items and things to do, you can change your world at will, SoT lacks content, the freedom feels limited once you tried the few mechanics and gadgets avalaible, the world feels shallow and empty.

It sounds like the OP is unaware of what sandbox games are. That's what SoT is and what it has always been promoted as.

@neller2000 ...in other words, you don't know what a sandbox game is either. /sigh

What you cited as examples of games that fit into sub-genres of sandbox games. They are not the full spectrum of sandbox games. GTA lets you make your own fun by giving players lots of interactive world systems to exploit (traffic systems, police systems, npc systems, economy systems, etc). Minecraft, another sandbox game, gives players none of that, for the most part. In other words, the genre itself is much wider than you are suggesting by cherry picking titles to pretend are its benchmarks.

Other games you noted are survival sandbox games, another sub-genre. In those, the system given to players to leverage to their own imagination is crafting systems which is a requirement if you want your gameplay to be built around surviving some ever-present threat. That isn't some hallmark of good game design so much as a requirement imbued by the sub-genre, like jumping in a platformer or shooting mechanics in a game where you shoot stuff primarily. Similarly, in SoT we have in depth mechanics for sailing a ship and working with crew mates because it is a social, shared world sandbox game.

The issue is that not many other games in this sub-genre exist so nobody really understands what SoT is to be compared to. Ppl want to compare it to Division or Destiny due to it being an online shared world game, while others want to compare it to MMO's or rpg's or GTA. But none of those are good starting points for a broad comparison since they are all fundamentally different in their design goals to SoT. The more social games there aren't very engaging and the other more engaging ones aren't very social.

More content doesn't improve anything for players who can't grasp what the game actually is in the first place and engage with it on its own terms. The mechanics/systems normally employed by those other sub-genres of sandbox titles would ruin the core beauty of what SoT. SoT was designed around avoiding those crutches that the other sub-genres lean on to keep ppl engaged/playing.

The fact so many ppl complaining keep coming back here week after week to repeat themselves while still playing the game says a lot. Normally ppl who don't like a game don't keep playing and don't remain engaged in its communities.

@cmdrllama The vast majority of modern games do away with player progression. It is not at all true that 'by default most games have this....'. Games where your character progresses without requiring the player to actually get better are not demonstrating what you think they are.

Anything with skill trees essentially is guaranteed to not fit into what SoT is doing since those necessarily make the game artificially easier for the person playing it by buffing their character in some area.

@ethnine Alternatively, some of us actually understand game design while internet masses of unedcuated armchair analysts seeking out echo chambers online don't. But hey, you do you. :)