Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Who is to blame for VG's lackluster performance?

ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon

A quote in another thread got me to thinking.


Originally posted by aspekx
...as screwy as (vanguard) was it actually had some rather imaginative / innovative bits to it...


Oh I totally agree. The game's UI was ground breaking. I blame Microsoft for VG's plight. They lacked faith and pulled funding. SOE took over the game, yay, but under some conditions. Conditions that, I feel, alienated VG from the very fans it was originally intended to please.

/edit, oops i mispelled McQuaid. Sowwy.

Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

Comments

  • syriinxsyriinx New York, NYPosts: 1,063Member Uncommon

    Sigil, not just Brad McQuaid.  Brad may have sucked at running the show, but the code for the game was apparently a disaster.  You can't blame microsoft for cutting funding, and SoE worked their assess off while receiving little income to improve the game.  SoE could have handled things a little differently in the last couple of years, but it wouldnt have made a big impact.

     

    99% Brad/Sigil, 1% SoE

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,416Member Uncommon
    Probably Brad McQuaid, but without real insider info, there is no way to tell.  If rumours of management misbehaviors were accurate, it's no wonder that Microsoft would pull the plug.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • Yyrkoon_PoMYyrkoon_PoM Reseda, CAPosts: 150Member
    Sigil/Brad were 99.9999% the reason the game went live the way it did. It was like like watching the movie Titanic ... you just knew it was going to hit an iceberg.  As a previous poster noted SoE did what it could to get the game live .... even acquired all assets of Sigil after the game went live.  SoE was just the co-publisher, when Vanguard went live,  it was only after 4 months after that SoE took over instead of shut down. Basically Vanguard would have died if not for SoE ... the Vanguard team ... well most of them went down with the ship, which makes the biggest target  Brad.
  • Effin_RabbitEffin_Rabbit Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 773Member Uncommon
    Didnt the guy fire everyone in the parking lot? That type of person should never be in charge of anything other than flushing their own poo down the toilet, maybe not even that.
  • Big_DataBig_Data Denver, COPosts: 48Member

    Everyone remembers the (unconfirmed) stories about parking lot firings and bad management, but no one recalls other details like how funding promised by Microsoft didn't come through, cutting development short.

  • LetsinodLetsinod Ramsey, MNPosts: 334Member Common

    There was so many things that went wrong that a book could be written about it all.  Office affairs, parking lot firings, MS pulling funding for Xbox development, horrible coding, and massive changes to the core of the game in beta.  The one thing I have always wanted to know though was how much SOE paid to acquire it all.

     

     

  • XthosXthos Columbus, OHPosts: 2,628Member

    I would say their is blame to go around for everyone.

     

    Microsoft got tired of delays and couldn't stomach that mmos often go over budget and are delayed, so they lost faith and wanted to cut ties.

     

    Sigil/Brad - They were behind where they probably promised, which yes doesn't mean a lot in mmos, but they were behind.  They also supposedly had some jumbled bad code, and they were a little too ambitious with polygon counts and such that caused a lot of the hitching at release SoE said.

     

    SoE - They helped, but they could of offered more support early on, to help avoid the release state that turned many off.  Then they pretty much abandoned it, after they promised a relaunch that didn't happen, before they abandoned it for a long time.

     

    So blame for everyone, and yes they cut down on some of the old school aspects and made experience faster and less penalties for things, probably among many other things, been a long time.

     

    I had a brand new computer that was a top end gaming machine, so I didn't have a horrible time playing through the bugs/lag, so I wasn't as jaded as some.  Vanguard is in my top 5 mmos, they had a lot of nice systems (crafting/harvesting/diplomacy/pve/world etc...).

     

    I would go back and play Vanguard now, but I just don't see the type of commitment that would keep me playing, and I know it is a catch 22, no people, no development, but if they even said if we get 'x' number of new people, we will scale development with population or something, then it may spark some kind of growth, who knows?

     

    VG was the last mmo that I played for a long time, nothing since...All new stuff feels shallow, mostly flash and graphics and not enough depth. 

  • Big_DataBig_Data Denver, COPosts: 48Member

    I wish someone would write a book!  Remember to that it appeared as though the main motivation SOE had in grabbing Vanguard was so it wouldn't compete against EverQuest 2.

    After a while they kept it around as a value add for their station pass.

    Although the project was mismanaged I think it all came apart when Microsoft decided to pull funding for the Xbox. The game was far from complete, and was basically forced into release.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member

    MS pulled funding because after almost a year of development sigil had nothing but video clips to show for it. I remember a post from one of the ex developers talking about almost the entire game was made in 9 months after soe came in and had deadlines.

    I think there is only one person to blame for VG. He may of had great ideas but he did now have the skills required to run a whole team and see a game through.

  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member
    Originally posted by syriinx

    Sigil, not just Brad McQuaid.  Brad may have sucked at running the show, but the code for the game was apparently a disaster.  You can't blame microsoft for cutting funding, and SoE worked their assess off while receiving little income to improve the game.  SoE could have handled things a little differently in the last couple of years, but it wouldnt have made a big impact.

     

    99% Brad/Sigil, 1% SoE

     

    Pretty much this.  While the buck stops with Brad, he wasn't the only one to blame at Sigil. 

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon

    I vote other.

     

    Combat, absolutely one of the worst and slowest combats in any game I ever played.  It literally looks like the animations are stuck in slow-mo.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • AlcuinAlcuin Broken State, CAPosts: 310Member Uncommon

    I think the push for high end specs was partially to blame.  I guess that means Sigil & Brad are to blame, but they weren't alone in their thinking.  There was an ironic philosophy about tech back then.  I remember it from the id software days  of DOOM and Quake.  There were extreme system requirements and it seemed average people could not play the game without an expensive upgrade- maybe even a whole new computer.  These extreme requirements may have affected how system resources were used and how things were coded, but I don't know enough to say so with certainty.  Like others, I've also heard over the years that the code was horrible.

     

    The extreme system requirements thing had happened with EQ2 too.  I remember not being able to run it on all but the lowest of settings and even then it was a slideshow in the cities.

    So at that time I stuck with EQ1 and then... WoW, which ran just fine on my system at the time. 

     

    When Vanguard sputtered to life, I didn't even attempt to buy it.  I wasn't going to go through the same thing I went through with EQ2.  I think I stuck with CoH at the time.  

    _____________________________
    "Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"

  • GravargGravarg Harker Heights, TXPosts: 3,332Member Uncommon
    I can forgive a bad launch, but I won't forgive bad support.  SOE could have easily fixed problems, but instead they did what they always do with games the aquire.  They do nothing with them.  You're lucky to get a patch once a year from them that actually does anything, and that patch is an expansion you have to buy.
  • Big_DataBig_Data Denver, COPosts: 48Member


    Originally posted by Alcuin I think the push for high end specs was partially to blame.  I guess that means Sigil & Brad are to blame, but they weren't alone in their thinking.  There was an ironic philosophy about tech back then.  I remember it from the id software days  of DOOM and Quake.  There were extreme system requirements and it seemed average people could not play the game without an expensive upgrade- maybe even a whole new computer.  These extreme requirements may have affected how system resources were used and how things were coded, but I don't know enough to say so with certainty.  Like others, I've also heard over the years that the code was horrible.   The extreme system requirements thing had happened with EQ2 too.  I remember not being able to run it on all but the lowest of settings and even then it was a slideshow in the cities. So at that time I stuck with EQ1 and then... WoW, which ran just fine on my system at the time.    When Vanguard sputtered to life, I didn't even attempt to buy it.  I wasn't going to go through the same thing I went through with EQ2.  I think I stuck with CoH at the time.  
     

    Exactly this. They assumed that people like you would upgrade, since many people were willing to do that to play EQ1. They didn't anticipate that A. people were burnt out from upgrading and B. there were other MMO options that required less tech to play (WoW).

  • syriinxsyriinx New York, NYPosts: 1,063Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Big_Data

    Remember to that it appeared as though the main motivation SOE had in grabbing Vanguard was so it wouldn't compete against EverQuest 2.

     

    Only to stupid people.  No one else was picking up Vanguard.  Its only chance of release after microsoft dumped it was SoE.  If they were worried about the competition they would have just let it become vaporware.

  • syriinxsyriinx New York, NYPosts: 1,063Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    I can forgive a bad launch, but I won't forgive bad support.  SOE could have easily fixed problems, but instead they did what they always do with games the aquire.  They do nothing with them.  You're lucky to get a patch once a year from them that actually does anything, and that patch is an expansion you have to buy.

    I guess you were in a coma for the 18 months where they made the game playable and added content?  SoE supported Vanguard.  Players did not.  

  • fantasyfreak112fantasyfreak112 Orange County, CAPosts: 499Member
    Are people serious voting Microsoft? Brad wasn't even in his office 90% of the time during his own games development. That shows a distinct lack of caring.
  • Sajman01Sajman01 Rochester, NYPosts: 204Member

    Shrug.

    I know for myself, I picked up the game because my system specs were just above the requirement. Went to play the game and it was unplayable. Tried to do some config changes and nothing worked. Quit it and never looked back.

  • VonatarVonatar PraguePosts: 672Member Uncommon

    Lacklustre launch: Brad/Sigil for failing to execute.

     

    Lacklustre performance to date: SOE, for failing to promote and develop what they had.

     

  • Big_DataBig_Data Denver, COPosts: 48Member
    Originally posted by syriinx
    Originally posted by Big_Data

    Remember to that it appeared as though the main motivation SOE had in grabbing Vanguard was so it wouldn't compete against EverQuest 2.

     

    Only to stupid people.  No one else was picking up Vanguard.  Its only chance of release after microsoft dumped it was SoE.  If they were worried about the competition they would have just let it become vaporware.

    It as safer for SOE to snag it than let it hang out there, and potentially be scooped up by someone else.  It wasn't a forgone conclusion that it was vaporware.

    Moreover, SOE could have purchased it, and completed the project before releasing it, as opposed to seeing that it clearly wasn't done, and releasing it anyway.

  • Big_DataBig_Data Denver, COPosts: 48Member
    Originally posted by syriinx
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    I can forgive a bad launch, but I won't forgive bad support.  SOE could have easily fixed problems, but instead they did what they always do with games the aquire.  They do nothing with them.  You're lucky to get a patch once a year from them that actually does anything, and that patch is an expansion you have to buy.

    I guess you were in a coma for the 18 months where they made the game playable and added content?  SoE supported Vanguard.  Players did not.  

    They made marginal improvements, including adding in content that was almost complete, and should have been in on release.  They only very recently have done any actual improvement or content additions, aside from merging servers.

    Vanguard was this low cost expenditure for them that they could have as part of station pass.  Hell, how many Fan Faire's were there that had not a single panel or presentation on Vanguard.

    I honestly think the only reason they have recently started doing anything to it is to further test the waters of F2P, before EQN launches.

     

    [edited for grammar]

  • TalemireTalemire Clearwater, FLPosts: 756Member
    The game could have very easily been the best MMORPG to date TODAY if things had been done correctly. The fact that it's a sandbox alone would have given it a major advantage over all that's out there even now. Now I don't even think you can PvP in that game anymore. Last time I played it was FFA or nothing at all, but I do admit there are times where I wish VG was what it could have been. My favorite feature is the skill chains and reactive abilities.

    ------------------------------
    MMORPGs are great to look forward to after a hard day of work, but heaven is the ultimate reward for those who live Christ-like.

    image
  • SlantizeSlantize Charlotte, NCPosts: 4Member
    Originally posted by Talemire
    The game could have very easily been the best MMORPG to date TODAY if things had been done correctly. The fact that it's a sandbox alone would have given it a major advantage over all that's out there even now. Now I don't even think you can PvP in that game anymore. Last time I played it was FFA or nothing at all, but I do admit there are times where I wish VG was what it could have been. My favorite feature is the skill chains and reactive abilities.

    i definitely agree with this. i started playing back a few years ago, it was in november the year they brought the reindeer flying mount for free into the game for the first time (not sure if that happened more than once). the game had a lot of really neat ideas, even simple things such as separate simultaneous offensive and defensive targeting. i think its biggest flaw and turn-off were the steep system requirements at the time, and the fact that it wasn't until several years after the launch that consumers could get SSD's to finally rid the game of the majority of the stuttering that was present on even the best systems.

    the skill chains and reactive abilities were fantastic, especially with classes like the disciple where you can do offensive chains to do group aoe heals and such. it was a really neat system that i'd like to see implemented in other games. the only game that really came close that i've played was the shaman in warhammer online, but as i recall it didn't have skill chains, you essentially built up "healing power" through offensive abilities and i believe you could also build "damage power" through healing abilities, so it was a battle of balancing the two to your advantage.

    i think my other complaint with vanguard was the fact that while the art style was good, the draw distance was fantastic and overall i really liked the graphics, the game landscaping didn't flow very well. what i mean is, trees and rocks and such looked like they were just stuck there. in other games they look like they're a part of the world, but in vanguard it was like the rest of the world was a watercolor painting with actual pieces of rock sitting on top of the paper, out of place and for no reason. however, i will say that the world design in terms of cliffs, valleys and zone design was very solid. unfortunately i never explored the whole world and didn't play the game for long due to performance issues and the low population, but i did explore a fair bit with that flying mount before it was gone and it was a beautiful game.

  • AdamantineAdamantine NowherePosts: 3,514Member Common

    Well isnt that already very well documented now ?

    Sigil Games is to blame for being too inexperienced and not making good contracts with Microsoft.

    SOE basically was sympathetic, but didnt had the budget to save Vanguard. They probably also didnt really liked the idea of having a concurrence to their EQ2, even if Vanguard was conceptionally superior.

    There are also a couple other problems, such as too high graphic demands. But overall Vanguard could have been a huge success if they had received full funding and would have been able to release on schedule, instead of at least half a year too early.

Sign In or Register to comment.