As a result of the poorly optimized graphical engine, MANY (probably 95%) of the users experienced problems with their systems and the display of the game. Most grew frustrated, but being a proud group of people, we played with our settings, downloaded and re-downloaded drivers, and tried to tough it out. Most of us were unsuccessful in doing so for more then a few weeks. Other frustrating elements existed, server downtime, odd NPC behavior, quests and crafting not working as intended (or at all), some stats not working, or being reflected. The list goes on and on. Murphy's Law states; "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." With that in mind, I classify Vanguard as having a Murphy's Launch.
95%?! Give me a break, why do you have to make up such an absurd number? Maybe you should fact check before posting such nonsense? You made the number up. I hate when people go and write something and then they have to put in bogus numbers.......
It's not so un-optimized anymore. When I first played VG it was a glorified slide show even in un-populated areas. Now I can play it with every setting on max and it rarely lags unless I am in a crowded area (my system is hardly cutting edge). In fact, I actually think that VG looks and runs much better than EQ2.
Unfortunately, nice graphics don't quite make up for tedious, frustrating gameplay caused by low population, otherwise I would still be playing
As a result of the poorly optimized graphical engine, MANY (probably 95%) of the users experienced problems with their systems and the display of the game. Most grew frustrated, but being a proud group of people, we played with our settings, downloaded and re-downloaded drivers, and tried to tough it out. Most of us were unsuccessful in doing so for more then a few weeks. Other frustrating elements existed, server downtime, odd NPC behavior, quests and crafting not working as intended (or at all), some stats not working, or being reflected. The list goes on and on. Murphy's Law states; "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." With that in mind, I classify Vanguard as having a Murphy's Launch.
95%?! Give me a break, why do you have to make up such an absurd number? Maybe you should fact check before posting such nonsense? You made the number up. I hate when people go and write something and then they have to put in bogus numbers.......
You probably hate when people write something and make up bogus numbers (which I didn't do), almost as much as I hate when idiots who call someone out and don't bother to back it up either.
Absurd number? Really? Go look at the Vanguard tech forums, or even the support area in general, and look at how many posts (or count the individual posters, if you're that bored) there are regarding graphical/hardware problems. Then reference it against their sales. Won't be too hard to figure out that nearly 100% of the people playing Vanguard when it was initially released experienced issues to one degree or another. I was being gracious, if anything, with the 95%.
Sure, it got better. Or did it? Seems to me the game is still dead - and the gameplay itself isn't the issue.
The contents of this post do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com and its management.
Vanguard to me suffered from the most devastating of MMO failures, it never felt like home.
I have revisisted some old games and for some that felt like a home coming and for others... all I saw was an old engine and failed game mechanics.
Vanguard was a bunch of ideas and 3D models thrown together but it lacked any sense of being a game, let alone a world.
One of the examples in Vanguard of this was a LARGE port city filled with nothing. The city was gigantic but it felt empty and was hard and boring to navigate. But the greatest offender wassomething trivial. The docs were made up out of planks and nail that were FAR to large. Like many a 3D world, it seemed to have been designed by people who never set foot outside of a basement.
EQ2 has now redesigned one of its massive cities because while massive cities SOUND great, they are extremely difficult to pull off.
Lotro The Shire is to me a good example of how it should be done. The entire Shire makes sense. Granted it is highly condensed but hobbits got short legs. The "cities" never feel to large or to small or to empty.
Compared to that, Vanguard just never gelled together. I can conjure some memories of the game but none that make me nostalgic at all.
To me, it was not the bugs themselves that stopped me playing. The game just never pulled me in. I was fighting a spread shit with rather poor graphics.
As a result of the poorly optimized graphical engine, MANY (probably 95%) of the users experienced problems with their systems and the display of the game. Most grew frustrated, but being a proud group of people, we played with our settings, downloaded and re-downloaded drivers, and tried to tough it out. Most of us were unsuccessful in doing so for more then a few weeks. Other frustrating elements existed, server downtime, odd NPC behavior, quests and crafting not working as intended (or at all), some stats not working, or being reflected. The list goes on and on. Murphy's Law states; "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." With that in mind, I classify Vanguard as having a Murphy's Launch.
95%?! Give me a break, why do you have to make up such an absurd number? Maybe you should fact check before posting such nonsense? You made the number up. I hate when people go and write something and then they have to put in bogus numbers.......
You probably hate when people write something and make up bogus numbers (which I didn't do), almost as much as I hate when idiots who call someone out and don't bother to back it up either.
Absurd number? Really? Go look at the Vanguard tech forums, or even the support area in general, and look at how many posts (or count the individual posters, if you're that bored) there are regarding graphical/hardware problems. Then reference it against their sales. Won't be too hard to figure out that nearly 100% of the people playing Vanguard when it was initially released experienced issues to one degree or another. I was being gracious, if anything, with the 95%.
Sure, it got better. Or did it? Seems to me the game is still dead - and the gameplay itself isn't the issue.
Not everyone is going to post about it and you can't go by the forum posts/tech posts and sales and still say it is 95%. This is YOUR number you pulled out. Be more realistic next time...
It is very obvious that Vanguard even in current state, is not the game for you and would never have been. Just let it go its not for everyone. It is a niche game that did not even go after the same market WoW did.
Some of us ( have about 6 characters in VG ) with quite a bit of /played time there did see some amazing things that sadly may never be in MMOs again.
Everyone has their reasons for sticking with / leaving games, I for one would tell you today or years ago, don't bother with Vanguard it is not your type of game.
If you believe the only people Vanguard is for, are the few hundred people that are currently playing it, then yeah you're right its not for me.
At launch though, Vanguard was aimed at the "Core" gamer and marketed directly to us. Brad and Sigil expressedly desired several hundred thousand subscribers, not just several hundred. I don't mean to insult any sensibilities you have, but the game was built to be something I'd like, marketed to me as something I'd like, and I bought it and gave it a try. I reserve the right to deem it shitty, and not have you nor anyone else tell me my opinion matters any less than yours. I and the hundreds of thousands that either bought or consumed a trial key of Vanguard deserve just as much of an opinion about it as the 300 or so that will like it no matter what.
Alas, I'm sure even among the few hundred left, when someone vocally quits now they probably get the "its not for you" argument. I'd wager even when Vanguard is down to 19 players from 20, that person who quit is going to get the "its not for you" argument.
Comments
95%?! Give me a break, why do you have to make up such an absurd number? Maybe you should fact check before posting such nonsense? You made the number up. I hate when people go and write something and then they have to put in bogus numbers.......
It's not so un-optimized anymore. When I first played VG it was a glorified slide show even in un-populated areas. Now I can play it with every setting on max and it rarely lags unless I am in a crowded area (my system is hardly cutting edge). In fact, I actually think that VG looks and runs much better than EQ2.
Unfortunately, nice graphics don't quite make up for tedious, frustrating gameplay caused by low population, otherwise I would still be playing
You probably hate when people write something and make up bogus numbers (which I didn't do), almost as much as I hate when idiots who call someone out and don't bother to back it up either.
Absurd number? Really? Go look at the Vanguard tech forums, or even the support area in general, and look at how many posts (or count the individual posters, if you're that bored) there are regarding graphical/hardware problems. Then reference it against their sales. Won't be too hard to figure out that nearly 100% of the people playing Vanguard when it was initially released experienced issues to one degree or another. I was being gracious, if anything, with the 95%.
Sure, it got better. Or did it? Seems to me the game is still dead - and the gameplay itself isn't the issue.
The contents of this post do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com and its management.
Vanguard to me suffered from the most devastating of MMO failures, it never felt like home.
I have revisisted some old games and for some that felt like a home coming and for others... all I saw was an old engine and failed game mechanics.
Vanguard was a bunch of ideas and 3D models thrown together but it lacked any sense of being a game, let alone a world.
One of the examples in Vanguard of this was a LARGE port city filled with nothing. The city was gigantic but it felt empty and was hard and boring to navigate. But the greatest offender wassomething trivial. The docs were made up out of planks and nail that were FAR to large. Like many a 3D world, it seemed to have been designed by people who never set foot outside of a basement.
EQ2 has now redesigned one of its massive cities because while massive cities SOUND great, they are extremely difficult to pull off.
Lotro The Shire is to me a good example of how it should be done. The entire Shire makes sense. Granted it is highly condensed but hobbits got short legs. The "cities" never feel to large or to small or to empty.
Compared to that, Vanguard just never gelled together. I can conjure some memories of the game but none that make me nostalgic at all.
To me, it was not the bugs themselves that stopped me playing. The game just never pulled me in. I was fighting a spread shit with rather poor graphics.
Not everyone is going to post about it and you can't go by the forum posts/tech posts and sales and still say it is 95%. This is YOUR number you pulled out. Be more realistic next time...
If you believe the only people Vanguard is for, are the few hundred people that are currently playing it, then yeah you're right its not for me.
At launch though, Vanguard was aimed at the "Core" gamer and marketed directly to us. Brad and Sigil expressedly desired several hundred thousand subscribers, not just several hundred. I don't mean to insult any sensibilities you have, but the game was built to be something I'd like, marketed to me as something I'd like, and I bought it and gave it a try. I reserve the right to deem it shitty, and not have you nor anyone else tell me my opinion matters any less than yours. I and the hundreds of thousands that either bought or consumed a trial key of Vanguard deserve just as much of an opinion about it as the 300 or so that will like it no matter what.
Alas, I'm sure even among the few hundred left, when someone vocally quits now they probably get the "its not for you" argument. I'd wager even when Vanguard is down to 19 players from 20, that person who quit is going to get the "its not for you" argument.
Oh well though.