Howdy, Stranger!

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

Vanguard

2

Comments

  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 8,338
    VG's own target audience didn't support the game in it's prime, why would any dev waste their time emulating it?
    I think most liked the game but it was such a technological piece of junk that it made it difficult for many to enjoy it.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,599
    Letsinod said:
    The target audience did support it.  Over 250k was sold, and could have been higher had it not been such a disaster that people knew about pre-launch.  I was so excited for it, but could never run it.  Constant crashes, hitching, and performance issues were the norm.



    Hmm i thought it was  only 40k on release. 
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    edited November 2016
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.

    WoW launched terribly (partly because amount of people, but it was also filled with bugs and TONS of issues). Yet, people stuck with it because the game was good.

    People use a bad launch as an excuse. When that is all it is. FFXIV launched terribly, re-launched and now its one of the most successful MMOs. EVE Online had a terrible launch, now look at it years later. Many MMOs launch bad and do just fine.

    What people don't want to admit, is the vast majority just don't want to play games like that. They say "its cause launch was bad" is a lame excuse with no basis, when many launch bad and do just fine. The truth they don't want to admit, is these games are done and over and will always now be niche. 

    Vanguard could have been an amazing niche MMO, but the developers focused on WoW-like numbers. This is its downfall. It needed to be focused as a niche MMO with maybe 25-50k subscribers (which was a good amount in older MMOs). 

    People saying it failed because of launch are just lying to themselves and everyone else. It failed because it was a niche MMO that too many dollars got put into, because of the success of WoW.

    If the game was good for a non-niche MMO, it would have had tons of people playing. It could have had SWTOR like numbers at the very least. In fact, it was barely played but by...again...a niche amount that like that gamestyle. Tons of people re-joined and quickly left, even when the game got "fixed". That is a fact. The game was either just bad, and launch had nothing to do with it (because it did get fixed, people kept trying it, and left very quickly), or a very niche MMO that most mmo gamers don't want to play anymore (even if they think they do, otherwise they would have played it).

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.

    Who goes back to failed games?  Do you?  Do you really believe the stuff you write?
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    waynejr2 said:
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.

    Who goes back to failed games?  Do you?  Do you really believe the stuff you write?
    I edited my post with a bit more detail. But the end post I edited in sums it up

    The game was either just bad, and launch had nothing to do with it (because it did get fixed, people kept trying it, and left very quickly), or a very niche MMO that most mmo gamers don't want to play anymore (even if they think they do, otherwise they would have played it).

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,724
    Anyone know how far along they are with this? What is the state of this game?  Is anyone actually playing it?

    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • fodell54fodell54 Member RarePosts: 859
    edited December 2016
    waynejr2 said:
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.

    Who goes back to failed games?  Do you?  Do you really believe the stuff you write?
    I edited my post with a bit more detail. But the end post I edited in sums it up

    The game was either just bad, and launch had nothing to do with it (because it did get fixed, people kept trying it, and left very quickly), or a very niche MMO that most mmo gamers don't want to play anymore (even if they think they do, otherwise they would have played it).
    Vanguard was only ever semi fixed. It had issues that existed on day one and still existed the day it was closed. Don't even try to say that the problems Vanguard had were fixed. Did you ever raid in VG? If you would have you'd know that even the content added after launch had a lot of issues. That's not even including the horrible optimization of the game.

    When you are forced to raid on low settings with the entire raid in cobalt form and your still only getting 10-25 frame rate. The game needs more then just some work.

    It's sad because VG could have really been something great. I really miss my ranger. He was great fun.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    The horrible launch was it's ultimate demise, but it wasn't the bugs holding Vanguard back in the end. It was the core changes to the game. Soloing, quest hub progression, ez loot acquisition, weak death penalty, fast travel and everything else we've come to expect from WoW derivatives.

    Vanguard at the end was anything but the successor to EQ it was in beta.


  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.

    ...
    Rubbish. Revisionism at its finest.

    Vanguard's troubles were legion. The development phase generated loads of controversy. It almost didn't make it to launch launch, saved at the last minute by a bail-out from SOE.

    At launch, the game was riddled with bugs and some areas were so badly optimized that it ran like a slideshow on the average PC of those days. Many people found it all but unplayable.

    SOE made a decent effort to fix the game, but that required large parts of the game to be dumped, as it was just not cost-effective to fix everything. Unique starting areas for every race was one of the early features to be cut.

    A year or two after launch the game was generally playable, but by then it was forgotten. No MMORPG has ever recovered from a disastrous launch. FFXIV is often cited as one that did, but that's a fallacy. That game was completely rebuilt over a period of 4 years or so. The original was closed down.
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Scorchien said:
    dam .. man you would think daybreak could put up just one server ,throw it in with the Station Pass and put a cosmetic/cashshop on it..

      really miss telon ..

                       hope lies with pantheon
    There were just too few players at the end. If SOE would have kept it running then perhaps but rebooting something that max would get 25K players is probably not worth their time.

    Taking as much as they can from the game, slap on a new engine, change the placenames and call it EQ3 would be more likely, while it would cost far more that should get much more players.

    It is sad, gameplay wise was VG really fun but the engine was a mess. If it released in the shape it was at the end and got improved afterwards it would still be up and running with an acceptable playerbase.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited December 2016
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.
    ...
    Rubbish. Revisionism at its finest.
    <snip>
    Absolutely.

    Although "official" sub numbers were not released a good number of metrics were available around number of characters, character levels, progression, guilds and so forth. All of them suggested that retention was very high - extremely high by todays standards. A high percentage sticjing with the game for several months despite the launch - which was dire. The game wasn't finished - they ran out of money.

    SoE bought the rights to the game but not the company and they hired some of the staff - around 40? - some of whom were for other SoE projects and not Vanguard. SoE kept the game running - kudos there - but they didn't buy it to spend lots of money on it; what fixes there were were sone in very slow time. 
  • Pr0tag0ni5tPr0tag0ni5t Member UncommonPosts: 228
    The combat mechanics, the crafting, and the uniqueness of classes are by far the best of any game I've  played. The game was poorly made however and nearly unplayable. Why couldn't someone pick up and remake this game instead of Dark and Light :angry: Loved this game...when it wor ked anyway :P

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 29,828
    Letsinod said:
    Nanfoodle said:
    Does this emulator actually work yet or are the NPCs all still broken?
    Last update was 06/20/2015. Other than that I have no clue.

    The emulator is being worked on daily.  I think they just kind of left the webpage to die but if you go into the developer forums and even ones of this websites biggest competitors you will see they post all the time.  There is some really big progress right now.
    Awesome! Thanks for that.
  • AethaerynAethaeryn Member RarePosts: 3,139
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.

    WoW launched terribly (partly because amount of people, but it was also filled with bugs and TONS of issues). Yet, people stuck with it because the game was good.

    People use a bad launch as an excuse. When that is all it is. FFXIV launched terribly, re-launched and now its one of the most successful MMOs. EVE Online had a terrible launch, now look at it years later. Many MMOs launch bad and do just fine.

    What people don't want to admit, is the vast majority just don't want to play games like that. They say "its cause launch was bad" is a lame excuse with no basis, when many launch bad and do just fine. The truth they don't want to admit, is these games are done and over and will always now be niche. 

    Vanguard could have been an amazing niche MMO, but the developers focused on WoW-like numbers. This is its downfall. It needed to be focused as a niche MMO with maybe 25-50k subscribers (which was a good amount in older MMOs). 

    People saying it failed because of launch are just lying to themselves and everyone else. It failed because it was a niche MMO that too many dollars got put into, because of the success of WoW.

    If the game was good for a non-niche MMO, it would have had tons of people playing. It could have had SWTOR like numbers at the very least. In fact, it was barely played but by...again...a niche amount that like that gamestyle. Tons of people re-joined and quickly left, even when the game got "fixed". That is a fact. The game was either just bad, and launch had nothing to do with it (because it did get fixed, people kept trying it, and left very quickly), or a very niche MMO that most mmo gamers don't want to play anymore (even if they think they do, otherwise they would have played it).
    I agree somewhat - but here was my experience.

    Loved the idea and the game for the most part. . . played in beta and was so overwhelmed by the problems just before launch that I didn't pruchase it.  I picked it up years later and realized what a gem it was and then it closed.  I would have only subbed off and on though honestly.

    If it had gotten "much" better it would have survived.  The launch certainly hurt it though.

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,527
    What someone should do is make a diplomacy game from the cards.  (and preferably not add the overpowered cards that entered the game late)
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,252
    waynejr2 said:
    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.

    Who goes back to failed games?  Do you?  Do you really believe the stuff you write?
    I went back later and it reminded me how bad it was. Empty areas were still there, it still had the stuttering issue and I actually fell through the world within the first hour or two. The entire experience felt sloppy. Groups were EXTREMELY hard to get while leveling. There were classes that could solo almost anything and classes that would feel almost impossible to level without a group. There was an enormous world, but much of it felt empty and unappealing. The most fun I had was the card system (diplomacy?). The combat felt very disconnected. There was an obvious delay between hitting a keybind on the hotbar and having the skill execute (never a good feeling).

    I brought my brother into the mix at some point and later felt guilty for doing so. It just didn't feel like a complete game. No matter how much I wanted to like that game, the execution was awful. I like the idea of a huge world with all of these nooks and crannies to explore. I like their idea of uninstanced, huge dungeons to a certain extent. I like the idea of having a large variety of classes and races. I like that all the races had different starting areas and backgrounds. There was a lot to like about their IDEAS. But damn, their execution, even after having "fixed" some stuff, was just horrible in my opinion.
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 7,967
    There weren't enough people playing. The game had such a beautiful world even with 'chunking' but it was empty of players. Why weren't people playing if you can answer that you will know why Vanguard failed. I don't think it is just one thing though that did it in.
    Chamber of Chains
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 8,338
    It was the only MMO that ran like absolute crap on any gaming rig I ever had.....It was just very poorly optomized and was a technological disaster...like you guys say, its too bad because it had good ideas and could have been a good game with the right company making it.
  • XatericXateric Member UncommonPosts: 51
    It was the raiding that was spot on. I raid in WoW and all I can say is we blow through it in a month because of how easy it is, WoW raiding is for kids....but Vanguard was some serious raiding.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183

    waynejr2 said:



    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.



    Who goes back to failed games?  Do you?  Do you really believe the stuff you write?


    Eh ESO, SWTOR, etc, would like a word..... Especially ESO. 


    I'd also argue this is self defeatist logic at it's finest. By today's standard most old MMOs would have been deemed failures at launch, even at the time of VG's launch. If this is the mentality of a majority of those who want games like VG, Pantheon etc... You're your own worst enemy, and it's no wonder the industry does not cater to such a demographic. An MMO at launch is nothing like an MMO 1-2 years post. If you're not going back to check them out, because of perceived failures at launch, you're only hurting yourself in more ways than one. 

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 29,828


    The truth is, launch has nothing to do with it. People don't want to play games like Vanguard. If they did, they would have played it after launch was fixed.



    Hey I subbed to Vanguard up until the announcement it was closing. It was the only game I subbed to.

    It's true that it wasn't for everyone but it does speak to a certain type of player looking for a certain type of experience.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,103
    The problem with private servers as i have played a few is that they do not do enough to address the lack of players.MMO's needs lots of players,from making an economy work to doing large group content.
    I do however applaud private servers for trying to keep some good games alive where developers just abandoned us.

    There were a few things that turned me off about Vanguard even though i did really like the game,however a few things just did not sit well with me and had me wanting to leave the game.Aggro design was a big one,it really turned me off when an entire fort seemed to be on a leash as all 20-30 came running at you at the exact same time,no realism at all.I also did not like quest boards or posts whatever,they are again not realistic ideas.
    I highly doubt they have fixed a few bugs that can ruin an entire experience in group zones,all progress wasted if players fall through the world.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • pkpkpkpkpkpk Member UncommonPosts: 238
    I was in the beta for this. Though a decent game, it lacked fun and was competing with The Burning Crusade. I bought it and remember it struck me the same as Shadowbane (an "indy" type game that did not feel up to the standards of its predecessors). It launched at a bad time, as MMORPGs were not completely in a slump in 2007. World of Warcraft was still challenging. Other games like Warhammer Online had not proven to be failures yet. The spirit of MMORPGs was still very much alive (at least to my 23 year old mind). And there were plenty of Korean F2P MMORPGs that offered a great experience without the incessant change and decline of modern, western ones. I never had any technical problems with the game, not in beta or at launch. It just did not feel like a good game. I was not starved for quality MMORPGs at the time. That did not happen till a year or two later. In the end, it was not meant to be, which is just as well.  Final Fantasy XI was a great game for grouping with pleasant 3-D graphics. They went to level-syncing and eventually missions to address a lack of groups at low levels. If everyone had not been trying to one-up these games with others they might not have had to. If I want a group-based game, I will play Project 1999, and in so doing so undertake what MMORPGs are all about (for better or worse): socializing, meaning sit around doing easy tasks in groups with people who don't want challenge or risks. I choose not to, I would rather reminisce about Shaiya or Lineage 2, which were not tainted with the western spirit at the time. Now they all have that Blizzard spirit, I figure.
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 4,261
    I tried this unofficial server a couple of times, it shows the amount of logged in people. It never exceeded 5. I love VG, I subbed to the official game. But that number, 5, tells me everything I need to know.

    Goodbye VG, it was great while it lasted.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476
    I miss it a lot bugs and all. Would reup if remade.
    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
Sign In or Register to comment.