a better launch is about it, and in mmos your launch is pretty much everything.i mean eq2s launch wasn't all that great either but vanguards had the worst in history.
DnL wins the worst launch in MMo history imo, but VG's did suck bad, though i was one of the ppl that stuck by it for about a year and a half.
VG.
1. Very little content for 50's (still, and trying to get another mount in my book isnt content its just a time hole)
2. Players, it is a very empty world.
3. Guild content (one of the things i liked best in eq2 was the guild content, i made at least 4 topics in the a month on the VG forums on this but even when each reaches 10 pages of content that they could add by loads of ppl they never added even one)
4. CASH (the big diff EQ2 has the cash to put into the game and make it better VG runs on its own subs alone, which cant be much)
------------------------------------- -=:Sometimes "The Majority" Only Means All The Fools Are On The Same Side.:=-
a better launch is about it, and in mmos your launch is pretty much everything.i mean eq2s launch wasn't all that great either but vanguards had the worst in history.i liked vanguard better but since the launch was that bad no matter what they do to it, i don't see it ever having the numbers it could have had with a good launch. i liked the classes alot better in vanguard there is alot more diversity between them where in eq2 alot was basicly the same with minor differences.
Did you play VG when it went live? I was in beta and early release and then live and VG's release was fairly smooth. I do not remember any amazingly large amount of downtime. I do remember buying EQ2 and installing it on release day and then I come to find out that I cannot see any character models at all. It was the oddest thing I have ever seen. I was at the character creation screen and I saw no character. I clicked the buttons to begin and I started on the ship that everyone starts on and I saw no NPC's or my own character, just water and the boat.
The launch for VG was definately not smooth. To be fair it did not have large amounts of downtime but on the other hand it was virtually unplayable for many people. EQ2 was pretty awful at the beginning too. Now though they have both ironed out a lot of their problems and have managed to reach the dizzying heights of being bog standard.
So for those that have played Vanguard &EQ2 in the last 5 months: what does eq2 have over vanguard?
Vanguard:
- A huge empty world filled with emptyness - no players anywhere, large parts where there's even no npcs or mobs
- The second worst crafting system I've ever tried (Warhammer is worse).
- The horror of Diplomacy
- They "joy" of questing - kill 50 mobs, then discover they want you to kill 100 more of the same ones.
- Nights that are so dark that you can't see what's 20 feet away.
- The death penatly
etc.
EQ2:
What's not to like about it?
....Because im pro EQ2 been playin for three years and heavily biased.
VG also is/has .......
- Broken or bugged starting quest lines at lvl 4 after 1.5 years.
- UI is not very comprimising (EQ2's UI smokes any UI that comes stock).
- Class is based on race. Why limit my options for what I want to do ? Its my character right?
I tried VG 3 times on seperate occasions the longest i played was four months. IMO itll never be more than it is now. Big, empty, and buggy.
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
So for those that have played Vanguard &EQ2 in the last 5 months: what does eq2 have over vanguard?
Vanguard:
- A huge empty world filled with emptyness - no players anywhere, large parts where there's even no npcs or mobs
- The second worst crafting system I've ever tried (Warhammer is worse).
- The horror of Diplomacy
- They "joy" of questing - kill 50 mobs, then discover they want you to kill 100 more of the same ones.
- Nights that are so dark that you can't see what's 20 feet away.
- The death penatly
etc.
EQ2:
What's not to like about it?
....Because im pro EQ2 been playin for three years and heavily biased.
VG also is/has .......
- Broken or bugged starting quest lines at lvl 4 after 1.5 years.
- UI is not very comprimising (EQ2's UI smokes any UI that comes stock).
- Class is based on race. Why limit my options for what I want to do ? Its my character right?
I tried VG 3 times on seperate occasions the longest i played was four months. IMO itll never be more than it is now. Big, empty, and buggy.
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
And that is your personal opinion, in many aspects I agree. But alot of people are drawn to the freedom of choice, and want as many variations as possible. If you create the evil/good line, you are halving that to start with.
Core i5 13600KF, BeQuiet Pure Loop FX 360, 32gb DDR5-6000 XPG, WD SN850 NVMe ,PNY 3090 XLR8, Asus Prime Z790-A, Lian-Li O11 PCMR case (limited ed 1045/2000), 32" LG Ultragear 4k Monitor, Logitech G560 LightSync Sound, Razer Deathadder V2 and Razer Blackwidow V3 Keyboard
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
So for those that have played Vanguard &EQ2 in the last 5 months: what does eq2 have over vanguard?
Vanguard:
- A huge empty world filled with emptyness - no players anywhere, large parts where there's even no npcs or mobs
- The second worst crafting system I've ever tried (Warhammer is worse).
- The horror of Diplomacy
- They "joy" of questing - kill 50 mobs, then discover they want you to kill 100 more of the same ones.
- Nights that are so dark that you can't see what's 20 feet away.
- The death penatly
etc.
EQ2:
What's not to like about it?
....Because im pro EQ2 been playin for three years and heavily biased.
VG also is/has .......
- Broken or bugged starting quest lines at lvl 4 after 1.5 years.
- UI is not very comprimising (EQ2's UI smokes any UI that comes stock).
- Class is based on race. Why limit my options for what I want to do ? Its my character right?
I tried VG 3 times on seperate occasions the longest i played was four months. IMO itll never be more than it is now. Big, empty, and buggy.
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
And that is your personal opinion, in many aspects I agree. But alot of people are drawn to the freedom of choice, and want as many variations as possible. If you create the evil/good line, you are halving that to start with.
......and thats precisely what I am saying. EQ2 and Vanguard DID go down the good/evil route which was a mistake in a game where everyone is actually on the same side
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
Indeed......both games are not in a neutral setting and yet you are not allowed to work for any particular side in the game.
Yes I do want a game that responds to my actions. Afterall whats the point in giving me a choice if I cant actually influence anything? I may as well just watch a film. I would have thought that playing a game online with thousands of people would have given us more choice but instead we seem to have less choice than we do in single player games.
There are games that are working towards such a goal though. Games like EQ2 and Vanguard are just the beginning "test subjects" of the mmo genre in my opinion. They dont take any real advantage of being online at all really.
The games I am hopeful about are Crusades, Earthrise, Fallen Earth and Mortal Online. All of them aim to allow the players actions to influence the state of the game world rather than just remaining static and rigid like the current crop of games. Darkfall is another obvious one but to be honest I have my doubts on its ability to succeed......it will help to pave the way for more interesting games though.
I play both but definitely spend much more time in EQ2 as I enjoy it more. A few of the things that I like: 1. EQ2 housing is more accessible and enjoyable for me. Decorating options are enormous. 2. EQ2 crafting is easier to dive into. Vanguard crafting is definitely more challenging and can be more frustrating. But there are many who enjoy it more for that same reason. 3. The guild system is EQ2 is the best I've seen anywhere. You work together to level your guild. Get access to new things as you level. The guild halls in Vanguard didn't seem to serve a purpose other than storing items. The upcoming EQ2 guild halls can have all the amenities as a town would. 4. EQ2 has more fluff. Some don't care about this sort of stuff at all. But EQ2 fancy mounts are easier to obtain, there are shinies to be collected to give you neat house items, and an appearance tab. And the holiday events always offer even more fluff items. These are just a few of the things that stand out for me. I do think the classes in Vanguard have been done well and in many ways enjoy them more than I do my EQ2 classes. They just have more of a fun factor to them. While I love the game in general, the classes in EQ2 are a bit bland (just my opinion). Also the diplomacy in Vanguard is something unique and can be something fun to do as an alternative to adventuring and crafting. Both good games, but EQ2 just offers more for my play style.
This is one of the most honest and accurate posts in response to the Op's question
You see guys to answer a question objectively you don't have to exaggerate and try to undermine the other game
The above post is a good example of a mature response
I'm pretty sure that the only reason you accepted Cherise's opinions, is that she likes Vanguard and still plays it. You are a fanboy who cannot accept the FACT that a many doesn't like that game.
According to you, I "embellish and fabricate a games features", while you are the one fabricating opinions on my behalf (harvesting, saying I talked about ALL quests, etc).
Who the hell do you think you are? Regardless of our opinions about either game, we all have the same rights to posts them, it's not up to you to decide how valid or not they are.
Get lost, troll.
(Nothing in this post is meant as comments to you or your opinions, Cherise.)
Allow me to tell you who I am ....I am someone who plays Vanguard actively and has relevant information on the game .So now you can stop worrying about who I think I am
I understand your statements were undermined but they weren't factual. ...they were subjective and thats not always relevant to a question . So accept that and move on ... ...and yes " night is dark in the game ...dont play Vanguard " ...lol...that one still makes me laugh...thx again
When I'm not playing Vanguard I will try to give my view if people unreasonably attack the game
Can't promise anything as I am kept preoccupied playing the game
i've played both.....the only things that i personally see that EQ2 has over Vanguard are: 1. More players/ more ad money 2. Instancing and zoning. I dont have any performance problems with either game. I find the quest systems basically the same along with combat etc. So for those that have played Vanguard &EQ2 in the last 5 months: what does eq2 have over vanguard?
Everquest 2 is so much better compared to Vanguard in every sense of the word. And I mean every sense of the word (and yes...I played it recently...I have it on my station pass).
Graphics. Even though EQ2 was made two years before Vanguard, EQ2 has a better utlization of their graphics. For example, your character in EQ2 actually looks like it want to kill the mobs. The characters in vanguard look like it just smoked an entire bong before he ventured off into the wild. They dont make eye contact, they run too fake, etc.
The coding is better in Everquest 2. While it sucks that EQ2 can only run off of a single processor you don't have as many performance issues as you do with Vanguard.
A better community. Everquest 2 is still much larger than Vanguard. When I sell things in Eevrquest 2 I wont have to wait 2 to 3 weeks to sell all my wares. Usually in 24 hours its all gone.
Crafting. Everquest 2 has a much more better crafting utlization. I love crafting in EQ2. Its fun and the end epic crafts are a blast. Vanguard ...well, I cannot stand crafting in Vanguard. At all.
A much more livelier world in Everquest 2. Some of it can get repitious but EQ2 world feels alive. To me, Vanguard's feels a little too fabricated.
Better quests in Everquest 2
Ive been a volunteer Guide/Live quest giver for both Vanguard and Everquest 2 so I have many years of experience as that for EQ2 and one year for Vanguard. To me, Vanguard cannot even compare against EQ2.
Now, I wouldn't say EQ2 is the best MMO in the world, but Vanguard, IMO, cannot touch it.
There is a multicore patch on the test server right now.
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
Indeed......both games are not in a neutral setting and yet you are not allowed to work for any particular side in the game.
Yes I do want a game that responds to my actions. Afterall whats the point in giving me a choice if I cant actually influence anything? I may as well just watch a film. I would have thought that playing a game online with thousands of people would have given us more choice but instead we seem to have less choice than we do in single player games.
There are games that are working towards such a goal though. Games like EQ2 and Vanguard are just the beginning "test subjects" of the mmo genre in my opinion. They dont take any real advantage of being online at all really.
The games I am hopeful about are Crusades, Earthrise, Fallen Earth and Mortal Online. All of them aim to allow the players actions to influence the state of the game world rather than just remaining static and rigid like the current crop of games. Darkfall is another obvious one but to be honest I have my doubts on its ability to succeed......it will help to pave the way for more interesting games though.
Okay this is part of my problem with this general thread ... some people don't play Vanguard or haven't lately and comment around how the game is ..when it's not like that.
In Vanguard you chose a race and start in your racial city...which is expected .Then you can chose a faction city of any race and do quests for them. This was introduced about 3 months ago.As you do quests for them your popularity changes in other cities as logically as you gain prestige for your faction city the other cities like you less ..to the point where they will attack you on site. However you can balance your popularity and do quests under the faction flags of all cities but that is not practical and takes time
I fail to see why this is not a fair system of giving you the ability to chose which area you want to be liked in and how to influence it ?
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
Indeed......both games are not in a neutral setting and yet you are not allowed to work for any particular side in the game.
Yes I do want a game that responds to my actions. Afterall whats the point in giving me a choice if I cant actually influence anything? I may as well just watch a film. I would have thought that playing a game online with thousands of people would have given us more choice but instead we seem to have less choice than we do in single player games.
There are games that are working towards such a goal though. Games like EQ2 and Vanguard are just the beginning "test subjects" of the mmo genre in my opinion. They dont take any real advantage of being online at all really.
The games I am hopeful about are Crusades, Earthrise, Fallen Earth and Mortal Online. All of them aim to allow the players actions to influence the state of the game world rather than just remaining static and rigid like the current crop of games. Darkfall is another obvious one but to be honest I have my doubts on its ability to succeed......it will help to pave the way for more interesting games though.
Okay this is part of my problem with this general thread ... some people don't play Vanguard or haven't lately and comment around how the game is ..when it's not like that.
In Vanguard you chose a race and start in your racial city...which is expected .Then you can chose a faction city of any race and do quests for them. This was introduced about 3 months ago.As you do quests for them your popularity changes in other cities as logically as you gain prestige for your faction city the other cities like you less ..to the point where they will attack you on site. However you can balance your popularity and do quests under the faction flags of all cities but that is not practical and takes time
I fail to see why this is not a fair system of giving you the ability to chose which area you want to be liked in and how to influence it ?
All i was trying to point out between VG and EQ2 is that EQ2 is not class based on race. VG is class based on race, and I dont like that.
Comments
DnL wins the worst launch in MMo history imo, but VG's did suck bad, though i was one of the ppl that stuck by it for about a year and a half.
VG.
1. Very little content for 50's (still, and trying to get another mount in my book isnt content its just a time hole)
2. Players, it is a very empty world.
3. Guild content (one of the things i liked best in eq2 was the guild content, i made at least 4 topics in the a month on the VG forums on this but even when each reaches 10 pages of content that they could add by loads of ppl they never added even one)
4. CASH (the big diff EQ2 has the cash to put into the game and make it better VG runs on its own subs alone, which cant be much)
-------------------------------------
-=:Sometimes "The Majority" Only Means All The Fools Are On The Same Side.:=-
Did you play VG when it went live? I was in beta and early release and then live and VG's release was fairly smooth. I do not remember any amazingly large amount of downtime. I do remember buying EQ2 and installing it on release day and then I come to find out that I cannot see any character models at all. It was the oddest thing I have ever seen. I was at the character creation screen and I saw no character. I clicked the buttons to begin and I started on the ship that everyone starts on and I saw no NPC's or my own character, just water and the boat.
The launch for VG was definately not smooth. To be fair it did not have large amounts of downtime but on the other hand it was virtually unplayable for many people. EQ2 was pretty awful at the beginning too. Now though they have both ironed out a lot of their problems and have managed to reach the dizzying heights of being bog standard.
EQ2 have 4 expansions and a fifth on the way way, that is a lot more content than vanguard.
Vanguard do have some nice things but content means lot. Also EQ2 have one of the best communities in the MMO world.
Vanguard:
- A huge empty world filled with emptyness - no players anywhere, large parts where there's even no npcs or mobs
- The second worst crafting system I've ever tried (Warhammer is worse).
- The horror of Diplomacy
- They "joy" of questing - kill 50 mobs, then discover they want you to kill 100 more of the same ones.
- Nights that are so dark that you can't see what's 20 feet away.
- The death penatly
etc.
EQ2:
What's not to like about it?
....Because im pro EQ2 been playin for three years and heavily biased.
VG also is/has .......
- Broken or bugged starting quest lines at lvl 4 after 1.5 years.
- UI is not very comprimising (EQ2's UI smokes any UI that comes stock).
- Class is based on race. Why limit my options for what I want to do ? Its my character right?
I tried VG 3 times on seperate occasions the longest i played was four months. IMO itll never be more than it is now. Big, empty, and buggy.
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
Vanguard:
- A huge empty world filled with emptyness - no players anywhere, large parts where there's even no npcs or mobs
- The second worst crafting system I've ever tried (Warhammer is worse).
- The horror of Diplomacy
- They "joy" of questing - kill 50 mobs, then discover they want you to kill 100 more of the same ones.
- Nights that are so dark that you can't see what's 20 feet away.
- The death penatly
etc.
EQ2:
What's not to like about it?
....Because im pro EQ2 been playin for three years and heavily biased.
VG also is/has .......
- Broken or bugged starting quest lines at lvl 4 after 1.5 years.
- UI is not very comprimising (EQ2's UI smokes any UI that comes stock).
- Class is based on race. Why limit my options for what I want to do ? Its my character right?
I tried VG 3 times on seperate occasions the longest i played was four months. IMO itll never be more than it is now. Big, empty, and buggy.
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
And that is your personal opinion, in many aspects I agree. But alot of people are drawn to the freedom of choice, and want as many variations as possible. If you create the evil/good line, you are halving that to start with.
Core i5 13600KF, BeQuiet Pure Loop FX 360, 32gb DDR5-6000 XPG, WD SN850 NVMe ,PNY 3090 XLR8, Asus Prime Z790-A, Lian-Li O11 PCMR case (limited ed 1045/2000), 32" LG Ultragear 4k Monitor, Logitech G560 LightSync Sound, Razer Deathadder V2 and Razer Blackwidow V3 Keyboard
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
Vanguard:
- A huge empty world filled with emptyness - no players anywhere, large parts where there's even no npcs or mobs
- The second worst crafting system I've ever tried (Warhammer is worse).
- The horror of Diplomacy
- They "joy" of questing - kill 50 mobs, then discover they want you to kill 100 more of the same ones.
- Nights that are so dark that you can't see what's 20 feet away.
- The death penatly
etc.
EQ2:
What's not to like about it?
....Because im pro EQ2 been playin for three years and heavily biased.
VG also is/has .......
- Broken or bugged starting quest lines at lvl 4 after 1.5 years.
- UI is not very comprimising (EQ2's UI smokes any UI that comes stock).
- Class is based on race. Why limit my options for what I want to do ? Its my character right?
I tried VG 3 times on seperate occasions the longest i played was four months. IMO itll never be more than it is now. Big, empty, and buggy.
You cant be to biased i mean come on classes in eq2 are limited to if yhour good or evil so whats the differance?
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
And that is your personal opinion, in many aspects I agree. But alot of people are drawn to the freedom of choice, and want as many variations as possible. If you create the evil/good line, you are halving that to start with.
......and thats precisely what I am saying. EQ2 and Vanguard DID go down the good/evil route which was a mistake in a game where everyone is actually on the same side
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
Indeed......both games are not in a neutral setting and yet you are not allowed to work for any particular side in the game.
Yes I do want a game that responds to my actions. Afterall whats the point in giving me a choice if I cant actually influence anything? I may as well just watch a film. I would have thought that playing a game online with thousands of people would have given us more choice but instead we seem to have less choice than we do in single player games.
There are games that are working towards such a goal though. Games like EQ2 and Vanguard are just the beginning "test subjects" of the mmo genre in my opinion. They dont take any real advantage of being online at all really.
The games I am hopeful about are Crusades, Earthrise, Fallen Earth and Mortal Online. All of them aim to allow the players actions to influence the state of the game world rather than just remaining static and rigid like the current crop of games. Darkfall is another obvious one but to be honest I have my doubts on its ability to succeed......it will help to pave the way for more interesting games though.
This is one of the most honest and accurate posts in response to the Op's question
You see guys to answer a question objectively you don't have to exaggerate and try to undermine the other game
The above post is a good example of a mature response
I'm pretty sure that the only reason you accepted Cherise's opinions, is that she likes Vanguard and still plays it. You are a fanboy who cannot accept the FACT that a many doesn't like that game.
According to you, I "embellish and fabricate a games features", while you are the one fabricating opinions on my behalf (harvesting, saying I talked about ALL quests, etc).
Who the hell do you think you are? Regardless of our opinions about either game, we all have the same rights to posts them, it's not up to you to decide how valid or not they are.
Get lost, troll.
(Nothing in this post is meant as comments to you or your opinions, Cherise.)
Allow me to tell you who I am ....I am someone who plays Vanguard actively and has relevant information on the game .So now you can stop worrying about who I think I am
I understand your statements were undermined but they weren't factual. ...they were subjective and thats not always relevant to a question . So accept that and move on ... ...and yes " night is dark in the game ...dont play Vanguard " ...lol...that one still makes me laugh...thx again
When I'm not playing Vanguard I will try to give my view if people unreasonably attack the game
Can't promise anything as I am kept preoccupied playing the game
"after the time of dice came the day of mice "
---------PLAYERS
Everquest 2 is so much better compared to Vanguard in every sense of the word. And I mean every sense of the word (and yes...I played it recently...I have it on my station pass).
Ive been a volunteer Guide/Live quest giver for both Vanguard and Everquest 2 so I have many years of experience as that for EQ2 and one year for Vanguard. To me, Vanguard cannot even compare against EQ2.
Now, I wouldn't say EQ2 is the best MMO in the world, but Vanguard, IMO, cannot touch it.
There is a multicore patch on the test server right now.
Ref.: http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=429911
--
Leemeg.
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
Indeed......both games are not in a neutral setting and yet you are not allowed to work for any particular side in the game.
Yes I do want a game that responds to my actions. Afterall whats the point in giving me a choice if I cant actually influence anything? I may as well just watch a film. I would have thought that playing a game online with thousands of people would have given us more choice but instead we seem to have less choice than we do in single player games.
There are games that are working towards such a goal though. Games like EQ2 and Vanguard are just the beginning "test subjects" of the mmo genre in my opinion. They dont take any real advantage of being online at all really.
The games I am hopeful about are Crusades, Earthrise, Fallen Earth and Mortal Online. All of them aim to allow the players actions to influence the state of the game world rather than just remaining static and rigid like the current crop of games. Darkfall is another obvious one but to be honest I have my doubts on its ability to succeed......it will help to pave the way for more interesting games though.
Okay this is part of my problem with this general thread ... some people don't play Vanguard or haven't lately and comment around how the game is ..when it's not like that.
In Vanguard you chose a race and start in your racial city...which is expected .Then you can chose a faction city of any race and do quests for them. This was introduced about 3 months ago.As you do quests for them your popularity changes in other cities as logically as you gain prestige for your faction city the other cities like you less ..to the point where they will attack you on site. However you can balance your popularity and do quests under the faction flags of all cities but that is not practical and takes time
I fail to see why this is not a fair system of giving you the ability to chose which area you want to be liked in and how to influence it ?
"after the time of dice came the day of mice "
The difference is that if your good or evil there is a mirror class. For example, a Templar (Good Cleric) is the mirror of an Inquisitor (Evil Cleric), The Shadowknight is the evil Paladin etc. So essentially it is the same class, however there are differences .... and there are also subjective and objective views about both. Also, there are a few neutral classes that can be chosen that can be on either side. All this said, if one doesnt work out you also have the option to betray and take up the opposite class.
The problem I have with VG is that class selection is based on race. VG is a neutral and "no good or evil side" kind of game. So that said, why cant an Orc be a caster?
If both games are neutral then why have a good vs evil plot to begin with? Why put opposing playable races in it such as elves and orcs if picking either of them has no relevance to what you do in the game? For example if you pick a supposedly hateful and evil dark elf in either game you will end up doing all the same quests with the supposedly honourable good high elves. Its just a constant reminder to me while I play either of those games that my actions are essentially meaningless. I cant get immersed in these games when the things we have to do in the game to progress actually contradict the setting of the game. How stupid is that? Yes I know I can "choose" to not talk to or group with apposing races but thats not really the point is it. The words "terrible game design" spring to mind. Horizons had the right idea by having a plotline that involved all the players being on the same side and fighting against an evil npc force......shame it flopped. Its also a shame that EQ2 and Vanguard didnt learn from it and instead decided to cater to the "I want to be anything" crowd.......which only really leads to creating a very silly looking gameworld.
EQ2 is not a neutral setting. Its Qeynos Vs. Freeport for the most part. Certain cities will Kill you on sight depending on faction right from the start. In VG you can increase or decrese any faction.
It sounds like you really want a game that will respond to your choices. That you want to make a difference with your decisions in the world. Well, I am all for that, but name me one MMO that is in the works, or is gold, because thats a game that i want to play.
Indeed......both games are not in a neutral setting and yet you are not allowed to work for any particular side in the game.
Yes I do want a game that responds to my actions. Afterall whats the point in giving me a choice if I cant actually influence anything? I may as well just watch a film. I would have thought that playing a game online with thousands of people would have given us more choice but instead we seem to have less choice than we do in single player games.
There are games that are working towards such a goal though. Games like EQ2 and Vanguard are just the beginning "test subjects" of the mmo genre in my opinion. They dont take any real advantage of being online at all really.
The games I am hopeful about are Crusades, Earthrise, Fallen Earth and Mortal Online. All of them aim to allow the players actions to influence the state of the game world rather than just remaining static and rigid like the current crop of games. Darkfall is another obvious one but to be honest I have my doubts on its ability to succeed......it will help to pave the way for more interesting games though.
Okay this is part of my problem with this general thread ... some people don't play Vanguard or haven't lately and comment around how the game is ..when it's not like that.
In Vanguard you chose a race and start in your racial city...which is expected .Then you can chose a faction city of any race and do quests for them. This was introduced about 3 months ago.As you do quests for them your popularity changes in other cities as logically as you gain prestige for your faction city the other cities like you less ..to the point where they will attack you on site. However you can balance your popularity and do quests under the faction flags of all cities but that is not practical and takes time
I fail to see why this is not a fair system of giving you the ability to chose which area you want to be liked in and how to influence it ?
All i was trying to point out between VG and EQ2 is that EQ2 is not class based on race. VG is class based on race, and I dont like that.