Design wise, and world wise, its one of the worst MMOs out there. Vanguard's biggest issue has been the reluctance of its core players to accept that as a legitimate opinion from people who've tried it and quit because they didn't like certain design decisions and certain aesthetics of the world.
I really don't see as constructive in your arguments. Maybe for you, the design is the worst, but saying it categorically is, is just plain untruthful.
If you've had disappointing conversations with players of vanguard, I apologize, but putting us all in the same boat is also untruthfully stereotyping and plain wrong. I can accept your dislikes of it and why you do not play, but being a VG player, you think to encapsule me the same as others because of something you perceive me to have?
I like the world, the aesthetics of it, and not being one of your labelled 'players', it will end there without mentioning any other mmo I may or may not have played or am presently playing.
Design wise, and world wise, its one of the worst MMOs out there. Vanguard's biggest issue has been the reluctance of its core players to accept that as a legitimate opinion from people who've tried it and quit because they didn't like certain design decisions and certain aesthetics of the world.
I really don't see as constructive in your arguments. Maybe for you, the design is the worst, but saying it categorically is, is just plain untruthful.
If you've had disappointing conversations with players of vanguard, I apologize, but putting us all in the same boat is also untruthfully stereotyping and plain wrong. I can accept your dislikes of it and why you do not play, but being a VG player, you think to encapsule me the same as others because of something you perceive me to have?
I like the world, the aesthetics of it, and not being one of your labelled 'players', it will end there without mentioning any other mmo I may or may not have played or am presently playing.
The person I was responded to said "Design wise, and world wise, its one of the best MMOs out there". My point in repeating it with "worst" instead of "best" was to illustrate exactly what you pointed out there; there's nothing constructive about such a broad stroke. So I agree that my words were just as tilted and of no use as the person's I was quoting when it comes to that portion of things.
And you're right, I might've slipped at times and insinuated all Vanguard players, but I really only mean the ones who routinely bash other MMOs while at the same time try to compliment Vanguard.
I disagree with the thinking that WoW and Vanguard can't have more in common than they do differences; that WoW can't have strengths that Vanguard could benefit from. That's all. I know not 100% of Vanguard's player base believes that. But there are a LOT that view Vanguard in a way that entails WoW be so polar opposite that its a "themepark", a "McDonalds meal", and all the other crazy shit we've all heard over the years. I believe these people to be a problem.
That said I apologize to you and all other Vanguard players that don't fit the description of the ones that I do have a problem with. I tend to use rhetoric as harsh as the ones I'm responding to.
Design wise, and world wise, its one of the worst MMOs out there. Vanguard's biggest issue has been the reluctance of its core players to accept that as a legitimate opinion from people who've tried it and quit because they didn't like certain design decisions and certain aesthetics of the world.
I really don't see as constructive in your arguments. Maybe for you, the design is the worst, but saying it categorically is, is just plain untruthful.
If you've had disappointing conversations with players of vanguard, I apologize, but putting us all in the same boat is also untruthfully stereotyping and plain wrong. I can accept your dislikes of it and why you do not play, but being a VG player, you think to encapsule me the same as others because of something you perceive me to have?
I like the world, the aesthetics of it, and not being one of your labelled 'players', it will end there without mentioning any other mmo I may or may not have played or am presently playing.
The person I was responded to said "Design wise, and world wise, its one of the best MMOs out there". My point in repeating it with "worst" instead of "best" was to illustrate exactly what you pointed out there; there's nothing constructive about such a broad stroke. So I agree that my words were just as tilted and of no use as the person's I was quoting when it comes to that portion of things.
And you're right, I might've slipped at times and insinuated all Vanguard players, but I really only mean the ones who routinely bash other MMOs while at the same time try to compliment Vanguard.
I disagree with the thinking that WoW and Vanguard can't have more in common than they do differences; that WoW can't have strengths that Vanguard could benefit from. That's all. I know not 100% of Vanguard's player base believes that. But there are a LOT that view Vanguard in a way that entails WoW be so polar opposite that its a "themepark", a "McDonalds meal", and all the other crazy shit we've all heard over the years. I believe these people to be a problem.
That said I apologize to you and all other Vanguard players that don't fit the description of the ones that I do have a problem with. I tend to use rhetoric as harsh as the ones I'm responding to.
Thank you Besides, I do play WoW, for different reasons, but be careful who you say that to. I may be construed as a traitor, or worse yet, a "hypocrite".
You are a broken record. You just reiterated - yet again - something that I already cleared up for you several times now in previous posts. Yet you just keep repeating it like a damn parrot. You're like a child with a toy it just doesn't want to let go of.
By all means... keep yammering away and pretending to have a clue.
Only when you give me rope to regarding the topic at hand. But that there was just vitriol. So, your wish is granted on me having nothing left to say to you. Until you chime in with something on-topic again that is.
Don't flatter yourself. I've given you no rope.... You've simply chosen to ignore anything I've said that undermined your pre-determined conclusions about me and/or the "community I represent"... What makes it all funny is that you couldn't have chosen a worse "poster boy" to hang your theory on. If you raelly knew anything about me, you'd understand why.
I've given you lengthy, detailed explanations and clarifications of exactly what I mean, exactly what I think and exactly what my opinions are. You have chosen to ignore all of the above and instead continued rattling on with your takling points, twisting everything I've said out of context and/or inserting your own conclusions as though they were fact.
Again, just one statement I clarified and corrected you on several times, regarding my take on WoW, you've continued to make as though I hadn't said a word. Deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting someone's position *after* they've corrected you on it is not what I, nor most people I'm sure, would call "honest discussion". Yet, that's been the crux of your entire approach.
Anyway... There is no use reasoning with a closed mind who only hears what they want to, and that is why I stopped bothering to try with you. Frankly, I'm amazed and a bit perturbed that I wasted as much time as I did with you to begin with. Could have done something far more worthwhile.
Ah well... there's always tomorrow.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
As long as its your favorite game its ok to be a fanboy.. Wsimike calls those who like STO... fanboys and yet here he is doing the same thing with VG. Sweet irony.
As long as its your favorite game its ok to be a fanboy.. Wsimike calls those who like STO... fanboys and yet here he is doing the same thing with VG. Sweet irony.
Wait... I called people who like STO fanbois? When did this happen? Direct quote with link to the thread please, so it can be seen in its full context... assuming I said it at all. If I did use it, I guarantee there was damn good reason to, because I personally am not a fan of the word.
That said... How exactly am I a Vanguard fanboi?
Am I attacking anyone who criticizes it? Nope.
Am I pretending there's nothing wrong with the game and everythign's perfect? Nope.
Am I raving on about it in thread after thread after thread? Nope.
Am i doing anything at all that's at all remotely "fanboy-like" behavior? Nope.
Am I dismissing any and every negative review of the game as being by someone who dont' know what they're talking about, or calling them "trolls" or "haters"? No.
I opined that it's come a long way since its awful beginnings and has developed into a solid virtual world that offers a nice variety of things to do or "wrap your head around" as I put it. I've stated it's a nice alternative to the more WoW-like titles out there if people are bored of that playstyle (and many are if you read enough posts) and want something different..
That's called an opinion, Shastra... not "fanboy behavior". There's a huge chasm between the two.
FFS... tonight was my 3rd night back in VG after not playing it for *months*, easily since sometime last year. If I'm a "fanboy" of anything, it's FFXI and even *then* I'm not. I make one post saying something positive about the game while voicing my opinion on other MMOs and I'm labeled "fanboi"... What's next? I'm a paid schill for SOE?
So... do you have any substance whatsoever to your claim, Shastra, or are you just here looking for attention?
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Don't flatter yourself. I've given you no rope.... You've simply chosen to ignore anything I've said that undermined your pre-determined conclusions about me and/or the "community I represent"... What makes it all funny is that you couldn't have chosen a worse "poster boy" to hang your theory on. If you raelly knew anything about me, you'd understand why.
I've given you lengthy, detailed explanations and clarifications of exactly what I mean, exactly what I think and exactly what my opinions are. You have chosen to ignore all of the above and instead continued rattling on with your takling points, twisting everything I've said out of context and/or inserting your own conclusions as though they were fact.
Again, just one statement I clarified and corrected you on several times, regarding my take on WoW, you've continued to make as though I hadn't said a word. Deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting someone's position *after* they've corrected you on it is not what I, nor most people I'm sure, would call "honest discussion". Yet, that's been the crux of your entire approach.
Anyway... There is no use reasoning with a closed mind who only hears what they want to, and that is why I stopped bothering to try with you. Frankly, I'm amazed and a bit perturbed that I wasted as much time as I did with you to begin with. Could have done something far more worthwhile.
Ah well... there's always tomorrow.
I didn't "ignore" anything. I've brought up a few times that you different "molds", the fact that you have multiple MMOs installed, so forth and so on; none of that matters to me. What matters is your opinion of the "current crop of MMOs". It's YOUR opinion, not mine. Bringing up all the etceteras is for YOU to wrestle with, not me.
What do you want me to do? Believe that yes, WoW is a single player chatroom just because its icon is still on your desktop and you play it? No. No matter what "mold" you group it in, whether you have it installed or not, no matter how long you played it and how long you've played Vanguard, whether you like it or not, that specific opinion and a few others you had are still negative, condescending, and all too typical opinions of MMOs that aren't Vanguard by a Vanguard player (the ones that spend time on boards disparaging).
So trust me, I've read all that you've written. It just doesn't excuse you from having that opinion in my mind, and it still groups your thinking with the typical, specific brand of Vanguard players I consider a poison to Vanguard. And 'poison' not because of any other reason than those ideas that led you to consider WoW a "single player chatroom". The moment those ideas are gone; you'd be fine in my mind.
Dont know why folks just cant let this game rest in peace. It's aged and the subscribership doesnt rival an indie game. VG will always be the coulda, woulda, shoulda game, and will be nothing more today than a niche peek and lets see. I wouldnt even peek in to see, but thats me.
Dont know why folks just cant let this game rest in peace. It's aged and the subscribership doesnt rival an indie game. VG will always be the coulda, woulda, shoulda game, and will be nothing more today than a niche peek and lets see. I wouldnt even peek in to see, but thats me.
Well, for us to 'let it rest in peace' , it'd have to be decidedly dead. Which it isn't. As long the subscribership, as you call it, keeps the game afloat, let those who enjoy playing it play it, and go play whatever it is you play and let us woulda, shoulda, couldas enjoy our niche, aged peek-see, won't ya?!
Like my running sentence with millions of comas? Too bad, no grammar police here.
Dont know why folks just cant let this game rest in peace. It's aged and the subscribership doesnt rival an indie game. VG will always be the coulda, woulda, shoulda game, and will be nothing more today than a niche peek and lets see. I wouldnt even peek in to see, but thats me.
I say the same thing about most MMOs. At the moment you cant name an MMO that isnt a lopsided piece of garbage. Companies spew far worse games and expect you choke them down, and we do. I say shame on you for wasting time beating a dead horse for fun when you could probably find something more creative to do than stand off to the side of a car accident pointing your finger doing the Nelson laugh.
VG is for a lot of people the game they want to like but for whatever reason something gets in the way. I've taken trips into VG 3-4 times over the years and never really stuck it out because of bugs or hardcore rulesets or being plain old lost or bored of the grind...
Came back to VG last week and frankly except for a two bugged quests the rest has been taken care of. VG has the hands down best content director quests. You can't miss them and they tell you exactly where to be level by level. And no not level range... level, its crazy. At my level there are 4 quest hubs, next level 3, previous 3. None of this zone x from 40-50. Very very casual friendly.
Now if they add skill queuing I'd be drooling, button spamming not fun.
Dont know why folks just cant let this game rest in peace. It's aged and the subscribership doesnt rival an indie game. VG will always be the coulda, woulda, shoulda game, and will be nothing more today than a niche peek and lets see. I wouldnt even peek in to see, but thats me.
Because some of us find it fun.
I tend to do things that I enjoy. I don't care how much time Vanguard has, I play it because it gives me what I want from an mmo.
I don't need to be some follower and just let it rest in peace. It's playable. Not as polished as other games for sure but man, when I'm doing a quest on some river bank or ocean and I see the sun setting, it really makes it all the more enjoyable.
If a few other people can find the same satisfaction then I say "why not".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Fact is, most people play MMO's as a sort of popularity contest. It's a social situation in which people want to feel "happy" and "comfortable" with their choice. It's like advertising products that everyone already loves, i.e. Coke or Pepsi. Much of the advertising is targeted at consumer confidence and making existing customers feel happy about their choice. Pyschologically humans have a need to feel like they belong to something and to have that validated by others.
Which can't happen witha low population MMO no matter how good it is. Hence why so many people write off MMO's that are low population, they are "old", "has beens", "shoulda coulda woulda" games. Terms used to further degrade the game and in turn boost a players own concept and reasons for playing XYZ MMO that is more popular. It has more subscribers so it /must/ be better. A logical falacy that is based both on opinion and completely shattered by the fact that the 800lb gorilla is WoW, which is certainly a fantastic game, but certainly isn't the /only/ game.
IMO Vanguard is an /excellent/ MMO. It's primary failure was a horrible launch. "You only get one chance to make a first impression" and Vanguard failed this, no question. In the shadow of other products that worked or were working at the time. Vanguard had no chance with its launch. Even if it /had/ launched in the state its in, it's a niche product. THere are too many elements to vanguard that the "large" and "common" place MMO population wouldn't tolerate. Things like a death penalty, having to retrieve your corpse to minimize it, losing items that aren't soul bound on death, a HUGE and expansive world where travel time and the journey in "getting" there is just as important to the game design as the individual mechanics.
Combine that with dozens of misnomers, misconceptions and constantly repeated but often wrong assumptions about the game, such as derivitive class design "it's just an EQ2" clone etc (all statements that even objectively are wrong, VG and EQII are radically different games both in actual gameplay, pace of combat, and class design).
Vanguard /is/ a game for people who want an large, open, seamless world with original lore, in depth /non-combat/ gameplay systems like crafting and diplomacy that are /not/ just mini games but in fact fully fleshed out secitons of content with their own quest lines and player progression. A combat system that takes it's leanings from EQ1 rather than hyper-ventalating-button-mashing mode ala WoW or EQII. Where death /means/ something, where taking risks for unknown rewards is part and parcel with the game. Where challenge still applies to some of the better content in the game. In turn these very same things make the game less enjoyable to many people, especailly many of the thousands, if not millions who prefer games to be a little more sugar coated/candy dispenser like.
At its best, Vanguard is a niche game with a max player cap in the low 100's of thousands, if it was in perfect shape and had launche dwell, it never would've been a million player game. It was never meant to be. The best way to phrase it now is /if/ the original design goals of Vanguard appealed to you, a PVE game where risk matters and takes it queues heaivly from what Everquest I (not II) could've been in a new age of MMO's, then it is defintately worth a serious look now as it /is/ in great shape now. If those things don't matter to you, or turn you off, it's going to not be any kind of remotely good game for you.
More importantly, the sun /is/ setting ont his title. If you are an afficianado of MMO games and design, you owe it to yourself to spend at least a month or two playing Vanguard to see what could've been. Don't let the fact that its a game in its end time make you not play it. Ask yourself seriously (if that's your complaint) how long you've played any MMO for consistently and whether or not playing an MMO for just 3 months or 4, and enjoying it, means if you can't play the 5th it's not worth it. By and large most MMO players maybe stick with /one/ game (though they take many breaks) and /sample/ dozens of others that they only play for a month or two.
Either way, recognize the popularity contest. The reality is, there are legions of fans for the larger games and often their argument boils down to "well it has 100's if not millions of players, therefor any game that doesn't must suck in comparison". Such a statement makes t hem feel better, but isn't necessarily true as ultimately we are arguing over the definition of /fun/. A pointless debate in the end.
Fact is, most people play MMO's as a sort of popularity contest. It's a social situation in which people want to feel "happy" and "comfortable" with their choice. It's like advertising products that everyone already loves, i.e. Coke or Pepsi. Much of the advertising is targeted at consumer confidence and making existing customers feel happy about their choice. Pyschologically humans have a need to feel like they belong to something and to have that validated by others.
...
+++
I agree completely with this post... Though the "sun is setting" statement *may* not be so, necessarily. It remains to be seen if the trend continues, but since I'm back, and even a bit before, I'm seeing an increasing buzz around this game. People are coming back who played before (i'm one of them), new people are coming aboard. The "After Hours" guild alone hit 71 members last night (mostly main characters) and it's only been around a pretty short time as I understand. I'm seeing a lot of activity in the regional chat areas... for Kojan in particular since that's where I'm "living" for now. People are talking about how their friends or spouses are also going to be giving it a go.
Last time I saw anything approaching this kind of activity was a bit after its launch, and at that time, the chat was filled with statements of anger, disappointment, frustration, how much the game sucked, etc. etc. And it was all well-deserved; VG was a trainwreck at launch. Not so this time. This time, it's just general game-related chatter, people asking questions, people saying positive things about the game, etc. There's definitely something going on here.
Again, it may be short lived. Time will tell on that. For some reason, though, VG is getting a number of people interested lately; maybe it's just curiosity as to what the buzz is about... that's possible. But there definitely is one. Personally, I'm hoping the trend continues and they're able to maintain at least enough to maybe get some more funds poured back into it to see some more production going on - which hopefully won't include watering down any of the features you pointed out above for the sake of "appealing to more people". The market is already saturated with MMOs trying to "appeal to more people", and with very few exceptions, are falling short in doing so.
== Slight Sidetrack: Argument For Niche Games ==
Vanguard is a niche game, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Square-Enix focused entirely on its core group of players for FFXI for *years*, never watering things down for the sake of "attracting more players". FFXI is most certainly a niche game. When asked in interviews if they would ever water down the game to attract more players, SE said no, because they were providing a specific experience to a specific group of players. And for that, they were rewarded with ~500k players for 6 to 7 out of the 8 years the game has been out. Meanwhile, other brand-new MMOs built on popular IPs, that "should have been wildly successful" have leveled off at ~200k players after only several months of launch, and stayed there. Even though they were designed after the "WoW model" *to* appeal to more players, they fell far short of expectations.
I find it ironic, and rather funny, that an 8 year-old niche game (FFXI) designed to appeal to a specific player base, with a somewhat obtuse interface, aging tech, almost no hand-holding and long progression curve is going stronger than MMOs designed to appeal to "everyone" that are barely a year old, have newer, shinier graphics, lots of hand-holding and easier, quicker progression. There's something to that. I think developers - most importantly the people making the decisions - should pay attention to it and not automatically try and hop on WoW's coat-tails when pursuing a MMO.
Should VG reach a point that SOE finds it worth more serious investment, what SOE would hopefully do is follow SE's mentality and keep VG as a niche game for those who enjoy it for what it is and improve on it in that way. Though, with some of the things SOE has pulled in the past purely in the name of greed, I'm not so prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt just yet... though I'm getting ahead of myself on that point.
== End Sidetrack ==
I agree that VG offers more depth in gameplay and character advancement than most any other MMO I've played, and I mean all-around; not just in gaining levels and assigning stats. For just one example, Crafting is a full game system, which I'm just getting started on (never really seriously looked into it on previous rounds in the game) but am already loving. The level of interaction alone is exactly what I believe a crafting system should be... You are involved at every step of the process, making decisions that will affect the outcome of the item you're making, for better or worse. It's not the mere "click the button, wait 5 seconds and voila! Success every time!" process that other MMOs call "crafting". I realize others prefer the less involved approach, and that's great. Personally, I like to be more involved - to be actually *playing* the game, not watching it play itself.
The world offers a lot of remote and interesting places to discover, many dungeons to explore, many interesting and dangerous overland areas to traverse. Guild houses are constructed by the guild members themselves; another example of how the game gets the players directly involved. And there are myriad other examples.
It is sad that VG launched the way it did. Being a niche game would have certainly limited its "growth potential", as so many others already had decided that WoW was "the game". But, it might have fared a lot better than it has. Here's hoping this trend of new players coming to the game is the start of something good.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
This has been an excellent read. I agree with the last couple of posts. and only time will tell with the game. If SOE throws some more resources to Vanguard, they will have a compettion to thier gem of Everquest 2 ... VG was designed to compete specifically against EQ2 and frankly the over all game play for VG is better but not as polished. I hope that EQ Next will follow Vanguard over EQ 2 ..
I hope this game lasts as if it does i will be here a very long time.
I certainly wasn't trying to paint Vanguard in a corner with "sun is setting". And I certainly don't want to turn people away from it if they are interested. More was trying to encourage independant thought. Don't judge an MMO purely because it has a small community or isn't competing subscriber wise, which most people do. Fact is, Vanguard makes money for SOE. If it didn't, they wouldn't keep hosting it, and for SOE, it only cost them about 8 million to ship it (as Microsoft footed most of the bill to Sigil before SOE bought them). So in the grand scheme of things it /is/ successful for SOE, if not a huge bread winner.
That aside Vanguard is one of my favorite MMO's of all time, despite never having gotten a max level toon. The design ideals behind Vangaurd appeal to what /I/ want from an MMO. And after several attempts to return to Vangaurd where each time I liked it more but found no friends willing to play, I finally have one of my more devout MMO playing friends trying it and... he has constantly stated over the last four or five days how suprised he is and how much he's enjoying it.
This does not mean Vanguard is flawless, it doesn't mean it's the game for anyone reading this thread, nor does it mean I'll be playing it a year from now. Given that I already have a station pass it costs me nothing extra to return to VG and take a look. I will say for anyone who wants to return to VG make sure you have a plan for who/how/when you will play. I have returned solo many times and the challenge in finding a guild that both plays when I do and has toons at the early levels willing to group is rough. This time around I've returned with a friend and there is little content we can't take as a duo except a few of the tougher named encounters. I would however consider us to be on the upper end of both skill at MMO's and Risk aversion (we are ambivalent about "losing" so long as the risk was our choice to make). YMMV depending on how good you are at understanding class dynamics, creating two characters that work well together and reacting to oh sh&t situations in game.
And for those seeing my "favorite mmo's of all time" and thinking I'm some kind of nut job, you're probably right. In the grand scheme of MMO's, I dislike WoW, enjoy Everquest II, spent 6 years playing EQ from launch etc. I dislike EVE, enjoyed Tabula Rasa, wished Auto Assault was not such a failure, etc. I've played just about every US Pay to play MMO out there at some point and dozens of the F2P variants (Go Runes of Magic!). I tend to lean towards open mindedness in MMO's, and see most of their strong points, while accepting their failures. Generally I play MMO's based on where my friends are or where I find community. And to me, the single most important facet to an MMO is how it encourages community building. The more solo friendly "I can ignore anyone playing" the MMO is, the less I tend to like it as I'm a grognard and think ultimately the purpose to playing a social game is to play /with/ people.
I have said this before and i say it now. if you play and enjoy EQ2, you won't find anything different in Vanguard. its like a poor cousin of EQ2. thats the feeling i get everytime i tried to get into Vanguard (thats 4 times now).
This but i have only tried it 3 times and thats enough for me done with VG.
I have said this before and i say it now. if you play and enjoy EQ2, you won't find anything different in Vanguard. its like a poor cousin of EQ2. thats the feeling i get everytime i tried to get into Vanguard (thats 4 times now).
I tend to disagree with this statement. EQ2 and Vanguard have radically different objectivies in game design and intent. EQ2 for all intents and purposes tries hard to be the "deeper" WoW for fans of Norrath. It draws many of its game design inspirations from the school of thought around 'easy' solo content and at end game you could have over 40 buttons you might use in combat and the state of combat is often just "mash buttons in right order.
Vanguard has a slower approach to combat, longer intervals between ability used, where decisions in combat are much more focused on what just happened rather than hitting the right combination of buttons in the right order.
EQ2's crafting system is in many ways on the surface similar to Vanguards but in implementation details wildly different in goals and objectives. Arguably vanguards crafting is more thought out and far more focused on giving crafters an actual game to play not just a diversion.
Where the two games are similar is that they were both born out of a love for EQ1 not just as a lore base but in class and group roles. They have a common inspiration and as such have drawn many similar behaviors.
But in my mind there is no question they are two very different games. I've played EQ2 since launch, multiple level 80's, played in just about every end game raid zone (except the latest expansion). I know it well. I've also played EQ1 for over 6 years and have been playing Vanguard from time to time since launch to see how it goes.
If you enjoy the WoW/EQ2 approach to MMO's then I'd say its safer to say there's a good chance Vanguard is worht passing over because you probably won't like it (unless you are of a mindset to enjoy multiple different styles and approaches to MMOs). Not that Vanguard is a copy of EQ2 therefor worth missing. Simply that you just won't like it. On the same hand if you wanted a deeper game, with a slower pace, a stronger dependancy on groups or a tougher solo experience (note Vanguard /is/ soloable, but hte challenge level is much higher t han most casual MMO's) and you don't require some massive community to validate your choice in games, give Vanguard a shot.
Well, that really comes down to taste then doesn't it? I Love the art design of the world, the aesthetics of the world. I love the size. Not too fond of the armor and avatars though the avatars have grown on me.
Saying that a majority doesn't like something because of taste doesn't invalidate what they dislike. Not many people are fans of Anton Webern's music but he is considered a pinnacle of 20th century music. How about Picasso? More people prefer monet over picasso from my experience. Doesn't mean picasso is a hack according to history.
When it comes to likes and tastes, those opinions matter in determining who the developers should bend to.
Case in point, for all the LOTRO players who'd consider the lack of world shadows a huge eye sore in Vanguard; it'd probably have helped if the Vanguard community had accepted that as fair critique rather than feel butthurt and do nothing except argue than Vanguard's world was perfect, beautiful and so on while disparaging LOTRO and its players. The same goes for the old debates of the color and character of WoW's world vs. Vanguard's, the style and detail of AoC's avatars vs. Vanguard's.
Hmm. I looked through post history of this forum, I couldn't find one instance where someone responded to 'the game has no world shadows' with 'the game world was perfect'. I saw a couple who said they didn't notice or didn't mind because they found the world beautiful - but that's different than your perception that they were 'butt hurt'. I could not find one post in this forum where one person disparaged a LotRO player. Found many that said they liked VG's open world better than the instancing of LotRO. Now if you don't think 'an open world' is one of the major desires expressed on this website, and if you don't think this websites community doesn't rail against 'instancing' on a whole, I'm not sure what forums you've been reading. And I'm not sure why you are surprised that people in the VG forums like the VG world better than LotRO. I have found they seem to be fairly slanted toward the LotRO world in their own forums too - imagine that. Now, back up your claim. If I went to the LotRO forums, and said the world was bad because of instancing - are you saying that community would all respond with 'that seems like a reasonable criticism". You know they wouldn't. I'd get reasons instancing worked for the game (like you got reasons people do like VG's world), I'd get a few people calling me a troll and there would likely be one or two 'go back to WoW'esque responses (disparaging the non-LotRO player). Don't hold VG's community responsible for sins committed in all forums.
I mean I've heard some ridiculous debates; case in point one of my biggest pet peeves, the crappy, unresponsive combat animations. I've cited DAoC as an old game with much superior combat animations; because the melee styles are more varied, spell effects more representative of the flavor text, and there were other things like shoulder shrugs when a character blogs, arrows penetrating into shields, visible parries etc. What was I and others like me told? "Go play with action figures."
Please link that the overwhelming response to your animation criticism was 'go play with action figures'. You know you got debate from people who disagreed. You know you got some who said, "well to each his own". And you got one who said 'play with action figures' and you got mad and labelled us all a bad community. Personally, I like the VG animations. Personally I think they are light years ahead of DAoC. Factually I know they are more varied, and technically more complex than DAoC. Realistically, I know that some people may just be moved by the art direction of DAoC more than VG. Can you do the same? Can you take 'reasonable criticism' or do you plan on labelling us all as the action-figure man yet again?
The point is, before launch, after launch and up until now, the attitude of Vanguard purists have been "Vanguard is better than everything else". it's always been invalid to like any aspect about another MMO more, and suggest it as an area Vanguard should improve. Sure, its fine to say Vanguard's combat animations could be better; but woe to cite WoW as a specific example of a game with better character animations.
So if all the developers could hear is that Vanguard is already the best thing out there, and no game could be cited as doing something better in this or that area without a freakin Vision gestapo descending on a thread, what the hell could have ever happened to Vanguard except it stagnate?
Say this outloud, "The majority of feedback developers got from the gaming community was that VG was perfect". Do you still believe that statement is true? You know as well as I do for every fanboi of VG there were 10 critics. For every 10 critics there were 20 haters. You know this. And if you don't start looking at the thread history here. Reading through any one random thread will show you that publically the detractors outnumbered the fanbois. How are you still deluding yourself this badly? VG got overwhelmingly bad press and bad community feed back and you know it.
The players of Vanguard created a scenario where the success of Vanguard had to be the death of thinking other MMOs had superior aspects of design. Obviously that isn't the case because 10 million people aren't playing Vanguard. What we have instead is a delusion that Vanguard is the MMO of superior design, and as a person above me posted, the "current crop of MMOs" are just "single-player chatrooms".
This opinion is founded upon assumptions with barely a fact to back it up at all. The majority opinion, and you know it, is that VG has done poorly because of it's catastrophic launch with huge performance issues, numerous bugs and lack of content. You know this is why people stopped playing. To say that VG could have launched smoothly, stable and with no bugs and would still be in this position because of poor design is WILD speculation at best with not much evidence to support how you formed this opinion. Simply put there are a handful of criticism threads on VGs design. There are MOUNTAINS of threads on VG's performance. If you come to the VG forums and say WoW has better animations, and people in the VG forum disagree, adamantly.....who is the one getting butt hurt about criticism?
So a majority not liking something certainly invalidates it as something the majority should pay for. If you want the majority to play an MMO, then appease the majority. Sigil's initial plan of appeasing only 500k was a good idea; and SOE's initial moves to go more casual via adding fast travel, etc, were all good ideas and that direction should've been kept and supported by the Vanguard population. Of course it was all disparaged though.
So to prove that VG's community killed VG your only example is the 'fast travel addition'. Perhaps you should check the facts before forumlating your opiion. Fast travel was added BECAUSE of VG player feedback. Good try though.
Or perhaps you are talking about the uproar the community gave when they made the combat easier and VG community cried foul, and they decided to keep the content challenging. Go ahead, start some threads that say 'mmo gamers don't want challenging combat - gamers want combat in easy mode'. See how many flock to your cause. I mean really...
Anyway, just my thoughts about how the Vanguard community fucked up Vanguard for themselves, and continue to do so.
I'm sure you will quote me as being part of the problem. Although I haven't attacked you personally. Although I stated my opinion as opinion, while allowing you to have yours (although I strongly disagree). And despite the fact that your main argument is that 'the VG community can't take criticism" - let's see how you take it.
Apparently not well. You have created a set-in-stone prejudicial history of the VG community which no one could reasonably come to with a simple search through the forum history. What does the actual history show?
Huge frustration with performance bugs and content quantity.
An initial community that was strongly supportive despite the bugs, which dwindled quickly due to the top reason.
A few fanbois.
A larger than normal amount of haters and trolls - produced, yet again by reason 1.
As reason 1 got under control, an increasing number of 'hey this game is well designed'. Which now, is the majority opinion.
And finally, we are left with a game that has challenging content and an open world without instancing but suffers from a lack of population due to Reason 1.
That is what the actual history shows. But go on living in your fantasy world if you like. After all, it is what we gamers enjoy.
I'm sure you will quote me as being part of the problem. Although I haven't attacked you personally. Although I stated my opinion as opinion, while allowing you to have yours (although I strongly disagree). And despite the fact that your main argument is that 'the VG community can't take criticism" - let's see how you take it.
Apparently not well. You have created a set-in-stone prejudicial history of the VG community which no one could reasonably come to with a simple search through the forum history. What does the actual history show?
Huge frustration with performance bugs and content quantity.
An initial community that was strongly supportive despite the bugs, which dwindled quickly due to the top reason.
A few fanbois.
A larger than normal amount of haters and trolls - produced, yet again by reason 1.
As reason 1 got under control, an increasing number of 'hey this game is well designed'. Which now, is the majority opinion.
And finally, we are left with a game that has challenging content and an open world without instancing but suffers from a lack of population due to Reason 1.
That is what the actual history shows. But go on living in your fantasy world if you like. After all, it is what we gamers enjoy.
Quite simply, if you've really never experienced vitriol in a Vanguard vs. * thread; by all means, believe I've made it up. I somehow doubt you've actually searched years of forum posts on account of me though.
Not that you'd need to do any searching to find vitriol anyway. Either you skipped the OP's post or you missed it before the mod edits. But everything I've complained about has been qualified in this thread. No need to look beyond it.
As for your list of what you believe Vanguard's problems to have been; very good. But you kind of prove my point by offering up a list of your own; but only as a rejection of what I myself believe Vanguard's problems have been. And to prove different than you, I won't refute whatever you believe Vanguard's problems to have been. I just believe your list and anyone else's one list isn't completely comprehensive. Everyone should be listened to; as no one has a reason to come on these boards and tell a lie about what their turn offs are in this game.
Well, that really comes down to taste then doesn't it? I Love the art design of the world, the aesthetics of the world. I love the size. Not too fond of the armor and avatars though the avatars have grown on me.
Saying that a majority doesn't like something because of taste doesn't invalidate what they dislike. Not many people are fans of Anton Webern's music but he is considered a pinnacle of 20th century music. How about Picasso? More people prefer monet over picasso from my experience. Doesn't mean picasso is a hack according to history.
When it comes to likes and tastes, those opinions matter in determining who the developers should bend to.
Case in point, for all the LOTRO players who'd consider the lack of world shadows a huge eye sore in Vanguard; it'd probably have helped if the Vanguard community had accepted that as fair critique rather than feel butthurt and do nothing except argue than Vanguard's world was perfect, beautiful and so on while disparaging LOTRO and its players. The same goes for the old debates of the color and character of WoW's world vs. Vanguard's, the style and detail of AoC's avatars vs. Vanguard's.
I mean I've heard some ridiculous debates; case in point one of my biggest pet peeves, the crappy, unresponsive combat animations. I've cited DAoC as an old game with much superior combat animations; because the melee styles are more varied, spell effects more representative of the flavor text, and there were other things like shoulder shrugs when a character blogs, arrows penetrating into shields, visible parries etc. What was I and others like me told? "Go play with action figures."
The point is, before launch, after launch and up until now, the attitude of Vanguard purists have been "Vanguard is better than everything else". it's always been invalid to like any aspect about another MMO more, and suggest it as an area Vanguard should improve. Sure, its fine to say Vanguard's combat animations could be better; but woe to cite WoW as a specific example of a game with better character animations.
So if all the developers could hear is that Vanguard is already the best thing out there, and no game could be cited as doing something better in this or that area without a freakin Vision gestapo descending on a thread, what the hell could have ever happened to Vanguard except it stagnate?
The players of Vanguard created a scenario where the success of Vanguard had to be the death of thinking other MMOs had superior aspects of design. Obviously that isn't the case because 10 million people aren't playing Vanguard. What we have instead is a delusion that Vanguard is the MMO of superior design, and as a person above me posted, the "current crop of MMOs" are just "single-player chatrooms".
So a majority not liking something certainly invalidates it as something the majority should pay for. If you want the majority to play an MMO, then appease the majority. Sigil's initial plan of appeasing only 500k was a good idea; and SOE's initial moves to go more casual via adding fast travel, etc, were all good ideas and that direction should've been kept and supported by the Vanguard population. Of course it was all disparaged though.
Anyway, just my thoughts about how the Vanguard community fucked up Vanguard for themselves, and continue to do so.
Well, I was speaking more to the idea of something having value to some people even if a majority of people do not find value in it. Just because it doesn't resonate with them doesn't mean it doesn't resonate, and possibly profoundly so, with others.
As far as the "vanguard community", I've found purists in every game around. It seems that most games that have been around for a while always cite "expansion x" as the one where the game was ruined.
And in many ways I can understand. I'm not a huge fan of major change either. But in the end these games had to grow and change. Or at least the developers felt they did. I'm sure there are many reasons and arguments for and against these changes and for the most part I'll let others partake in them unless I have something to say.
No one knows more of majority rule on economics than I do. Believe me. how many avant garde concerts have you been to lately? How about regular theater? Or quirky television shows that don't seem to make it past the second season?
There is nothing wrong with people not liking these things. And you are correct, it does affect whether people pay for them. But this has ALWAYS happened. None of this is new. Nothing that is happening in the mmo world is new when looked at in comparison with music, theater, movies, literature, etc. The problem is that many gamers can't see this becasue they aren't used to looking at such things in comparison to what has gone before. Only now that a body of work in the gaming world is available for evaluatoin do we see changes in trends over time.
And it goes beyond the idea of things changing just in media. There are fewer book stores in the Boston area because many people buy online now. So I always make it a point to buy locally and even order something locally to support my local businesses. If I can that is. What about record stores? Luckily our local newbury comics carries records and there are several used record stores in the Boston area. It's very possible that many rural areas aren't so lucky.
But it still does't invalidate something's worth. It does however affect, as you pointed out, whether money will be spent on it. And what usually happens is that these things find their niche audience and they happen but on a very small scale. Believe me, I can't tell you how many "new music" concerts I've been to with the same 10 or 15 guys in the audience, some of whom forced their girlfriends to attend and afterward they lament how music is so dumbed down and worthless and they make the same attacks on the genreral populace who don't appreciate the eccentric genious of Stockhausen or the brilliance of Babbitt.
Back to the point, If one doesn't care about world shadows or animations and they love the game then they love it. It has worth, even if its monetary worth is rather light when looked at in the general market. If one cares about every little texture and every little technical details then they might go nuts and of course give the item a bad grade. And others might agree with that even if they never really experienced the game on their own.
But I personally can't be bothered with such things. I do what I do, like what I like and vote with my actions and with my wallet. It's not the first time something I supported was "under supported" by the masses, no matter their reasons and many good reasons too, and it certainly won't be the last!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think vanguard's community is it's own worst enemy. It seems most are "old school" players having been around since the whole mmo genre was created they have a certain mindset on what community means and the way the game "should" be played. I find this differs quite a bit from the "new school" casual and or easymode mmo player that has come up since the rise of wow and it's offspring. Those 2 types of playstyles cannot coexist in my opinion at least. So you end up with a solid rift in the community and it's what has in the past driven me away from the game the most in the like half dozen times I have tried to get into it since launch.
Do I blame the players? No everyone has every right to game as they wish and I see the merits of most playstyles until they cross the borders of addiction where the game becomes more important then the real world.
I joined up with the new after hours guild as I thought it was being promoted as a start from scratch guild for primarily new players and so far it seems to be most are returning players who already have mid to high level characters and are either rerolling or trying to get their characters transfered into the guild. They all seem like nice people at least the one's I've interacted with but I already feel pretty alienated due to being basically a true noob to the game as I never got a character higher then level 14 in this game. Also a good bit of the guild chat is all about "old school' games and such and since I have not been playing mmo's since the days of eq1 I again feel totally alienated by everyone. I've got a few days left on my sub and I'm trying to get off the isle before it runs out to see the overall population on the mainland and maybe then I'll be able to interact a bit better with the guild but currently my hope is not too high.
But anyhow that's how I feel about the community and it probably turns off a good amount of truly new players and I fully admit that maybe it's just me but I'm not "feeling it" as the saying goes when it comes to incorporating myself into the existing community.
A lot of the other banter being thrown regarding the game I just don't get if you love the game no problem go and play it and shout it from the rooftops if you hate it fine you can justify your reasons how you see fit but the opposing camps will never meet and it's just a waste of everyone's time to tell someone enjoying the game they must hate it because you do or those that can't get enough of the game will never convince those who hate it that their opinions and experiences have no validity because you love the game it's just an endless circle that just creates even more hate on both sides of the aisle.
I have said this before and i say it now. if you play and enjoy EQ2, you won't find anything different in Vanguard. its like a poor cousin of EQ2. thats the feeling i get everytime i tried to get into Vanguard (thats 4 times now).
I tend to disagree with this statement. EQ2 and Vanguard have radically different objectivies in game design and intent. EQ2 for all intents and purposes tries hard to be the "deeper" WoW for fans of Norrath. It draws many of its game design inspirations from the school of thought around 'easy' solo content and at end game you could have over 40 buttons you might use in combat and the state of combat is often just "mash buttons in right order.
Vanguard has a slower approach to combat, longer intervals between ability used, where decisions in combat are much more focused on what just happened rather than hitting the right combination of buttons in the right order.
etc.
I agree with you as well.
I played both Vanuard and EQ 2 side by side because I was sort of jonesing for a high fantasy, many races, magic all over the place, I get to play a paladin or anti-paladin type game. And even though EQ 2 has more support and runs smoother I not only went with Vangaurd but I said so on my EQ2 cancellation form.
It's like players who say "why play any other fantasy game when wow does it better".
ugh.
Not to disparage EQ 2 or WoW for that matter but if I really liked them, I mean REALLY liked them, I'd be playing them.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Well, I was speaking more to the idea of something having value to some even if a majority of people do not find value in it. Just because it doesn't resonate with them doesn't mean it doesn't resonate, and possibly profoundly so, with others.
As far as the "vanguard community", I've found purists in every game around. It seems that most games that have been around for a while always cite "expansion x" as the one where the game was ruined.
And in many ways I can understand. I'm not a huge fan of major change either. But in the end these games had to grow and change. Or at least the developers felt they did. I'm sure there are many reasons and arguments for and against these changes and for the most part I'll let others partake in them unless I have something to say.
No one knows more of majority rule on economics than I do. Believe me. how many avant garde concerts have you been to lately? How about regular theater? Or quirky television shows that don't seem to make it past the second season?
There is nothing wrong with people not liking these things. And you are correct, it does affect whether people pay for them. But this has ALWAYS happened. None of this is new. Nothing that is happening in the mmo world is new when looked at in light of music, theater, movies, literature, etc. The problem is that many gamers can't see this becasue they aren't used to looking at such things in comparison to what has gone before. Only now that a body of work in the gaming world is available for evaluatoin do we see changes in trends over time.
And it goes beyond the idea of things chaning in media. There are fewer book stores in the Boston area because many people buy online now. So I always make it a point to buy locally and even order something locally to support my local businesses. If I can that is. What about record stores? Luckily our local newbury comics carries records and there are several used record stores in the Boston area. It's very possible that may rural areas aren't so lucky.
But it still does't invalidate something's worth. It does however affect, as you pointed out, whether money will be spent on it.
If one doesn't care about world shadows or animations and they love it then they love it. If one cares about every little texture and every little technical details then they might go nuts.
But I personally can't be bothered. I do what I do, like what I like and vote with my actions and with my wallet. It's not the first time something I supported was "under supported" by the masses, no matter their reasons, and it certainly won't be the last!
You're basically speaking of little known gems vs. mainstream successes. I don't believe the analogy has a lot of mileage though. Case in point first season TV cancellations; Vanguard is still going. It's had a WinBack campaign, its been free for past players every Christmas for a month at a time save the last I believe. Some summers too I believe.
When it comes to that analogy; all aspects matter. No one's pulled the plug on Vanguard. It's sold in all the same stores World of Warcraft is sold. It's owned and operated by a company that...while often criticized, you'd undoubtedly have to regard as an NBC, Harper Collins or Universal equivalent in the realm of MMOs.
So I get your point...but Vanguard isn't so much the gem in the Cannes Festival lost and found box as it is the Hollywood blockbuster that released and was badly received.
Comments
I really don't see as constructive in your arguments. Maybe for you, the design is the worst, but saying it categorically is, is just plain untruthful.
If you've had disappointing conversations with players of vanguard, I apologize, but putting us all in the same boat is also untruthfully stereotyping and plain wrong. I can accept your dislikes of it and why you do not play, but being a VG player, you think to encapsule me the same as others because of something you perceive me to have?
I like the world, the aesthetics of it, and not being one of your labelled 'players', it will end there without mentioning any other mmo I may or may not have played or am presently playing.
The person I was responded to said "Design wise, and world wise, its one of the best MMOs out there". My point in repeating it with "worst" instead of "best" was to illustrate exactly what you pointed out there; there's nothing constructive about such a broad stroke. So I agree that my words were just as tilted and of no use as the person's I was quoting when it comes to that portion of things.
And you're right, I might've slipped at times and insinuated all Vanguard players, but I really only mean the ones who routinely bash other MMOs while at the same time try to compliment Vanguard.
I disagree with the thinking that WoW and Vanguard can't have more in common than they do differences; that WoW can't have strengths that Vanguard could benefit from. That's all. I know not 100% of Vanguard's player base believes that. But there are a LOT that view Vanguard in a way that entails WoW be so polar opposite that its a "themepark", a "McDonalds meal", and all the other crazy shit we've all heard over the years. I believe these people to be a problem.
That said I apologize to you and all other Vanguard players that don't fit the description of the ones that I do have a problem with. I tend to use rhetoric as harsh as the ones I'm responding to.
Thank you
Besides, I do play WoW, for different reasons, but be careful who you say that to. I may be construed as a traitor, or worse yet, a "hypocrite". 
Don't flatter yourself. I've given you no rope.... You've simply chosen to ignore anything I've said that undermined your pre-determined conclusions about me and/or the "community I represent"... What makes it all funny is that you couldn't have chosen a worse "poster boy" to hang your theory on. If you raelly knew anything about me, you'd understand why.
I've given you lengthy, detailed explanations and clarifications of exactly what I mean, exactly what I think and exactly what my opinions are. You have chosen to ignore all of the above and instead continued rattling on with your takling points, twisting everything I've said out of context and/or inserting your own conclusions as though they were fact.
Again, just one statement I clarified and corrected you on several times, regarding my take on WoW, you've continued to make as though I hadn't said a word. Deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting someone's position *after* they've corrected you on it is not what I, nor most people I'm sure, would call "honest discussion". Yet, that's been the crux of your entire approach.
Anyway... There is no use reasoning with a closed mind who only hears what they want to, and that is why I stopped bothering to try with you. Frankly, I'm amazed and a bit perturbed that I wasted as much time as I did with you to begin with. Could have done something far more worthwhile.
Ah well... there's always tomorrow.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
As long as its your favorite game its ok to be a fanboy.. Wsimike calls those who like STO... fanboys and yet here he is doing the same thing with VG. Sweet irony.
Wait... I called people who like STO fanbois? When did this happen? Direct quote with link to the thread please, so it can be seen in its full context... assuming I said it at all. If I did use it, I guarantee there was damn good reason to, because I personally am not a fan of the word.
That said... How exactly am I a Vanguard fanboi?
Am I attacking anyone who criticizes it? Nope.
Am I pretending there's nothing wrong with the game and everythign's perfect? Nope.
Am I raving on about it in thread after thread after thread? Nope.
Am i doing anything at all that's at all remotely "fanboy-like" behavior? Nope.
Am I dismissing any and every negative review of the game as being by someone who dont' know what they're talking about, or calling them "trolls" or "haters"? No.
I opined that it's come a long way since its awful beginnings and has developed into a solid virtual world that offers a nice variety of things to do or "wrap your head around" as I put it. I've stated it's a nice alternative to the more WoW-like titles out there if people are bored of that playstyle (and many are if you read enough posts) and want something different..
That's called an opinion, Shastra... not "fanboy behavior". There's a huge chasm between the two.
FFS... tonight was my 3rd night back in VG after not playing it for *months*, easily since sometime last year. If I'm a "fanboy" of anything, it's FFXI and even *then* I'm not. I make one post saying something positive about the game while voicing my opinion on other MMOs and I'm labeled "fanboi"... What's next? I'm a paid schill for SOE?
So... do you have any substance whatsoever to your claim, Shastra, or are you just here looking for attention?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I didn't "ignore" anything. I've brought up a few times that you different "molds", the fact that you have multiple MMOs installed, so forth and so on; none of that matters to me. What matters is your opinion of the "current crop of MMOs". It's YOUR opinion, not mine. Bringing up all the etceteras is for YOU to wrestle with, not me.
What do you want me to do? Believe that yes, WoW is a single player chatroom just because its icon is still on your desktop and you play it? No. No matter what "mold" you group it in, whether you have it installed or not, no matter how long you played it and how long you've played Vanguard, whether you like it or not, that specific opinion and a few others you had are still negative, condescending, and all too typical opinions of MMOs that aren't Vanguard by a Vanguard player (the ones that spend time on boards disparaging).
So trust me, I've read all that you've written. It just doesn't excuse you from having that opinion in my mind, and it still groups your thinking with the typical, specific brand of Vanguard players I consider a poison to Vanguard. And 'poison' not because of any other reason than those ideas that led you to consider WoW a "single player chatroom". The moment those ideas are gone; you'd be fine in my mind.
Dont know why folks just cant let this game rest in peace. It's aged and the subscribership doesnt rival an indie game. VG will always be the coulda, woulda, shoulda game, and will be nothing more today than a niche peek and lets see. I wouldnt even peek in to see, but thats me.
Well, for us to 'let it rest in peace' , it'd have to be decidedly dead. Which it isn't. As long the subscribership, as you call it, keeps the game afloat, let those who enjoy playing it play it, and go play whatever it is you play and let us woulda, shoulda, couldas enjoy our niche, aged peek-see, won't ya?!
Like my running sentence with millions of comas? Too bad, no grammar police here.
I say the same thing about most MMOs. At the moment you cant name an MMO that isnt a lopsided piece of garbage. Companies spew far worse games and expect you choke them down, and we do. I say shame on you for wasting time beating a dead horse for fun when you could probably find something more creative to do than stand off to the side of a car accident pointing your finger doing the Nelson laugh.
Please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks.
Fortune favours the bold.
VG is for a lot of people the game they want to like but for whatever reason something gets in the way. I've taken trips into VG 3-4 times over the years and never really stuck it out because of bugs or hardcore rulesets or being plain old lost or bored of the grind...
Came back to VG last week and frankly except for a two bugged quests the rest has been taken care of. VG has the hands down best content director quests. You can't miss them and they tell you exactly where to be level by level. And no not level range... level, its crazy. At my level there are 4 quest hubs, next level 3, previous 3. None of this zone x from 40-50. Very very casual friendly.
Now if they add skill queuing I'd be drooling, button spamming not fun.
Because some of us find it fun.
I tend to do things that I enjoy. I don't care how much time Vanguard has, I play it because it gives me what I want from an mmo.
I don't need to be some follower and just let it rest in peace. It's playable. Not as polished as other games for sure but man, when I'm doing a quest on some river bank or ocean and I see the sun setting, it really makes it all the more enjoyable.
If a few other people can find the same satisfaction then I say "why not".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Fact is, most people play MMO's as a sort of popularity contest. It's a social situation in which people want to feel "happy" and "comfortable" with their choice. It's like advertising products that everyone already loves, i.e. Coke or Pepsi. Much of the advertising is targeted at consumer confidence and making existing customers feel happy about their choice. Pyschologically humans have a need to feel like they belong to something and to have that validated by others.
Which can't happen witha low population MMO no matter how good it is. Hence why so many people write off MMO's that are low population, they are "old", "has beens", "shoulda coulda woulda" games. Terms used to further degrade the game and in turn boost a players own concept and reasons for playing XYZ MMO that is more popular. It has more subscribers so it /must/ be better. A logical falacy that is based both on opinion and completely shattered by the fact that the 800lb gorilla is WoW, which is certainly a fantastic game, but certainly isn't the /only/ game.
IMO Vanguard is an /excellent/ MMO. It's primary failure was a horrible launch. "You only get one chance to make a first impression" and Vanguard failed this, no question. In the shadow of other products that worked or were working at the time. Vanguard had no chance with its launch. Even if it /had/ launched in the state its in, it's a niche product. THere are too many elements to vanguard that the "large" and "common" place MMO population wouldn't tolerate. Things like a death penalty, having to retrieve your corpse to minimize it, losing items that aren't soul bound on death, a HUGE and expansive world where travel time and the journey in "getting" there is just as important to the game design as the individual mechanics.
Combine that with dozens of misnomers, misconceptions and constantly repeated but often wrong assumptions about the game, such as derivitive class design "it's just an EQ2" clone etc (all statements that even objectively are wrong, VG and EQII are radically different games both in actual gameplay, pace of combat, and class design).
Vanguard /is/ a game for people who want an large, open, seamless world with original lore, in depth /non-combat/ gameplay systems like crafting and diplomacy that are /not/ just mini games but in fact fully fleshed out secitons of content with their own quest lines and player progression. A combat system that takes it's leanings from EQ1 rather than hyper-ventalating-button-mashing mode ala WoW or EQII. Where death /means/ something, where taking risks for unknown rewards is part and parcel with the game. Where challenge still applies to some of the better content in the game. In turn these very same things make the game less enjoyable to many people, especailly many of the thousands, if not millions who prefer games to be a little more sugar coated/candy dispenser like.
At its best, Vanguard is a niche game with a max player cap in the low 100's of thousands, if it was in perfect shape and had launche dwell, it never would've been a million player game. It was never meant to be. The best way to phrase it now is /if/ the original design goals of Vanguard appealed to you, a PVE game where risk matters and takes it queues heaivly from what Everquest I (not II) could've been in a new age of MMO's, then it is defintately worth a serious look now as it /is/ in great shape now. If those things don't matter to you, or turn you off, it's going to not be any kind of remotely good game for you.
More importantly, the sun /is/ setting ont his title. If you are an afficianado of MMO games and design, you owe it to yourself to spend at least a month or two playing Vanguard to see what could've been. Don't let the fact that its a game in its end time make you not play it. Ask yourself seriously (if that's your complaint) how long you've played any MMO for consistently and whether or not playing an MMO for just 3 months or 4, and enjoying it, means if you can't play the 5th it's not worth it. By and large most MMO players maybe stick with /one/ game (though they take many breaks) and /sample/ dozens of others that they only play for a month or two.
Either way, recognize the popularity contest. The reality is, there are legions of fans for the larger games and often their argument boils down to "well it has 100's if not millions of players, therefor any game that doesn't must suck in comparison". Such a statement makes t hem feel better, but isn't necessarily true as ultimately we are arguing over the definition of /fun/. A pointless debate in the end.
+++
I agree completely with this post... Though the "sun is setting" statement *may* not be so, necessarily. It remains to be seen if the trend continues, but since I'm back, and even a bit before, I'm seeing an increasing buzz around this game. People are coming back who played before (i'm one of them), new people are coming aboard. The "After Hours" guild alone hit 71 members last night (mostly main characters) and it's only been around a pretty short time as I understand. I'm seeing a lot of activity in the regional chat areas... for Kojan in particular since that's where I'm "living" for now. People are talking about how their friends or spouses are also going to be giving it a go.
Last time I saw anything approaching this kind of activity was a bit after its launch, and at that time, the chat was filled with statements of anger, disappointment, frustration, how much the game sucked, etc. etc. And it was all well-deserved; VG was a trainwreck at launch. Not so this time. This time, it's just general game-related chatter, people asking questions, people saying positive things about the game, etc. There's definitely something going on here.
Again, it may be short lived. Time will tell on that. For some reason, though, VG is getting a number of people interested lately; maybe it's just curiosity as to what the buzz is about... that's possible. But there definitely is one. Personally, I'm hoping the trend continues and they're able to maintain at least enough to maybe get some more funds poured back into it to see some more production going on - which hopefully won't include watering down any of the features you pointed out above for the sake of "appealing to more people". The market is already saturated with MMOs trying to "appeal to more people", and with very few exceptions, are falling short in doing so.
== Slight Sidetrack: Argument For Niche Games ==
Vanguard is a niche game, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Square-Enix focused entirely on its core group of players for FFXI for *years*, never watering things down for the sake of "attracting more players". FFXI is most certainly a niche game. When asked in interviews if they would ever water down the game to attract more players, SE said no, because they were providing a specific experience to a specific group of players. And for that, they were rewarded with ~500k players for 6 to 7 out of the 8 years the game has been out. Meanwhile, other brand-new MMOs built on popular IPs, that "should have been wildly successful" have leveled off at ~200k players after only several months of launch, and stayed there. Even though they were designed after the "WoW model" *to* appeal to more players, they fell far short of expectations.
I find it ironic, and rather funny, that an 8 year-old niche game (FFXI) designed to appeal to a specific player base, with a somewhat obtuse interface, aging tech, almost no hand-holding and long progression curve is going stronger than MMOs designed to appeal to "everyone" that are barely a year old, have newer, shinier graphics, lots of hand-holding and easier, quicker progression. There's something to that. I think developers - most importantly the people making the decisions - should pay attention to it and not automatically try and hop on WoW's coat-tails when pursuing a MMO.
Should VG reach a point that SOE finds it worth more serious investment, what SOE would hopefully do is follow SE's mentality and keep VG as a niche game for those who enjoy it for what it is and improve on it in that way. Though, with some of the things SOE has pulled in the past purely in the name of greed, I'm not so prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt just yet... though I'm getting ahead of myself on that point.
== End Sidetrack ==
I agree that VG offers more depth in gameplay and character advancement than most any other MMO I've played, and I mean all-around; not just in gaining levels and assigning stats. For just one example, Crafting is a full game system, which I'm just getting started on (never really seriously looked into it on previous rounds in the game) but am already loving. The level of interaction alone is exactly what I believe a crafting system should be... You are involved at every step of the process, making decisions that will affect the outcome of the item you're making, for better or worse. It's not the mere "click the button, wait 5 seconds and voila! Success every time!" process that other MMOs call "crafting". I realize others prefer the less involved approach, and that's great. Personally, I like to be more involved - to be actually *playing* the game, not watching it play itself.
The world offers a lot of remote and interesting places to discover, many dungeons to explore, many interesting and dangerous overland areas to traverse. Guild houses are constructed by the guild members themselves; another example of how the game gets the players directly involved. And there are myriad other examples.
It is sad that VG launched the way it did. Being a niche game would have certainly limited its "growth potential", as so many others already had decided that WoW was "the game". But, it might have fared a lot better than it has. Here's hoping this trend of new players coming to the game is the start of something good.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
This has been an excellent read. I agree with the last couple of posts. and only time will tell with the game. If SOE throws some more resources to Vanguard, they will have a compettion to thier gem of Everquest 2 ... VG was designed to compete specifically against EQ2 and frankly the over all game play for VG is better but not as polished. I hope that EQ Next will follow Vanguard over EQ 2 ..
I hope this game lasts as if it does i will be here a very long time.
Artorus Giltanus - Ranger EQ1 Retired
Arturien - 90 Deathknight WoW
I certainly wasn't trying to paint Vanguard in a corner with "sun is setting". And I certainly don't want to turn people away from it if they are interested. More was trying to encourage independant thought. Don't judge an MMO purely because it has a small community or isn't competing subscriber wise, which most people do. Fact is, Vanguard makes money for SOE. If it didn't, they wouldn't keep hosting it, and for SOE, it only cost them about 8 million to ship it (as Microsoft footed most of the bill to Sigil before SOE bought them). So in the grand scheme of things it /is/ successful for SOE, if not a huge bread winner.
That aside Vanguard is one of my favorite MMO's of all time, despite never having gotten a max level toon. The design ideals behind Vangaurd appeal to what /I/ want from an MMO. And after several attempts to return to Vangaurd where each time I liked it more but found no friends willing to play, I finally have one of my more devout MMO playing friends trying it and... he has constantly stated over the last four or five days how suprised he is and how much he's enjoying it.
This does not mean Vanguard is flawless, it doesn't mean it's the game for anyone reading this thread, nor does it mean I'll be playing it a year from now. Given that I already have a station pass it costs me nothing extra to return to VG and take a look. I will say for anyone who wants to return to VG make sure you have a plan for who/how/when you will play. I have returned solo many times and the challenge in finding a guild that both plays when I do and has toons at the early levels willing to group is rough. This time around I've returned with a friend and there is little content we can't take as a duo except a few of the tougher named encounters. I would however consider us to be on the upper end of both skill at MMO's and Risk aversion (we are ambivalent about "losing" so long as the risk was our choice to make). YMMV depending on how good you are at understanding class dynamics, creating two characters that work well together and reacting to oh sh&t situations in game.
And for those seeing my "favorite mmo's of all time" and thinking I'm some kind of nut job, you're probably right. In the grand scheme of MMO's, I dislike WoW, enjoy Everquest II, spent 6 years playing EQ from launch etc. I dislike EVE, enjoyed Tabula Rasa, wished Auto Assault was not such a failure, etc. I've played just about every US Pay to play MMO out there at some point and dozens of the F2P variants (Go Runes of Magic!). I tend to lean towards open mindedness in MMO's, and see most of their strong points, while accepting their failures. Generally I play MMO's based on where my friends are or where I find community. And to me, the single most important facet to an MMO is how it encourages community building. The more solo friendly "I can ignore anyone playing" the MMO is, the less I tend to like it as I'm a grognard and think ultimately the purpose to playing a social game is to play /with/ people.
This but i have only tried it 3 times and thats enough for me done with VG.
I tend to disagree with this statement. EQ2 and Vanguard have radically different objectivies in game design and intent. EQ2 for all intents and purposes tries hard to be the "deeper" WoW for fans of Norrath. It draws many of its game design inspirations from the school of thought around 'easy' solo content and at end game you could have over 40 buttons you might use in combat and the state of combat is often just "mash buttons in right order.
Vanguard has a slower approach to combat, longer intervals between ability used, where decisions in combat are much more focused on what just happened rather than hitting the right combination of buttons in the right order.
EQ2's crafting system is in many ways on the surface similar to Vanguards but in implementation details wildly different in goals and objectives. Arguably vanguards crafting is more thought out and far more focused on giving crafters an actual game to play not just a diversion.
Where the two games are similar is that they were both born out of a love for EQ1 not just as a lore base but in class and group roles. They have a common inspiration and as such have drawn many similar behaviors.
But in my mind there is no question they are two very different games. I've played EQ2 since launch, multiple level 80's, played in just about every end game raid zone (except the latest expansion). I know it well. I've also played EQ1 for over 6 years and have been playing Vanguard from time to time since launch to see how it goes.
If you enjoy the WoW/EQ2 approach to MMO's then I'd say its safer to say there's a good chance Vanguard is worht passing over because you probably won't like it (unless you are of a mindset to enjoy multiple different styles and approaches to MMOs). Not that Vanguard is a copy of EQ2 therefor worth missing. Simply that you just won't like it. On the same hand if you wanted a deeper game, with a slower pace, a stronger dependancy on groups or a tougher solo experience (note Vanguard /is/ soloable, but hte challenge level is much higher t han most casual MMO's) and you don't require some massive community to validate your choice in games, give Vanguard a shot.
I'm sure you will quote me as being part of the problem. Although I haven't attacked you personally. Although I stated my opinion as opinion, while allowing you to have yours (although I strongly disagree). And despite the fact that your main argument is that 'the VG community can't take criticism" - let's see how you take it.
Apparently not well. You have created a set-in-stone prejudicial history of the VG community which no one could reasonably come to with a simple search through the forum history. What does the actual history show?
Huge frustration with performance bugs and content quantity.
An initial community that was strongly supportive despite the bugs, which dwindled quickly due to the top reason.
A few fanbois.
A larger than normal amount of haters and trolls - produced, yet again by reason 1.
As reason 1 got under control, an increasing number of 'hey this game is well designed'. Which now, is the majority opinion.
And finally, we are left with a game that has challenging content and an open world without instancing but suffers from a lack of population due to Reason 1.
That is what the actual history shows. But go on living in your fantasy world if you like. After all, it is what we gamers enjoy.
Quite simply, if you've really never experienced vitriol in a Vanguard vs. * thread; by all means, believe I've made it up. I somehow doubt you've actually searched years of forum posts on account of me though.
Not that you'd need to do any searching to find vitriol anyway. Either you skipped the OP's post or you missed it before the mod edits. But everything I've complained about has been qualified in this thread. No need to look beyond it.
As for your list of what you believe Vanguard's problems to have been; very good. But you kind of prove my point by offering up a list of your own; but only as a rejection of what I myself believe Vanguard's problems have been. And to prove different than you, I won't refute whatever you believe Vanguard's problems to have been. I just believe your list and anyone else's one list isn't completely comprehensive. Everyone should be listened to; as no one has a reason to come on these boards and tell a lie about what their turn offs are in this game.
Well, I was speaking more to the idea of something having value to some people even if a majority of people do not find value in it. Just because it doesn't resonate with them doesn't mean it doesn't resonate, and possibly profoundly so, with others.
As far as the "vanguard community", I've found purists in every game around. It seems that most games that have been around for a while always cite "expansion x" as the one where the game was ruined.
And in many ways I can understand. I'm not a huge fan of major change either. But in the end these games had to grow and change. Or at least the developers felt they did. I'm sure there are many reasons and arguments for and against these changes and for the most part I'll let others partake in them unless I have something to say.
No one knows more of majority rule on economics than I do. Believe me. how many avant garde concerts have you been to lately? How about regular theater? Or quirky television shows that don't seem to make it past the second season?
There is nothing wrong with people not liking these things. And you are correct, it does affect whether people pay for them. But this has ALWAYS happened. None of this is new. Nothing that is happening in the mmo world is new when looked at in comparison with music, theater, movies, literature, etc. The problem is that many gamers can't see this becasue they aren't used to looking at such things in comparison to what has gone before. Only now that a body of work in the gaming world is available for evaluatoin do we see changes in trends over time.
And it goes beyond the idea of things changing just in media. There are fewer book stores in the Boston area because many people buy online now. So I always make it a point to buy locally and even order something locally to support my local businesses. If I can that is. What about record stores? Luckily our local newbury comics carries records and there are several used record stores in the Boston area. It's very possible that many rural areas aren't so lucky.
But it still does't invalidate something's worth. It does however affect, as you pointed out, whether money will be spent on it. And what usually happens is that these things find their niche audience and they happen but on a very small scale. Believe me, I can't tell you how many "new music" concerts I've been to with the same 10 or 15 guys in the audience, some of whom forced their girlfriends to attend and afterward they lament how music is so dumbed down and worthless and they make the same attacks on the genreral populace who don't appreciate the eccentric genious of Stockhausen or the brilliance of Babbitt.
Back to the point, If one doesn't care about world shadows or animations and they love the game then they love it. It has worth, even if its monetary worth is rather light when looked at in the general market. If one cares about every little texture and every little technical details then they might go nuts and of course give the item a bad grade. And others might agree with that even if they never really experienced the game on their own.
But I personally can't be bothered with such things. I do what I do, like what I like and vote with my actions and with my wallet. It's not the first time something I supported was "under supported" by the masses, no matter their reasons and many good reasons too, and it certainly won't be the last!
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think vanguard's community is it's own worst enemy. It seems most are "old school" players having been around since the whole mmo genre was created they have a certain mindset on what community means and the way the game "should" be played. I find this differs quite a bit from the "new school" casual and or easymode mmo player that has come up since the rise of wow and it's offspring. Those 2 types of playstyles cannot coexist in my opinion at least. So you end up with a solid rift in the community and it's what has in the past driven me away from the game the most in the like half dozen times I have tried to get into it since launch.
Do I blame the players? No everyone has every right to game as they wish and I see the merits of most playstyles until they cross the borders of addiction where the game becomes more important then the real world.
I joined up with the new after hours guild as I thought it was being promoted as a start from scratch guild for primarily new players and so far it seems to be most are returning players who already have mid to high level characters and are either rerolling or trying to get their characters transfered into the guild. They all seem like nice people at least the one's I've interacted with but I already feel pretty alienated due to being basically a true noob to the game as I never got a character higher then level 14 in this game. Also a good bit of the guild chat is all about "old school' games and such and since I have not been playing mmo's since the days of eq1 I again feel totally alienated by everyone. I've got a few days left on my sub and I'm trying to get off the isle before it runs out to see the overall population on the mainland and maybe then I'll be able to interact a bit better with the guild but currently my hope is not too high.
But anyhow that's how I feel about the community and it probably turns off a good amount of truly new players and I fully admit that maybe it's just me but I'm not "feeling it" as the saying goes when it comes to incorporating myself into the existing community.
A lot of the other banter being thrown regarding the game I just don't get if you love the game no problem go and play it and shout it from the rooftops if you hate it fine you can justify your reasons how you see fit but the opposing camps will never meet and it's just a waste of everyone's time to tell someone enjoying the game they must hate it because you do or those that can't get enough of the game will never convince those who hate it that their opinions and experiences have no validity because you love the game it's just an endless circle that just creates even more hate on both sides of the aisle.
I agree with you as well.
I played both Vanuard and EQ 2 side by side because I was sort of jonesing for a high fantasy, many races, magic all over the place, I get to play a paladin or anti-paladin type game. And even though EQ 2 has more support and runs smoother I not only went with Vangaurd but I said so on my EQ2 cancellation form.
It's like players who say "why play any other fantasy game when wow does it better".
ugh.
Not to disparage EQ 2 or WoW for that matter but if I really liked them, I mean REALLY liked them, I'd be playing them.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You're basically speaking of little known gems vs. mainstream successes. I don't believe the analogy has a lot of mileage though. Case in point first season TV cancellations; Vanguard is still going. It's had a WinBack campaign, its been free for past players every Christmas for a month at a time save the last I believe. Some summers too I believe.
When it comes to that analogy; all aspects matter. No one's pulled the plug on Vanguard. It's sold in all the same stores World of Warcraft is sold. It's owned and operated by a company that...while often criticized, you'd undoubtedly have to regard as an NBC, Harper Collins or Universal equivalent in the realm of MMOs.
So I get your point...but Vanguard isn't so much the gem in the Cannes Festival lost and found box as it is the Hollywood blockbuster that released and was badly received.