If you're thinking of buying Vanguard.....don't.

RonnyRulz

Quality of Graphics do NOT justify the required High-End system.

I ran Vanguard on max settings getting 20-50 fps, and with some stuff toned down I got a constant 35 fps. That's fine because I have a high-end system. Not everyone can spend $2000 on a computer though. Especially just to play this unfinished game (which should still be in beta for 3 more months.)

The graphics are NOT that impressive. The character models are cartoony, the game is full of bugs/glitches,  and the lack of organic detail is disappointing. The graphics are good, excluding the character models. If I wanted to play a cartoon character model, I'd play WoW. Games such as Oblivion, LoTR Online, and other games have beautiful graphics that are better than Vanguard's. Far better. Whether in terms of the world itself or the actual graphical textures, they are far greater than Vanguard's graphics. They also require less resources to play.

The fact is that Vanguard requires a ridiculous amount of computer power to even play. Worse, it requires even more ridiculous amount to play with good fps. Even worse, you can't, even with lowest settings and a high-end computer, get above 50fps.

The fact is that Vanguard's graphics do not constitute nor justify the required high-end system to efficiently play it. WoW, Oblivion, LOTR, those are all games whose graphics are great. Great enough to be satisfied by good graphics and an immersive world. Vanguard on the other hand is worse than those games in terms of graphics and thus immersion, yet it requires MORE resources to play? Also, the options are ridiculous. Running at max settings I got an average of 30-40 fps. Running on minimum settings, where the trees are paper crayola drawings, I only got 35-40fps average. A big boost of 5fps in return for a huge loss in quality. Pathetic.

Vanguard is a poorly made game. I used to play in the Phase 1 of a popular MMO's beta, and there's barely any bugs, a finished and greatly polished game. Vanguard, in Phase 4 beta, and even after release, isn't polished at all, has tons of bugs, and it's just pathetic compared to other MMO's who are already more bug-free and polished in phase 1 than Vanguard is AFTER RELEASE. I do not understand how they expect you to bring your friends to Vanguard when they can't even play the game because they don't want to spend $2000 just to play an unfinished, unpolished, bug-filled, poorly designed game.

I am not here to only troll, I'm also here to tell other about this game. Mainly about what angers me the most: A company that FORCES the players to upgrade their machine just to play when the graphics are NOT worth upgrading for. This game has and is going to lose thousands of players solely because it decided to limit its playerbase on those who can afford a high-end system. Don't get me wrong, my system is fine and runs Vanguard smoothly. But my friends, family, and thousands of others can't even play it for different reasons. If you can't get a game to run on the average system with 30fps, you've failed in the MMO market. MMO is about getting a lot of people, not getting those who are rich and spoiled enough to buy a $2000 machine.

Fariic

The human eye is incapable of distinguishing between 30 FPS and 50 FPS, because you can't see faster then 30 FPS; so getting more then 30 isn't really neccesary.

I could be wrong about that, but do believe that to be factual.

Hope you find a better game.

Maverick123w

I'm pretty certain that the human sees at 60fps... I know i can see a difference in Vanguard when I run at 30fps vs. say the mid 50's

RonnyRulz

That's not true. I, as well as thousands of others, can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I can't be wrong because I CAN tell the difference. So I guess if you're right, I must be some kind of robot.

Thanks, I did find  a better game. Hope you have fun too!

morpin

How many FPS the human eye can detect is kind of tricky question.  See this link:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

 

Fariic

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


That's not true. I, as well as thousands of others, can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I can't be wrong because I CAN tell the difference. So I guess if you're right, I must be some kind of robot.
Please, don't make up facts just because you read it on some internet article.
Regardless, that is insignificant to this post.

Perseption is a crazy thing.  When I'm at home all by myself and I hear a creek from the house settling, I swear its someone walking in the back hall; I even see the shadows.

You may perseve (sp?) to see it faster because you know that it is running faster, but your eye will still only pick up those 30 frames per second. 

When someone waves a glow stick in front of my face, back and forth very fast, I know I see several glow sticks.  I see them because if my eye could process the information and deliver it to my brain then my brain could send back the necesary responce to see just one glow stick moving very fast.  I see them because my eye can't see and process information at that speed.

 

Like I said, I could be wrong about the number of frames, it could  be like 32 or some odd nuber like that, but I know that you can't see 60 FPS.  You only think you do because the numbers on your screen says it's moving that fast. 

 

Edit:  I swear on Jesus Christ, his mother, father, aunt and uncle I did not read your link till after posting this.  I honestly thought that I was going to look like a complete ass when I saw your link.

Turns out, I'm not as big an ass as I though, and pretty damn spot on.

Deathstrike2

Actually, the environment is quite stunning to look at, as I am finding.  This game is hands down more beautiful than any MMO I've ever played.  The attention to detail is amazing.   There's new stuff to discover literally everywhere.

You are somewhat correct on the description of the player's avatars.  They look okay, but it would be much better if Sigil added more hair styles to jazz it up a bit.  With only 4 hair styles per race (I think), there isn't a lot of variety.  Also, as a little knitpick, I hate the sliders for colors.  They're way too touchy.  Just give us a color box to move around in.  Overall though, the avatars aren't terrible at all.  They just need a little more noticeable variety.

No one is denying that there are bugs in the game or that it could be further optomized though, but the game is far from unplayable.  If you haven't at least tried this game yet, you really don't know what you're missing.  It's good and getting better.

Verenath

Please keep your numbers consistent and your information factual.  1,000's of other players?  You don't know 1,000's of others on VG and their performance, etc.  First max is 20-50 ... then it's 30-40?  And go use google to find how how many fps the human eye can see, RobotRonny.

EliasThorne

FPS aside, two opinions from me - the games fun and its not buggy to game break point.



Thees my opinion, I don't have a $2000 PC, nor do any of may mates - we're enjoying it and my opinion didn't take as long to read

RonnyRulz

The human eye can see the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Just because you read an article on the internet saying different doesn't mean it's true. I can tell the difference, and so can thousands of others.

I also know the system specs of thousands of others. It's something called 3dMark. It's also called "Not everyone buys a $2000 computer this year." Since I know the fact is that thousands of people have computers, and thousands play MMO's, and thousands play Vaguard, and thanks to things like 3d-Mark which tells me my computer vs. the average computer, as well as me being able to do 2 + 2 = 4....well you see, I can SAFELY know thousands of other's system specs are under mine, as well as the CONSTANT forums where people go to great lengths to increase their FPS from 10 to 15 using "tweaks."

If you MUST know, I got anywhere between 1 FPS and 70 FPS. The fact is though, those are more rare than the average number. Sometimes my average was 20, sometimes 30, sometimes 40. I don't have to say exact numbers just to be free from your judgemet.

You're misinformed, perhaps you should reevaluate where you get your knowledge and assumptions from.

Verenath

Ok, I'm done.  You've mentioned 3dMark.  Nuff said.  And it's not you telling the difference between 30 and 60fps.

flood950

I feel that there may be some underlying issue in the game causing some people to have poor performance while others do not.   I have seen the game running on a system that is very outdated (by my standards at least) and is running 1Gig of ram and an Nvidia 5series card...it barely passes minimum specs and it runs ok.  The settings are all dropped down...but it runs and looks decent.  I am use to playing it fully maxed out so it looked very rough to me...but all things considered it was playable and wasnt ugly as sin.



As I mentioned I have ever slider to the max and it runs very smooth and my system is strong..but its not top of the line anymore.



E6700

EVGA 7950GX2

2 Gig RAM

Razer Barracuda AC-1





There are threads on various fan sites helping people with poor performance try to get the framerates up.   Unless you can barely meet the minimum requirements I wouldnt pass the game up if it looks good.  Just dont expect it to look like the screenshots either though.

sunflame

I have to disagree with the op - i dont think that any1 can call me a Vangaurd fanboy (espically since i didnt buy the game- only played during beta). even though the op has some good points about the graphic - the game is looking amazing on high settings - however im one of those guys who cant play @ max settings due to old graphic card (GeForce 6600) - BUT even with the avg of 10 FPS (yes 10..) the game is still a LOT more fun then any other game out there... (and i played WoW/DDO/EQ2/GW/etc.) - sure if the ONLY thing that u care about is graphic and u DONT have a very good pc - dont buy it - but if u care more about fun - this is a very good game.

Oh and - i dont get all the "hype" behind LOTR - the game has the same graphic as DDO and tbh - its the SAME game as DDO only diffrent class/race/world/zone/etc.



I dont know how many bugs/crash/etc. the game has right now - but i do know that when i first loged into beta i could stay online for more then an hour due to crashing out - and about 20% of the quests were bugged - but in the last few days of beta (the last week or so) i was able to stay 8-10 hours online without crashing and only one quest was still bugged (from the ones i found out) - so maybe the game still has its problems (im sure it has some problems) but overall the game is playable and very fun.

shae

While I do agree the technical performance of the game is extremely poor and also that the computer needed to get this game looking really looking great (great to me would equal: above average or worthy of note) is really quite extreme, I would also have to say that all those problems do not suffeciently give an accurate representation of Vanguard's quality overall, which IMHO oppinion is very much present.

Technical issues, bugs, exploits, glitches and development ignorance asside, there is actually a depth of quality to Vanguard that, while hard to reach, is present and very much accounted for. I'm not saying any of this makes up for the almost arrogant acceptance of the games problems, but alot of it goes a very long way to making this an "almost" good gaming experience and adds alot to the possibility's of Vanguard.

Things like starting areas for each race are great examples, each are really well done with an incredible amount of detail. A seemless world, which is bugged at the best of times (TY Chunks?) but is still done in a very technically impressive way. Crafting is probably the most notably detailed and has a huge amount of complexity and quality to it.

In other words. If your thinking of buying Vanguard, yes you absolutley MUST take into account the technical issues as they are very much present BUT you must also take into account the very large laundy list of features and benefits which set the game appart.

I'm not saying one way or the other, just look at both sides. It's unfair to do it any other way.

Fariic

Originally posted by shae


While I do agree the technical performance of the game is extremely poor and also that the computer needed to get this game looking really looking great (great to me would equal: above average or worthy of note) is really quite extreme, I would also have to say that all those problems do not suffeciently give an accurate representation of Vanguard's quality overall, which IMHO oppinion is very much present.
Technical issues, bugs, exploits, glitches and development ignorance asside, there is actually a depth of quality to Vanguard that, while hard to reach, is present and very much accounted for. I'm not saying any of this makes up for the almost arrogant acceptance of the games problems, but alot of it goes a very long way to making this an "almost" good gaming experience and adds alot to the possibility's of Vanguard.
Things like starting areas for each race are great examples, each are really well done with an incredible amount of detail. A seemless world, which is bugged at the best of times (TY Chunks?) but is still done in a very technically impressive way. Crafting is probably the most notably detailed and has a huge amount of complexity and quality to it.
In other words. If your thinking of buying Vanguard, yes you absolutley MUST take into account the technical issues as they are very much present BUT you must also take into account the very large laundy list of features and benefits which set the game appart.
I'm not saying one way or the other, just look at both sides. It's unfair to do it any other way.

Intelligent, unbiased, objective.

Great job.

And you still can't see the dif between 30 or so FPS and 60 FPS.

RonnyRulz

Some of you have really good posts and points.

If it wasn't for my personal opinion of crappy character models, the game would be ABSOLUTELY beautiful. The environment is GREAT. I don't mind the lack of sense some of the world has (like a huge rock not sinking like it would IRL or something) and even then that's not the problem (The non-human character models are very nice. Raki is so wonderful, and goblins are cool too! It's just the humans that bug me, but that's easily worked around.)

What drove me off wasn't the performance, as I had good frames on average (I believe I achieved 35 fps with near-max settings, whih was great for me, although I wish I could have gotten 60 because I CAN notice the difference).

I tried really really hard to like the game, but the two things that drove me off were....

1) The game is unfinished. I played a bard, and 90% of my spells/abilities had no animation, spell graphics, or sound effects. The animations were unfinished, sound effects and spell graphics weren't even in the game yet, etc. When I used my Bard's "Shout" instant damage spell, there was no sound, no graphics, nothing. Just numbers that appeared (which you couldnt turn off.....)

2) The grind. I began to feel the grind at level 8. I did quests and even grouped, and the XP was extremely slow.

 

I will, however, take a look at it in a few months to see how it's been polished and if the game is finished.

kopema

---

Originally posted by RonnyRulz
If you MUST know, I got anywhere between 1 FPS and 70 FPS. The fact is though, those are more rare than the average number. Sometimes my average was 20, sometimes 30, sometimes 40. I don't have to say exact numbers just to be free from your judgemet.

---

Inconsitant performance is worse than mere slow performance. Everyone who tried Oblivion, even if his own system couldn't run it well, at least could see that there was a REASON the game had excessive requirements.

It could make sense for someone to upgrade his system when there is a leap in game graphics technology. But buying new hardware to compensate for lousy coding is just plain stupid.

vylo

Problems with this post.

1. You think WoW has great graphics.  WoW has Efficient graphics.  But by no means are they great.  WoW's grahpics were nearly dated upon release.

 

2. You state you have a high end system, but you never list any specs.  I have a high end system, and I have trouble turning on enough features to make the game lag at all.

shae

Originally posted by Fariic


Intelligent, unbiased, objective.
Great job.
And you still can't see the dif between 30 or so FPS and 60 FPS.

TY

But anyways, I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, that might be me though, I have an over active imagination when it comes to the FPS thing.

remonin

RonnyRulz wrote this on Feb 5, 2007 :                           

Graphics are incredibly glitchy, buggy, and draining on the system. The environment's oil-painting based graphics are beautiful, but the character models are too cartoony and are out of place in the "realistic" world. To add to the cartoonish character models, the animations are stiff and dead... that's saying IF the skill/spell HAS animation. Spell graphics are horrendous. Graphics are not good enough to constitute the high-end computer you must have to see the graphics. Many other games have better graphics and can run on older systems. Sound gets a 3 for the same reason the graphics do: one good point. The graphics have a beautiful environment, and the sound has beautiful background music. Sadly, the sound fails worse than the graphics fail! Sound effects for spells are poor, if even existent. EAX effects are nice, but 3d sound isn't anywhere near as good as it should be. Roleplaying gets a 2 for lack of immersion. With so many bugs, unfinished or stiff animations, non-existent or lifeless animations and sound effects, lack of depth, repetitive quests, and an empty world, the immersion factor disappears quickly. The community isn't much for roleplaying either, with many people shouting "Lfg dps tank". This isn't so much the fault of the game as much as it is the community. The value of the game is poor compared to the MMO's out now, and the MMO's that will release in a few months. Vanguard brings nothing new to the table besides crafting (which they did a good job with) and diplomacy (which could use a lot more depth). Despite the horrendous flaws of cartoon characters, glitches, an endless amount of bugs, poor/non-existent sound effects, spell graphics, and uninteresting quests, the fun itself is okay. Harvesting and Crafting are done well. Diplomacy is done well enough to be an extra in the game, but it is not fun enough to be a sole part of the game like Crafting and Adventuring are. Diplomacy is a step in the right direction, but proves to be the least fun of the three spheres. Vanguard also lacks any PvP except that of PvP servers. There isn't any PvP for those who play on an PvE server. For those who enjoy casual PvP, this is a big lack of content. It wouldn't be bad though if the game was amazing at PvE. Sadly, it isn't. PvE is average at best. The AI is unintelligent, will chase you forever (even if you use Sprint), and respawn too quickly. The community (I was on the roleplaying server) is very friendly, accepting, and fun. With the exceptions of the heartless jerks that are easily ignored, the community is very helpful and fun-loving. Peformance and Lag are the two worst parts of this game. Lag is horrendous for an MMO. Most MMO's I never get past 200ms, and that's at the worst times. In Vanguard, you are likely to constantly get 500ms on a consistent basis. Performance is where this game fails. I run a 3.1 GHz Core2Duo, 2GB Ram, and a 512 MB video card. I ran at max settings getting 20-50 fps. Although that is great, most people don't have a high-end system. One of the biggest troubles players have is getting the game to just run over 10 fps, even on lowest settings. The graphics are NOT so good to require such a high-end machine. Oblivion, LOTR online, and other games with better graphics run better than Vanguard does. The graphics are NOT as good as the game claims they are. The world is not organic and the environment is just a constant repeat of itself. There isn't any attention to detail like there is in games like World of Warcraft. There is little to do in terms of options as well. I ran at 20-50 fps at max settings. At lowest settings, where the trees are paper, I ran 30-55. If you have SLI video cards, the game will run fine (although the graphics will still not be amazing.) If you don't... well don't even waste your time with this game. The horrible performance is NOT worth the average graphics. Customer Service is the same as other MMO's. Takes hours to get a response, and not helpful. Overall, this game promised a lot, but delivered nothing. Before playing Vanguard, I said "This will be the greatest game in the world, or the worst." It is VERY far from being the best. Although it may not be the worst, it is down there with EQ, AO, and other old MMO's. World of Warcraft will continue to crush this game, and when Conan, Gods & Heroes, LOTR, and Warhammer release, this game will fade away to be like DDO, Shadowbane, and Neocron.

RonnyRulz

It's not just you shae, a lot of people can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. I definitely can.

My system cost me $2000, which is high-end. The fact of the matter is....... unless there is a major leap in graphics quality, there is no reason that a system that can run oblivion SMOOTHLY on max settings can't run Vanguard on lowest settings with a greater framerate.

WoW has great graphics in that the graphics are efficient enough to immerse yourself in the world. This is all you need in terms of graphics. They should have made Vanguard where you could change the settings to run like WoW does in terms of playability, while at the same time make it where you can have the high-end stunning graphics which Vanguard fails to deliver. The fact that when I change the trees from beautiful to "flat paper" and there's only a 3 fps difference.....well....that's crappy coding.

Kopema said it perfectly. It could make sense for someone to upgrade his system when there is a leap in game graphics technology. But buying new hardware to compensate for lousy coding is just plain stupid.

Anofalye

Design should be the main reason you buy or not that game; not technical stuff.

 

Raiding shafting non-raiders is old gen and not worth 1 penny IMO.

vylo

Yes, we are all aware of your anti-raiding stance, ever since FoH handed you your ass on a platter.

RonnyRulz

I agree to an extent, but the fact is that Vanguard promised a lot, and delivered very little.

I was excited about Vanguard, and it delievered nothing that it promised.

Suvroc

Personally I'm quite enjoying it. Sure I get frustrated with lag at times but I can get by for a while until I can afford to upgrade my comp a little.

Secondly, if 30 fps is good enough for TV then it's good enough for me to play a game with.

Raenz

Originally posted by Fariic


The human eye is incapable of distinguishing between 30 FPS and 50 FPS, because you can't see faster then 30 FPS; so getting more then 30 isn't really neccesary.
I could be wrong about that, but do believe that to be factual.
Hope you find a better game.

Just to present a different opinion of this, here is a link

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Personally, I have no clue