it wasnt released 3 month to early .... it was released 6-8 month to early
I'd agree with that. I'm still having fun playing though, but I agree with that... I also agree and i'm also having fun.
It CLEARLY pisses some people off that some are enjoying the game. It's like the end of the world for them. They just can't stand it for some obscure reasons.
I couldnt agree more with Lidane's points of view on this.
The Vanguard Client had it existed in any other part of the software market would have had more serious reprucussions than it has recieved due to the fact it is released into a market that "old School" developers Sigil still believed was in the state it was in when they released other titles that brought success to them years ago.
The SOLID fact is that thankfully this industry has moved on and the benchmarks have been raised by other products in a massive way. Therefore when the old school mentality of Sigil believed that releasing a sub par and unoptimized client to the games playing public (UTTERLY REGARDLESS OF EXCUSES INTERNAL TO THE COMPANY) was acceptable because that was the way it always has been and that they would see high subscription numbers of players simply willing to be paying BETA testers they were wrong....They Bluffed, the games playing public have for once called it instead of taking it in and accepting it, and there in lay the reason for so much vanguard hate on the internet, because it is being made an example of for a game of its hype and massive budget for perhaps the first time in the industry. They were utterly caught out by this if you go by Forums and reviews on this product available across the internet.
The Vanguard Client is nowhere near release stable. In fact i believe at present the last patch to be introduced before the weekend this weekend just gone has created a raft of player crash to desktop performance issues which were seemingly reduced before. I havent made that up dont believe me go and look at the official technical forums and Silky Venom. That is what we call in the industry "Peter, Paul Code". Code that robs peter of stability to pay paul and fix stability or bugs elsewhere and it is a classic example of a code base that is far far from solid in any way shape or form.
The vanguards clients abilities of "pushing the boudries" are also very much in question how can it be argued that a software application is so advanced and needs a raft of advanced enthusiast hardware to become mainstream when it doesnt even support what is currently available.
No MultiThreading Support for Dual Core Architecture, No SLI/Crossfire Technologies Support, No Dynamic Environment Drop Shadows in Hardware, No Stencils, No Shader Model 3 support to help optimize advanced effects routines, No optimizations of OpenAL Old Bugged OpenAL routines for hardware sound, No Full Scene Anti Aliasing Support (Purposefully Omitted due to the clients performance) come on FSAA is a drop in the pond and has been technologically viable in titles for the last six years.
You cannot be serious in saying that this game is in need of bleeding edge technology because its so advanced. Utter Tosh. It is in need of Code level bug checking, restructure and serious optimization on an already stretched engine taken well beyond what it was initially ever designed to do. No amount of Higher clock speeds, CPU Cores, GPU technology is going to paper over bad code, unoptimized programming routines and a stretched core engine. That is a very solid fact. #
Ive been tame until now but posts like themoris claiming that the application is now in a release steady state rile me to no end...on a personal level to him...perhaps, on a technical level as an application sold to the games playing public...utter nonsense.
I was an alpha tester up until release and 3 extra months would not have made a bit of difference. This is one aspect of what can happen when you completely ignore your testing community. Another example was SWG, although I still think it released in better shape and that's not saying a whole lot.
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box. ~ Italian proverb
I couldnt agree more with Lidane's points of view on this. The Vanguard Client had it existed in any other part of the software market would have had more serious reprucussions than it has recieved due to the fact it is released into a market that "old School" developers Sigil still believed was in the state it was in when they released other titles that brought success to them years ago. The SOLID fact is that thankfully this industry has moved on and the benchmarks have been raised by other products in a massive way. Therefore when the old school mentality of Sigil believed that releasing a sub par and unoptimized client to the games playing public (UTTERLY REGARDLESS OF EXCUSES INTERNAL TO THE COMPANY) was acceptable because that was the way it always has been and that they would see high subscription numbers of players simply willing to be paying BETA testers they were wrong....They Bluffed, the games playing public have for once called it instead of taking it in and accepting it, and there in lay the reason for so much vanguard hate on the internet, because it is being made an example of for a game of its hype and massive budget for perhaps the first time in the industry. They were utterly caught out by this if you go by Forums and reviews on this product available across the internet. The Vanguard Client is nowhere near release stable. In fact i believe at present the last patch to be introduced before the weekend this weekend just gone has created a raft of player crash to desktop performance issues which were seemingly reduced. I havent made that up dont believe me go and look at the official technical forums and Silky Venom. That is what we call in the industry "Peter, Paul Code". Code that robs peter of stability to pay paul and fix stability or bugs elsewhere and it is a classic example of a code base that is far far from solid in any way shape or form. The vanguards clients abilities of "pushing the boudries" are also very much in question how can it be argued that a software application is so advanced and needs a raft of advanced enthusiast hardware to become mainstream when it doesnt even support what is currently available. No MultiThreading Support for Dual Core Architecture, No SLI/Crossfire Technologies Support, No Dynamic Environment Drop Shadows in Hardware, No Stencils, No Shader Model 3 support to help optimize advanced effects routines, No optimizations of OpenAL Old Bugged OpenAL routines for hardware sound, No Full Scene Anti Aliasing Support (Purposefully Omitted due to the clients performance) come on FSAA is a drop in the pond and has been technologically viable in titles for the last six years. You cannot be serious in saying that this game is in need of bleeding edge technology because its so advanced. Utter Tosh. It is in need of Code level bug checking, restructure and serious optimization on an already stretched engine taken well beyond what it was initially ever designed to do. No amount of Higher clock speeds, CPU Cores, GPU technology is going to paper over bad code, unoptimized programming routines and a stretched core engine. That is a very solid fact. # Ive been tame until now but posts like themoris claiming that the application is now in a release steady state rile me to no end...on a personal level to him...perhaps, on a technical level as an application sold to the games playing public...utter nonsense. Mag
Just a quick one. Are you a programmer or just a computer enthusiast of some sort?
E8400@ 4.0Ghz ~ Saphire HD 4870 ~ 6GB DDR2@ 860MhZ
Back in my review I stated the game needed a minimum of another year. We're in the 5th month of the game going live and I don't see much difference in this game now then I did then four months ago. In some ways it is actually less fun to play due to the heavy handed nerf bat tactics on classes. At the slow rate at which they are patching I'll stick by what I said and say this game is a waste of peoples money for now(some basic quest are still broke that have been broke since day 1). Maybe by this time next year (April 2008) Vanguard will be really ready for launch.
Vanguard had no choice but to release when they did, for releasing any later against Age of Conan, it would only have been over that much quicker than it already is. Vanboi's be glad it has lasted as long as it has for the entire world will be logging into AoC on October 30, 2007................
Another 3-6 months of intensive beta testing would have been in order. Now even if they fix every bug in the game it will take years(if ever) before the terrible rep they built already is forgotten.
I don't think so people. Have any of you looked at the game Crysis, and the Crysis engine that was developed? If that engine is applied to MMORPGs in the future Vanguard will not be revisted in a couple of years. That engine is awesome, Vanguard's is not even in the ball park. The difference in talent levels is noticeable. The Crysis graphics engine is more now than the Vanguard engine is.
Back in my review I stated the game needed a minimum of another year. We're in the 5th month of the game going live and I don't see much difference in this game now then I did then four months ago. In some ways it is actually less fun to play due to the heavy handed nerf bat tactics on classes. At the slow rate at which they are patching I'll stick by what I said and say this game is a waste of peoples money for now(some basic quest are still broke that have been broke since day 1). Maybe by this time next year (April 2008) Vanguard will be really ready for launch.
Are you honestly still ticked off about the ranger "tweaks" from over a month ago? When was the last time you actually played the game, or did you quit right when the nerf happened? I'm just wondering what "basic quests" you are talking about that are still broken.
I recently rerolled and I see huge improvement over the content as compared to the first time I went through them at launch. So judging by your post, it seems like you did a knee jerk reaction and quit playing right when they changed your ranger. Seriously, you should give your ranger a try, and the quests you find "broken" another try, because you just might be surprised at finding out how well the ranger class is doing, and how little quests you may find broken.
I don't even remember the last time I saw them doing the "nerfs" to all sorts of classes. I guess this comes from actually playing the game, reading the patch notes, and actually experiencing it on hand. Most classes actually have been boosted every single week. My gosh how can you go from a loving lady, even made some youtube videos talking about how much you love the game, to someone so vicious hating the game simply due to a round of class changes that week. *boggle*
Edit: I suppose to stay on topic and answer your question, yes I do believe the game was released 3 months early. If the game was to launch next week, a lot more people would enjoy the game and possibly stay longer. The game now is much improved over the game at launch, and you may still even like your ranger if you didn't have to experience your ranger "tweaks" first month into launch. Yes it's Sigil's fault for making those class tweaks after launch, because people are more sensitive to changes to their classes after release. Yes it's their fault to release the game early. But imo the game really is much better now, and will get better next week, and the week after that. I kinda don't understand what you mean by them patching slow. One large patch a week and every week is called patching slow? Yikes.
They worked on the game for 5 years and spent over 30 million on it and it was still a POS at release. Another 5 years and another 30 million and it will still be nothing but a POS. Face it Sigil just does not have the talent to design and produce a decent game and more time will not help.
I have to agree that 5 years and 30 million bucks is enough of a start to put out something decent. This isn't a case of your mama making you sit in front of the computer all night writing code while she slaps you upside the head and tells you to hurry.
I pre-ordered Vanguard but found it was more like SOE wanting money back on they investment rather than having a product that was truely shipable. I was initially very impressed with the gameplay and the graphics after toning down settings on my vid card, but I soon came to the realisation that severe lagggg and ordinary gameplay don't make it an enjoyable experience.
The Game would of been good if they didnt switch from Microsoft to Sony. Spent too much time and money because of that shit.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
The Game would of been good if they didnt switch from Microsoft to Sony. Spent too much time and money because of that shit.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
The Game would of been good if they didnt switch from Microsoft to Sony. Spent too much time and money because of that shit.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
Which is fair...
It's not about credit however the fact is that Microsoft is a tremendous marketing company. One of the best at marketing their brand name in the world right now. As such, they absolutely depend on the ability to read market trends, and see what earns dollars, and what consumers are buying. It did not take a genius to determine that consumers flocked to WoW, and the prevailing trend in MMORPG's was NOT the former EQ playerbase, but rather the new wave of MMO subscribers. In fact, the old school, king of the hill, EQ, was no longer mainstream MMO, it was niche. Kind of hard to spend millions and millions to appeal to a small demographic of the existing market.
I doubt Microsoft knows the in's and out's of MMO's, but I think you severly underestimate them if you think they arent smart enough to look at sales and subscriber numbers and see what is selling, and what isnt selling. Especially after hearing the pitches about the style of game that VG was supposed to be.
"”This decision was made mutually by Sigil and Microsoft, in the best interest of the long-term goals for the title,” said Phil Spencer, General Manager at Microsoft Game Studios. “As a key Windows development partner, we will continue to work with Sigil to ensure Vanguard’s ongoing success.”"
And it goes right back to what I suggested....emminintely possible that they realized this game was not going to be a megahit, as it was no longer a game that was aimed at the mainstream market. Sure, you can speculate any way you like about it. I'm not saying I'm right either, but I also would not bet against one of the most savvy marketing companies out there either, which is why I posted it to begin with...just an interesting idea to toss around, however there is no way anyone will ever know, because MS or Sigil certianly isnt going to be sharing.
I don't care that people personally like Vanguard, or that they enjoy playing the game. That's all well and good, and they're entitled to that. What I care about is dispelling the lie that this game is anywhere in a polished, stable, release-ready state for the average consumer. It's not.
Every technical issue that VG has points to a massive amount of shoddy coding and even poorer optimizations. Just look at all of the features it doesn't currently have, and which Mag has so generously listed in his post. That doesn't sound like a bleeding edge or "future proof" game to me. It doesn't even sound like a release quality game, since many of those features should be standard by now.
It's fine to like the game on a personal level, and to enjoy playing it. That's a matter of personal taste, and I'm not going to tell someone they have to not like Vanguard.
It's NOT fine, however, to pretend that this game, on a purely technical level (and that's the key point, really), is anything other than a retail alpha client that still needs massive amounts of optimization and code-level debugs and rewrites. It's nowhere near being in a polished release state, and the lack of so many technical features--even ones that should be both obvious and standard by now-- in the client show that a lot more work has to be done in order for the game to get to what it should have been at launch.
The Game would of been good if they didnt switch from Microsoft to Sony. Spent too much time and money because of that shit.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
I doubt Microsoft tried to force Vanguard to be ported on the Xbox.
What would you make of that current job listing over at Sigil for their "immediate need for someone to investigate Sigil products on console systems."
With a specific bulleted mention of: At least one shipped title using the Xbox platform with significant contribution to success
if they wasted money breaking it off with Microsoft because of something they're doing under SOE anyway, that would've been stupid. And I doubt it was a "change of mind" scenario, considering Brad's always talking about how he has 7 years or so of Vanguard planned out in advance.
Both companies were quiet and courteous about the circumstances that led to the split, but what's evident is that Sigil would've had to release Vanguard much sooner if SOE didn't help them out of their Microsoft deal. So, just assume Microsoft wouldn't budge on a release date Sigil wasn't ready for, but the two companies were on good standing enough that Microsoft didn't resist Sigil detaching itself and going on by itself.
The Game would of been good if they didnt switch from Microsoft to Sony. Spent too much time and money because of that shit.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
I doubt Microsoft tried to force Vanguard to be ported on the Xbox.
What would you make of that current job listing over at Sigil for their "immediate need for someone to investigate Sigil products on console systems."
With a specific bulleted mention of: At least one shipped title using the Xbox platform with significant contribution to success
if they wasted money breaking it off with Microsoft because of something they're doing under SOE anyway, that would've been stupid. And I doubt it was a "change of mind" scenario, considering Brad's always talking about how he has 7 years or so of Vanguard planned out in advance.
Both companies were quiet and courteous about the circumstances that led to the split, but what's evident is that Sigil would've had to release Vanguard much sooner if SOE didn't help them out of their Microsoft deal. So, just assume Microsoft wouldn't budge on a release date Sigil wasn't ready for, but the two companies were on good standing enough that Microsoft didn't resist Sigil detaching itself and going on by itself.
...and that kind of reinforces what I'm saying. It just makes you ask yourself "why" when Microsoft would not budge on a release date. You could come up with 2000 theories, and not be right about any of 'em, I just came up with the one I mentioned, because I was thinking about the marketing expertise MS has shown in the past, and it was easy enough for me to speculate that they realized that they'd have a hard time marketing it successfully because of the changes within the MMO genre. Changes that it seems Sigil either did not anticipate, or ignored.
Not saying I'm right, not trying to trash Sigil or Vanguard, I dont know why Microsoft made the decisions that it did, and I'm not pretending to, just interesting to wonder about the why, and...all things considered, it's probably as reasonable an explanation as many others out there. (just because it's reasonable though, doesnt for a second mean it's right, or that I think it's right!)
Back in my review I stated the game needed a minimum of another year. We're in the 5th month of the game going live and I don't see much difference in this game now then I did then four months ago. In some ways it is actually less fun to play due to the heavy handed nerf bat tactics on classes. At the slow rate at which they are patching I'll stick by what I said and say this game is a waste of peoples money for now(some basic quest are still broke that have been broke since day 1). Maybe by this time next year (April 2008) Vanguard will be really ready for launch.
Are you honestly still ticked off about the ranger "tweaks" from over a month ago? When was the last time you actually played the game, or did you quit right when the nerf happened? I'm just wondering what "basic quests" you are talking about that are still broken.
I recently rerolled and I see huge improvement over the content as compared to the first time I went through them at launch. So judging by your post, it seems like you did a knee jerk reaction and quit playing right when they changed your ranger. Seriously, you should give your ranger a try, and the quests you find "broken" another try, because you just might be surprised at finding out how well the ranger class is doing, and how little quests you may find broken.
I don't even remember the last time I saw them doing the "nerfs" to all sorts of classes. I guess this comes from actually playing the game, reading the patch notes, and actually experiencing it on hand. Most classes actually have been boosted every single week. My gosh how can you go from a loving lady, even made some youtube videos talking about how much you love the game, to someone so vicious hating the game simply due to a round of class changes that week. *boggle*
Edit: I suppose to stay on topic and answer your question, yes I do believe the game was released 3 months early. If the game was to launch next week, a lot more people would enjoy the game and possibly stay longer. The game now is much improved over the game at launch, and you may still even like your ranger if you didn't have to experience your ranger "tweaks" first month into launch. Yes it's Sigil's fault for making those class tweaks after launch, because people are more sensitive to changes to their classes after release. Yes it's their fault to release the game early. But imo the game really is much better now, and will get better next week, and the week after that. I kinda don't understand what you mean by them patching slow. One large patch a week and every week is called patching slow? Yikes.
I still play once in a blue moon when I get the chance - which is rarely. However, I still go back and try to complete the quest still in my log to finish out the story lines. Rage Rubies - still broke. By Night - still broke. I still have not received the title for my ranger that she earned by completing all the required quest for Lao-Jin Knight title and they will not fix it. Contacting CS is a joke.
General Responses - screen captured. This one regarding broken quest that I have repeatedly tried to complete and bugged for over 2 months. Basic quest like By Night.
This is a response regarding my Lao-Jin Knight title that I've bugged, reported on fansite boards and petitioned in game repeatedly - still not fixed and still not responded to by a dev as this person suggest would happen if I did go post on a fansite regarding this issue.
Game is in seriously bad shape still. Brad said it was released 3 months to early. I am saying a year. The minor improvements they have done have not fixed the serious issues like all the broken quest. They continue to muck around with balance issues - why? They need to concentrate on fixing the broken quest. Fixing the performance issues. Fixing the numerous bugs and getting much better CS. I said in my review Vanguard has the worse CS in the industry (except when it comes to Gold Sellers - then they respond so quick it is amazing) and I stand by it from my own experiences. Some petitions just get erased and you get no reponse at all. Others get a canned response and sometimes you just get lame suggestions that get you know where.
As long as VG continues to become less and less fun, you'll see less and less people buying and playing the game. I have a question? How many new servers have they added since release?
All but one of my broken quests have been fixed...IMO, 3 months early is about right. Writs are in, alot of crafting stuff is in, flying mounts are in, ect. Lets see how long it takes to get helms and caravans in...that will tell us when this should have been released.
Ok I'll give you that, By Night is still somewhat bugged. They appear to have been fixed for a bit but then something else broke. And I'll also agree that they need to improve on CS. You are right, they do catch them gold sellers fast
It does seem that there are very few quests that are bugged pre-lvl 40. I don't agree with you saying they only mess with balance and ignore other issues. If you read the patch notes every week, they do a bit of everything every week. I would hate to rehash this but they have the class balance teams working on classes only, while having quest teams working on quest issues & adding new quests in, artists that work on getting upgraded graphics in such as we've seen lots of new armor/weapon graphics, as well as coders that tweak performance. So really, reading the patch notes does not tell me that they have the wrong priorities. It does seem that they are simply having a lot of catch up work to do, and yes, I'd say the game was released 3 months early.
There are still 2 weeks before this game hits the 3 months mark by the way, so maybe you'll change your mind in 2 weeks, maybe not I guess I'm just wondering how you went from that girl I heard in your youtube videos, loving the game, stating how cool the game is, riding around, showing the griffons and other cool aspects of the game.....to here, totally disliking the game since they tweaked rangers. I haven't heard one ranger say they are weak for quite awhile, there have been numerous changes that actually improved the class. So I don't know, maybe you are simply tired of the game. If that's the case, that's alright, we all get tired of the games we play eventually. I'm just trying to chat it up with ya from a different perspective that's all.
I do wish Sigil would improve their communication with the playerbase, as well as customer service.
Comments
It CLEARLY pisses some people off that some are enjoying the game. It's like the end of the world for them. They just can't stand it for some obscure reasons.
eqnext.wikia.com
I couldnt agree more with Lidane's points of view on this.
The Vanguard Client had it existed in any other part of the software market would have had more serious reprucussions than it has recieved due to the fact it is released into a market that "old School" developers Sigil still believed was in the state it was in when they released other titles that brought success to them years ago.
The SOLID fact is that thankfully this industry has moved on and the benchmarks have been raised by other products in a massive way. Therefore when the old school mentality of Sigil believed that releasing a sub par and unoptimized client to the games playing public (UTTERLY REGARDLESS OF EXCUSES INTERNAL TO THE COMPANY) was acceptable because that was the way it always has been and that they would see high subscription numbers of players simply willing to be paying BETA testers they were wrong....They Bluffed, the games playing public have for once called it instead of taking it in and accepting it, and there in lay the reason for so much vanguard hate on the internet, because it is being made an example of for a game of its hype and massive budget for perhaps the first time in the industry. They were utterly caught out by this if you go by Forums and reviews on this product available across the internet.
The Vanguard Client is nowhere near release stable. In fact i believe at present the last patch to be introduced before the weekend this weekend just gone has created a raft of player crash to desktop performance issues which were seemingly reduced before. I havent made that up dont believe me go and look at the official technical forums and Silky Venom. That is what we call in the industry "Peter, Paul Code". Code that robs peter of stability to pay paul and fix stability or bugs elsewhere and it is a classic example of a code base that is far far from solid in any way shape or form.
The vanguards clients abilities of "pushing the boudries" are also very much in question how can it be argued that a software application is so advanced and needs a raft of advanced enthusiast hardware to become mainstream when it doesnt even support what is currently available.
No MultiThreading Support for Dual Core Architecture, No SLI/Crossfire Technologies Support, No Dynamic Environment Drop Shadows in Hardware, No Stencils, No Shader Model 3 support to help optimize advanced effects routines, No optimizations of OpenAL Old Bugged OpenAL routines for hardware sound, No Full Scene Anti Aliasing Support (Purposefully Omitted due to the clients performance) come on FSAA is a drop in the pond and has been technologically viable in titles for the last six years.
You cannot be serious in saying that this game is in need of bleeding edge technology because its so advanced. Utter Tosh. It is in need of Code level bug checking, restructure and serious optimization on an already stretched engine taken well beyond what it was initially ever designed to do. No amount of Higher clock speeds, CPU Cores, GPU technology is going to paper over bad code, unoptimized programming routines and a stretched core engine. That is a very solid fact. #
Ive been tame until now but posts like themoris claiming that the application is now in a release steady state rile me to no end...on a personal level to him...perhaps, on a technical level as an application sold to the games playing public...utter nonsense.
Mag
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box. ~ Italian proverb
E8400@ 4.0Ghz ~ Saphire HD 4870 ~ 6GB DDR2@ 860MhZ
Vanguard....marketable.....revisit....two years...
I don't think so people. Have any of you looked at the game Crysis, and the Crysis engine that was developed? If that engine is applied to MMORPGs in the future Vanguard will not be revisted in a couple of years. That engine is awesome, Vanguard's is not even in the ball park. The difference in talent levels is noticeable. The Crysis graphics engine is more now than the Vanguard engine is.
Redelf i have responded to your recent question above in a PM.
Thanks and Regards
Mag
Are you honestly still ticked off about the ranger "tweaks" from over a month ago? When was the last time you actually played the game, or did you quit right when the nerf happened? I'm just wondering what "basic quests" you are talking about that are still broken.
I recently rerolled and I see huge improvement over the content as compared to the first time I went through them at launch. So judging by your post, it seems like you did a knee jerk reaction and quit playing right when they changed your ranger. Seriously, you should give your ranger a try, and the quests you find "broken" another try, because you just might be surprised at finding out how well the ranger class is doing, and how little quests you may find broken.
I don't even remember the last time I saw them doing the "nerfs" to all sorts of classes. I guess this comes from actually playing the game, reading the patch notes, and actually experiencing it on hand. Most classes actually have been boosted every single week. My gosh how can you go from a loving lady, even made some youtube videos talking about how much you love the game, to someone so vicious hating the game simply due to a round of class changes that week. *boggle*
Edit: I suppose to stay on topic and answer your question, yes I do believe the game was released 3 months early. If the game was to launch next week, a lot more people would enjoy the game and possibly stay longer. The game now is much improved over the game at launch, and you may still even like your ranger if you didn't have to experience your ranger "tweaks" first month into launch. Yes it's Sigil's fault for making those class tweaks after launch, because people are more sensitive to changes to their classes after release. Yes it's their fault to release the game early. But imo the game really is much better now, and will get better next week, and the week after that. I kinda don't understand what you mean by them patching slow. One large patch a week and every week is called patching slow? Yikes.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I pre-ordered Vanguard but found it was more like SOE wanting money back on they investment rather than having a product that was truely shipable. I was initially very impressed with the gameplay and the graphics after toning down settings on my vid card, but I soon came to the realisation that severe lagggg and ordinary gameplay don't make it an enjoyable experience.
3out of 10 for me.
"Negaholics are people who become addicted to negativity and self-doubt, they find fault in most things and never seem to be satisfied."
^MMORPG.com
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
Which is fair...
It's not about credit however the fact is that Microsoft is a tremendous marketing company. One of the best at marketing their brand name in the world right now. As such, they absolutely depend on the ability to read market trends, and see what earns dollars, and what consumers are buying. It did not take a genius to determine that consumers flocked to WoW, and the prevailing trend in MMORPG's was NOT the former EQ playerbase, but rather the new wave of MMO subscribers. In fact, the old school, king of the hill, EQ, was no longer mainstream MMO, it was niche. Kind of hard to spend millions and millions to appeal to a small demographic of the existing market.
I doubt Microsoft knows the in's and out's of MMO's, but I think you severly underestimate them if you think they arent smart enough to look at sales and subscriber numbers and see what is selling, and what isnt selling. Especially after hearing the pitches about the style of game that VG was supposed to be.
"Negaholics are people who become addicted to negativity and self-doubt, they find fault in most things and never seem to be satisfied."
^MMORPG.com
lol - to release a game on console it needs to be pretty much bug free.
So instead they unleashed Sigil on their main console competitor - smart move.
And you would be incorrect...
http://www.sigilgames.com/sonypressrelease.html
"”This decision was made mutually by Sigil and Microsoft, in the best interest of the long-term goals for the title,” said Phil Spencer, General Manager at Microsoft Game Studios. “As a key Windows development partner, we will continue to work with Sigil to ensure Vanguard’s ongoing success.”"
And it goes right back to what I suggested....emminintely possible that they realized this game was not going to be a megahit, as it was no longer a game that was aimed at the mainstream market. Sure, you can speculate any way you like about it. I'm not saying I'm right either, but I also would not bet against one of the most savvy marketing companies out there either, which is why I posted it to begin with...just an interesting idea to toss around, however there is no way anyone will ever know, because MS or Sigil certianly isnt going to be sharing.
I don't care that people personally like Vanguard, or that they enjoy playing the game. That's all well and good, and they're entitled to that. What I care about is dispelling the lie that this game is anywhere in a polished, stable, release-ready state for the average consumer. It's not.
Every technical issue that VG has points to a massive amount of shoddy coding and even poorer optimizations. Just look at all of the features it doesn't currently have, and which Mag has so generously listed in his post. That doesn't sound like a bleeding edge or "future proof" game to me. It doesn't even sound like a release quality game, since many of those features should be standard by now.
It's fine to like the game on a personal level, and to enjoy playing it. That's a matter of personal taste, and I'm not going to tell someone they have to not like Vanguard.
It's NOT fine, however, to pretend that this game, on a purely technical level (and that's the key point, really), is anything other than a retail alpha client that still needs massive amounts of optimization and code-level debugs and rewrites. It's nowhere near being in a polished release state, and the lack of so many technical features--even ones that should be both obvious and standard by now-- in the client show that a lot more work has to be done in order for the game to get to what it should have been at launch.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
I doubt Microsoft tried to force Vanguard to be ported on the Xbox.http://www.sigilgames.com/displayopening.php?openingid=12
What would you make of that current job listing over at Sigil for their "immediate need for someone to investigate Sigil products on console systems."
With a specific bulleted mention of:
At least one shipped title using the Xbox platform with significant contribution to success
if they wasted money breaking it off with Microsoft because of something they're doing under SOE anyway, that would've been stupid. And I doubt it was a "change of mind" scenario, considering Brad's always talking about how he has 7 years or so of Vanguard planned out in advance.
Both companies were quiet and courteous about the circumstances that led to the split, but what's evident is that Sigil would've had to release Vanguard much sooner if SOE didn't help them out of their Microsoft deal. So, just assume Microsoft wouldn't budge on a release date Sigil wasn't ready for, but the two companies were on good standing enough that Microsoft didn't resist Sigil detaching itself and going on by itself.
No fact to it but..
Ever consider that Microsoft, who is as savvy a marketing company as there is out there, saw that Sigil had either bitten off more than they could chew, or that Sigil had missed in game design, and was making a game that would appeal to a niche audience, with a mainstream budget? Could be Microsoft saw the writing on the wall far better than Sigil did, and pulled the plug for that reason.
Bo fact to it but...
Ever consider that Microsoft wanted a MMO compatible with their console and Sigil refused to port the game to the Xbox? And seriously, I think you are giving MS too much credit when you assume they have any idea what makes or doesnt make a good MMO just because they have assimilated us all with their OSs.
I doubt Microsoft tried to force Vanguard to be ported on the Xbox.http://www.sigilgames.com/displayopening.php?openingid=12
What would you make of that current job listing over at Sigil for their "immediate need for someone to investigate Sigil products on console systems."
With a specific bulleted mention of:
At least one shipped title using the Xbox platform with significant contribution to success
if they wasted money breaking it off with Microsoft because of something they're doing under SOE anyway, that would've been stupid. And I doubt it was a "change of mind" scenario, considering Brad's always talking about how he has 7 years or so of Vanguard planned out in advance.
Both companies were quiet and courteous about the circumstances that led to the split, but what's evident is that Sigil would've had to release Vanguard much sooner if SOE didn't help them out of their Microsoft deal. So, just assume Microsoft wouldn't budge on a release date Sigil wasn't ready for, but the two companies were on good standing enough that Microsoft didn't resist Sigil detaching itself and going on by itself.
...and that kind of reinforces what I'm saying. It just makes you ask yourself "why" when Microsoft would not budge on a release date. You could come up with 2000 theories, and not be right about any of 'em, I just came up with the one I mentioned, because I was thinking about the marketing expertise MS has shown in the past, and it was easy enough for me to speculate that they realized that they'd have a hard time marketing it successfully because of the changes within the MMO genre. Changes that it seems Sigil either did not anticipate, or ignored.
Not saying I'm right, not trying to trash Sigil or Vanguard, I dont know why Microsoft made the decisions that it did, and I'm not pretending to, just interesting to wonder about the why, and...all things considered, it's probably as reasonable an explanation as many others out there. (just because it's reasonable though, doesnt for a second mean it's right, or that I think it's right!)
FUNCOM - putting the FUN in disFUNctional !
Are you honestly still ticked off about the ranger "tweaks" from over a month ago? When was the last time you actually played the game, or did you quit right when the nerf happened? I'm just wondering what "basic quests" you are talking about that are still broken.
I recently rerolled and I see huge improvement over the content as compared to the first time I went through them at launch. So judging by your post, it seems like you did a knee jerk reaction and quit playing right when they changed your ranger. Seriously, you should give your ranger a try, and the quests you find "broken" another try, because you just might be surprised at finding out how well the ranger class is doing, and how little quests you may find broken.
I don't even remember the last time I saw them doing the "nerfs" to all sorts of classes. I guess this comes from actually playing the game, reading the patch notes, and actually experiencing it on hand. Most classes actually have been boosted every single week. My gosh how can you go from a loving lady, even made some youtube videos talking about how much you love the game, to someone so vicious hating the game simply due to a round of class changes that week. *boggle*
Edit: I suppose to stay on topic and answer your question, yes I do believe the game was released 3 months early. If the game was to launch next week, a lot more people would enjoy the game and possibly stay longer. The game now is much improved over the game at launch, and you may still even like your ranger if you didn't have to experience your ranger "tweaks" first month into launch. Yes it's Sigil's fault for making those class tweaks after launch, because people are more sensitive to changes to their classes after release. Yes it's their fault to release the game early. But imo the game really is much better now, and will get better next week, and the week after that. I kinda don't understand what you mean by them patching slow. One large patch a week and every week is called patching slow? Yikes.
I still play once in a blue moon when I get the chance - which is rarely. However, I still go back and try to complete the quest still in my log to finish out the story lines. Rage Rubies - still broke. By Night - still broke. I still have not received the title for my ranger that she earned by completing all the required quest for Lao-Jin Knight title and they will not fix it. Contacting CS is a joke.
General Responses - screen captured. This one regarding broken quest that I have repeatedly tried to complete and bugged for over 2 months. Basic quest like By Night.
entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2446213300100643778CQEtxJ
This is a response regarding my Lao-Jin Knight title that I've bugged, reported on fansite boards and petitioned in game repeatedly - still not fixed and still not responded to by a dev as this person suggest would happen if I did go post on a fansite regarding this issue.
image53.webshots.com/453/5/23/46/2736523460100643778NotWQL_fs.jpg
Report a gold seller - LOL! You'll get a response in seconds!
image59.webshots.com/559/9/96/86/2771996860100643778fmaSJB_fs.jpg
Game is in seriously bad shape still. Brad said it was released 3 months to early. I am saying a year. The minor improvements they have done have not fixed the serious issues like all the broken quest. They continue to muck around with balance issues - why? They need to concentrate on fixing the broken quest. Fixing the performance issues. Fixing the numerous bugs and getting much better CS. I said in my review Vanguard has the worse CS in the industry (except when it comes to Gold Sellers - then they respond so quick it is amazing) and I stand by it from my own experiences. Some petitions just get erased and you get no reponse at all. Others get a canned response and sometimes you just get lame suggestions that get you know where.
As long as VG continues to become less and less fun, you'll see less and less people buying and playing the game. I have a question? How many new servers have they added since release?
Ok I'll give you that, By Night is still somewhat bugged. They appear to have been fixed for a bit but then something else broke. And I'll also agree that they need to improve on CS. You are right, they do catch them gold sellers fast
It does seem that there are very few quests that are bugged pre-lvl 40. I don't agree with you saying they only mess with balance and ignore other issues. If you read the patch notes every week, they do a bit of everything every week. I would hate to rehash this but they have the class balance teams working on classes only, while having quest teams working on quest issues & adding new quests in, artists that work on getting upgraded graphics in such as we've seen lots of new armor/weapon graphics, as well as coders that tweak performance. So really, reading the patch notes does not tell me that they have the wrong priorities. It does seem that they are simply having a lot of catch up work to do, and yes, I'd say the game was released 3 months early.
There are still 2 weeks before this game hits the 3 months mark by the way, so maybe you'll change your mind in 2 weeks, maybe not
I guess I'm just wondering how you went from that girl I heard in your youtube videos, loving the game, stating how cool the game is, riding around, showing the griffons and other cool aspects of the game.....to here, totally disliking the game since they tweaked rangers. I haven't heard one ranger say they are weak for quite awhile, there have been numerous changes that actually improved the class. So I don't know, maybe you are simply tired of the game. If that's the case, that's alright, we all get tired of the games we play eventually. I'm just trying to chat it up with ya from a different perspective that's all.
I do wish Sigil would improve their communication with the playerbase, as well as customer service.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO