I see games like WoW and Lotro as the Toyota Corollas of the mmorpg world. I see games like Vanguard as being the Jaguars. Not a perfect comparison...but accurate enough for this post...and the best I can do at 430 am....you know...just sayin
hehe, the Corolla is a good solid car that will get you where you want to go. Jaguars always looked nice and had creature comforts, but weren't all that reliable to be honest.
hehe, the Corolla is a good solid car that will get you where you want to go. Jaguars always looked nice and had creature comforts, but weren't all that reliable to be honest.
Not a bad comparison.
Are you nuts?
2007
Jaguar XJ awarded ‘Best Large Executive Car’ AutoExpress Best USED car honours, the S-type took second place
The Environmental Transport Association voted it Best Eco-friendly car; it beat Mercedes and BMW
The XJ also won the Luxury Car of the Year at the Business Car Awards for the second year running, beating off BMW and Audi.
2006
The Jaguar XJ scooped the coveted best luxury car award at the Fleet World Awards. FOR THE 3RD YEAR IN ROW!
The Jaguar XK has been crowned 'Car of the Year' and 'GT of the Year' at the 2006 Top Gear Awards.
"Across Europe and the United States it has also been gaining accolades including 'Austrian Car of the Year' for the convertible and 'Most Chic Car of the Year' by Spain's biggest selling women's magazine, Telva. Other awards were in recognition of exceptional safety features on the car: the Prince Michael Award for Safety and the World Traffic Safety Symposium's Traffic Safety Achievement Award in the Automaker category. "
I understand your perspective...however...how much are we really paying? I've figured out my expense to be about 10-20 cents an hour over the course of a year. Is that a major investment to play a game that cost over $30 million to make? It's at least $20 per person to go see a movie in a movie theater if you buy a drink and some popcorn. That's for a two hour movie that one generaly has little idea if they will even enjoy. This $10 an hour ...compared to 10-20 cents an hour. Vanguard ( or any mmo ) is a much better value than any other form of entertainment. My point is....it's such a good value....that one should either play the game of their choice or stfu. I just don't see much room to complain with entertainment that is such a great value.
LOL! This is comedy gold. Really.
I don't care about the 10-20 cents an hour. That's a ridiculous argument. And that's not the kind of value I'm talking about anyway. You're still conflating the technical aspects of Vanguard (which are the only ones I care about) with any fun factor that might exist for some.
From a technical standpoint, this game cost over $30 million to make, yet it doesn't look like it, nor does the engine running the game act like it. It's unfinished, with many features that should be standard removed so they can actually get more performance. That should tell you something about the mechanics that make this game run. They're flawed, unfinished, and sloppy. And no amount of upgrades or money spent on the user's end will fix them.
Vangaurd doesn't look like a $30+ million dollar game. And it doesn't run like one either, if all the performance complaints are anything to go by. If it did look and run like what a game that cost $30+ million should, none of these threads would exist, and their subscription numbers would be a lot higher.
I understand your perspective...however...how much are we really paying? I've figured out my expense to be about 10-20 cents an hour over the course of a year. Is that a major investment to play a game that cost over $30 million to make? It's at least $20 per person to go see a movie in a movie theater if you buy a drink and some popcorn. That's for a two hour movie that one generaly has little idea if they will even enjoy. This $10 an hour ...compared to 10-20 cents an hour. Vanguard ( or any mmo ) is a much better value than any other form of entertainment. My point is....it's such a good value....that one should either play the game of their choice or stfu. I just don't see much room to complain with entertainment that is such a great value. It's always a trade off. You can get a nice , polished game like Lotr....but it's a small world that makes no attempts to break any molds. You can play a game trying to do new things...but with that comes more trial and error. Developing and maintaining a mmorpg is NOT an exact science. With the sheer size of VG combined with the fact that it is a seamless world combined with the numerous elements of gameplay involved indicate that it is a much, much, ....much more complex world than say ..Lotr, WoW...ect. The servers have to handle the AI for thousands..or tens of thousands of mobs all the time. Compared to a game that is instanced or small...they put a much lower load on the servers. I like being a part of something massive..progressive...a mmorpg thats TRYING to push the envelope. One can think of it as ...thought the Toyota Corolla is a fine car..and Toyota has sold millions of them...it's uninspired transportation. I would prefer to own/drive ...say....a Jaguar...despite the fact that requires more maintenance and that maintenance will be alot more expensive. Not to say anything is wrong with the Toyota Corolla....just saying the owners shouldn't go around braggin they have the best care simply because it is so popular. I see games like WoW and Lotro as the Toyota Corollas of the mmorpg world. I see games like Vanguard as being the Jaguars. Not a perfect comparison...but accurate enough for this post...and the best I can do at 430 am....you know...just sayin
I am confused. Are you a fanboi, or a hater now? Toyota has a great reputation for putting a high quality product out on the marketplace, Jaguar is a piece of junk that Ford Motor Company should never have bought. WOW and LOTRO are high quality products like Toyota, and Vanguard is a piece of junk like Jaguar? You sure have flip flopped.
hehe, the Corolla is a good solid car that will get you where you want to go. Jaguars always looked nice and had creature comforts, but weren't all that reliable to be honest.
Not a bad comparison.
Are you nuts?
2007
Jaguar XJ awarded ‘Best Large Executive Car’ AutoExpress Best USED car honours, the S-type took second place
The Environmental Transport Association voted it Best Eco-friendly car; it beat Mercedes and BMW
The XJ also won the Luxury Car of the Year at the Business Car Awards for the second year running, beating off BMW and Audi.
2006
The Jaguar XJ scooped the coveted best luxury car award at the Fleet World Awards. FOR THE 3RD YEAR IN ROW!
The Jaguar XK has been crowned 'Car of the Year' and 'GT of the Year' at the 2006 Top Gear Awards.
"Across Europe and the United States it has also been gaining accolades including 'Austrian Car of the Year' for the convertible and 'Most Chic Car of the Year' by Spain's biggest selling women's magazine, Telva. Other awards were in recognition of exceptional safety features on the car: the Prince Michael Award for Safety and the World Traffic Safety Symposium's Traffic Safety Achievement Award in the Automaker category. "
Yeah, real unreliable car manufacturer
Yea, and the Detroit Lions won an award as the best high school football team in the US. Doesn't make them good. Look, no way in hell any Jaguar beat out a Toyota, Honda, Ford, or GM hybrid as the most eco-friendly car. Who the hell is this Prince Michael, and the World Traffic safety Symposium and Telva magazine, ROTFLOL. Lets form a group and award Dark and Light the Best MMORPG award of all time.
Too bad Ford Motor doesn't feel this way, the Jaguar is a piece of crap. One of the worst decisions Ford made was to acquire Jaguar. Dollars buy awards, executives do not drive Jaguars, even Ford executives who can get them for free as company cars. And yes, I do know firsthand, my sister in law is a VP at Ford.
I understand your perspective...however...how much are we really paying? I've figured out my expense to be about 10-20 cents an hour over the course of a year. Is that a major investment to play a game that cost over $30 million to make? It's at least $20 per person to go see a movie in a movie theater if you buy a drink and some popcorn. That's for a two hour movie that one generaly has little idea if they will even enjoy. This $10 an hour ...compared to 10-20 cents an hour. Vanguard ( or any mmo ) is a much better value than any other form of entertainment. My point is....it's such a good value....that one should either play the game of their choice or stfu. I just don't see much room to complain with entertainment that is such a great value.
LOL! This is comedy gold. Really.
I don't care about the 10-20 cents an hour. That's a ridiculous argument. And that's not the kind of value I'm talking about anyway. You're still conflating the technical aspects of Vanguard (which are the only ones I care about) with any fun factor that might exist for some.
From a technical standpoint, this game cost over $30 million to make, yet it doesn't look like it, nor does the engine running the game act like it. It's unfinished, with many features that should be standard removed so they can actually get more performance. That should tell you something about the mechanics that make this game run. They're flawed, unfinished, and sloppy. And no amount of upgrades or money spent on the user's end will fix them.
Vangaurd doesn't look like a $30+ million dollar game. And it doesn't run like one either, if all the performance complaints are anything to go by. If it did look and run like what a game that cost $30+ million should, none of these threads would exist, and their subscription numbers would be a lot higher.
ROTFLOL. Yea, I'm still waiting for him and the other fanbois to send me 10-20 cents an hour. If I can get 200,000 people to do it I can retire. Under his theory you should be doing things that cost nothing. Sleep is one that comes to mind. He knows what the other is, as he has beat this tired drum before.
I understand your perspective...however...how much are we really paying? I've figured out my expense to be about 10-20 cents an hour over the course of a year. Is that a major investment to play a game that cost over $30 million to make? It's at least $20 per person to go see a movie in a movie theater if you buy a drink and some popcorn. That's for a two hour movie that one generaly has little idea if they will even enjoy. This $10 an hour ...compared to 10-20 cents an hour. Vanguard ( or any mmo ) is a much better value than any other form of entertainment. My point is....it's such a good value....that one should either play the game of their choice or stfu. I just don't see much room to complain with entertainment that is such a great value.
LOL! This is comedy gold. Really.
I don't care about the 10-20 cents an hour. That's a ridiculous argument. And that's not the kind of value I'm talking about anyway. You're still conflating the technical aspects of Vanguard (which are the only ones I care about) with any fun factor that might exist for some.
From a technical standpoint, this game cost over $30 million to make, yet it doesn't look like it, nor does the engine running the game act like it. It's unfinished, with many features that should be standard removed so they can actually get more performance. That should tell you something about the mechanics that make this game run. They're flawed, unfinished, and sloppy. And no amount of upgrades or money spent on the user's end will fix them.
Vangaurd doesn't look like a $30+ million dollar game. And it doesn't run like one either, if all the performance complaints are anything to go by. If it did look and run like what a game that cost $30+ million should, none of these threads would exist, and their subscription numbers would be a lot higher.
ROTFLOL. Yea, I'm still waiting for him and the other fanbois to send me 10-20 cents an hour. If I can get 200,000 people to do it I can retire. Under his theory you should be doing things that cost nothing. Sleep is one that comes to mind. He knows what the other is, as he has beat this tired drum before.
Sleep is not free. How much do you pay for you home/apartment? How much was your bed? Electricity/gas to keep the rooms tempature comfortable..how much does that cost? Blankets? Pillows? How much are your taxes if you own a home? Maintenence on a home can be very expensive!! To re-shingle your house so water doesn't drip on you while you sleep can cost thousands of dollars. Home insurance?...pricey...but ya don't want a slip-n-fall to lead you into bankruptcy so you better get that.
Now...if one lives in grandma's basement...well..ok...if that is the case..you win. Sleep may indeed be cheaper if one lives in their parents house or grandmama's basement.
Just cause I know someone will say it...and many will think it...masterbation still comes with it's own costs....but if one is very thrifty about it...reckon one could consider masterbating as a cheaper form of entertainment than playing a mmorpg. Just be carefull what sites you visit or you may get a gift that keeps on giving. Perhaps leading to a new rig or at least costing a few hours while you clean your rig out....not to mention the emotional costs if someone walks in on you. Don't ask me how I know !....a friend told me..ok? we can just leave it at that !
Originally posted by Thamoris Sleep is not free. How much do you pay for you home/apartment? How much was your bed? Electricity/gas to keep the rooms tempature comfortable..how much does that cost? Blankets? Pillows? How much are your taxes if you own a home? Maintenence on a home can be very expensive!! To re-shingle your house so water doesn't drip on you while you sleep can cost thousands of dollars. Home insurance?...pricey...but ya don't want a slip-n-fall to lead you into bankruptcy so you better get that.
Okay, let's go there. Unless your computer is sitting out in the middle of a field, you have these same overhead costs as I do when I sleep. Add the cost of the heat, property taxes, rent, insurance, electricity, computer, computer desk, etc. to the cost of the monthly subsciption fee and you have just exceeded the cost of sleep. Unless you pay $15/month to sleep.
This is why your arguement is so old, tired, and miserable. You evaluate and compare things in life with blinders on. You hold one item to a particular standard, bury your head in the sand, and refuse to see another item by those same standards. That is what makes you a rabid fanboi, and a joke. That is why people laugh at your comparision, and you are left alone making this comparison. Nobody else on the forums reinforces this idea that playing Vanguard is a true value of money. Don't you get it yet?
You continually demonstrate that you are inacapable of providing an objective opinion when you raise this tired old arguement. It didn't work before, it doesn't work now, and, no matter how many times you say it, it will never be taken up as the rallying cry to convince people to play Vanguard. People are interested in play features, now how much more financially affordable you feel this game is over every other MMORPG out there.
Nobody else on the forums reinforces this idea that playing Vanguard is a true value of money. Don't you get it yet?
It's because the "value" argument of an MMO is a generic one, and you can't apply it to any particular game.
Every game on this site that has a monthly subscription fee costs, on average, $14.95 a month. The monetary value of every pay-to-play game on this site, therefore, is essentially the same. The only real exception that I know of to this is CoH/CoV, since that single subscription fee can apply to BOTH games. Someone can buy one game on its own, and if they choose to buy the other and add it to their account, it doesn't cost anything extra.
EVE might be another exception. I don't know, since I know nothing about the game.
Using his logic, CoH/CoV is a better value than Vanguard becuase for the same $14.95/month fee, you get two games instead of one. Of course, in the real world, that argument falls apart, because a game's value can't be quantified that easily.
The real value in an MMO doesn't come from whatever it costs you an hour to play it, since pretty much all of them cost the same per month. The value then comes from things like the features offered, the performance of the game, the look and feel of the game world, and the overall experience in playing it, and what a player gets out of the game.
It's why I laugh at the "value" argument when applied strictly to VG. You can use it to defend the MMO genre to someone who might not understand it, but you can't use it to defend a single game. It just doesn't work that way.
Vanguard is still very broken. Aside from the many game bugs, the performance and the chunking issues remain. Another 6 months the game will be in the same place. You will then say "It has only been 6 months, give it a year." After a year you will say "It has only been a year, give it another 3 months.". During beta everyone said "It is only beta". Face it. Sigil is not capable of fixing this game. If they dissolve Sigil and give the game to SOE maybe SOE can fix it but it will be much too late. There will be a handful of diehards (about 10-20k) but that is it. Asking Sigil to fix this game is like asking a retard to build a house. It simply can not be done. Trust me I do feel for you guys that are still playing. Hell, I bought the limited edition. Now is the time to face facts. It is ok for you to play but don't let them rob other people with this game. That is disingenuous.
I hate to point this out, but if a person is enjoying the game and having fun (and everybody knows that's more or less as subjective as it comes) then it is an honest recommendation that person could give to come in and join the fun of Vanguard.
"Facts" when it comes to preferences, taste, and having fun is more or less as reliable and stable as a rockslide.
One person might say: I like Vanguard because my actions matter. Even though I started out as a Dark Elf, I have now worked so much for the closest Order town that the NPCs respect me and won't attack me. I like the fact that I can build my own house and thereby create my own faction which could be joined both by Shadow and Order, thereby altering the game world.
One thousand other people might then say: There are numerous bugs in Vanguard, we have stuttering performance on our system, helmets are not shown, there are a some of the 40,000 quests that are not working currently, chunk lines create inconveniences such as unmounting me, unsummoning my pets, turning off my torch, etc., and the game was released at least 9 months too early - even Brad admitted to this.
Now a new person reads this, one that hasn't tried Vanguard yet. I'm betting that even though the one thousand people are very vocal and repeat the same gripes a lot of times in an eloquent and easily readable fashion, if the first poster's reasons seem to weight in more heavily, then those opinions are going to be the most relevant.
I don't play Vanguard anymore since a lot of my old friends from City of Heroes/Villains started up again and we're having too much fun for more than one MMO at the moment but I really think that when people start complaining that helmets aren't shown I just have to think: "Is this really such a big deal?"
It's because the "value" argument of an MMO is a generic one, and you can't apply it to any particular game. Every game on this site that has a monthly subscription fee costs, on average, $14.95 a month. The monetary value of every pay-to-play game on this site, therefore, is essentially the same. The only real exception that I know of to this is CoH/CoV, since that single subscription fee can apply to BOTH games. Someone can buy one game on its own, and if they choose to buy the other and add it to their account, it doesn't cost anything extra. EVE might be another exception. I don't know, since I know nothing about the game. Using his logic, CoH/CoV is a better value than Vanguard becuase for the same $14.95/month fee, you get two games instead of one. Of course, in the real world, that argument falls apart, because a game's value can't be quantified that easily. The real value in an MMO doesn't come from whatever it costs you an hour to play it, since pretty much all of them cost the same per month. The value then comes from things like the features offered, the performance of the game, the look and feel of the game world, and the overall experience in playing it, and what a player gets out of the game. It's why I laugh at the "value" argument when applied strictly to VG. You can use it to defend the MMO genre to someone who might not understand it, but you can't use it to defend a single game. It just doesn't work that way.
As a long time player of City of Heroes and City of Villains I have to say that claiming those are two different games is weird. It is the exact same gameplay with five new classes. It is an expansion just as Burning Crusade is an expansion. It is true that you can play one without the other, but that was strictly a decision made to justify the price tag: Equal to that of a full-fledged game, not just that of an expansion.
It is simple marketing.
Currently the game is furthermore sold as one game (Good vs. Evil Edition) and the original separate versions are no longer available.
Whether or not City of Heroes/Villains is better than Vanguard is subjective.
If you compare the games in regards to content you will obviously find that Vanguard has a lot more content in every aspect apart from Player Model Customization and Guild House Decoration. And so what? I play City of Heroes/Villains now, not Vanguard because my friends have returned to City of Heroes/Villains after a long break from gaming.
As a long time player of City of Heroes and City of Villains I have to say that claiming those are two different games is weird. It is the exact same gameplay with five new classes. It is an expansion just as Burning Crusade is an expansion. It is true that you can play one without the other, but that was strictly a decision made to justify the price tag: Equal to that of a full-fledged game, not just that of an expansion.
It is simple marketing.
Currently the game is furthermore sold as one game (Good vs. Evil Edition) and the original separate versions are no longer available.
I've been playing CoH/CoV since closed beta. My 36 month veteran reward should be coming down the pipeline in the next few days. I'm well aware of what you're talking about.
I know that the two games aren't sold seperately anymore. But I *also* remember the massive wankstorm on the forums when people thought there were going to be additional fees for the CoV half of the subscription. The fact is that at the time CoV launched, you could buy one game or the other, but you didn't have to have both in order to play. That's why I call them two separate games, since they started that way.
In a sense, they really are two separate games, simply because they play differently. CoV shows a lot more developer experience, so there are mechanics at work in it that weren't in CoH at first (Mayhem/Safeguards, mission brokers, etc.). Is one an expansion of the other? Sure. But making my way through both, I can definitely feel a difference when I play.
Whether or not City of Heroes/Villains is better than Vanguard is subjective.
I never said it was better than Vanguard. I was taking the ridiculous argument of a game only costing 10-20 cents an hour to play, so it must be a great value and mocking it, becuase by that logic, CoH/CoV would be the better value, since it amounts to two for the price of one.
Obviously, it's not a realistic argument. I never said it was, since fun is subjective.
If you compare the games in regards to content you will obviously find that Vanguard has a lot more content in every aspect apart from Player Model Customization and Guild House Decoration. And so what? I play City of Heroes/Villains now, not Vanguard because my friends have returned to City of Heroes/Villains after a long break from gaming.
But see, here's the rub, and here's what I was talking about-- by my comparison, CoH/CoV may not have a lot of things that Vanguard does, but it DOES have one thing in spades: fun. I've had a blast the past three years with the game, especially due to the friends I've made and the guild I've been in from the start.
That's the whole point. You can't narrow an MMO down to some stupid hourly rate of 10-20 cents an hour in order to argue its worth, since the real value of that game is entirely up to the player. It can't be universally quantified by money. I find more value in games like WoW, LOTR, and CoH/CoV than I ever did in Vanguard. Others feel differently. Hence, the whole reason why I laugh at the idea of a game's value being arbitrarily defined, like with an hourly rate.
Vanguard has been live for 2.5 months ( 10 weeks )...not 5 months....went live at the end of January. Sigil admitted before the game even launched that it was launching too early and that they needed more time. Everybody and their mother already knew the game was launching in a " not ready" state. That fact was publicaly announced long before the game went live by the game developers themselves! Vanguard is now at the point it should have been at launch and will continue to better with each update and run of fixes.
The game is not even close to ready in it's current state. Just reopened my subscription a few days ago and really tried to like it. Or tried to not hate it. I got a rig that runs most new games in 1440x900 with lots of bells and whistles, but in Vanguard that is not even half the performance I would need. The performance is however not the only problem. Even with 60 fps smooth at all times the animations and ice skating like movement is so pre gen I can't take it anymore.
I like the idea, I like the crafting and the quests and I like the classes and races. Sigil should keep to story telling and design and let some other company handle the technical stuff. Then it might had been fun, but for now it's only frustrating.
Vanguard - next gen MMORPG carried out pre gen style.
I think in the end, it's the opinions of players joining the game right now that tells us where this game is with regard to polish and readiness. There certainly seems to be an influx of new players lately... a number of whom I know, or who have joined our guild. To the person, they are puzzled as to why people on these boards don't think the game is finished or ready. In fact, most think it's in very solid shape. When I started at pre-release, this wasn't the case. But now, people joining new seem to think the game is fine.
I never said it was better than Vanguard. I was taking the ridiculous argument of a game only costing 10-20 cents an hour to play, so it must be a great value and mocking it, becuase by that logic, CoH/CoV would be the better value, since it amounts to two for the price of one. Obviously, it's not a realistic argument. I never said it was, since fun is subjective.
But see, here's the rub, and here's what I was talking about-- by my comparison, CoH/CoV may not have a lot of things that Vanguard does, but it DOES have one thing in spades: fun. I've had a blast the past three years with the game, especially due to the friends I've made and the guild I've been in from the start. That's the whole point. You can't narrow an MMO down to some stupid hourly rate of 10-20 cents an hour in order to argue its worth, since the real value of that game is entirely up to the player. It can't be universally quantified by money. I find more value in games like WoW, LOTR, and CoH/CoV than I ever did in Vanguard. Others feel differently. Hence, the whole reason why I laugh at the idea of a game's value being arbitrarily defined, like with an hourly rate.
Now that you touched on the subject of things to laugh at I suggest one more thing to laugh at: Concluding anything is more fun than something else.
Think about it: What information does such a statement really relay to anyone apart from yourself or someone who knows your tastes and preferences to an almost intimate degree?
This is not a personal slam against you Lidane, it is more a "pot kettle black" statement and it could be applied on a lot of posts.
What you also must realize is that for some people the cost compared to their personal definition of fun is what validates the playing of MMOs. They compare MMOs to for instance going to the movies, going to the arcades, going clubbing, or whatever and in that way they might see Vanguard as being the most value for money since it simply has the largest amount of content of any contemporary MMO.
I will however agree with you on a personal note that such considerations strike me as overly fanciful as well. However I have friends where they "justify" their time playing MMOs with the same form of logic. This is often when talking to their spouse or fiancé though, hehe.
I think it comes down to whether or not you have the money or not. You obviously have the money and are not concerned, I have the money too, it doesn't concern me. But others might really have to decide which game to play and for them the value per dollar/cent might make the most sense.
What you also must realize is that for some people the cost compared to their personal definition of fun is what validates the playing of MMOs. They compare MMOs to for instance going to the movies, going to the arcades, going clubbing, or whatever and in that way they might see Vanguard as being the most value for money since it simply has the largest amount of content of any contemporary MMO.
I will however agree with you on a personal note that such considerations strike me as overly fanciful as well. However I have friends where they "justify" their time playing MMOs with the same form of logic. This is often when talking to their spouse or fianc
Classic Always one who comes around to say "I told you so". Sorry OP that we doubted you. You are absolutely right! I never read your original review though, I hope you dont mind. I'm also still playing the game and are a bit ashamed that I have fun doing so. But for the rest Im really glad that you warned us in advance! Thank you, thank you /bow .
Comments
Not a bad comparison.
Are you nuts?
2007
Jaguar XJ awarded ‘Best Large Executive Car’ AutoExpress Best USED car honours, the S-type took second place
The Environmental Transport Association voted it Best Eco-friendly car; it beat Mercedes and BMW
The XJ also won the Luxury Car of the Year at the Business Car Awards for the second year running, beating off BMW and Audi.
2006
The Jaguar XJ scooped the coveted best luxury car award at the Fleet World Awards. FOR THE 3RD YEAR IN ROW!
The Jaguar XK has been crowned 'Car of the Year' and 'GT of the Year' at the 2006 Top Gear Awards.
"Across Europe and the United States it has also been gaining accolades including 'Austrian Car of the Year' for the convertible and 'Most Chic Car of the Year' by Spain's biggest selling women's magazine, Telva. Other awards were in recognition of exceptional safety features on the car: the Prince Michael Award for Safety and the World Traffic Safety Symposium's Traffic Safety Achievement Award in the Automaker category. "
Yeah, real unreliable car manufacturer
It would appear so!
I don't care about the 10-20 cents an hour. That's a ridiculous argument. And that's not the kind of value I'm talking about anyway. You're still conflating the technical aspects of Vanguard (which are the only ones I care about) with any fun factor that might exist for some.
From a technical standpoint, this game cost over $30 million to make, yet it doesn't look like it, nor does the engine running the game act like it. It's unfinished, with many features that should be standard removed so they can actually get more performance. That should tell you something about the mechanics that make this game run. They're flawed, unfinished, and sloppy. And no amount of upgrades or money spent on the user's end will fix them.
Vangaurd doesn't look like a $30+ million dollar game. And it doesn't run like one either, if all the performance complaints are anything to go by. If it did look and run like what a game that cost $30+ million should, none of these threads would exist, and their subscription numbers would be a lot higher.
I am confused. Are you a fanboi, or a hater now? Toyota has a great reputation for putting a high quality product out on the marketplace, Jaguar is a piece of junk that Ford Motor Company should never have bought. WOW and LOTRO are high quality products like Toyota, and Vanguard is a piece of junk like Jaguar? You sure have flip flopped.
Are you nuts?
2007
Jaguar XJ awarded ‘Best Large Executive Car’ AutoExpress Best USED car honours, the S-type took second place
The Environmental Transport Association voted it Best Eco-friendly car; it beat Mercedes and BMW
The XJ also won the Luxury Car of the Year at the Business Car Awards for the second year running, beating off BMW and Audi.
2006
The Jaguar XJ scooped the coveted best luxury car award at the Fleet World Awards. FOR THE 3RD YEAR IN ROW!
The Jaguar XK has been crowned 'Car of the Year' and 'GT of the Year' at the 2006 Top Gear Awards.
"Across Europe and the United States it has also been gaining accolades including 'Austrian Car of the Year' for the convertible and 'Most Chic Car of the Year' by Spain's biggest selling women's magazine, Telva. Other awards were in recognition of exceptional safety features on the car: the Prince Michael Award for Safety and the World Traffic Safety Symposium's Traffic Safety Achievement Award in the Automaker category. "
Yeah, real unreliable car manufacturer
Yea, and the Detroit Lions won an award as the best high school football team in the US. Doesn't make them good. Look, no way in hell any Jaguar beat out a Toyota, Honda, Ford, or GM hybrid as the most eco-friendly car. Who the hell is this Prince Michael, and the World Traffic safety Symposium and Telva magazine, ROTFLOL. Lets form a group and award Dark and Light the Best MMORPG award of all time.
Too bad Ford Motor doesn't feel this way, the Jaguar is a piece of crap. One of the worst decisions Ford made was to acquire Jaguar. Dollars buy awards, executives do not drive Jaguars, even Ford executives who can get them for free as company cars. And yes, I do know firsthand, my sister in law is a VP at Ford.
Money buys influence and awards.
I don't care about the 10-20 cents an hour. That's a ridiculous argument. And that's not the kind of value I'm talking about anyway. You're still conflating the technical aspects of Vanguard (which are the only ones I care about) with any fun factor that might exist for some.
From a technical standpoint, this game cost over $30 million to make, yet it doesn't look like it, nor does the engine running the game act like it. It's unfinished, with many features that should be standard removed so they can actually get more performance. That should tell you something about the mechanics that make this game run. They're flawed, unfinished, and sloppy. And no amount of upgrades or money spent on the user's end will fix them.
Vangaurd doesn't look like a $30+ million dollar game. And it doesn't run like one either, if all the performance complaints are anything to go by. If it did look and run like what a game that cost $30+ million should, none of these threads would exist, and their subscription numbers would be a lot higher.
ROTFLOL. Yea, I'm still waiting for him and the other fanbois to send me 10-20 cents an hour. If I can get 200,000 people to do it I can retire. Under his theory you should be doing things that cost nothing. Sleep is one that comes to mind. He knows what the other is, as he has beat this tired drum before.
I don't care about the 10-20 cents an hour. That's a ridiculous argument. And that's not the kind of value I'm talking about anyway. You're still conflating the technical aspects of Vanguard (which are the only ones I care about) with any fun factor that might exist for some.
From a technical standpoint, this game cost over $30 million to make, yet it doesn't look like it, nor does the engine running the game act like it. It's unfinished, with many features that should be standard removed so they can actually get more performance. That should tell you something about the mechanics that make this game run. They're flawed, unfinished, and sloppy. And no amount of upgrades or money spent on the user's end will fix them.
Vangaurd doesn't look like a $30+ million dollar game. And it doesn't run like one either, if all the performance complaints are anything to go by. If it did look and run like what a game that cost $30+ million should, none of these threads would exist, and their subscription numbers would be a lot higher.
ROTFLOL. Yea, I'm still waiting for him and the other fanbois to send me 10-20 cents an hour. If I can get 200,000 people to do it I can retire. Under his theory you should be doing things that cost nothing. Sleep is one that comes to mind. He knows what the other is, as he has beat this tired drum before.
Sleep is not free. How much do you pay for you home/apartment? How much was your bed? Electricity/gas to keep the rooms tempature comfortable..how much does that cost? Blankets? Pillows? How much are your taxes if you own a home? Maintenence on a home can be very expensive!! To re-shingle your house so water doesn't drip on you while you sleep can cost thousands of dollars. Home insurance?...pricey...but ya don't want a slip-n-fall to lead you into bankruptcy so you better get that.
Now...if one lives in grandma's basement...well..ok...if that is the case..you win. Sleep may indeed be cheaper if one lives in their parents house or grandmama's basement.
Just cause I know someone will say it...and many will think it...masterbation still comes with it's own costs....but if one is very thrifty about it...reckon one could consider masterbating as a cheaper form of entertainment than playing a mmorpg. Just be carefull what sites you visit or you may get a gift that keeps on giving. Perhaps leading to a new rig or at least costing a few hours while you clean your rig out....not to mention the emotional costs if someone walks in on you. Don't ask me how I know !....a friend told me..ok? we can just leave it at that !
Okay, let's go there. Unless your computer is sitting out in the middle of a field, you have these same overhead costs as I do when I sleep. Add the cost of the heat, property taxes, rent, insurance, electricity, computer, computer desk, etc. to the cost of the monthly subsciption fee and you have just exceeded the cost of sleep. Unless you pay $15/month to sleep.
This is why your arguement is so old, tired, and miserable. You evaluate and compare things in life with blinders on. You hold one item to a particular standard, bury your head in the sand, and refuse to see another item by those same standards. That is what makes you a rabid fanboi, and a joke. That is why people laugh at your comparision, and you are left alone making this comparison. Nobody else on the forums reinforces this idea that playing Vanguard is a true value of money. Don't you get it yet?
You continually demonstrate that you are inacapable of providing an objective opinion when you raise this tired old arguement. It didn't work before, it doesn't work now, and, no matter how many times you say it, it will never be taken up as the rallying cry to convince people to play Vanguard. People are interested in play features, now how much more financially affordable you feel this game is over every other MMORPG out there.
It's because the "value" argument of an MMO is a generic one, and you can't apply it to any particular game.
Every game on this site that has a monthly subscription fee costs, on average, $14.95 a month. The monetary value of every pay-to-play game on this site, therefore, is essentially the same. The only real exception that I know of to this is CoH/CoV, since that single subscription fee can apply to BOTH games. Someone can buy one game on its own, and if they choose to buy the other and add it to their account, it doesn't cost anything extra.
EVE might be another exception. I don't know, since I know nothing about the game.
Using his logic, CoH/CoV is a better value than Vanguard becuase for the same $14.95/month fee, you get two games instead of one. Of course, in the real world, that argument falls apart, because a game's value can't be quantified that easily.
The real value in an MMO doesn't come from whatever it costs you an hour to play it, since pretty much all of them cost the same per month. The value then comes from things like the features offered, the performance of the game, the look and feel of the game world, and the overall experience in playing it, and what a player gets out of the game.
It's why I laugh at the "value" argument when applied strictly to VG. You can use it to defend the MMO genre to someone who might not understand it, but you can't use it to defend a single game. It just doesn't work that way.
"Facts" when it comes to preferences, taste, and having fun is more or less as reliable and stable as a rockslide.
One person might say: I like Vanguard because my actions matter. Even though I started out as a Dark Elf, I have now worked so much for the closest Order town that the NPCs respect me and won't attack me. I like the fact that I can build my own house and thereby create my own faction which could be joined both by Shadow and Order, thereby altering the game world.
One thousand other people might then say: There are numerous bugs in Vanguard, we have stuttering performance on our system, helmets are not shown, there are a some of the 40,000 quests that are not working currently, chunk lines create inconveniences such as unmounting me, unsummoning my pets, turning off my torch, etc., and the game was released at least 9 months too early - even Brad admitted to this.
Now a new person reads this, one that hasn't tried Vanguard yet. I'm betting that even though the one thousand people are very vocal and repeat the same gripes a lot of times in an eloquent and easily readable fashion, if the first poster's reasons seem to weight in more heavily, then those opinions are going to be the most relevant.
I don't play Vanguard anymore since a lot of my old friends from City of Heroes/Villains started up again and we're having too much fun for more than one MMO at the moment but I really think that when people start complaining that helmets aren't shown I just have to think: "Is this really such a big deal?"
It is simple marketing.
Currently the game is furthermore sold as one game (Good vs. Evil Edition) and the original separate versions are no longer available.
Whether or not City of Heroes/Villains is better than Vanguard is subjective.
If you compare the games in regards to content you will obviously find that Vanguard has a lot more content in every aspect apart from Player Model Customization and Guild House Decoration. And so what? I play City of Heroes/Villains now, not Vanguard because my friends have returned to City of Heroes/Villains after a long break from gaming.
I've been playing CoH/CoV since closed beta. My 36 month veteran reward should be coming down the pipeline in the next few days. I'm well aware of what you're talking about.
I know that the two games aren't sold seperately anymore. But I *also* remember the massive wankstorm on the forums when people thought there were going to be additional fees for the CoV half of the subscription. The fact is that at the time CoV launched, you could buy one game or the other, but you didn't have to have both in order to play. That's why I call them two separate games, since they started that way.
In a sense, they really are two separate games, simply because they play differently. CoV shows a lot more developer experience, so there are mechanics at work in it that weren't in CoH at first (Mayhem/Safeguards, mission brokers, etc.). Is one an expansion of the other? Sure. But making my way through both, I can definitely feel a difference when I play.
I never said it was better than Vanguard. I was taking the ridiculous argument of a game only costing 10-20 cents an hour to play, so it must be a great value and mocking it, becuase by that logic, CoH/CoV would be the better value, since it amounts to two for the price of one.
Obviously, it's not a realistic argument. I never said it was, since fun is subjective.
But see, here's the rub, and here's what I was talking about-- by my comparison, CoH/CoV may not have a lot of things that Vanguard does, but it DOES have one thing in spades: fun. I've had a blast the past three years with the game, especially due to the friends I've made and the guild I've been in from the start.
That's the whole point. You can't narrow an MMO down to some stupid hourly rate of 10-20 cents an hour in order to argue its worth, since the real value of that game is entirely up to the player. It can't be universally quantified by money. I find more value in games like WoW, LOTR, and CoH/CoV than I ever did in Vanguard. Others feel differently. Hence, the whole reason why I laugh at the idea of a game's value being arbitrarily defined, like with an hourly rate.
I like the idea, I like the crafting and the quests and I like the classes and races. Sigil should keep to story telling and design and let some other company handle the technical stuff. Then it might had been fun, but for now it's only frustrating.
Vanguard - next gen MMORPG carried out pre gen style.
No, at least 6 months too early. Brad, like most executives, is overly optimistic. Executives have to be in order to stay sane.
By the way, Vanguard is the only MMO I'm actively playing at this time, and the only one I plan to play until AoC comes out.
Now that you touched on the subject of things to laugh at I suggest one more thing to laugh at: Concluding anything is more fun than something else.
Think about it: What information does such a statement really relay to anyone apart from yourself or someone who knows your tastes and preferences to an almost intimate degree?
This is not a personal slam against you Lidane, it is more a "pot kettle black" statement and it could be applied on a lot of posts.
What you also must realize is that for some people the cost compared to their personal definition of fun is what validates the playing of MMOs. They compare MMOs to for instance going to the movies, going to the arcades, going clubbing, or whatever and in that way they might see Vanguard as being the most value for money since it simply has the largest amount of content of any contemporary MMO.
I will however agree with you on a personal note that such considerations strike me as overly fanciful as well. However I have friends where they "justify" their time playing MMOs with the same form of logic. This is often when talking to their spouse or fiancé though, hehe.
I think it comes down to whether or not you have the money or not. You obviously have the money and are not concerned, I have the money too, it doesn't concern me. But others might really have to decide which game to play and for them the value per dollar/cent might make the most sense.
Classic
Always one who comes around to say "I told you so". Sorry OP that we doubted you. You are absolutely right! I never read your original review though, I hope you dont mind. I'm also still playing the game and are a bit ashamed that I have fun doing so. But for the rest Im really glad that you warned us in advance! Thank you, thank you /bow .
Kk, time for a shower. Phew!