does everquest2 really have better graphics then lotro?
No, it doesn't. Both are very well done but LOTRO has the superior graphics in my opinion.
Vanguard is a more old style MMO. It takes awhile to get worthwhile gear either through crafting or adventuring, crafting and diplomacy are games within themselves and are still being worked on as far as complexity and how they interact with adventuring. There are faction grinds depending on what you're doing and not every little detail is laid out for you. What people fail to realize is that a good number of people enjoy these non-spoonfed games, they enjoy spending a good deal of time grinding up Blacksmithing or diplomacy. The world is huge and I can't overstate that lol, its obvious though at this point that VG is going to be hit with some changes(either good or bad) in the next few months. The major factor in its less than stellar release is performance factors, bugs and the fact you need a pretty hefty computer to run smoothly. The people who say 'Lern2optimize ur computer' and mostly full of it, I have an excellent system and it runs rough.
Despite all the negative press(player generated) Vanguard is an excellent game at the core, the game is just real rough around the edges right now. If the devs can stick with their vision while sorting out the performance and bug problems it will be a game well worth playing by many.
LOTRO is much more linear and quest based and the game is VERY well done. Smooth running on high settings and you don't need a state of the art computer to run it. The lore really makes the game though, the epic storyline quests/instances are excellent and well done. Most importantly the game is FUN and doesn't require the time invested like Vanguard so you feel like you were productive while you were online.
LOTRO feel much more alive because it put attention to the small things. Specifically to the titles: they give speical powers. They have titles which need little work, medium and much work with fitting rewards. Some titles just sound funny or are connected to funny or interesting quests.
Example: one is Postmaster of the Shire. To get it, you have to transport post bags on 13 ways over the Shire. Its of medium length, but you have to avoid wandering NPCs called "curious Hobbit", because they intercept you and you have to restart. Also, each delivery is timed, so you dont have endless time. The title is more funny as is the quest. It gives you +1 Patience (not sure what that exactly does) as individual trait. It is the enitre combination of funny, difficult, hilarious and lore-giving that makes it fun.
More generally speaking why LOTRO is fun and VG isnt, I wrote also here:
Each gamer decides for themselves what game is for them and what isn't. I had no interest in hard core gaming which to some vanguard represents ( old school very well) Could not imgine myself putting up with corpse runs these days , spawn waits hurry up to group raid gear, perfect formation group to get things done. No matter how well done or not Vanguard is /was that was a turn off to me at this point in my gaming life. Have no desire to upgrade my pc/laptop either.
Lotr does the same things other mmorpgs do granted, but it is smooth game play, not harsh on low and medium systems and there is something nice about casual play.
What i find nice about lotr is the ability to make my own music, I enjoy hearing what other musicians come up with as well. I like seeing hobits with smoke pipe and the ring effect. I like questing for experiance....
I have fun with one of the eariler crafting skills of explorer and mining/harvesting .. So to me in these areas are part of my fun. I also think lotr has a different type of community then vanguard and different atmosphere.
So what is right for us may not be what is right for someone else. Just makes it different skins where we choose to hang our hats ( for now)
I played Vanguard a little before it was released and bought the game when it hit the shelves.
I liked it, the character classes were interesting and the new lands were fun to go through.
I was, however, waiting for the fellowship system so that my friends and I could stick together. I didn't have a whole lot of time to play, but didn't want to have to devote what time I did have to making sure I kept up with friends.
The game was new and fresh, but I felt it was missing certain things on release. I don't know everything that was promised and not delivered, but I do feel like it just didn't feel complete.
I jumped into LotRO and was pretty much whisked away on an adventure. I was TOLD a story and my character was going to get to participate in it. I got to see the world of one of my favorite tales of all time.
That is what attracted me.
Grinds, yeah. Crafting, yeah. Titles, yeah...
Why should you play it? Because you found it fun. If you don't, then don't continue paying the subscription.
If you are trying to gauge a game as an investment you are just going to lose... you play a game because you enjoy it and can afford it. NOT because it has more features/players/abilities/land than every othe game out there. Find a friend that plays and use his account for a bit if you don't want to "waste" fifty buck... wait for the free trial, or just buy the product because you can afford it. You get a month free.
I started off so psyched for Vanguard. Played for 30 days at release and man... what a let down.
Tried again just a week or so ago, played for 10 days and the performance was way better than at release, but that allowed to actually play further into the game and I discovered that it just wasn't even remotely fun for me.
LotRO on the other hand, I have been playing for 3 months, closed beta, open beta as a founder and now at release and every moment is fun for me, I am having a non-stop blast. The quests are fun for me, the exploration is amazing for me, the community is awesome to me, the world is plenty big enough for me... I have plenty of places that i have not seen and another area being opened up in June. The game is just polished and fun.
Obviously the game won't be for everyone, no game ever is, and I can't speak for everyone as to why they love the game, but for me it comes down to this, in the end Vanguard was not fun and LotRO is non-stop fun for 3 months and isn't letting up now
I don't play (or not) a game based on reviews, or based on message board opinions etc... I play the games and decide. 4 months ago I would have bet money on me playing VG over LotRO any day of the week. Today, after playing both, I was clearly off my rocker back then.
people are entitled to their own opinions (like WoW sucks but everquest rocks) and you are free to listen or not. when it comes down to comparing games it really is stupid. for one thing many games that are compared are completely different (DDO and WoW was just plain stupid). then you come to games that are very similar like LOTRO and WoW. i personally dont see a problem with taking great (sometimes amazing) ideas from one game and adding them to another game. yes WoW's interface is wonderful...but why must it ONLY be in WoW? other games could and should take such wonderful features and ad them. i would hate it if every game was largely different to every other game. games that borrow ideas or model their own ontop of a borrowed idea help the genre keep going. we cant pull innovations out of the air for every game that is released. Age of Empires, Rise of Nations and Empire earth all took ideas from each other and made wonderful games. i think people should never ever take offence at a borrowed idea unless THEY thought it up or THE ORIGINAL DESIGNER takes offence and in the games industry who really cares?
this is MY opinion as i stated earlier you can listen or not.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
A mmorpgs release means everything...there might be some exceptions but generally, if a mmorpg has a really bad release people stay away from it.
Wraith pretty much nailed the reason on the head. Vanguard was released horribly. Not only was it released horribly, but it was released horribly in the same year that LOTRO, AOC, and many other highly anticipated titles are to be released. No one in their right mind will go near Vanguard for these reasons.
Nothing is wrong with the gameplay in Vanguard. This is proven by taking a look at DAoC, EQ 1 & 2, and similar games. There is a market for that sort of game. But when you combine a bad release with an engine that requires the best of the best computers to run, you severely limit your success to the community that is too bored to care AND who has an awsome PC.
MMORPG's w/ Max level characters: DAoC, SWG, & WoW
Currently Playing: WAR Preferred Playstyle: Roleplay/adventurous, in a sandbox game.
Here's the strange thing with that though... I've played every mainstream and some not so mainstream mmorpg's to date minus WWIIO, and some of my absolute favorites have been UO, EQ1 & 2 and DAoC. I absolutely despised WoW after many attempts at it.
I have vanguard as of now and I am confused about some of the things people are arguing over... I'll use titles as an example. Everyone is talking about how awsome LOTRO is because you can have titles to show what you have done in the past....well....Vanguard has that same thing, and released before LOTRO. It also has a robust character creating system though I'm not sure if LOTRO has that.... My point is, the game are alot alike and I dont see why everyone is saying Vanguard sucks and LOTRO is the way to go...it makes no sense to me. The only thing LOTRO has that Vanguard doesnt is the creature battle system where you are the monster and you fight other players...though, to couterbalance, Vangaurd has flying mounts, ingame houses, boats, addicting mini-games, etc...
So please help me out and tell me what is so great about LOTRO that it should be played over Vanguard. Thanks
the makers of lotro host more than just technical support forums, that means that they actually (at least pretend to) care about their paying customers.
microsoft dropped vg, soe picked it up. nuff said there.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I got too really say here that if you are comparing these two MMORPG games then comparing them on similar items such as Release Code, Graphics Engine, Release quality, stability, AI, Voice acting, music...things that are directly measurable against each other then these titles are day and night.
One is a perfect example of how to release an MMORPG Game in 2007 to the mordern Industry technically speaking and the other is an example of how not to deliver. Simple as that in my opinion.
Rings perhaps posesess the most stunning graphics engine i have seen in an MMORPG. I run in "Ultra Quality" with Anti-Aliasing on and it is utterly breathtaking, my hardware is pretty good to run this setting but the engine is that well optimized it scales incredibly well. The Engine is robust and dynamic, scales extremely well across hardware and is possibly the most polished release code ever seen in an MMORPG game to date. The current pre-order numbers and sheer volume of players in beta shows that this game is becoming and will be a very very popular mmorpg. With ex swg veterans even drawing comparisons in the community and the tools at the players disposal for Role-Playing possibilities and total immersion if thats your thing. A few minor memory leaks exist under the vista operating environment at present but nothing major at all and nothing a restart of the client every 3-4 hours doesnt sort. Environment Drop Shadows, Bloom, HDR, Anti Aliasing, Environment Bump Mapping, all the candy is there and it runs like a dream. Its a multithreaded application coded to take advantage of modern CPU, GPU technologies which no doubt boosts its appearence and performance. Interestingly also Rings is the first MMORPG to pass the "Games for Windows" certifications from Microsoft.
The same simply cannot be said for vanguard. the quality of its release code is in my opinion an old school mentality of, release now patch later, fix on subscription attitude, which is not wanted anymore in this space except by a niche of more hardcore players whom "get by" and games like LOTRO are finally hammering the nails into this ideologies coffin for good. Vanguards terrible launch status and figures for a game of its sheer budget and dev time is testament to the above fact. The Engine is by modern standards now an old Hybrid of the Unreal 2 engine with modern Unreal 3 code bolted on in places this cannot be efficient, it is clearly an overstretched engine by its memory leaks a mile wide and total lack of optimization causing desktop crashes, and hard crashing and more. (Yes these problems are still there in force seeing the "Work to do" items listed by Sigil at VGPlayers states as much))
The Program scales unpredictably with hardware, a sign of its coding issues, even though recent advances to the low end graphical settings have been made its simply too little too late for a game 3 months into live release. It is not a multithreaded application which considering demand by its developers for massive hardware requirements from its paying customers is rediculous, the application doesnt support SLI or crossfire, has No support for Anti Aliasing, its HDR implementation and Bloom cut its already subpar framerates in half, and grouping is practically impossible in certain areas of the game without simply turning down graphical settings to the lowest point or having in game DM's turn the group into skeletons to reduce polygon count. This application does not need bleeding edge hardware to run, it doesnt even match the same support for modern technology as Rings, fact. That says alot in comparison too sigils engine of choice and code. There is little positive at all in Vanguards Sheer size and potential over most other MMORPG games because the application is so technically and inherently flawed.
On this front the games for example are comparable and are totally day and night. This is just one facet of the comparison.
However fun is in the mind and hands of the player and are only comparable in the minds of the individual perhaps. Those that enjoy vanguard enjoy vanguard. Those that enjoy Lotro enjoy lotro. However on technicalities you can very easily compare these two titles that share the same game space on the market and both are designed for PC platforms.
Technically, totally comparable, and in my opinion backed my the above facts are day and night examples of "implementation quality" which is a "massive" selling factor in todays gaming industry.
Taking a new approach here, thinking as I go, so please bear with me. I played VG in beta, bought the box, and played three weeks or so after release. I played LotRO from the second stress test in closed beta, through open beta, and still am. Pretty common story.
VG seems, with hindsight to be negative in many respects. You can't go to this city, you're Kill On Sight. You can't travel quickly. You can't really solo through the game. You can't level quickly. You can't avoid a lot of grind. Okay, that's all bad enough, but worse is the "You WILL play it our way because we're doing this for your enjoyment, as we know better than you how you REALLY want to play".
LotRO has more player latitude to play as they wish than any other MMO I've seen... some of what makes it fun are imaginative quests, (fast mail/nosey hobbits, pie delivery/hungry hobbits), pie eating champion and slug squasher titles as well as far more serious titles.
And a few other things. First content addition features have been announced, for June release. That's NOT for bug fixes, or keeping release promises, but new content. Indeed, it was released with everything promised and more (horse ownership). So, are the musical instruments fun? Very popular feature, will be expanded. Voice support ingame? Works well, tyvm.
Features are for marketing types who need something to talk about. They don't make a game fun, they're just mostly checkboxes. You have to play the game to see if it's fun. So why is LotRO fun? Dunno. More the blend of elements, some salt, not too much...
I have vanguard as of now and I am confused about some of the things people are arguing over... I'll use titles as an example. Everyone is talking about how awsome LOTRO is because you can have titles to show what you have done in the past....well....Vanguard has that same thing, and released before LOTRO. It also has a robust character creating system though I'm not sure if LOTRO has that.... Thanks
Titles are a pretty poor example, and does not even begin to show the huge differences between the games.
In fact, in both games most titles are "fluff" - they mean little or nothing. VG has some kind of founders title, LOTRO has some kind of title you get for not dying for 5 levels. Both are totally meaningless as to showing any accomplishements.
At least EQ2 has meaningful titles - it shows that you have actually done something besides not die for a while, or signed up on opening day.
But beyond that, the differences between VG and LOTRO could take pages to compare. But the main and most obvious difference is that LOTRO is mostly finished content with few bugs, while VG was released as a swarm of bugs with many still not fixed yet, and tons of missing or unfinished content.
It's difficult for other people to tell you why one game is "better" than others, because what makes a game "fun" for them might be totally different than what makes a game "fun" for you. Whether or not you like a game is a personal thing, and is not something someone can "teach" you.
That being said, there are some game design elements that gamers and game designers feel separate good games from bad games, and most of the time (though not always), how well games rank in these areas are a predictor for how well those games are able to hold people's attention, and hence, how successful they become.
First off, a game world has to be captiviating visually. Vangaurd fell short in this regard, in my opinion. After playing games like EQ2, CoH and WoW, where a massive amount of attention was paid to environmental detail and stylistic originality, Vangaurd felt like it was already 8 years old. Textures were flat, colors mottled and bland, collisions between environmental objects were laughably simplistic (ie. water on a shore was represented by a straight line instead of a natural looking boundary between water and earth, you caused no splashing swimming or walking through water, trees were "cookie cutter", rocks were skinned with flat textures reminiscent of EQ1 days), etc. This suprising lack of attention to this sort of environmental detail gave the game an old, outdated feel, which I believe works against it from the start. I do think LOTR beats VG in this area, hands down.
Secondaly, a game has to offer attractive character models and a reasonably customizable character creation system, so a player feels content and satisfied with the creation of a unique avatar to represent them in a virtual world. I think both LOTR and Vangaurd models are pretty poor in this regard. Characters in both games have very awkward, unnatural proportions, and stiff animations. None of the models are incredibly "attractive". Armor and clothing in both games was pretty unimaginative as well. Of the two, I personally prefer LOTR. VG characters are very stiff, and horribly ill-proportioned, and well, just not attractive overall (egads, the poor wood elves!). Neither game really offers any sort of customization beyond the basics of hair color, eyecolor, choice of a face, etc. VGs system is more elaborate, yes, but the options are inutile, and don't make much difference to the way a character looks, so you all end up looking the same anyway.
Third, any MMORPG worth a lick of salt will have a good character progression system. That means the player is offered many choices throughout their journey to truly personalize the abilities and talents of a character in order to make them different from all the other people running around with the same race/class combo. Vangaurd seemed to have a fairly intensive system for character progression, but I didn't level far enough to really understand how it works and how truly different characters can become. LoTR's trait system seems at first to be extremely diverse, but as you play you realize that the same combos will be picked by others in the same class, so it's really not as powerful a mechanism as it could have been. I'd say LoTR and VG tie in this regard, based on my limited experience with both.
Fouth, a MMORPG needs a mechansim to gives characters reasons to interact with their virtual world other than "kill, gain experince, loot, sell, buy". This is usually done through a questing system. A good quest system has a UI that is easy and intuitive to use, and makes it easy for you to manage your quests and share them with other people. Having played both Vanguard and LOTR (and many other MMORPGs) I have to say that LOTR's quest log interface is more inutitive and easier to use than Vangaurd's. The best quest system I've seen (and complete UI for that matter) is WoW. It's design was totally user-driven, and as a result, it's incredibly functional and purposeful to players.
There are more things I could talk about, but I'm sure i've lost about 95% of readers by now, so I'll end it there. Based on my opinons as stated above, LOTR is "better" than Vangard. I do enjoy it more, and i think it's because much more thought and time went into the design. Only you can tell though, so I'd suggest playing both for a few months and deciding which you like better for yourself.
lotro My post is a joke. too shallow, too small, a waste of bandwidth.
There, fixed it for ya...
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
I have vanguard as of now and I am confused about some of the things people are arguing over... I'll use titles as an example. Everyone is talking about how awsome LOTRO is because you can have titles to show what you have done in the past....well....Vanguard has that same thing, and released before LOTRO. It also has a robust character creating system though I'm not sure if LOTRO has that.... My point is, the game are alot alike and I dont see why everyone is saying Vanguard sucks and LOTRO is the way to go...it makes no sense to me. The only thing LOTRO has that Vanguard doesnt is the creature battle system where you are the monster and you fight other players...though, to couterbalance, Vangaurd has flying mounts, ingame houses, boats, addicting mini-games, etc...
So please help me out and tell me what is so great about LOTRO that it should be played over Vanguard. Thanks
First, I don't believe you're looking for an honest answer...or more aptly, you're not sincerely wiling to be convinced.
But in case I'm wrong, I'll give a few examples, as I too have played VG.
Content:
LOTRO has well over 1500 quests. These quests are story-driven, with small one-off tasks mixed in, and longer epic quests as well.
VG content is sparse, and most of the 'quests' are in fact tasks that read like newspaper copy. Little to no charm whatsoever in the storytelling. The only quests I found entertaining were the diplomacy begining quest lines. More VG quests should be like the diplomacy quests.
Polish:
VG...what can I say. Has no polish. Buggy. Found only one region in VG (Mekina) that had as much charm as a dozen regions in LOTRO (Buckland, Thorin's Hall, Rivendell....). In games like EQ1 and LOTRO, I will always have fond memories of my starting cities. The starting cities in VG are breathtakingly forgetable (again, Mekina stands out as the exception).
LOTRO has polish, and an incredible attention to detail. Because of this solid foundation, LOTRO will be delivering honest to goodness content in updates to come. No more endless nerf/balance/performance bug patches that plague games like SWG-NGE, and now VG, to this very day.
Titles:
VG--titles were rather few and far between.
LOTRO: Titles there are nearly 50 slayer titles alone. This doesn't count the crafting titles, or the PvMP titles (15 I think), or the unlockable emote titles. All totaled, I'd guess there are close to 100 titles to earn, with more likely to be on the way.
So, yeah, they are different in so many ways.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
My gameplay experience has been very different with both games.
I found VSOH to be complicated and at times very frustrating due to the bugginess and perfomance issues. Having said that I thought it was still pretty fun and could see myself playing this game for several years if all the issues with the game were corrected. There seems to be a lot of depth to it but also things that make you wonder what the hell the devs were thinking. For instance take crafting. My biggest pet peeve with VSOH is the work order process for leveling up crafting. My other big problem is that diplomacy seems to serve no purpose. Other than that it's a pretty good game. Nothing spectacular or 3rd generation. Just okay.
My impression of LOTRO so far is that it's nothing more than DDO in Middle Earth. There just doesn't seem to be as much depth to it as there is with EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG or VSOH. To me it just feels like it's missing something. The graphics are nice. Performance is great but it feels more like a kids game or as somebody else said, a console game. I just don't see the same type of longevity in this game as in the other games. I played SWG for 2.5 years. I don't see myself playing LOTRO more than a couple of months. Having watched all the movies and read all the books, I still feel lost and the quests don't seem to make a whole lot of sense. I can't seem to figure out where I'm supposed to fit in the whole scheme of things. Not everyone is so well versed in the lore of Middle Earth. It's hard to keep up with it. Maybe LOTRO just isn't my game because so far even though graphics and performance are very good, I'm still having a difficult time finding fun. It could be that I'm not far enough into it (level 8). Or it could be that I have a stronger preference for sandbox games. Whatever it is all I know is that I prefer VSOH over LOTRO.
It does all just come down to personal preference (of course). For me? I'm really not sure what type of MMO I prefer. I see the polish, the detail, and the lore behind LOTRO and it should be succesful and praised but at the same time I just want to remember Tolkien from the books/movies and play in an original (somewhat) game such as Vanguard which is not based on anything other than basics.
I have a hard time deciding which style I prefer more, and LOTRO and VG are pretty much opposites in the spectrum of MMOs...
I beta'd both and currently play Vanguard, for a lot of reasons. Basically I got bored quickly playing LOTR...it seemed too easy, linear, instance-heavy, I didn't like the UI, the combat was somehow unfulfilling....however the graphics and perfomance was great. Vanguard had more of a feel of a huge open world...much better variey of classes....no lame restrictions like everything being soulbound...its more challenging and group oriented - but also has great solo play. At 29 I've soloed 75% of the time or more. To me its main shortcoming is difficulty finding groups due to the large world and slow travel. Luckily they have started fixing that by adding limited teleports.
Here is a nice example of people having different visions and tastes.
I played both aswell and find LOTR much harder than Vanguard. In Vanguard I could beat 3 mobs at once, when soloing. In LOTR 2 mobs is a pain and with 3 I bettter run. And in both I play a healer.
The open world in Vanguard??? Mountains , mountains , mountains more mountains. I like to explore in games but found myself stuck because of these mountains on many occasions. The world in Vanguard IS huge tho, but then again the world of LOTR isn't small either. But what good is huge when there are no players in it? I disliked the teleporters in the harbours and now they added more teleports? That's a stab in the back for all the boats and flying mounts as I see it.
Vanguard has more classes and races for sure but I play only 2 or maybe 3 different characters in one game. So LOTR has enough to choose from for me.
Why don't you like soulbound items? In LOTR quest rewards are mostly weapons or armor (which is something I dislike in LOTR). If you don't soulbound that, the economy will suffer aswell as the crafters.
And then the linearity. The only thing thats linear to me is the story. But thats an extra if you compare it to Vanguard. It's an option, you don't have to play it. If you don't like crafting or diplomacy in vanguard , then don't play those. If you skip it you may find LOTR not so instanced based as you say. I played one instance to level 26 apart from the epic story line.
So we have a total different opinion. But I don't mind really, I have fun playing LOTR and you have fun playing Vanguard. Happy gaming to you, my friend.
Comments
No, it doesn't. Both are very well done but LOTRO has the superior graphics in my opinion.
Vanguard is a more old style MMO. It takes awhile to get worthwhile gear either through crafting or adventuring, crafting and diplomacy are games within themselves and are still being worked on as far as complexity and how they interact with adventuring. There are faction grinds depending on what you're doing and not every little detail is laid out for you. What people fail to realize is that a good number of people enjoy these non-spoonfed games, they enjoy spending a good deal of time grinding up Blacksmithing or diplomacy. The world is huge and I can't overstate that lol, its obvious though at this point that VG is going to be hit with some changes(either good or bad) in the next few months. The major factor in its less than stellar release is performance factors, bugs and the fact you need a pretty hefty computer to run smoothly. The people who say 'Lern2optimize ur computer' and mostly full of it, I have an excellent system and it runs rough.
Despite all the negative press(player generated) Vanguard is an excellent game at the core, the game is just real rough around the edges right now. If the devs can stick with their vision while sorting out the performance and bug problems it will be a game well worth playing by many.
LOTRO is much more linear and quest based and the game is VERY well done. Smooth running on high settings and you don't need a state of the art computer to run it. The lore really makes the game though, the epic storyline quests/instances are excellent and well done. Most importantly the game is FUN and doesn't require the time invested like Vanguard so you feel like you were productive while you were online.
LOTRO feel much more alive because it put attention to the small things. Specifically to the titles: they give speical powers. They have titles which need little work, medium and much work with fitting rewards. Some titles just sound funny or are connected to funny or interesting quests.
Example: one is Postmaster of the Shire. To get it, you have to transport post bags on 13 ways over the Shire. Its of medium length, but you have to avoid wandering NPCs called "curious Hobbit", because they intercept you and you have to restart. Also, each delivery is timed, so you dont have endless time. The title is more funny as is the quest. It gives you +1 Patience (not sure what that exactly does) as individual trait. It is the enitre combination of funny, difficult, hilarious and lore-giving that makes it fun.
More generally speaking why LOTRO is fun and VG isnt, I wrote also here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/127870
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
A mmorpgs release means everything...there might be some exceptions but generally, if a mmorpg has a really bad release people stay away from it.
-!-!-!-!-!-!-!-!-!-!-!-!-!
I have a Youtube channel for video games! http://www.youtube.com/user/Vendayn
Lotr does the same things other mmorpgs do granted, but it is smooth game play, not harsh on low and medium systems and there is something nice about casual play.
What i find nice about lotr is the ability to make my own music, I enjoy hearing what other musicians come up with as well. I like seeing hobits with smoke pipe and the ring effect. I like questing for experiance....
I have fun with one of the eariler crafting skills of explorer and mining/harvesting .. So to me in these areas are part of my fun. I also think lotr has a different type of community then vanguard and different atmosphere.
So what is right for us may not be what is right for someone else. Just makes it different skins where we choose to hang our hats ( for now)
I played Vanguard a little before it was released and bought the game when it hit the shelves.
I liked it, the character classes were interesting and the new lands were fun to go through.
I was, however, waiting for the fellowship system so that my friends and I could stick together. I didn't have a whole lot of time to play, but didn't want to have to devote what time I did have to making sure I kept up with friends.
The game was new and fresh, but I felt it was missing certain things on release. I don't know everything that was promised and not delivered, but I do feel like it just didn't feel complete.
I jumped into LotRO and was pretty much whisked away on an adventure. I was TOLD a story and my character was going to get to participate in it. I got to see the world of one of my favorite tales of all time.
That is what attracted me.
Grinds, yeah. Crafting, yeah. Titles, yeah...
Why should you play it? Because you found it fun. If you don't, then don't continue paying the subscription.
If you are trying to gauge a game as an investment you are just going to lose... you play a game because you enjoy it and can afford it. NOT because it has more features/players/abilities/land than every othe game out there. Find a friend that plays and use his account for a bit if you don't want to "waste" fifty buck... wait for the free trial, or just buy the product because you can afford it. You get a month free.
This is not an investment... it is just a game.
Tried again just a week or so ago, played for 10 days and the performance was way better than at release, but that allowed to actually play further into the game and I discovered that it just wasn't even remotely fun for me.
LotRO on the other hand, I have been playing for 3 months, closed beta, open beta as a founder and now at release and every moment is fun for me, I am having a non-stop blast. The quests are fun for me, the exploration is amazing for me, the community is awesome to me, the world is plenty big enough for me... I have plenty of places that i have not seen and another area being opened up in June. The game is just polished and fun.
Obviously the game won't be for everyone, no game ever is, and I can't speak for everyone as to why they love the game, but for me it comes down to this, in the end Vanguard was not fun and LotRO is non-stop fun for 3 months and isn't letting up now
I don't play (or not) a game based on reviews, or based on message board opinions etc... I play the games and decide. 4 months ago I would have bet money on me playing VG over LotRO any day of the week. Today, after playing both, I was clearly off my rocker back then.
this is MY opinion as i stated earlier you can listen or not.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Wraith pretty much nailed the reason on the head. Vanguard was released horribly. Not only was it released horribly, but it was released horribly in the same year that LOTRO, AOC, and many other highly anticipated titles are to be released. No one in their right mind will go near Vanguard for these reasons.
Nothing is wrong with the gameplay in Vanguard. This is proven by taking a look at DAoC, EQ 1 & 2, and similar games. There is a market for that sort of game. But when you combine a bad release with an engine that requires the best of the best computers to run, you severely limit your success to the community that is too bored to care AND who has an awsome PC.
MMORPG's w/ Max level characters: DAoC, SWG, & WoW
Currently Playing: WAR
Preferred Playstyle: Roleplay/adventurous, in a sandbox game.
And yest I hated VG and absolutely love LotRO.
It makes no sense I tell ya... but it's true
the makers of lotro host more than just technical support forums, that means that they actually (at least pretend to) care about their paying customers.
microsoft dropped vg, soe picked it up. nuff said there.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I got too really say here that if you are comparing these two MMORPG games then comparing them on similar items such as Release Code, Graphics Engine, Release quality, stability, AI, Voice acting, music...things that are directly measurable against each other then these titles are day and night.
One is a perfect example of how to release an MMORPG Game in 2007 to the mordern Industry technically speaking and the other is an example of how not to deliver. Simple as that in my opinion.
Rings perhaps posesess the most stunning graphics engine i have seen in an MMORPG. I run in "Ultra Quality" with Anti-Aliasing on and it is utterly breathtaking, my hardware is pretty good to run this setting but the engine is that well optimized it scales incredibly well. The Engine is robust and dynamic, scales extremely well across hardware and is possibly the most polished release code ever seen in an MMORPG game to date. The current pre-order numbers and sheer volume of players in beta shows that this game is becoming and will be a very very popular mmorpg. With ex swg veterans even drawing comparisons in the community and the tools at the players disposal for Role-Playing possibilities and total immersion if thats your thing. A few minor memory leaks exist under the vista operating environment at present but nothing major at all and nothing a restart of the client every 3-4 hours doesnt sort. Environment Drop Shadows, Bloom, HDR, Anti Aliasing, Environment Bump Mapping, all the candy is there and it runs like a dream. Its a multithreaded application coded to take advantage of modern CPU, GPU technologies which no doubt boosts its appearence and performance. Interestingly also Rings is the first MMORPG to pass the "Games for Windows" certifications from Microsoft.
The same simply cannot be said for vanguard. the quality of its release code is in my opinion an old school mentality of, release now patch later, fix on subscription attitude, which is not wanted anymore in this space except by a niche of more hardcore players whom "get by" and games like LOTRO are finally hammering the nails into this ideologies coffin for good. Vanguards terrible launch status and figures for a game of its sheer budget and dev time is testament to the above fact. The Engine is by modern standards now an old Hybrid of the Unreal 2 engine with modern Unreal 3 code bolted on in places this cannot be efficient, it is clearly an overstretched engine by its memory leaks a mile wide and total lack of optimization causing desktop crashes, and hard crashing and more. (Yes these problems are still there in force seeing the "Work to do" items listed by Sigil at VGPlayers states as much))
The Program scales unpredictably with hardware, a sign of its coding issues, even though recent advances to the low end graphical settings have been made its simply too little too late for a game 3 months into live release. It is not a multithreaded application which considering demand by its developers for massive hardware requirements from its paying customers is rediculous, the application doesnt support SLI or crossfire, has No support for Anti Aliasing, its HDR implementation and Bloom cut its already subpar framerates in half, and grouping is practically impossible in certain areas of the game without simply turning down graphical settings to the lowest point or having in game DM's turn the group into skeletons to reduce polygon count. This application does not need bleeding edge hardware to run, it doesnt even match the same support for modern technology as Rings, fact. That says alot in comparison too sigils engine of choice and code. There is little positive at all in Vanguards Sheer size and potential over most other MMORPG games because the application is so technically and inherently flawed.
On this front the games for example are comparable and are totally day and night. This is just one facet of the comparison.
However fun is in the mind and hands of the player and are only comparable in the minds of the individual perhaps. Those that enjoy vanguard enjoy vanguard. Those that enjoy Lotro enjoy lotro. However on technicalities you can very easily compare these two titles that share the same game space on the market and both are designed for PC platforms.
Technically, totally comparable, and in my opinion backed my the above facts are day and night examples of "implementation quality" which is a "massive" selling factor in todays gaming industry.
Regards
Magpie
Taking a new approach here, thinking as I go, so please bear with me. I played VG in beta, bought the box, and played three weeks or so after release. I played LotRO from the second stress test in closed beta, through open beta, and still am. Pretty common story.
VG seems, with hindsight to be negative in many respects. You can't go to this city, you're Kill On Sight. You can't travel quickly. You can't really solo through the game. You can't level quickly. You can't avoid a lot of grind. Okay, that's all bad enough, but worse is the "You WILL play it our way because we're doing this for your enjoyment, as we know better than you how you REALLY want to play".
LotRO has more player latitude to play as they wish than any other MMO I've seen... some of what makes it fun are imaginative quests, (fast mail/nosey hobbits, pie delivery/hungry hobbits), pie eating champion and slug squasher titles as well as far more serious titles.
And a few other things. First content addition features have been announced, for June release. That's NOT for bug fixes, or keeping release promises, but new content. Indeed, it was released with everything promised and more (horse ownership). So, are the musical instruments fun? Very popular feature, will be expanded. Voice support ingame? Works well, tyvm.
Features are for marketing types who need something to talk about. They don't make a game fun, they're just mostly checkboxes. You have to play the game to see if it's fun. So why is LotRO fun? Dunno. More the blend of elements, some salt, not too much...
Titles are a pretty poor example, and does not even begin to show the huge differences between the games.
In fact, in both games most titles are "fluff" - they mean little or nothing. VG has some kind of founders title, LOTRO has some kind of title you get for not dying for 5 levels. Both are totally meaningless as to showing any accomplishements.
At least EQ2 has meaningful titles - it shows that you have actually done something besides not die for a while, or signed up on opening day.
But beyond that, the differences between VG and LOTRO could take pages to compare. But the main and most obvious difference is that LOTRO is mostly finished content with few bugs, while VG was released as a swarm of bugs with many still not fixed yet, and tons of missing or unfinished content.
3. Vanguard is more of a slog, grind type game. LOTRO is focused, by comparison, around a storyline.
What happens when you get to the end of the storyline? How long is that gonna take?
It's difficult for other people to tell you why one game is "better" than others, because what makes a game "fun" for them might be totally different than what makes a game "fun" for you. Whether or not you like a game is a personal thing, and is not something someone can "teach" you.
That being said, there are some game design elements that gamers and game designers feel separate good games from bad games, and most of the time (though not always), how well games rank in these areas are a predictor for how well those games are able to hold people's attention, and hence, how successful they become.
First off, a game world has to be captiviating visually. Vangaurd fell short in this regard, in my opinion. After playing games like EQ2, CoH and WoW, where a massive amount of attention was paid to environmental detail and stylistic originality, Vangaurd felt like it was already 8 years old. Textures were flat, colors mottled and bland, collisions between environmental objects were laughably simplistic (ie. water on a shore was represented by a straight line instead of a natural looking boundary between water and earth, you caused no splashing swimming or walking through water, trees were "cookie cutter", rocks were skinned with flat textures reminiscent of EQ1 days), etc. This suprising lack of attention to this sort of environmental detail gave the game an old, outdated feel, which I believe works against it from the start. I do think LOTR beats VG in this area, hands down.
Secondaly, a game has to offer attractive character models and a reasonably customizable character creation system, so a player feels content and satisfied with the creation of a unique avatar to represent them in a virtual world. I think both LOTR and Vangaurd models are pretty poor in this regard. Characters in both games have very awkward, unnatural proportions, and stiff animations. None of the models are incredibly "attractive". Armor and clothing in both games was pretty unimaginative as well. Of the two, I personally prefer LOTR. VG characters are very stiff, and horribly ill-proportioned, and well, just not attractive overall (egads, the poor wood elves!). Neither game really offers any sort of customization beyond the basics of hair color, eyecolor, choice of a face, etc. VGs system is more elaborate, yes, but the options are inutile, and don't make much difference to the way a character looks, so you all end up looking the same anyway.
Third, any MMORPG worth a lick of salt will have a good character progression system. That means the player is offered many choices throughout their journey to truly personalize the abilities and talents of a character in order to make them different from all the other people running around with the same race/class combo. Vangaurd seemed to have a fairly intensive system for character progression, but I didn't level far enough to really understand how it works and how truly different characters can become. LoTR's trait system seems at first to be extremely diverse, but as you play you realize that the same combos will be picked by others in the same class, so it's really not as powerful a mechanism as it could have been. I'd say LoTR and VG tie in this regard, based on my limited experience with both.
Fouth, a MMORPG needs a mechansim to gives characters reasons to interact with their virtual world other than "kill, gain experince, loot, sell, buy". This is usually done through a questing system. A good quest system has a UI that is easy and intuitive to use, and makes it easy for you to manage your quests and share them with other people. Having played both Vanguard and LOTR (and many other MMORPGs) I have to say that LOTR's quest log interface is more inutitive and easier to use than Vangaurd's. The best quest system I've seen (and complete UI for that matter) is WoW. It's design was totally user-driven, and as a result, it's incredibly functional and purposeful to players.
There are more things I could talk about, but I'm sure i've lost about 95% of readers by now, so I'll end it there.
Based on my opinons as stated above, LOTR is "better" than Vangard. I do enjoy it more, and i think it's because much more thought and time went into the design. Only you can tell though, so I'd suggest playing both for a few months and deciding which you like better for yourself.
There, fixed it for ya...
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
First, I don't believe you're looking for an honest answer...or more aptly, you're not sincerely wiling to be convinced.
But in case I'm wrong, I'll give a few examples, as I too have played VG.
Content:
LOTRO has well over 1500 quests. These quests are story-driven, with small one-off tasks mixed in, and longer epic quests as well.
VG content is sparse, and most of the 'quests' are in fact tasks that read like newspaper copy. Little to no charm whatsoever in the storytelling. The only quests I found entertaining were the diplomacy begining quest lines. More VG quests should be like the diplomacy quests.
Polish:
VG...what can I say. Has no polish. Buggy. Found only one region in VG (Mekina) that had as much charm as a dozen regions in LOTRO (Buckland, Thorin's Hall, Rivendell....). In games like EQ1 and LOTRO, I will always have fond memories of my starting cities. The starting cities in VG are breathtakingly forgetable (again, Mekina stands out as the exception).
LOTRO has polish, and an incredible attention to detail. Because of this solid foundation, LOTRO will be delivering honest to goodness content in updates to come. No more endless nerf/balance/performance bug patches that plague games like SWG-NGE, and now VG, to this very day.
Titles:
VG--titles were rather few and far between.
LOTRO: Titles there are nearly 50 slayer titles alone. This doesn't count the crafting titles, or the PvMP titles (15 I think), or the unlockable emote titles. All totaled, I'd guess there are close to 100 titles to earn, with more likely to be on the way.
So, yeah, they are different in so many ways.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
My gameplay experience has been very different with both games.
I found VSOH to be complicated and at times very frustrating due to the bugginess and perfomance issues. Having said that I thought it was still pretty fun and could see myself playing this game for several years if all the issues with the game were corrected. There seems to be a lot of depth to it but also things that make you wonder what the hell the devs were thinking. For instance take crafting. My biggest pet peeve with VSOH is the work order process for leveling up crafting. My other big problem is that diplomacy seems to serve no purpose. Other than that it's a pretty good game. Nothing spectacular or 3rd generation. Just okay.
My impression of LOTRO so far is that it's nothing more than DDO in Middle Earth. There just doesn't seem to be as much depth to it as there is with EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG or VSOH. To me it just feels like it's missing something. The graphics are nice. Performance is great but it feels more like a kids game or as somebody else said, a console game. I just don't see the same type of longevity in this game as in the other games. I played SWG for 2.5 years. I don't see myself playing LOTRO more than a couple of months. Having watched all the movies and read all the books, I still feel lost and the quests don't seem to make a whole lot of sense. I can't seem to figure out where I'm supposed to fit in the whole scheme of things. Not everyone is so well versed in the lore of Middle Earth. It's hard to keep up with it. Maybe LOTRO just isn't my game because so far even though graphics and performance are very good, I'm still having a difficult time finding fun. It could be that I'm not far enough into it (level 8). Or it could be that I have a stronger preference for sandbox games. Whatever it is all I know is that I prefer VSOH over LOTRO.
I have a hard time deciding which style I prefer more, and LOTRO and VG are pretty much opposites in the spectrum of MMOs...
Where i found a complete lack of emotes, roleplaying tools of any kind or bustling towns in Vanguard...
Sorry, but I have to call BS at this point, vanguard emotes listed below.
/agree
/aha
/apologize
/applause
/bailwater
/beatchest
/beckon
/beg
/bleed
/boggle
/bonk
/bow
FORMAT: /bow target
Performs bow social for nearby players. Target is optional and can be %to for offensive target and %td for defensive target
/burp
/bye
/cackle
/celebrate
/cheer
/cheers
/chuckle
/clap
/clean
/cleantable
/cloak
/comeover
/cough
/countfingers
/cower
/crackneck
/crazy
/cry
/dance
FORMAT: /dance target
Performs dance social for nearby players. Target is optional and can be %to for offensive target and %td for defensive target
/disagree
/dismiss
/drink
/duck
/dustoff
/emote
FORMAT: /emote text
Sends emote text to all nearby players. Text can contain %to and %td which will be replaces by the name of your offensive or defensive target.
/flex
/gasp
/giggle
/grin
/gulp
/hairflip
/handstand
/hidefrom
/hug
/idea
/introduce
/kicklow
/kiss
/kneel
/laugh
/lookaround
/mourn
/nervous
/nodhead
/nudge
/offer
FORMAT: /offer [number] <inv item keyword>
Add item(s) from your inventory target to the trade.
/overhere
/pace
/pat
/pickear
/picknose
/playdead
/plead
/point
/poke
/ponder
/pour
/presentoffer
/raisehand
/roar
/rudegesture
/salute
FORMAT: /salute target
Performs salute social for nearby players. Target is optional and can be %to for offensive target and %td for defensive target
/scratchhead
/shame
/shiver
/shrug
/shy
/sigh
/slapforehead
/smellpits
/smile
/sneeze
/social
FORMAT: /social socialname target
Performs social for nearby players. Target is optional and can be %to for offensive target and %td for defensive target
/spit
/stomp
/stretch
/study
/sulk
/swoon
/talk
/talkangry
/talkhappy
/talksad
/tapfoot
/tease
/throat
/veto
/vomit
/warcry
/wave
FORMAT: /wave target
Performs wave social for nearby players. Target is optional and can be %to for offensive target and %td for defensive target
/whine
/whistle
Guess you didn't look very hard?
/yawn
I played both aswell and find LOTR much harder than Vanguard. In Vanguard I could beat 3 mobs at once, when soloing. In LOTR 2 mobs is a pain and with 3 I bettter run. And in both I play a healer.
The open world in Vanguard??? Mountains , mountains , mountains more mountains. I like to explore in games but found myself stuck because of these mountains on many occasions. The world in Vanguard IS huge tho, but then again the world of LOTR isn't small either. But what good is huge when there are no players in it? I disliked the teleporters in the harbours and now they added more teleports? That's a stab in the back for all the boats and flying mounts as I see it.
Vanguard has more classes and races for sure but I play only 2 or maybe 3 different characters in one game. So LOTR has enough to choose from for me.
Why don't you like soulbound items? In LOTR quest rewards are mostly weapons or armor (which is something I dislike in LOTR). If you don't soulbound that, the economy will suffer aswell as the crafters.
And then the linearity. The only thing thats linear to me is the story. But thats an extra if you compare it to Vanguard. It's an option, you don't have to play it. If you don't like crafting or diplomacy in vanguard , then don't play those. If you skip it you may find LOTR not so instanced based as you say. I played one instance to level 26 apart from the epic story line.
So we have a total different opinion. But I don't mind really, I have fun playing LOTR and you have fun playing Vanguard. Happy gaming to you, my friend.