Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
vanguard a 7.9 HAHAHHAAHHA lies
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Good article. It's definitely an interesting read.
As for WoW being multicore, it makes total sense. They've got 8.5 million subscribers, and I'd wager that quite a few of them have dual core systems. Just because the game itself may not be as graphically intensive as, say, Oblivion, doesn't mean that Blizz can't update their game to take advantage of the dual cores for their users who have them.
WoW didn't start with multi-core support. It was patched in later.
Once again. Not having support for dual-core processors isn't having a negetive impact on the games performance, and can be added at a later date. It's not the lack of dual core optimization that is giving the game trouble. It's the lack of optimization to run on a single core.
Before you can worry about making the game good on a dual or multi core machine, you have to make it run correctly on a single core.
WoW didn't add it because the magority of it's customers have it, the magority of thier customers are more likely to not have a machine with dual cores in it. Dual core, just like SLI is a relatively new technology. While it's more common today to find PC sitting on shelves with dual core now, it wasn't that common a year ago, and wow was released over 2 years.
Wish Darkfall would release.
That much is obvious. WoW launched in 2004, and dual cores came out in 2005. The article even says they upgraded the game to take advantage of the new technology.
I never said a majority of their customers have dual cores. I said a good number of them probably do, simply because at some point, people will upgrade their systems. WoW came out in 2004, and it's now 2007. Anyone who's bought a new computer since 2005 has a decent shot of having a dual core in their system. That would presumably include WoW players.
First of all, if someone plays to Level 50 over a time frame of 3,5 months, it aint rushing. This is just focussing most of the time on the main character and playing effectively together with friends and guild mates, formulate goals and work towards them. My play schedule differs most likely by no means from those of other people, but when we log on we actively play the game until we log out.
There is no immature play style per se, There are just different approaches on the game. I have seen about 85% to 90% of the adventuring content Vanguard has to offer, set aside crafting and dipplomacy where I can't make a proficient comment on. If this is not enough to "publicly" comment as you call it. well.
As I said, i adore the content Vanguard has to offer between 30 and 40. My rogue owns a complete set of wardship armour from top to bottom. I don't care if you call my play style immature or childish as there are probably as many folks out there who see this totally different, but that people with this play style are not able to publicly comment on a game, because they "rushed" is really not true in any case.
To me it seems, that everyone who says something "slightly" negative about VG in this forum gets attacked just out of a habit. It seems people get overprotective when someone even mentions a negative point. The fact that posters been focussing on my play style, instead of replying on the facts I posted shows me that I had a point.
To make this clear, I am not a hater of this game. I would love to see it flourish, because I have been an EQ1-player since release and VG is for me the true successor of EQ1.
I was just stating pure facts which happened around this game and on the current status, which is alarming concerning subscription numbers. Vanguard is not the "holy cow" and nobody is trying to slaughter it, but a little bit of objectivity needs to be in place. At the end of the day publishers of games just check if there is a possitive financial result, so all this emotional debates are fine for us and get us all worked up, but it won't change the fact that a subscription based game lives and dies through subscription numbers.
Ok to set the record straight on my part. I did not quote you because I was making a generalized statement. Yes your post may have inspired the remarks but you are not the only person that has siad anything like this which caused me to comment. That is why I did not quote you becuase I was not directing it at you out right. You fit a mold of player that are the ones I was refering to. So no I was not calling you personally "childish."
In an MMO that is designed to last 5 years max (which is the industry standard for MMOs at this time) yes 3 to 5 months is rushing. You leveled a character to max in 8.33% of the max time of the games expected life span. They all use the 5 year model. EQ, WoW and DAoC did not have end game within the first 6 to 8 month of the game min, because the devs were following the model. Per the model they are not required to have endgame material in the game til 25% of the expected lifetime of an MMO which is 15 months into the game (this is about when EQ got its endgame content btw) due to the fact that most of the people playing the game will at that time be reaching the level cap of the game. Most being the average player that takes their time and enjoys the game in a nice steady pace like I do. Why have endgame content for 10% of the popoulation when 90% of the population is complaining about bug and other issues that happen in the lower level ranges?
To comment that a MMO has no endgame content 3 to 5 months into an MMOs life is not correct and to judge an MMO soully on that is wrong which you did in your first posting. Now you have posted an honest review of the game which shows me that per you the game should be rated higher then 7.9 even though it does not have endgame content.
Note: If a game last longer then 5 years that is extra profit for the company that designed it. That is why you do not see new content for EQ in an large way since it is will beyond the 5 year plan.
O.K. so an MMORPG lasts 5 years in average, yes I can agree on that, so the level maximum should be reached after 5 years after your calculation. So how could you explain that at least after one year if not much earlier the next expansion is out with fresh content and a new lvl cap in most cases? Does this mean almost everyone is rushing and levelling to quick? This is industry standard as well, expansion after the first year, max 1.5 years, but in most cases earlier.
But all the discussion doesn't change that Vanguard was shipped with only about 60% of the content which should have been in the release version. It doesn't change the fact that we have payed for an unfinished product which was great fun until it reached its limits.
With all what you stated in mind, how is it even possible they openly stated that people were actually behind the "level-plan" they had on dev side and were levelling too slow? They introduced two double exp weekends so people could level even faster. Does that make sense if there is no content?
Sorry, but that a game has no content at any point is never the players fault, it is always the developer's fault.
I log in from time to time and it is sad to say but at the current state VG is way behind other Triple-AAA-Titles, which are way more polished, way better coded, have way more content (with content I mean actual content not a massive game world with nothing in it). Content is always determined by Points of Interest and not by sheer land mass.
I don't even like to go in depth and mention class balancing, because this would lead too far, but there are major problems as well. Does it seem right to anyone, that if you start a class with release and then start a class about 3 months later that you have like "a totally different game"? This is a clear shortcoming in development. VG would have been a gem, released one year after it's actual release with all the features implemented, but for that it might be too late. Too much damage has been done and too much bad publicity went along with it.
But if you would want a rating, I would rate the game a 6.5 at its current state.
First of all, if someone plays to Level 50 over a time frame of 3,5 months, it aint rushing. This is just focussing most of the time on the main character and playing effectively together with friends and guild mates, formulate goals and work towards them. My play schedule differs most likely by no means from those of other people, but when we log on we actively play the game until we log out.
There is no immature play style per se, There are just different approaches on the game. I have seen about 85% to 90% of the adventuring content Vanguard has to offer, set aside crafting and dipplomacy where I can't make a proficient comment on. If this is not enough to "publicly" comment as you call it. well.
As I said, i adore the content Vanguard has to offer between 30 and 40. My rogue owns a complete set of wardship armour from top to bottom. I don't care if you call my play style immature or childish as there are probably as many folks out there who see this totally different, but that people with this play style are not able to publicly comment on a game, because they "rushed" is really not true in any case.
To me it seems, that everyone who says something "slightly" negative about VG in this forum gets attacked just out of a habit. It seems people get overprotective when someone even mentions a negative point. The fact that posters been focussing on my play style, instead of replying on the facts I posted shows me that I had a point.
To make this clear, I am not a hater of this game. I would love to see it flourish, because I have been an EQ1-player since release and VG is for me the true successor of EQ1.
I was just stating pure facts which happened around this game and on the current status, which is alarming concerning subscription numbers. Vanguard is not the "holy cow" and nobody is trying to slaughter it, but a little bit of objectivity needs to be in place. At the end of the day publishers of games just check if there is a possitive financial result, so all this emotional debates are fine for us and get us all worked up, but it won't change the fact that a subscription based game lives and dies through subscription numbers.
Ok to set the record straight on my part. I did not quote you because I was making a generalized statement. Yes your post may have inspired the remarks but you are not the only person that has siad anything like this which caused me to comment. That is why I did not quote you becuase I was not directing it at you out right. You fit a mold of player that are the ones I was refering to. So no I was not calling you personally "childish."
In an MMO that is designed to last 5 years max (which is the industry standard for MMOs at this time) yes 3 to 5 months is rushing. You leveled a character to max in 8.33% of the max time of the games expected life span. They all use the 5 year model. EQ, WoW and DAoC did not have end game within the first 6 to 8 month of the game min, because the devs were following the model. Per the model they are not required to have endgame material in the game til 25% of the expected lifetime of an MMO which is 15 months into the game (this is about when EQ got its endgame content btw) due to the fact that most of the people playing the game will at that time be reaching the level cap of the game. Most being the average player that takes their time and enjoys the game in a nice steady pace like I do. Why have endgame content for 10% of the popoulation when 90% of the population is complaining about bug and other issues that happen in the lower level ranges?
To comment that a MMO has no endgame content 3 to 5 months into an MMOs life is not correct and to judge an MMO soully on that is wrong which you did in your first posting. Now you have posted an honest review of the game which shows me that per you the game should be rated higher then 7.9 even though it does not have endgame content.
Note: If a game last longer then 5 years that is extra profit for the company that designed it. That is why you do not see new content for EQ in an large way since it is will beyond the 5 year plan.
O.K. so an MMORPG lasts 5 years in average, yes I can agree on that, so the level maximum should be reached after 5 years after your calculation. So how could you explain that at least after one year if not much earlier the next expansion is out with fresh content and a new lvl cap in most cases? Does this mean almost everyone is rushing and levelling to quick? This is industry standard as well, expansion after the first year, max 1.5 years, but in most cases earlier.
But all the discussion doesn't change that Vanguard was shipped with only about 60% of the content which should have been in the release version. It doesn't change the fact that we have payed for an unfinished product which was great fun until it reached its limits.
With all what you stated in mind, how is it even possible they openly stated that people were actually behind the "level-plan" they had on dev side and were levelling too slow? They introduced two double exp weekends so people could level even faster. Does that make sense if there is no content?
Sorry, but that a game has no content at any point is never the players fault, it is always the developer's fault.
I log in from time to time and it is sad to say but at the current state VG is way behind other Triple-AAA-Titles, which are way more polished, way better coded, have way more content (with content I mean actual content not a massive game world with nothing in it). Content is always determined by Points of Interest and not by sheer land mass.
I don't even like to go in depth and mention class balancing, because this would lead too far, but there are major problems as well. Does it seem right to anyone, that if you start a class with release and then start a class about 3 months later that you have like "a totally different game"? This is a clear shortcoming in development. VG would have been a gem, released one year after it's actual release with all the features implemented, but for that it might be too late. Too much damage has been done and too much bad publicity went along with it.
But if you would want a rating, I would rate the game a 6.5 at its current state.
No you miss understood the 5 year plan. Per the 5 year plan 65% to 85% of the population should be nearing or at max level for those that started at the release of the game within 15 months which is in line with your statement that that is when you see the first expansion released. Since the first expansion is when most of the end-game content of a game comes into being this follows the 5 year plan to a tee.
Yes we are all aware of these other things that have taken place but I recall the exact same things happening in EQ and in WoW. I remember my Hunter going through 3 different changes in the time I played that. So per you WoW would also rate a 6.5 at this exact same time after WoW was released and you know what I would totally agree with you for WoW at that time.
This game on the other hand even with its issues is better then WoW at the this time in comparison to this exact time frame when WoW was relased. I personally at this time rate this game to be an 8.2 which would place it in the top 10 MMOs where it belongs to be.
A MMO is like life. It is something to cherish and enjoy upon in it journey. So why race to the end of it. In life at the end you die.
This game has potential. IF and WHEN it has been realized, then yes, it could be in the top 10. Until then, it doesn't deserved to be anywhere near top 10.
You know what they say about potential - its all vapor until it is delivered.
That much is obvious. WoW launched in 2004, and dual cores came out in 2005. The article even says they upgraded the game to take advantage of the new technology.
Not that obvious to anyone coming in late to the thread that only saw the portion I quoted; wich indicates WoW supported dual core. It wasn't very clear that it didn't RELEASE with the support and that it was patched in much later.
I never said a majority of their customers have dual cores. I said a good number of them probably do, simply because at some point, people will upgrade their systems. WoW came out in 2004, and it's now 2007. Anyone who's bought a new computer since 2005 has a decent shot of having a dual core in their system. That would presumably include WoW players.
No you didn't. Unfortunately I'm not that savy with breaking up quotes so I kind of have to take the entire thing or nothing. I wasn't really refering to your post at this point. So I apologize if it seemed that way.
Also, WoW uses dif. skeletons for each of the models wich was causing a lot of problems early on for the game. They did a lot of stuff to thier engine to improve performance and loading when there are a lot of characters on screen. If you played in the first year then you have an idea of what I'm talking about. Org, and IF were a real pain even on good systems. With the way that Blizzard loads information onto your system, dual core support made perfect sence, and was a blessing for those of us with dual cores. Graphics, what you see, isn't always the reason for poor performance. In WoW's case it was what you couldn't see that was causing problems early on.
In VG's case, from what I've been reading in the intervues, it's the art; wich to me means that the textures are a problem. If you've seen the patch notes on the test server then you'll also see that the next patch is adressing that very issue.
Wish Darkfall would release.
First of all, if someone plays to Level 50 over a time frame of 3,5 months, it aint rushing. This is just focussing most of the time on the main character and playing effectively together with friends and guild mates, formulate goals and work towards them. My play schedule differs most likely by no means from those of other people, but when we log on we actively play the game until we log out.
There is no immature play style per se, There are just different approaches on the game. I have seen about 85% to 90% of the adventuring content Vanguard has to offer, set aside crafting and dipplomacy where I can't make a proficient comment on. If this is not enough to "publicly" comment as you call it. well.
As I said, i adore the content Vanguard has to offer between 30 and 40. My rogue owns a complete set of wardship armour from top to bottom. I don't care if you call my play style immature or childish as there are probably as many folks out there who see this totally different, but that people with this play style are not able to publicly comment on a game, because they "rushed" is really not true in any case.
To me it seems, that everyone who says something "slightly" negative about VG in this forum gets attacked just out of a habit. It seems people get overprotective when someone even mentions a negative point. The fact that posters been focussing on my play style, instead of replying on the facts I posted shows me that I had a point.
To make this clear, I am not a hater of this game. I would love to see it flourish, because I have been an EQ1-player since release and VG is for me the true successor of EQ1.
I was just stating pure facts which happened around this game and on the current status, which is alarming concerning subscription numbers. Vanguard is not the "holy cow" and nobody is trying to slaughter it, but a little bit of objectivity needs to be in place. At the end of the day publishers of games just check if there is a possitive financial result, so all this emotional debates are fine for us and get us all worked up, but it won't change the fact that a subscription based game lives and dies through subscription numbers.
Ok to set the record straight on my part. I did not quote you because I was making a generalized statement. Yes your post may have inspired the remarks but you are not the only person that has siad anything like this which caused me to comment. That is why I did not quote you becuase I was not directing it at you out right. You fit a mold of player that are the ones I was refering to. So no I was not calling you personally "childish."
In an MMO that is designed to last 5 years max (which is the industry standard for MMOs at this time) yes 3 to 5 months is rushing. You leveled a character to max in 8.33% of the max time of the games expected life span. They all use the 5 year model. EQ, WoW and DAoC did not have end game within the first 6 to 8 month of the game min, because the devs were following the model. Per the model they are not required to have endgame material in the game til 25% of the expected lifetime of an MMO which is 15 months into the game (this is about when EQ got its endgame content btw) due to the fact that most of the people playing the game will at that time be reaching the level cap of the game. Most being the average player that takes their time and enjoys the game in a nice steady pace like I do. Why have endgame content for 10% of the popoulation when 90% of the population is complaining about bug and other issues that happen in the lower level ranges?
To comment that a MMO has no endgame content 3 to 5 months into an MMOs life is not correct and to judge an MMO soully on that is wrong which you did in your first posting. Now you have posted an honest review of the game which shows me that per you the game should be rated higher then 7.9 even though it does not have endgame content.
Note: If a game last longer then 5 years that is extra profit for the company that designed it. That is why you do not see new content for EQ in an large way since it is will beyond the 5 year plan.
O.K. so an MMORPG lasts 5 years in average, yes I can agree on that, so the level maximum should be reached after 5 years after your calculation. So how could you explain that at least after one year if not much earlier the next expansion is out with fresh content and a new lvl cap in most cases? Does this mean almost everyone is rushing and levelling to quick? This is industry standard as well, expansion after the first year, max 1.5 years, but in most cases earlier.
But all the discussion doesn't change that Vanguard was shipped with only about 60% of the content which should have been in the release version. It doesn't change the fact that we have payed for an unfinished product which was great fun until it reached its limits.
With all what you stated in mind, how is it even possible they openly stated that people were actually behind the "level-plan" they had on dev side and were levelling too slow? They introduced two double exp weekends so people could level even faster. Does that make sense if there is no content?
Sorry, but that a game has no content at any point is never the players fault, it is always the developer's fault.
I log in from time to time and it is sad to say but at the current state VG is way behind other Triple-AAA-Titles, which are way more polished, way better coded, have way more content (with content I mean actual content not a massive game world with nothing in it). Content is always determined by Points of Interest and not by sheer land mass.
I don't even like to go in depth and mention class balancing, because this would lead too far, but there are major problems as well. Does it seem right to anyone, that if you start a class with release and then start a class about 3 months later that you have like "a totally different game"? This is a clear shortcoming in development. VG would have been a gem, released one year after it's actual release with all the features implemented, but for that it might be too late. Too much damage has been done and too much bad publicity went along with it.
But if you would want a rating, I would rate the game a 6.5 at its current state.
No you miss understood the 5 year plan. Per the 5 year plan 65% to 85% of the population should be nearing or at max level for those that started at the release of the game within 15 months which is in line with your statement that that is when you see the first expansion released. Since the first expansion is when most of the end-game content of a game comes into being this follows the 5 year plan to a tee.
Yes we are all aware of these other things that have taken place but I recall the exact same things happening in EQ and in WoW. I remember my Hunter going through 3 different changes in the time I played that. So per you WoW would also rate a 6.5 at this exact same time after WoW was released and you know what I would totally agree with you for WoW at that time.
This game on the other hand even with its issues is better then WoW at the this time in comparison to this exact time frame when WoW was relased. I personally at this time rate this game to be an 8.2 which would place it in the top 10 MMOs where it belongs to be.
A friend of mine just reactivated his WoW account. Apparently hunters have been tweeked again.Complaining about class balancing and changes in an MMO is like griping that it rains to much in the spring. It happens.
I agree in part. At the same comparable time in it's life VG has MORE gameplay options then WoW. In fact at this point in it's life VG still has more gameplay options then WoW after two years.
I think it's rating is justifiable for it's current state though.
WoW beat VG in accessability. Everything was attainable to everyone; with very little effort. VG makes you work harder then most MMO's. That is honestly my biggest gripe and why I play EQ2 more then VG. It's not the leveling or the questing, it's getting the perks. Things like boats and housing.
The fluff should be easy to get, the levels should be harder. To many games do it ass backwards if you ask me. An MMO is meant to be played for a long period of time. If I can't continue to develop my character after a couple of months, (raiding for gear isn't character development) and have to work harder then I work in real life to get the fun stuff; then what's the point?
Wish Darkfall would release.
First of all, if someone plays to Level 50 over a time frame of 3,5 months, it aint rushing. This is just focussing most of the time on the main character and playing effectively together with friends and guild mates, formulate goals and work towards them. My play schedule differs most likely by no means from those of other people, but when we log on we actively play the game until we log out.
There is no immature play style per se, There are just different approaches on the game. I have seen about 85% to 90% of the adventuring content Vanguard has to offer, set aside crafting and dipplomacy where I can't make a proficient comment on. If this is not enough to "publicly" comment as you call it. well.
As I said, i adore the content Vanguard has to offer between 30 and 40. My rogue owns a complete set of wardship armour from top to bottom. I don't care if you call my play style immature or childish as there are probably as many folks out there who see this totally different, but that people with this play style are not able to publicly comment on a game, because they "rushed" is really not true in any case.
To me it seems, that everyone who says something "slightly" negative about VG in this forum gets attacked just out of a habit. It seems people get overprotective when someone even mentions a negative point. The fact that posters been focussing on my play style, instead of replying on the facts I posted shows me that I had a point.
To make this clear, I am not a hater of this game. I would love to see it flourish, because I have been an EQ1-player since release and VG is for me the true successor of EQ1.
I was just stating pure facts which happened around this game and on the current status, which is alarming concerning subscription numbers. Vanguard is not the "holy cow" and nobody is trying to slaughter it, but a little bit of objectivity needs to be in place. At the end of the day publishers of games just check if there is a possitive financial result, so all this emotional debates are fine for us and get us all worked up, but it won't change the fact that a subscription based game lives and dies through subscription numbers.
Ok to set the record straight on my part. I did not quote you because I was making a generalized statement. Yes your post may have inspired the remarks but you are not the only person that has siad anything like this which caused me to comment. That is why I did not quote you becuase I was not directing it at you out right. You fit a mold of player that are the ones I was refering to. So no I was not calling you personally "childish."
In an MMO that is designed to last 5 years max (which is the industry standard for MMOs at this time) yes 3 to 5 months is rushing. You leveled a character to max in 8.33% of the max time of the games expected life span. They all use the 5 year model. EQ, WoW and DAoC did not have end game within the first 6 to 8 month of the game min, because the devs were following the model. Per the model they are not required to have endgame material in the game til 25% of the expected lifetime of an MMO which is 15 months into the game (this is about when EQ got its endgame content btw) due to the fact that most of the people playing the game will at that time be reaching the level cap of the game. Most being the average player that takes their time and enjoys the game in a nice steady pace like I do. Why have endgame content for 10% of the popoulation when 90% of the population is complaining about bug and other issues that happen in the lower level ranges?
To comment that a MMO has no endgame content 3 to 5 months into an MMOs life is not correct and to judge an MMO soully on that is wrong which you did in your first posting. Now you have posted an honest review of the game which shows me that per you the game should be rated higher then 7.9 even though it does not have endgame content.
Note: If a game last longer then 5 years that is extra profit for the company that designed it. That is why you do not see new content for EQ in an large way since it is will beyond the 5 year plan.
O.K. so an MMORPG lasts 5 years in average, yes I can agree on that, so the level maximum should be reached after 5 years after your calculation. So how could you explain that at least after one year if not much earlier the next expansion is out with fresh content and a new lvl cap in most cases? Does this mean almost everyone is rushing and levelling to quick? This is industry standard as well, expansion after the first year, max 1.5 years, but in most cases earlier.
But all the discussion doesn't change that Vanguard was shipped with only about 60% of the content which should have been in the release version. It doesn't change the fact that we have payed for an unfinished product which was great fun until it reached its limits.
With all what you stated in mind, how is it even possible they openly stated that people were actually behind the "level-plan" they had on dev side and were levelling too slow? They introduced two double exp weekends so people could level even faster. Does that make sense if there is no content?
Sorry, but that a game has no content at any point is never the players fault, it is always the developer's fault.
I log in from time to time and it is sad to say but at the current state VG is way behind other Triple-AAA-Titles, which are way more polished, way better coded, have way more content (with content I mean actual content not a massive game world with nothing in it). Content is always determined by Points of Interest and not by sheer land mass.
I don't even like to go in depth and mention class balancing, because this would lead too far, but there are major problems as well. Does it seem right to anyone, that if you start a class with release and then start a class about 3 months later that you have like "a totally different game"? This is a clear shortcoming in development. VG would have been a gem, released one year after it's actual release with all the features implemented, but for that it might be too late. Too much damage has been done and too much bad publicity went along with it.
But if you would want a rating, I would rate the game a 6.5 at its current state.
No you miss understood the 5 year plan. Per the 5 year plan 65% to 85% of the population should be nearing or at max level for those that started at the release of the game within 15 months which is in line with your statement that that is when you see the first expansion released. Since the first expansion is when most of the end-game content of a game comes into being this follows the 5 year plan to a tee.
Yes we are all aware of these other things that have taken place but I recall the exact same things happening in EQ and in WoW. I remember my Hunter going through 3 different changes in the time I played that. So per you WoW would also rate a 6.5 at this exact same time after WoW was released and you know what I would totally agree with you for WoW at that time.
This game on the other hand even with its issues is better then WoW at the this time in comparison to this exact time frame when WoW was relased. I personally at this time rate this game to be an 8.2 which would place it in the top 10 MMOs where it belongs to be.
A friend of mine just reactivated his WoW account. Apparently hunters have been tweeked again.Complaining about class balancing and changes in an MMO is like griping that it rains to much in the spring. It happens.
I agree in part. At the same comparable time in it's life VG has MORE gameplay options then WoW. In fact at this point in it's life VG still has more gameplay options then WoW after two years.
I think it's rating is justifiable for it's current state though.
WoW beat VG in accessability. Everything was attainable to everyone; with very little effort. VG makes you work harder then most MMO's. That is honestly my biggest gripe and why I play EQ2 more then VG. It's not the leveling or the questing, it's getting the perks. Things like boats and housing.
The fluff should be easy to get, the levels should be harder. To many games do it ass backwards if you ask me. An MMO is meant to be played for a long period of time. If I can't continue to develop my character after a couple of months, (raiding for gear isn't character development) and have to work harder then I work in real life to get the fun stuff; then what's the point?
How do you expect the endgame, once its been patched in, to be any different than WoW/EQ considering they all follow the same paradigm of VG?
As you say all content in accessable, though "endgame raiding" for gear is what EQ has, what WoW has, and what Vg was supposed to have (roaming dragons/etc that would of course be magikally roaming right next to guild cities with GM's or Devs in their membership ala EQ) and is even now being added and that is not exactly accessable to those who don't have 6-8 hours at a block to spend in-game...
I don't see any hint of even the possibility of the endgame [or lack thereof] being any different here than in EQ/2/WoW... if you think so, then what?
Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood. -Nietzsche
Because I'm not all spiffy with cutting up posts.
Sturmrabe wrote:
"How do you expect the endgame, once its been patched in, to be any different than WoW/EQ considering they all follow the same paradigm of VG?
As you say all content in accessable, though "endgame raiding" for gear is what EQ has, what WoW has, and what Vg was supposed to have (roaming dragons/etc that would of course be magikally roaming right next to guild cities with GM's or Devs in their membership ala EQ) and is even now being added and that is not exactly accessable to those who don't have 6-8 hours at a block to spend in-game...
I don't see any hint of even the possibility of the endgame [or lack thereof] being any different here than in EQ/2/WoW... if you think so, then what?"
.............................................................................................................................
I'm not really sure why you quoted what I wrote. I never mentioned end game or raiding. I sure didn't mention them as being fluff.
Fluff is housing, it's boats, mounts. It's the little things that have no real impact on the game, but provide you a kind of connection to the world.
But if you want to get into the raiding then cool.
Don't think raiding is accessable in WoW? ANYONE can do it. If you have time. And no you don't need 6-8 hours. I'm an incredibly causual gamer and I helped run a raiding guild in WoW. 2 hours. That was my limit. I wouldn't go longer then that most of the time, but then I"m not a loot whore; so I didn't care about getting anything out of the runs. It was just fun. I play for fun, that's my thing. Fun.
Just because one aspect of a game is just ever so slightly harder does not make the entire game unaccessable. WoW wouldn't have the success it does if it wasn't such an appealing game. And it's appealing because it's casual friendly. You can't have casual friendly without the game being accessable. It's easy to get into, easy to play, and anyone that puts in just the slightest bit of effort can enjoy damn near every part of the game. To me that's pretty accessable.
BTW what I said was. Everything is attainable to everyone with very little effort. Nor did I mention EQ. In fact, I've never played EQ. EQ2 yes, EQ no.
You give me the impression sometimes that you're not even reading the things you quote.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Actually, I did. Here's my original post again:
As for WoW being multicore, it makes total sense. They've got 8.5 million subscribers, and I'd wager that quite a few of them have dual core systems. Just because the game itself may not be as graphically intensive as, say, Oblivion, doesn't mean that Blizz can't update their game to take advantage of the dual cores for their users who have them.
The highlighted part is the key. That's me saying that a many WoW players probably have dual core systems. I did so under the assumption that it's now 2007, and dual cores came out in 2005, so anyone who's bought a new computer in that time would possibly have a dual core in their setup.
With millions of customers, and the possibility that many of them might have this newer technology, it would be foolish for Blizzard not to take advantage of it to give their players, and their game, better performance.
Actually, I did. Here's my original post again:
As for WoW being multicore, it makes total sense. They've got 8.5 million subscribers, and I'd wager that quite a few of them have dual core systems. Just because the game itself may not be as graphically intensive as, say, Oblivion, doesn't mean that Blizz can't update their game to take advantage of the dual cores for their users who have them.
The highlighted part is the key. That's me saying that a many WoW players probably have dual core systems. I did so under the assumption that it's now 2007, and dual cores came out in 2005, so anyone who's bought a new computer in that time would possibly have a dual core in their setup.
With millions of customers, and the possibility that many of them might have this newer technology, it would be foolish for Blizzard not to take advantage of it to give their players, and their game, better performance.
I don't think you understand me.I AGREE with you.
Imagine you said, "I didn't say that" and I responded with, "No you didn't".
Wish Darkfall would release.
It was a long day at work today. Maybe I just read it all wrong. Ah well.
First of all, if someone plays to Level 50 over a time frame of 3,5 months, it aint rushing. This is just focussing most of the time on the main character and playing effectively together with friends and guild mates, formulate goals and work towards them. My play schedule differs most likely by no means from those of other people, but when we log on we actively play the game until we log out.
There is no immature play style per se, There are just different approaches on the game. I have seen about 85% to 90% of the adventuring content Vanguard has to offer, set aside crafting and dipplomacy where I can't make a proficient comment on. If this is not enough to "publicly" comment as you call it. well.
As I said, i adore the content Vanguard has to offer between 30 and 40. My rogue owns a complete set of wardship armour from top to bottom. I don't care if you call my play style immature or childish as there are probably as many folks out there who see this totally different, but that people with this play style are not able to publicly comment on a game, because they "rushed" is really not true in any case.
To me it seems, that everyone who says something "slightly" negative about VG in this forum gets attacked just out of a habit. It seems people get overprotective when someone even mentions a negative point. The fact that posters been focussing on my play style, instead of replying on the facts I posted shows me that I had a point.
To make this clear, I am not a hater of this game. I would love to see it flourish, because I have been an EQ1-player since release and VG is for me the true successor of EQ1.
I was just stating pure facts which happened around this game and on the current status, which is alarming concerning subscription numbers. Vanguard is not the "holy cow" and nobody is trying to slaughter it, but a little bit of objectivity needs to be in place. At the end of the day publishers of games just check if there is a possitive financial result, so all this emotional debates are fine for us and get us all worked up, but it won't change the fact that a subscription based game lives and dies through subscription numbers.
Ok to set the record straight on my part. I did not quote you because I was making a generalized statement. Yes your post may have inspired the remarks but you are not the only person that has siad anything like this which caused me to comment. That is why I did not quote you becuase I was not directing it at you out right. You fit a mold of player that are the ones I was refering to. So no I was not calling you personally "childish."
In an MMO that is designed to last 5 years max (which is the industry standard for MMOs at this time) yes 3 to 5 months is rushing. You leveled a character to max in 8.33% of the max time of the games expected life span. They all use the 5 year model. EQ, WoW and DAoC did not have end game within the first 6 to 8 month of the game min, because the devs were following the model. Per the model they are not required to have endgame material in the game til 25% of the expected lifetime of an MMO which is 15 months into the game (this is about when EQ got its endgame content btw) due to the fact that most of the people playing the game will at that time be reaching the level cap of the game. Most being the average player that takes their time and enjoys the game in a nice steady pace like I do. Why have endgame content for 10% of the popoulation when 90% of the population is complaining about bug and other issues that happen in the lower level ranges?
To comment that a MMO has no endgame content 3 to 5 months into an MMOs life is not correct and to judge an MMO soully on that is wrong which you did in your first posting. Now you have posted an honest review of the game which shows me that per you the game should be rated higher then 7.9 even though it does not have endgame content.
Note: If a game last longer then 5 years that is extra profit for the company that designed it. That is why you do not see new content for EQ in an large way since it is will beyond the 5 year plan.
O.K. so an MMORPG lasts 5 years in average, yes I can agree on that, so the level maximum should be reached after 5 years after your calculation. So how could you explain that at least after one year if not much earlier the next expansion is out with fresh content and a new lvl cap in most cases? Does this mean almost everyone is rushing and levelling to quick? This is industry standard as well, expansion after the first year, max 1.5 years, but in most cases earlier.
But all the discussion doesn't change that Vanguard was shipped with only about 60% of the content which should have been in the release version. It doesn't change the fact that we have payed for an unfinished product which was great fun until it reached its limits.
With all what you stated in mind, how is it even possible they openly stated that people were actually behind the "level-plan" they had on dev side and were levelling too slow? They introduced two double exp weekends so people could level even faster. Does that make sense if there is no content?
Sorry, but that a game has no content at any point is never the players fault, it is always the developer's fault.
I log in from time to time and it is sad to say but at the current state VG is way behind other Triple-AAA-Titles, which are way more polished, way better coded, have way more content (with content I mean actual content not a massive game world with nothing in it). Content is always determined by Points of Interest and not by sheer land mass.
I don't even like to go in depth and mention class balancing, because this would lead too far, but there are major problems as well. Does it seem right to anyone, that if you start a class with release and then start a class about 3 months later that you have like "a totally different game"? This is a clear shortcoming in development. VG would have been a gem, released one year after it's actual release with all the features implemented, but for that it might be too late. Too much damage has been done and too much bad publicity went along with it.
But if you would want a rating, I would rate the game a 6.5 at its current state.
No you miss understood the 5 year plan. Per the 5 year plan 65% to 85% of the population should be nearing or at max level for those that started at the release of the game within 15 months which is in line with your statement that that is when you see the first expansion released. Since the first expansion is when most of the end-game content of a game comes into being this follows the 5 year plan to a tee.
Yes we are all aware of these other things that have taken place but I recall the exact same things happening in EQ and in WoW. I remember my Hunter going through 3 different changes in the time I played that. So per you WoW would also rate a 6.5 at this exact same time after WoW was released and you know what I would totally agree with you for WoW at that time.
This game on the other hand even with its issues is better then WoW at the this time in comparison to this exact time frame when WoW was relased. I personally at this time rate this game to be an 8.2 which would place it in the top 10 MMOs where it belongs to be.
Then the so called 5-year-plan is far from reality, because this is the business model for pioneer games like EQ1. Nowadays a life span of a game is calculated much shorter, so that's why expansions follow in quicker succession. For single player games and MMORPGs. There might be some exceptions but in general the gaming world is less steady, more titles are on the market and the competition is heavier, therefore the whole business got more short-termed. Back in the days people had EQ, they had UO, they had Meridian 59 and a little later DAOC. So there was not much to choose. Today jumping between games and trying out multiple systems is possible so the companies have to fight much harder to keep their customers/subscribers.
As for the comparison with WoW. I actually played the game for like 18 months total, enough to get 2 chars to 60 and some minors. But WoW is a successful product and it can't really be compared with a game like Vanguard, nor should it be. WoW has multiple million subs and VG below 100k, somewhat near 40000 only. VG is not better than WoW, not even at a certain time frame. I am talking only about issues the game has here and not any content and so on. VG had by far the worst launch of any game out there to date and the numbers represent that fact.
As for class balancing. Yes I am very well aware of the fact that this happens in any game, however it is and should always be a matter of debate, because this is the "flesh" of the game and it needs to be done properly, even over any other game mechanics. Casters and Ranged fighters are way more versatile and useful in VG than any class who needs to take melee damage to win a fight. Class balancing is one of the major factors, that subscriptions got cancelled. Believe it or not.
So if someone qualifies their statements and places them in context they can compare WoW to anything including VG which is a much better game then WoW ever will be even with all the tweenies playing it to their hearts delight.
A MMO is like life. It is something to cherish and enjoy upon in it journey. So why race to the end of it. In life at the end you die.
"Accessable to everyone, IF YOU HAVE TIME" and there is the rub, everyone does NOT have that kind of time, and EQ raiding took just as if not longer...
"little effort" is reletive, and while I agree raiding isn't hard, it requires effort many do not have... now, I don't want you to get the impression that gearraiding is something I enjoy and are promoting, just the opposite.
"Just because one aspect of a game is just ever so slightly harder does not make the entire game unaccessable. WoW wouldn't have the success it does if it wasn't such an appealing game. And it's appealing because it's casual friendly. You can't have casual friendly without the game being accessable. It's easy to get into, easy to play, and anyone that puts in just the slightest bit of effort can enjoy damn near every part of the game. To me that's pretty accessable."
I never said that WoW was inaccessable, in fact up till level 60 you can pretty much solo/duo just about anything... its VERY accessable, but the "endgame", which is mearly an excercise in grinding -be it faction or raids- is not... and that is the same way with EQ2/EQ and the way VG is build and will be continued to be built by the same people who run those two games.
Grinding is not endgame content, it is a pitiful substition for content, and raidgrinding is even worse.
Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood. -Nietzsche
There is absolutely -ZERO- raid grinding. In fact, I have raided -ONCE- since the game's release. We attacked a level, I think it was, 45 named 6 dot and we wiped. It was a ton of fun.
However, there are raid mobs. I have come across several level 52 6 dot and things. My guild does raid regularly. I love my guild, great people and awesome community. However, I am just not into raiding like them. As with the test server, they are experiment with a lot of raiding content. I also heard they have remarkably improved performance; there is performance boosts in raid content as well. I am very excited to see what they deliver. The World of Vanguard (Telon) is so massive, so huge they could get very creative.
-----
WoW and fast food = commercial successes.
I neither play WoW nor eat fast food.
I was referring to the game itself, as a whole, is accessable, and contributes to it's success. I do not feel that VG is as accessable a game as WoW is, and therefore not going to attain the same kind of success as WoW.
At no point was raiding a focus of my opinion, nor even a consideration for it.
Wish Darkfall would release.
It was a long day at work today. Maybe I just read it all wrong. Ah well.
It's cool.Writing how you talk isn't always smart. I do it to often.
Wish Darkfall would release.
As for the comparison with WoW. I actually played the game for like 18 months total, enough to get 2 chars to 60 and some minors. But WoW is a successful product and it can't really be compared with a game like Vanguard, nor should it be. WoW has multiple million subs and VG below 100k, somewhat near 40000 only. VG is not better than WoW, not even at a certain time frame. I am talking only about issues the game has here and not any content and so on. VG had by far the worst launch of any game out there to date and the numbers represent that fact.
Yes any game including VG can be compared to WoW if placed in context. I stated that at 5 months in the live of WoW into comparison with VG which is AT 5 months into release, and at 5 months into WoW since I was there in beta and nearly 2 years after release with 2 level 50s plus other minor characters, can state without question that at 5 months in WoW was a in horrible shape, worse shape then VG is at this time frame.
So if someone qualifies their statements and places them in context they can compare WoW to anything including VG which is a much better game then WoW ever will be even with all the tweenies playing it to their hearts delight.
In any case, all discussion is null and void, because you miss the objectivity and you don't even make a small step in trying to compare the facts objectively. Bringing up the point with the age of WoW-players did show that to me in the end. This discussion is not based on personal tastes, likes and dislikes of communities and so on. Many young people play WoW and many people 40+ do it as well, this is no point in a discussion about the quality of games. This is about the quality of communities.
The whole discussion is about the quality of 2 products or it turned into that, because originally it was all about VG not qualifying for a 7.9 rating.
The subscribers have decided long ago about the quality of VG in it's current state, and just recently this website did a review of the game and I presume the author is and needs to be somewhat objective. The rating of mmorpg.com has been 6.8, so pointing a few posts up where I would have given the game 6.5 in its current state I start to think that I was not totally off target. This is a fair rating at the moment and leaves room for improvement, but still with an objectove view on the market and the other games around, VG never can be 7.9 or even higher. It just does not have the quality to score like that. If you compare it with Lord of the Rings Online for example and you give it a 7.9, then you must have given Lotro above 9 points, because it is a way more polished and professionally made product with less bugs, a more involving storyline and game world. And yes it has not a very complex gameplay, but it is a well rounded product which is doing great short after launch.
Again, it is not about personal likes and dislikes, because if it was about that I would defend VG as emotionally as you guys do.
A MMO is like life. It is something to cherish and enjoy upon in it journey. So why race to the end of it. In life at the end you die.
My analogy or whatever its called for this game.
this game is like a pineapple, strange looking and sorta uncommon as most normal people dont have a stock of pineapples in their kitchen(if you do your weird), some like pineapples some dont but u dont go to someone ask if they like pineapple and they say "no pinapples are bad because I say so." and then you go and tell everyone the same thing until finnaly one sane person says WTF dude and then tries it for himself.
The review was short yes, but it summed up the major points about the game and the pros and cons been exactly to the point. If you write a text about a game to help others get an idea about it you can never let your personal likes and dislikes guide your hand. That would be unprofessional and against all rules of reliable "journalism".
Sure, you can state your personal impressions and voice them to others, but you should at no time claim for them to be the general truth, because they are only your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
For my part, I was never saying directly that Vanguard is a bad game, I was just stating that it has no end-game content, it lacks content on many other ends and it has a bad performance, even on high end rigs. In short, it is coded very sloppy and has been shipped out under high pressure. Now it suffers from the damage taken due to this and needs to recover.
In general I see that we are pretty much on the same page, because there would be nothing better than VG being a polished game, worthwhile playing for all levels and all play styles. The reviewer of this website mentioned the fact that the avid raiders quit the game after reaching level 50, and this is actually the trend I noticed 1.5 months ago. This is then the proof that the endgame content is lacking. My long time guild kills un-itemized "raid-targets" for the moment, just to pass time. This should not be the case in a so called "Triple-A-title".
Vanguard might be gem, needing a lot of polishment, but it is not worth a monthly fee waiting around and waiting for it to get polished. Hopefully the game will live up to the hopes in 3-4 months, and then it will be worth the 7.9 or even higher.
As for the immaturity, the whole genre has changed and many more people are being attracted by MMORPGs. So with Vanguard being more successful, even those people will enter the game and play it. There will be less than in other games, but still you won't have a decent community like the early EQ1 anymore. Those times are over. The players who came out of the MUD-scene are getting older, and there is a new approach on games by the kids of today, so we old folks have to get used to it and live with it, but that's anotehr story and has nothing to do with the actual topic.
I wouldn't call any site, magazine or blog fair that earns its living from advertising dollars from the companies they are reviewing. To much conflict of interest and problems that have arisen from that conflict to be trustworthy. How many months after launch was it before MMORPG.COM even put out a review of VG?
Humm seems like you won that bet with Thamoris..
Another one of Winter's necro threads.
Are you so insecure about AoC, you consider VG a threat or just a lame troll that hates to see a game you dislike get some positive feedback?
Why yes you are totally correct. There are tons of threads stating Telon is over crowded as Thamoris predicted correctly. How toally ignorant of me not seeing them. Sure am glad Telon is so crowded that none of you are behind the sudden wave of first time posters posting how great the game is and begging everyone to come back.Seriously sorry to have ruined your day by bringing back a unpleasant past you want to remain buried. try to have a nice day anyway won't you? In the end what goes around comes around