"In the context of software engineering, software quality measures how well software is designed (quality of design), and how well the software conforms to that design (quality of conformance)[1], although there are several different definitions."
Vanguard is Software, the above definition of software from Wikipedia. All who are playing Vanguard do you think it has quality, givne the above definiton. Each bug you find indicates that it has not conformed to the design, so go figure it out!
In the context of people having fun, quality measures if people are having fun or not. And many people are.I've taken the liberty of browsing through your little Wikipedia-article, and it's fan-tas-tic. If you're reviewing MS Office XP.
What you need to get through your *insert bannable offensive language* skull is that there are a lot of people playing Vanguard, and they are liking it. End of discussion.
Well you my friend are an example of an ignorant individual.
How can you say quality measures if people are having fun or not, lol,some people have fun poking their eye with a needle!
Whether it is Win XP or VS it don't matter, the quality of the software is low, hence people left in droves.
Now as said above, you may well enjoy it, but the general population will not.
Actually poking someone else's eye with a needle is a fun for most of the people. You still evaluate what is quality and what isnt just by its popularity. You wanna tell me britney spears makes a quality music because she's popular?
Are you confused?
You say that you evaluate what has quality by its popularity and then condradicte yourself with the Britney spears example ?!?!
Is it that hard to understand? You are saying that quality of Vanguard is low, therefore people have left it. I guess you consider Vanguard as a low quality game is because out of 200k people only 30k remained. So im asking you if you consider quality just by its popularity? You can re-read my previous also and if you still don't understand it i give up.
Go back and read all the posts again, remember i am the one who copied the info from Wikipedia.
Please don't guess what i am thinking, just read what i write.
What i said is that people left because of its low quality, it has low quality because of all the bugs in it.
Ah i apologise then! sorry i saw my arse a bit there and responded without thinking.
i read so many threads about how stupid people are to play this game and how we must be idiots to put up with it i kinda got lost there. oh god i promised myself i would never get so worked up about a game haha! sorry for any offence
To be honest i am not really concerned about Vanguard as it is already out. And i have never owned or played it. I am speaking in general, hence the words like World and Moving forward. I am just saying that we, you and me, and any other person that plays these games, need to think about not buying games that are low in quality so that we send a clear message to Producers, can you get that around your thick head?!? PS: what do you mean i am a troll?
You never owned Vanguard nor played, still you come here saying its full of bugs hence it has low quality. How do you it's full of bugs when you never played it? How can you be sure the lies about bugs havent just spread by people like you that never actually played it. Yes the game was unstable and had bad performance, but never had that many bugs. In compare to Lotro that is complete opposite with great performance and optimalization but full of bugs. Which game has more quality tell me?
To be honest i am not really concerned about Vanguard as it is already out. And i have never owned or played it. I am speaking in general, hence the words like World and Moving forward. I am just saying that we, you and me, and any other person that plays these games, need to think about not buying games that are low in quality so that we send a clear message to Producers, can you get that around your thick head?!? PS: what do you mean i am a troll?
You never owned Vanguard nor played, still you come here saying its full of bugs hence it has low quality. How do you it's full of bugs when you never played it? How can you be sure the lies about bugs havent just spread by people like you that never actually played it. Yes the game was unstable and had bad performance, but never had that many bugs. In compare to Lotro that is complete opposite with great performance and optimalization but full of bugs. Which game has more quality tell me?
Never owning it or playing it doesnt mean that i don't know about the game. ( and i dont want to go into convincing you that you dont need to own somthing or go somewhere to know that something exsists or is true)
Even Brad or whatever his name is said the game has bugs fyi.
Wikipedia said that if software is full of bugs then it has low quality.
Simple
VS= "unstable (bugs) and bad performance"
compared to LOTRO = "great performance and optimization but full of bugs
So from your own words you can see that VS has lower quality as it has 2 bad marks compared to the 1 bad mark for LOTOR, and dont argue cos you said it not me!!
It must happen. Only if we let it die, the lesson is learned. I had my entries and breaks, but now, after server merge, I came back a third time. VG has it qualities, no doubt. But all in all its cumbersome, difficult, deadly and dull. I still spent about 60% of my time SEEKING things instead of having fun, I still die waaay too fast and often compared to medium difficulty games like EQ2 ( NO I DONT PLAY WOW!) and still its difficult to find a group (not because of lack of players, but those who are in only group with friends) asf. Really, VG has qualities, but altogether its so unbelievable cumbersome, EACH damn time I feel, hey lets resub and see how VG has evolved after some time I feel intolerable levels for frustration. When I was stuck in some damn curtain of doom today (aka bug) and died because of the uber fast repop I just decided this was my thrid and last try. VG deserves to die. Its a lesson devs must learn, the painful way, as I learned in this thrice damned excuse for a game. >< You may write athousand times I am stupid, whatever. I think I am as good or as bad as most players, and years of MMO experience have shown ME, what I am capable of, which is all I need to know. The unwelcoming nature of the game is just too much.
Really? Cause you know I see thousands of people in game that love Vanguard... myself included. Maybe you should buy a copy of WoW instead.
Loothur VonRichten Wood Elven Ranger of the Florendyl RP Server
To be honest i am not really concerned about Vanguard as it is already out. And i have never owned or played it. I am speaking in general, hence the words like World and Moving forward. I am just saying that we, you and me, and any other person that plays these games, need to think about not buying games that are low in quality so that we send a clear message to Producers, can you get that around your thick head?!? PS: what do you mean i am a troll?
You never owned Vanguard nor played, still you come here saying its full of bugs hence it has low quality. How do you it's full of bugs when you never played it? How can you be sure the lies about bugs havent just spread by people like you that never actually played it. Yes the game was unstable and had bad performance, but never had that many bugs. In compare to Lotro that is complete opposite with great performance and optimalization but full of bugs. Which game has more quality tell me?
Never owning it or playing it doesnt mean that i don't know about the game. ( and i dont want to go into convincing you that you dont need to own somthing or go somewhere to know that something exsists or is true)
Wikipedia said that if software is full of bugs then it has low quality.
Simple
VS= "unstable (bugs) and bad performance"
compared to LOTRO = "great performance and optimization but full of bugs
So from your own words you can see that VS has lower quality as it has 2 bad marks compared to the 1 bad mark for LOTOR, and dont argue cos you said it not me!!
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.
"In the context of software engineering, software quality measures how well software is designed (quality of design), and how well the software conforms to that design (quality of conformance)[1], although there are several different definitions."
Vanguard is Software, the above definition of software from Wikipedia. All who are playing Vanguard do you think it has quality, givne the above definiton. Each bug you find indicates that it has not conformed to the design, so go figure it out!
Given the above definition? ...since it includes 'although there are several different definintions [of software quality]' I would assume Vanguard could be considered quality by almost anyone.
You post this as if it makes your point, even though it directly opens the whole definition up to personal interpretation, therefore, by you adhering to your ONE defintion, you are the one contradicting the wikipedia definition.
Do I think Vanguard is quality software? To me, it is a mute question.
Vanguard is a quality game released in an unfinished state. Its software can become polished over time. The quality I look for is in the game, not in the business practices of the developing company. But maybe what really makes you enjoy your games is the structured business model of the company.....for me it is killing monsters.
I, being a person of free will, chose this game, worts and all. You have no right to announce to me what games I can choose to like or dislike. I will not be forced into your 'revolution' teaching designers a lesson by not playing a game that I thoroughly enjoy, despite its problems. So far, you are doing a piss poor job of getting recruits. If you want your revolution to succeed, you need to essentially get everyone who enjoys playing this game to stop. You have chosen to do this by using ridicule and insults. Just how George Washington got his revolutionary troops across the Delaware right? Try making allies out of us rather than enemies if you want to succeed.
Am I part of the problem? From your perspective, perhaps. But from my perspective you are the problem. You want the mmo community to unite under one banner, so that if an mmo doesn't conform to the majorities definition of 'quality' the game should be shut down and the money put into it should be lost. By the way, seldom in history has the majority actually been 'right'. You want to financially bring down a company that produces a product, not because it is hurting anyone, not because it is committing an actual crime, but rather because you didn't have fun. You would choose to ruin lives both at home and professionally (of employees of the developing company) because you didn't enjoy a game. You are not acting altruistically despite how high the horse is you are on, you are in actuality acting childishly, stomping your feet because you didn't like a game.
You are the problem because you are now insisting that a 'live' mmo should be 'complete' by release. You would take the fluid evolution that creates vast and deep games over years of live play and through it out the window. "If it isn't in the box on purchase, if anything is changed after release, if any improvements are made after people are paying for it, the game is a failure"'; this seems to be your philosophy, and a bad one for mmo's.
You are the problem because, if you were to get your way, developers would get scared into releasing software that was easily digestable by the majority, had focus tested mechanics, low end specs so that all could use, and would shut down when the majority of mmo players didn't like it. The only benefit in your 'all for one' philosophy is that the game would run smoothly. Your philosophy will keep developers from taking risks, pushing the envelope and creating revolutionary mmo's because they fear the mass digestive system.
And finally you are the problem because you wish to punish others for your own bad decisions. It is a free country, with mountains of information readily available about Vanguard's state, you chose to open your wallet anyway. The developers didn't 'force' you to buy this game. You chose to believe advertising without doing any real research. At the end of the day, you missed one of the most tried and true American adages 'buyer be ware'. But rather than taking personal repsonsibility for your mistake, you wish to make it seem someone else is to blame. Sorry buddy, it was all you and your choices that led to your purchase of Vanguard.
And this is the simple business fact that you have completely overlooked. Subscription numbers is how developers will learn. You don't need a revolution, business cycles itself. If the company is making its profit margin, it doesn't matter how many anti-Vanguard posts you make, it will be considered successful. If people don't play it, and they don't make their profit margin, it will either be re-tooled or shut down. It will all happen without one revolutionary post against Vanguard. When a product is unpopular, and people don't buy it, then the company loses money and stops making products like that. It doesn't need you to gather the troops at all, it is a self-fulfilling business model. They aren't shoving unfinished products down our throat, it is we, the consumers that are gobbling them up. Perhaps the true realization you should come to is that the 'majority' you claim to be part of, actually doesn't give a rat's ass about how finished the product is, we are still buying it. You are in fact in a minority, needing to convince the majority that the games they like to buy actually aren't any good. If you want success, start from that premise.
Why Vanguard? Why play a game that has had such bad problems? Essentially, released a year too early?
Easy. It is a fun game for me. My friends and I have more fun playing it than any other mmo. You want to turn this into a huge complex moral issue between right and wrong, the consumers and the developers, freedom and slavery....when it is really an extremely simple issue about having fun and not having fun playing a recreational activity. It is not life or death. I will not stop having fun for your revolution. Fight for something that actually means something like global warming or world hunger, and I may jump on your band wagon, but 'teaching developers a lesson' isn't a high priority for me. If it is for you, you should perhaps try a little tact.
Why Vanguard? Because of history. EQ1 in its first year has many similarities to Vanguard. Bugs, performance, content issues were the mark of EQ1's first year(s) as well. Guess what? The game was fun, so I stuck with it, and over time the game steadily improved and has become an immovable classic giant of the mmo world, and it is still going strong. Your idea of 'shut it down, it isn't finished' would have killed a game like EQ. What is the harm in letting them fix the mistakes that went into release? You say so that developers won't release unfinished games, but who gets to decide what games are finished and not finished? Will we appoint a Gaming Czar who will oversee all production and bless a games release? Or will we instate laws that force mmo developers to shut down games if gaming forums show a trend toward disatisfaction with a game? Who should head this agency? Will it be put under homeland security? I personally can see the possibility that as Vanguard improves, it will slowly become a juggernaut in the same way that EQ did, but you don't even want it to have that chance, because you didn't have fun.
You may think that it is unfair for people to have to pay for an unfinished game. Great, that is your right. Don't do it. But what gives you the right to tell me how to spend my money? Have you had any fast food lately? Have you watched any television? I believe both of those things are having a huge negative impact on our entire culture. You NEED to stop watching TV and eating fast food, because of my beliefs! Sounds silly doesn't it? It is exactly how you sound telling me how to spend my money, and yet, you are using the tactics of Communist Russia to tell me how to spend my money on a freakin' game for God's sake.
Now all of the above is my opinion. But notice, my opinion is open.
My opinion states, if you like a game, buy it ,play it. If you don't like a game, don't buy it, don't play it.
Your opinion is, if you like a game that I don't like, don't play it, because it will encourage other developers to make games I don't enjoy.
Which seems to sound like a stable adults' philosophy and which sounds like a pubescent teenager philosophy?
I agree, that there are matters that are important for consumers to unite behind. Corporate crime which costs tax payers milions, shady practices exploiting 3rd world labor, poor quality which results in injury or death to consumers....these are all things that are worthy of consumers uniting against. But computer game development? I have bigger fish to fry.
**yes yes, I know you haven't actually played Vanguard - but that doesn't invalidate my above points, it simply makes it more ridiculous that you've been following this thread
The only reason i have never owned or played VS is because i heard that it was released when it was unfinished.
My beef is that some producers take the P** by doing this simply because the quality of software is harder to ascertain than normal products. and hence they release substandard products on to the market.
I have been stung by this so many times. ~It cannot happen, as we all know in other market areas, like the typical example of a car manufacturer releasing a car with only 3 wheels instead of 4 and expect it to sell.
MMORPG players are, i beleive a more mature set of gamers and as such all i haveever said on this forum is that we should not tolerate producers taking the p** and releasing unfinished games and expect us to pay for them as well as monthly fee on top.
I dont particularlly want VS to die, even though it is almost dead already, a game with the amount of potential it has should have 10 times the player base it has.
But i think the message is clear to many a producer, that if they release sub standard games they will fail.
But then there are always sneaky producers who know that there games are low in quality and still release them anyway, just to claw back some money from unspecting players who buy them
While I did not read the entire thread I must say to the OP if you do not like the game do not play it, or even think about it. I am sure that if it is really bad it will die on it's own accord and in it's own time.
The only reason i have never owned or played VS is because i heard that it was released when it was unfinished. My beef is that some producers take the P** by doing this simply because the quality of software is harder to ascertain than normal products. and hence they release substandard products on to the market. I have been stung by this so many times. ~It cannot happen, as we all know in other market areas, like the typical example of a car manufacturer releasing a car with only 3 wheels instead of 4 and expect it to sell. MMORPG players are, i beleive a more mature set of gamers and as such all i haveever said on this forum is that we should not tolerate producers taking the p** and releasing unfinished games and expect us to pay for them as well as monthly fee on top. I dont particularlly want VS to die, even though it is almost dead already, a game with the amount of potential it has should have 10 times the player base it has. But i think the message is clear to many a producer, that if they release sub standard games they will fail. But then there are always sneaky producers who know that there games are low in quality and still release them anyway, just to claw back some money from unspecting players who buy them
Alright, last try.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum.
Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum. Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
"In the context of software engineering, software quality measures how well software is designed (quality of design), and how well the software conforms to that design (quality of conformance)[1], although there are several different definitions."
Vanguard is Software, the above definition of software from Wikipedia. All who are playing Vanguard do you think it has quality, givne the above definiton. Each bug you find indicates that it has not conformed to the design, so go figure it out!
Given the above definition? ...since it includes 'although there are several different definintions [of software quality]' I would assume Vanguard could be considered quality by almost anyone.
You post this as if it makes your point, even though it directly opens the whole definition up to personal interpretation, therefore, by you adhering to your ONE defintion, you are the one contradicting the wikipedia definition.
Do I think Vanguard is quality software? To me, it is a mute question.
Vanguard is a quality game released in an unfinished state. Its software can become polished over time. The quality I look for is in the game, not in the business practices of the developing company. But maybe what really makes you enjoy your games is the structured business model of the company.....for me it is killing monsters.
I, being a person of free will, chose this game, worts and all. You have no right to announce to me what games I can choose to like or dislike. I will not be forced into your 'revolution' teaching designers a lesson by not playing a game that I thoroughly enjoy, despite its problems. So far, you are doing a piss poor job of getting recruits. If you want your revolution to succeed, you need to essentially get everyone who enjoys playing this game to stop. You have chosen to do this by using ridicule and insults. Just how George Washington got his revolutionary troops across the Delaware right? Try making allies out of us rather than enemies if you want to succeed.
Am I part of the problem? From your perspective, perhaps. But from my perspective you are the problem. You want the mmo community to unite under one banner, so that if an mmo doesn't conform to the majorities definition of 'quality' the game should be shut down and the money put into it should be lost. By the way, seldom in history has the majority actually been 'right'. You want to financially bring down a company that produces a product, not because it is hurting anyone, not because it is committing an actual crime, but rather because you didn't have fun. You would choose to ruin lives both at home and professionally (of employees of the developing company) because you didn't enjoy a game. You are not acting altruistically despite how high the horse is you are on, you are in actuality acting childishly, stomping your feet because you didn't like a game.
You are the problem because you are now insisting that a 'live' mmo should be 'complete' by release. You would take the fluid evolution that creates vast and deep games over years of live play and through it out the window. "If it isn't in the box on purchase, if anything is changed after release, if any improvements are made after people are paying for it, the game is a failure"'; this seems to be your philosophy, and a bad one for mmo's.
You are the problem because, if you were to get your way, developers would get scared into releasing software that was easily digestable by the majority, had focus tested mechanics, low end specs so that all could use, and would shut down when the majority of mmo players didn't like it. The only benefit in your 'all for one' philosophy is that the game would run smoothly. Your philosophy will keep developers from taking risks, pushing the envelope and creating revolutionary mmo's because they fear the mass digestive system.
And finally you are the problem because you wish to punish others for your own bad decisions. It is a free country, with mountains of information readily available about Vanguard's state, you chose to open your wallet anyway. The developers didn't 'force' you to buy this game. You chose to believe advertising without doing any real research. At the end of the day, you missed one of the most tried and true American adages 'buyer be ware'. But rather than taking personal repsonsibility for your mistake, you wish to make it seem someone else is to blame. Sorry buddy, it was all you and your choices that led to your purchase of Vanguard.
And this is the simple business fact that you have completely overlooked. Subscription numbers is how developers will learn. You don't need a revolution, business cycles itself. If the company is making its profit margin, it doesn't matter how many anti-Vanguard posts you make, it will be considered successful. If people don't play it, and they don't make their profit margin, it will either be re-tooled or shut down. It will all happen without one revolutionary post against Vanguard. When a product is unpopular, and people don't buy it, then the company loses money and stops making products like that. It doesn't need you to gather the troops at all, it is a self-fulfilling business model. They aren't shoving unfinished products down our throat, it is we, the consumers that are gobbling them up. Perhaps the true realization you should come to is that the 'majority' you claim to be part of, actually doesn't give a rat's ass about how finished the product is, we are still buying it. You are in fact in a minority, needing to convince the majority that the games they like to buy actually aren't any good. If you want success, start from that premise.
Why Vanguard? Why play a game that has had such bad problems? Essentially, released a year too early?
Easy. It is a fun game for me. My friends and I have more fun playing it than any other mmo. You want to turn this into a huge complex moral issue between right and wrong, the consumers and the developers, freedom and slavery....when it is really an extremely simple issue about having fun and not having fun playing a recreational activity. It is not life or death. I will not stop having fun for your revolution. Fight for something that actually means something like global warming or world hunger, and I may jump on your band wagon, but 'teaching developers a lesson' isn't a high priority for me. If it is for you, you should perhaps try a little tact.
Why Vanguard? Because of history. EQ1 in its first year has many similarities to Vanguard. Bugs, performance, content issues were the mark of EQ1's first year(s) as well. Guess what? The game was fun, so I stuck with it, and over time the game steadily improved and has become an immovable classic giant of the mmo world, and it is still going strong. Your idea of 'shut it down, it isn't finished' would have killed a game like EQ. What is the harm in letting them fix the mistakes that went into release? You say so that developers won't release unfinished games, but who gets to decide what games are finished and not finished? Will we appoint a Gaming Czar who will oversee all production and bless a games release? Or will we instate laws that force mmo developers to shut down games if gaming forums show a trend toward disatisfaction with a game? Who should head this agency? Will it be put under homeland security? I personally can see the possibility that as Vanguard improves, it will slowly become a juggernaut in the same way that EQ did, but you don't even want it to have that chance, because you didn't have fun.
You may think that it is unfair for people to have to pay for an unfinished game. Great, that is your right. Don't do it. But what gives you the right to tell me how to spend my money? Have you had any fast food lately? Have you watched any television? I believe both of those things are having a huge negative impact on our entire culture. You NEED to stop watching TV and eating fast food, because of my beliefs! Sounds silly doesn't it? It is exactly how you sound telling me how to spend my money, and yet, you are using the tactics of Communist Russia to tell me how to spend my money on a freakin' game for God's sake.
Now all of the above is my opinion. But notice, my opinion is open.
My opinion states, if you like a game, buy it ,play it. If you don't like a game, don't buy it, don't play it.
Your opinion is, if you like a game that I don't like, don't play it, because it will encourage other developers to make games I don't enjoy.
Which seems to sound like a stable adults' philosophy and which sounds like a pubescent teenager philosophy?
I agree, that there are matters that are important for consumers to unite behind. Corporate crime which costs tax payers milions, shady practices exploiting 3rd world labor, poor quality which results in injury or death to consumers....these are all things that are worthy of consumers uniting against. But computer game development? I have bigger fish to fry.
**yes yes, I know you haven't actually played Vanguard - but that doesn't invalidate my above points, it simply makes it more ridiculous that you've been following this thread
Wow what a long post!
However i disagree with you on a few items, The defintiion of Quality is clear in the quote without any ambiguity, the fact that several definitions exsist does not nullify the one given, it is impractical to paste all definitions of Software quality, when just gist of it is required.
This will be the same definition that the devs would use to describe the quality of their software. You say that is is a quality game but release in an unfinished state.
The use of the word quality here is more a description of what the software should be like if it were complete, meaning it has good features etc. The fact that it was released in an unfinished state puts it in the bad quality state as it does not conform to the design.
I appolgise for not reading and full digesting your complete post, but i think i have answered many of your points in my previous post.
The only reason i have never owned or played VS is because i heard that it was released when it was unfinished. My beef is that some producers take the P** by doing this simply because the quality of software is harder to ascertain than normal products. and hence they release substandard products on to the market. I have been stung by this so many times. ~It cannot happen, as we all know in other market areas, like the typical example of a car manufacturer releasing a car with only 3 wheels instead of 4 and expect it to sell. MMORPG players are, i beleive a more mature set of gamers and as such all i haveever said on this forum is that we should not tolerate producers taking the p** and releasing unfinished games and expect us to pay for them as well as monthly fee on top. I dont particularlly want VS to die, even though it is almost dead already, a game with the amount of potential it has should have 10 times the player base it has. But i think the message is clear to many a producer, that if they release sub standard games they will fail. But then there are always sneaky producers who know that there games are low in quality and still release them anyway, just to claw back some money from unspecting players who buy them
Alright, last try.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum.
Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
Ok point taken about the time taken to develop this genre and i agee with your above post in its entirty. I was really reluctant to use the car analogy, but happy i did now, otherwise i would not have seen your point of view.
Where does this leave me, with egg on my face some may say.
But i still say that we should not tolerate any trash that is presented to us for purchase(please i am not saying VS is trash, more games like RF online), maybe i am venting my annoyance at looking forward to a great game that was killed (at the moment) for what ever reason it was
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum. Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.
You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum. Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.
You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
What yeah EQ had bugs galore i dont doubt that but it ran when it ran. VG doesn't even do that and people still stayed with EQ even through the darkness and thats WAY MORE then VGs player base right now. saying that this game will be fixed one day is possible i dont doubt but by the time they do that it will be long forgotten. Best thing to do is take the loss and move on it wont ever blow up it wont ever compare to EQ.
The only reason i have never owned or played VS is because i heard that it was released when it was unfinished. My beef is that some producers take the P** by doing this simply because the quality of software is harder to ascertain than normal products. and hence they release substandard products on to the market. I have been stung by this so many times. ~It cannot happen, as we all know in other market areas, like the typical example of a car manufacturer releasing a car with only 3 wheels instead of 4 and expect it to sell. MMORPG players are, i beleive a more mature set of gamers and as such all i haveever said on this forum is that we should not tolerate producers taking the p** and releasing unfinished games and expect us to pay for them as well as monthly fee on top. I dont particularlly want VS to die, even though it is almost dead already, a game with the amount of potential it has should have 10 times the player base it has. But i think the message is clear to many a producer, that if they release sub standard games they will fail. But then there are always sneaky producers who know that there games are low in quality and still release them anyway, just to claw back some money from unspecting players who buy them
Alright, last try.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum.
Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
Ok point taken about the time taken to develop this genre and i agee with your above post in its entirty. I was really reluctant to use the car analogy, but happy i did now, otherwise i would not have seen your point of view.
Where does this leave me, with egg on my face some may say.
But i still say that we should not tolerate any trash that is presented to us for purchase(please i am not saying VS is trash, more games like RF online), maybe i am venting my annoyance at looking forward to a great game that was killed (at the moment) for what ever reason it was
This may be the first retraction I've ever seen on mmorpg!
I also think you are right to hold to your principles. I looked at VG and decided the problems could be overlooked. I fully believe that any consumer who can't overlook those problems shouldn't open their wallet or they have no one to blame but themselves. There are definately games I haven't purchased for this very reason. I think in this way, the market will teach the developers how to make better games, in the same way that cars improved over the last century. I don't think it needs an organized oposition, money speaks louder than words to the CEO's. No need for a revolution, capitalism will work this one out.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum. Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.
You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
What yeah EQ had bugs galore i dont doubt that but it ran when it ran. VG doesn't even do that Hm, how did I get to lvl 50 then?and people still stayed with EQ even through the darkness and thats WAY MORE then VGs player base right now. You know this? What was EQ's player base in 1999?saying that this game will be fixed one day is possible i dont doubt but by the time they do that it will be long forgotten. Because nothing ever in business has been a 'sleeper' that slowly gains loyal fans? Best thing to do is take the loss and move on it wont ever blow up it wont ever compare to EQ. Remind me not to ask you for personal financial advice, if your advice to SOE would be to accept a 30million dollar loss.
Maybe you are right and VG will never become the EQ of the 3rd generation. It may be forgotten even. But any mmo that is released in the future I can almost guarentee will look to many of the things VG did as influence. I bet we see class mechanics in future mmo's that are VG influenced, heck, I think the classes themselves will be mimicked. I think future games will look to a pervasive (non-instanced) world as a real posibility now. I think you will see integrated spheres that were influenced by VG. I think you will see player crafted housing and player run cities looking directly toward VG as inspiration. I think a variety of mounts will become available in future mmo's, again looking to VG.
VG may not be successful, just as Van Gogh was a failure in his lifetime. But the influence will reverberate thru all future mmo's.
Too bad you and many others can't see the game through the bugs and are unwilling to allow it to succeed. You don't have to play it, but you also don't have to oppose it, it may just develop into something we all will enjoy, but if not, it will still influence future games, no matter how successful it becomes.
And like those who think that WoW created this genre, those of us who had played EQ new where WoW came from. The same will be true of Vanguard, imo. Some game will look to Vanguard, make a polished version, attract millions and many will play an never know that Vanguard was the inspiration, all the time decrying VG as the biggest failure.
I for one think that VG is doing great, and will some day be seen as a great success. It has its flaws for sure, but underneith the covers, there is one truely amazing game design.
Loothur VonRichten Wood Elven Ranger of the Florendyl RP Server
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum. Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.
You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
What yeah EQ had bugs galore i dont doubt that but it ran when it ran. VG doesn't even do that Hm, how did I get to lvl 50 then?and people still stayed with EQ even through the darkness and thats WAY MORE then VGs player base right now. You know this? What was EQ's player base in 1999?saying that this game will be fixed one day is possible i dont doubt but by the time they do that it will be long forgotten. Because nothing ever in business has been a 'sleeper' that slowly gains loyal fans? Best thing to do is take the loss and move on it wont ever blow up it wont ever compare to EQ. Remind me not to ask you for personal financial advice, if your advice to SOE would be to accept a 30million dollar loss.
Maybe you are right and VG will never become the EQ of the 3rd generation. It may be forgotten even. But any mmo that is released in the future I can almost guarentee will look to many of the things VG did as influence. I bet we see class mechanics in future mmo's that are VG influenced, heck, I think the classes themselves will be mimicked. I think future games will look to a pervasive (non-instanced) world as a real posibility now. I think you will see integrated spheres that were influenced by VG. I think you will see player crafted housing and player run cities looking directly toward VG as inspiration. I think a variety of mounts will become available in future mmo's, again looking to VG.
VG may not be successful, just as Van Gogh was a failure in his lifetime. But the influence will reverberate thru all future mmo's.
Too bad you and many others can't see the game through the bugs and are unwilling to allow it to succeed. You don't have to play it, but you also don't have to oppose it, it may just develop into something we all will enjoy, but if not, it will still influence future games, no matter how successful it becomes.
And like those who think that WoW created this genre, those of us who had played EQ new where WoW came from. The same will be true of Vanguard, imo. Some game will look to Vanguard, make a polished version, attract millions and many will play an never know that Vanguard was the inspiration, all the time decrying VG as the biggest failure.
Are you serious about the numbers of eq back in 99. The game had the numbers right there for you to look at. they didnt take the number of people off the servers till DAoC was released. So yes i do know that for a fact. but the simple plan part is sum people can look behind the flaws like you have done, I just couldnt seeing as i came from other mmos so if your trying to replace another mmo im playing you better be up to the challenge and VG is not no matter how you twist it. People who like it actually like it, people who play it that play it just because really nothing new is out here thats worth a damn, and people like me who got burned by the performance of this game. I didnt like that i had system requirements yet i couldnt move no matter what. so i thought it was time to upgrade still upgraded still game doesnt run as smooth as i would like. I will just say this Vanguard does have a good game somewhere in there but that game should be extracted and given a new name because VG will not see my money unless i get the station pass then im paying for it mine aswell.
I played eq in 99 and your right the numbers where listed so you could actualy read how many played each server. But the game at that time had a very small user base. Even the newbie areas were quiet at that time.
i can see your argument friend but i think most fans of VG are not trying to make others play it. We just want others to leave us to play what we think is the best out there at the moment. you prob ably hve your idea what is the best game too, and you probably play it. do you just play it because it's the best around at the min? no! you play it because you enjoy it. same as us VG players. so as you said yourself, for me to play a game other thjan VG youve just gotta simply show me a game that i will enjoy more and so far i have played...eq, eq2, wow, lotr and VG and so far other than the obvious place in my heart for Everquest, VG is the best that is out there. If there were no bugs or performance issues with it i think it would be top for a long while.
The beginning areas were not empty early in EQ. Only the Ogre/Troll ones were empty, the rest were packed. I had to wait as a DE Necromancer for mobs to spawn and it was a race to kill one almost! Gfay was even worse with OOC fights over KSing. I was on Tunare it may have been one of the most crowded servers at the time perhaps.
If you have any questions please ask. I have moved on to WoW from eq and no longer have any desire to play a dead game. Thank you. (posted by another selling his account in EQ1)
I for one think that VG is doing great, and will some day be seen as a great success. It has its flaws for sure, but underneith the covers, there is one truely amazing game design.
I am sorry, I don't want to stir the hornest nest here, but.. I actually, physically, laughed out loud reading this. What an amazing belief in a game
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force"
At release very early faydark was crowded for about a few on runnyeye server untill people past level 7 and moved on but the count on runnyeye was never high at the start. ok in the area around the ruins in faydark which was the newbie area was packed i do admit but remember how small that area actually was and you will reaklise that although it seemed packed, there was not really that many players there. its just they were all packed in a small area. lol if i strayed to far i would bump into orcs that tore strips of me.
Comments
In the context of people having fun, quality measures if people are having fun or not. And many people are.I've taken the liberty of browsing through your little Wikipedia-article, and it's fan-tas-tic. If you're reviewing MS Office XP.
What you need to get through your *insert bannable offensive language* skull is that there are a lot of people playing Vanguard, and they are liking it. End of discussion.
Well you my friend are an example of an ignorant individual.How can you say quality measures if people are having fun or not, lol,some people have fun poking their eye with a needle!
Whether it is Win XP or VS it don't matter, the quality of the software is low, hence people left in droves.
Now as said above, you may well enjoy it, but the general population will not.
Are you confused?Actually poking someone else's eye with a needle is a fun for most of the people. You still evaluate what is quality and what isnt just by its popularity. You wanna tell me britney spears makes a quality music because she's popular?
You say that you evaluate what has quality by its popularity and then condradicte yourself with the Britney spears example ?!?!
Is it that hard to understand? You are saying that quality of Vanguard is low, therefore people have left it. I guess you consider Vanguard as a low quality game is because out of 200k people only 30k remained. So im asking you if you consider quality just by its popularity? You can re-read my previous also and if you still don't understand it i give up.
Go back and read all the posts again, remember i am the one who copied the info from Wikipedia.
Please don't guess what i am thinking, just read what i write.
What i said is that people left because of its low quality, it has low quality because of all the bugs in it.
Nothing about fun or popularity.
Ah i apologise then! sorry i saw my arse a bit there and responded without thinking.
i read so many threads about how stupid people are to play this game and how we must be idiots to put up with it i kinda got lost there. oh god i promised myself i would never get so worked up about a game haha! sorry for any offence
You never owned Vanguard nor played, still you come here saying its full of bugs hence it has low quality. How do you it's full of bugs when you never played it? How can you be sure the lies about bugs havent just spread by people like you that never actually played it. Yes the game was unstable and had bad performance, but never had that many bugs. In compare to Lotro that is complete opposite with great performance and optimalization but full of bugs. Which game has more quality tell me?
REALITY CHECK
You never owned Vanguard nor played, still you come here saying its full of bugs hence it has low quality. How do you it's full of bugs when you never played it? How can you be sure the lies about bugs havent just spread by people like you that never actually played it. Yes the game was unstable and had bad performance, but never had that many bugs. In compare to Lotro that is complete opposite with great performance and optimalization but full of bugs. Which game has more quality tell me?
Never owning it or playing it doesnt mean that i don't know about the game. ( and i dont want to go into convincing you that you dont need to own somthing or go somewhere to know that something exsists or is true)
Even Brad or whatever his name is said the game has bugs fyi.
Wikipedia said that if software is full of bugs then it has low quality.
Simple
VS= "unstable (bugs) and bad performance"
compared to LOTRO = "great performance and optimization but full of bugs
So from your own words you can see that VS has lower quality as it has 2 bad marks compared to the 1 bad mark for LOTOR, and dont argue cos you said it not me!!
Loothur VonRichten
Wood Elven Ranger of the Florendyl RP Server
You never owned Vanguard nor played, still you come here saying its full of bugs hence it has low quality. How do you it's full of bugs when you never played it? How can you be sure the lies about bugs havent just spread by people like you that never actually played it. Yes the game was unstable and had bad performance, but never had that many bugs. In compare to Lotro that is complete opposite with great performance and optimalization but full of bugs. Which game has more quality tell me?
Never owning it or playing it doesnt mean that i don't know about the game. ( and i dont want to go into convincing you that you dont need to own somthing or go somewhere to know that something exsists or is true)
Wikipedia said that if software is full of bugs then it has low quality.
Simple
VS= "unstable (bugs) and bad performance"
compared to LOTRO = "great performance and optimization but full of bugs
So from your own words you can see that VS has lower quality as it has 2 bad marks compared to the 1 bad mark for LOTOR, and dont argue cos you said it not me!!
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.What is?
If you have to ask, then it's not worth explaining.
Loothur VonRichten
Wood Elven Ranger of the Florendyl RP Server
Given the above definition? ...since it includes 'although there are several different definintions [of software quality]' I would assume Vanguard could be considered quality by almost anyone.
You post this as if it makes your point, even though it directly opens the whole definition up to personal interpretation, therefore, by you adhering to your ONE defintion, you are the one contradicting the wikipedia definition.
Do I think Vanguard is quality software? To me, it is a mute question.
Vanguard is a quality game released in an unfinished state. Its software can become polished over time. The quality I look for is in the game, not in the business practices of the developing company. But maybe what really makes you enjoy your games is the structured business model of the company.....for me it is killing monsters.
I, being a person of free will, chose this game, worts and all. You have no right to announce to me what games I can choose to like or dislike. I will not be forced into your 'revolution' teaching designers a lesson by not playing a game that I thoroughly enjoy, despite its problems. So far, you are doing a piss poor job of getting recruits. If you want your revolution to succeed, you need to essentially get everyone who enjoys playing this game to stop. You have chosen to do this by using ridicule and insults. Just how George Washington got his revolutionary troops across the Delaware right? Try making allies out of us rather than enemies if you want to succeed.
Am I part of the problem? From your perspective, perhaps. But from my perspective you are the problem. You want the mmo community to unite under one banner, so that if an mmo doesn't conform to the majorities definition of 'quality' the game should be shut down and the money put into it should be lost. By the way, seldom in history has the majority actually been 'right'. You want to financially bring down a company that produces a product, not because it is hurting anyone, not because it is committing an actual crime, but rather because you didn't have fun. You would choose to ruin lives both at home and professionally (of employees of the developing company) because you didn't enjoy a game. You are not acting altruistically despite how high the horse is you are on, you are in actuality acting childishly, stomping your feet because you didn't like a game.
You are the problem because you are now insisting that a 'live' mmo should be 'complete' by release. You would take the fluid evolution that creates vast and deep games over years of live play and through it out the window. "If it isn't in the box on purchase, if anything is changed after release, if any improvements are made after people are paying for it, the game is a failure"'; this seems to be your philosophy, and a bad one for mmo's.
You are the problem because, if you were to get your way, developers would get scared into releasing software that was easily digestable by the majority, had focus tested mechanics, low end specs so that all could use, and would shut down when the majority of mmo players didn't like it. The only benefit in your 'all for one' philosophy is that the game would run smoothly. Your philosophy will keep developers from taking risks, pushing the envelope and creating revolutionary mmo's because they fear the mass digestive system.
And finally you are the problem because you wish to punish others for your own bad decisions. It is a free country, with mountains of information readily available about Vanguard's state, you chose to open your wallet anyway. The developers didn't 'force' you to buy this game. You chose to believe advertising without doing any real research. At the end of the day, you missed one of the most tried and true American adages 'buyer be ware'. But rather than taking personal repsonsibility for your mistake, you wish to make it seem someone else is to blame. Sorry buddy, it was all you and your choices that led to your purchase of Vanguard.
And this is the simple business fact that you have completely overlooked. Subscription numbers is how developers will learn. You don't need a revolution, business cycles itself. If the company is making its profit margin, it doesn't matter how many anti-Vanguard posts you make, it will be considered successful. If people don't play it, and they don't make their profit margin, it will either be re-tooled or shut down. It will all happen without one revolutionary post against Vanguard. When a product is unpopular, and people don't buy it, then the company loses money and stops making products like that. It doesn't need you to gather the troops at all, it is a self-fulfilling business model. They aren't shoving unfinished products down our throat, it is we, the consumers that are gobbling them up. Perhaps the true realization you should come to is that the 'majority' you claim to be part of, actually doesn't give a rat's ass about how finished the product is, we are still buying it. You are in fact in a minority, needing to convince the majority that the games they like to buy actually aren't any good. If you want success, start from that premise.
Why Vanguard? Why play a game that has had such bad problems? Essentially, released a year too early?
Easy. It is a fun game for me. My friends and I have more fun playing it than any other mmo. You want to turn this into a huge complex moral issue between right and wrong, the consumers and the developers, freedom and slavery....when it is really an extremely simple issue about having fun and not having fun playing a recreational activity. It is not life or death. I will not stop having fun for your revolution. Fight for something that actually means something like global warming or world hunger, and I may jump on your band wagon, but 'teaching developers a lesson' isn't a high priority for me. If it is for you, you should perhaps try a little tact.
Why Vanguard? Because of history. EQ1 in its first year has many similarities to Vanguard. Bugs, performance, content issues were the mark of EQ1's first year(s) as well. Guess what? The game was fun, so I stuck with it, and over time the game steadily improved and has become an immovable classic giant of the mmo world, and it is still going strong. Your idea of 'shut it down, it isn't finished' would have killed a game like EQ. What is the harm in letting them fix the mistakes that went into release? You say so that developers won't release unfinished games, but who gets to decide what games are finished and not finished? Will we appoint a Gaming Czar who will oversee all production and bless a games release? Or will we instate laws that force mmo developers to shut down games if gaming forums show a trend toward disatisfaction with a game? Who should head this agency? Will it be put under homeland security? I personally can see the possibility that as Vanguard improves, it will slowly become a juggernaut in the same way that EQ did, but you don't even want it to have that chance, because you didn't have fun.
You may think that it is unfair for people to have to pay for an unfinished game. Great, that is your right. Don't do it. But what gives you the right to tell me how to spend my money? Have you had any fast food lately? Have you watched any television? I believe both of those things are having a huge negative impact on our entire culture. You NEED to stop watching TV and eating fast food, because of my beliefs! Sounds silly doesn't it? It is exactly how you sound telling me how to spend my money, and yet, you are using the tactics of Communist Russia to tell me how to spend my money on a freakin' game for God's sake.
Now all of the above is my opinion. But notice, my opinion is open.
My opinion states, if you like a game, buy it ,play it. If you don't like a game, don't buy it, don't play it.
Your opinion is, if you like a game that I don't like, don't play it, because it will encourage other developers to make games I don't enjoy.
Which seems to sound like a stable adults' philosophy and which sounds like a pubescent teenager philosophy?
I agree, that there are matters that are important for consumers to unite behind. Corporate crime which costs tax payers milions, shady practices exploiting 3rd world labor, poor quality which results in injury or death to consumers....these are all things that are worthy of consumers uniting against. But computer game development? I have bigger fish to fry.
**yes yes, I know you haven't actually played Vanguard - but that doesn't invalidate my above points, it simply makes it more ridiculous that you've been following this thread
The only reason i have never owned or played VS is because i heard that it was released when it was unfinished.
My beef is that some producers take the P** by doing this simply because the quality of software is harder to ascertain than normal products. and hence they release substandard products on to the market.
I have been stung by this so many times. ~It cannot happen, as we all know in other market areas, like the typical example of a car manufacturer releasing a car with only 3 wheels instead of 4 and expect it to sell.
MMORPG players are, i beleive a more mature set of gamers and as such all i haveever said on this forum is that we should not tolerate producers taking the p** and releasing unfinished games and expect us to pay for them as well as monthly fee on top.
I dont particularlly want VS to die, even though it is almost dead already, a game with the amount of potential it has should have 10 times the player base it has.
But i think the message is clear to many a producer, that if they release sub standard games they will fail.
But then there are always sneaky producers who know that there games are low in quality and still release them anyway, just to claw back some money from unspecting players who buy them
While I did not read the entire thread I must say to the OP if you do not like the game do not play it, or even think about it. I am sure that if it is really bad it will die on it's own accord and in it's own time.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum.
Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
Given the above definition? ...since it includes 'although there are several different definintions [of software quality]' I would assume Vanguard could be considered quality by almost anyone.
You post this as if it makes your point, even though it directly opens the whole definition up to personal interpretation, therefore, by you adhering to your ONE defintion, you are the one contradicting the wikipedia definition.
Do I think Vanguard is quality software? To me, it is a mute question.
Vanguard is a quality game released in an unfinished state. Its software can become polished over time. The quality I look for is in the game, not in the business practices of the developing company. But maybe what really makes you enjoy your games is the structured business model of the company.....for me it is killing monsters.
I, being a person of free will, chose this game, worts and all. You have no right to announce to me what games I can choose to like or dislike. I will not be forced into your 'revolution' teaching designers a lesson by not playing a game that I thoroughly enjoy, despite its problems. So far, you are doing a piss poor job of getting recruits. If you want your revolution to succeed, you need to essentially get everyone who enjoys playing this game to stop. You have chosen to do this by using ridicule and insults. Just how George Washington got his revolutionary troops across the Delaware right? Try making allies out of us rather than enemies if you want to succeed.
Am I part of the problem? From your perspective, perhaps. But from my perspective you are the problem. You want the mmo community to unite under one banner, so that if an mmo doesn't conform to the majorities definition of 'quality' the game should be shut down and the money put into it should be lost. By the way, seldom in history has the majority actually been 'right'. You want to financially bring down a company that produces a product, not because it is hurting anyone, not because it is committing an actual crime, but rather because you didn't have fun. You would choose to ruin lives both at home and professionally (of employees of the developing company) because you didn't enjoy a game. You are not acting altruistically despite how high the horse is you are on, you are in actuality acting childishly, stomping your feet because you didn't like a game.
You are the problem because you are now insisting that a 'live' mmo should be 'complete' by release. You would take the fluid evolution that creates vast and deep games over years of live play and through it out the window. "If it isn't in the box on purchase, if anything is changed after release, if any improvements are made after people are paying for it, the game is a failure"'; this seems to be your philosophy, and a bad one for mmo's.
You are the problem because, if you were to get your way, developers would get scared into releasing software that was easily digestable by the majority, had focus tested mechanics, low end specs so that all could use, and would shut down when the majority of mmo players didn't like it. The only benefit in your 'all for one' philosophy is that the game would run smoothly. Your philosophy will keep developers from taking risks, pushing the envelope and creating revolutionary mmo's because they fear the mass digestive system.
And finally you are the problem because you wish to punish others for your own bad decisions. It is a free country, with mountains of information readily available about Vanguard's state, you chose to open your wallet anyway. The developers didn't 'force' you to buy this game. You chose to believe advertising without doing any real research. At the end of the day, you missed one of the most tried and true American adages 'buyer be ware'. But rather than taking personal repsonsibility for your mistake, you wish to make it seem someone else is to blame. Sorry buddy, it was all you and your choices that led to your purchase of Vanguard.
And this is the simple business fact that you have completely overlooked. Subscription numbers is how developers will learn. You don't need a revolution, business cycles itself. If the company is making its profit margin, it doesn't matter how many anti-Vanguard posts you make, it will be considered successful. If people don't play it, and they don't make their profit margin, it will either be re-tooled or shut down. It will all happen without one revolutionary post against Vanguard. When a product is unpopular, and people don't buy it, then the company loses money and stops making products like that. It doesn't need you to gather the troops at all, it is a self-fulfilling business model. They aren't shoving unfinished products down our throat, it is we, the consumers that are gobbling them up. Perhaps the true realization you should come to is that the 'majority' you claim to be part of, actually doesn't give a rat's ass about how finished the product is, we are still buying it. You are in fact in a minority, needing to convince the majority that the games they like to buy actually aren't any good. If you want success, start from that premise.
Why Vanguard? Why play a game that has had such bad problems? Essentially, released a year too early?
Easy. It is a fun game for me. My friends and I have more fun playing it than any other mmo. You want to turn this into a huge complex moral issue between right and wrong, the consumers and the developers, freedom and slavery....when it is really an extremely simple issue about having fun and not having fun playing a recreational activity. It is not life or death. I will not stop having fun for your revolution. Fight for something that actually means something like global warming or world hunger, and I may jump on your band wagon, but 'teaching developers a lesson' isn't a high priority for me. If it is for you, you should perhaps try a little tact.
Why Vanguard? Because of history. EQ1 in its first year has many similarities to Vanguard. Bugs, performance, content issues were the mark of EQ1's first year(s) as well. Guess what? The game was fun, so I stuck with it, and over time the game steadily improved and has become an immovable classic giant of the mmo world, and it is still going strong. Your idea of 'shut it down, it isn't finished' would have killed a game like EQ. What is the harm in letting them fix the mistakes that went into release? You say so that developers won't release unfinished games, but who gets to decide what games are finished and not finished? Will we appoint a Gaming Czar who will oversee all production and bless a games release? Or will we instate laws that force mmo developers to shut down games if gaming forums show a trend toward disatisfaction with a game? Who should head this agency? Will it be put under homeland security? I personally can see the possibility that as Vanguard improves, it will slowly become a juggernaut in the same way that EQ did, but you don't even want it to have that chance, because you didn't have fun.
You may think that it is unfair for people to have to pay for an unfinished game. Great, that is your right. Don't do it. But what gives you the right to tell me how to spend my money? Have you had any fast food lately? Have you watched any television? I believe both of those things are having a huge negative impact on our entire culture. You NEED to stop watching TV and eating fast food, because of my beliefs! Sounds silly doesn't it? It is exactly how you sound telling me how to spend my money, and yet, you are using the tactics of Communist Russia to tell me how to spend my money on a freakin' game for God's sake.
Now all of the above is my opinion. But notice, my opinion is open.
My opinion states, if you like a game, buy it ,play it. If you don't like a game, don't buy it, don't play it.
Your opinion is, if you like a game that I don't like, don't play it, because it will encourage other developers to make games I don't enjoy.
Which seems to sound like a stable adults' philosophy and which sounds like a pubescent teenager philosophy?
I agree, that there are matters that are important for consumers to unite behind. Corporate crime which costs tax payers milions, shady practices exploiting 3rd world labor, poor quality which results in injury or death to consumers....these are all things that are worthy of consumers uniting against. But computer game development? I have bigger fish to fry.
**yes yes, I know you haven't actually played Vanguard - but that doesn't invalidate my above points, it simply makes it more ridiculous that you've been following this thread
Wow what a long post!However i disagree with you on a few items, The defintiion of Quality is clear in the quote without any ambiguity, the fact that several definitions exsist does not nullify the one given, it is impractical to paste all definitions of Software quality, when just gist of it is required.
This will be the same definition that the devs would use to describe the quality of their software. You say that is is a quality game but release in an unfinished state.
The use of the word quality here is more a description of what the software should be like if it were complete, meaning it has good features etc. The fact that it was released in an unfinished state puts it in the bad quality state as it does not conform to the design.
I appolgise for not reading and full digesting your complete post, but i think i have answered many of your points in my previous post.
Alright, last try.How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum.
Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
Ok point taken about the time taken to develop this genre and i agee with your above post in its entirty. I was really reluctant to use the car analogy, but happy i did now, otherwise i would not have seen your point of view.
Where does this leave me, with egg on my face some may say.
But i still say that we should not tolerate any trash that is presented to us for purchase(please i am not saying VS is trash, more games like RF online), maybe i am venting my annoyance at looking forward to a great game that was killed (at the moment) for what ever reason it was
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
What yeah EQ had bugs galore i dont doubt that but it ran when it ran. VG doesn't even do that and people still stayed with EQ even through the darkness and thats WAY MORE then VGs player base right now. saying that this game will be fixed one day is possible i dont doubt but by the time they do that it will be long forgotten. Best thing to do is take the loss and move on it wont ever blow up it wont ever compare to EQ.
How long have mmo's been in development? Since 99? maybe 98? That is less than a decade. Let's use your car analogy. Do you know how great cars ran in lets say 1912? About a decade (give or take) into the technologies' birth? They were CRAP. Rich boy toys that failed all the time and were in constant need of fixing. Sound familiar? This isn't a case that you are getting a car with 3 wheels, its that you are continuing to purchase Model A's. Patience. Do you like gaming technology as the first driving enthusiasts did? Well, if you like this 'new' technology, remember, until they tech is old, the tech is apt to failure. This can be looked at across the consumer spectrum.
Why have you been burned so many times? Because this is brand freakin new. It seems old hat to some, but in the larger spectrum, this is still the birth of mmo's. And the more risks they take, the brighter our future will be, the problem, is that we have to expect a few bugs along the way.
Ok point taken about the time taken to develop this genre and i agee with your above post in its entirty. I was really reluctant to use the car analogy, but happy i did now, otherwise i would not have seen your point of view.
Where does this leave me, with egg on my face some may say.
But i still say that we should not tolerate any trash that is presented to us for purchase(please i am not saying VS is trash, more games like RF online), maybe i am venting my annoyance at looking forward to a great game that was killed (at the moment) for what ever reason it was
I also think you are right to hold to your principles. I looked at VG and decided the problems could be overlooked. I fully believe that any consumer who can't overlook those problems shouldn't open their wallet or they have no one to blame but themselves. There are definately games I haven't purchased for this very reason. I think in this way, the market will teach the developers how to make better games, in the same way that cars improved over the last century. I don't think it needs an organized oposition, money speaks louder than words to the CEO's. No need for a revolution, capitalism will work this one out.
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
What yeah EQ had bugs galore i dont doubt that but it ran when it ran. VG doesn't even do that Hm, how did I get to lvl 50 then?and people still stayed with EQ even through the darkness and thats WAY MORE then VGs player base right now. You know this? What was EQ's player base in 1999?saying that this game will be fixed one day is possible i dont doubt but by the time they do that it will be long forgotten. Because nothing ever in business has been a 'sleeper' that slowly gains loyal fans? Best thing to do is take the loss and move on it wont ever blow up it wont ever compare to EQ. Remind me not to ask you for personal financial advice, if your advice to SOE would be to accept a 30million dollar loss.
Maybe you are right and VG will never become the EQ of the 3rd generation. It may be forgotten even. But any mmo that is released in the future I can almost guarentee will look to many of the things VG did as influence. I bet we see class mechanics in future mmo's that are VG influenced, heck, I think the classes themselves will be mimicked. I think future games will look to a pervasive (non-instanced) world as a real posibility now. I think you will see integrated spheres that were influenced by VG. I think you will see player crafted housing and player run cities looking directly toward VG as inspiration. I think a variety of mounts will become available in future mmo's, again looking to VG.
VG may not be successful, just as Van Gogh was a failure in his lifetime. But the influence will reverberate thru all future mmo's.
Too bad you and many others can't see the game through the bugs and are unwilling to allow it to succeed. You don't have to play it, but you also don't have to oppose it, it may just develop into something we all will enjoy, but if not, it will still influence future games, no matter how successful it becomes.
And like those who think that WoW created this genre, those of us who had played EQ new where WoW came from. The same will be true of Vanguard, imo. Some game will look to Vanguard, make a polished version, attract millions and many will play an never know that Vanguard was the inspiration, all the time decrying VG as the biggest failure.
I for one think that VG is doing great, and will some day be seen as a great success. It has its flaws for sure, but underneith the covers, there is one truely amazing game design.
Loothur VonRichten
Wood Elven Ranger of the Florendyl RP Server
How are you going to compare Hardware to Software? You can say the same thing about the first computers the damn things sucked and ran slow. If you have a game with a 30million dollar budget and still manage to not get it done and release it, its failed. You cant say the first cars ran poorly when the first mmos were great. UO, EQ even people loved the MUD's. Its when you put poor quality into a game that it fails not the industry being in its infancy. Dont defend this POS its like trying to sell ISH, only retards will buy it.
First, I'm not comparing software to hardware, I was comparing early tech to early tech.You actually are proving my point. EQ was equal to Vanguard upon release in its number of bugs, its performance, its content issues. Given time, it was fixed, improved and evolved into an immovable juggernaut of the mmo world. I have a right to defend a POS if I have faith its problems will fade while its positives will begin to shine. You don't have to have that faith, but you also can't say that shutting down this game is the only viable alternative, when the example you used, EQ would have never turned into the legend it is with that philosophy. Were the first to buy EQ retards? It barely worked, but it was a good game. So the first mmo's needed a hell of a lot of work before they could make your list above, give Vanguard the same time line for improvement, and you may be surprised.
And because the business that developed Vanguard failed, how does that mean that the game failed? I could care less if they mismanaged their funds, i still enjoy the game. Am I frustrated it was so unpolished? Sure. But it isn't game breaking for me, because I have confidence it is smarter to invest in that 30million dollar game and make it work then throw 30 mil in the toilet. Was I mad at Brad's mismanagement? No, I laughed about it and thought 'that sux for you dude'. I am not that personally threatened by my video games that I get angry with developers. I don't think any out there consciously or unconsciously are trying to rip off the consumer. I think they are genuinly attempting to release a game we will enjoy playing. But they are people, subject to the whim of other people who are subject to the whim of others. There is a lot of room for human error there. I truly doubt the developers of this game had any part in the mismanagement of funds, this would be their bosses and in turn their boss's bosses. I refuse to believe that any of the developers intintionally put out a crap product, they put out an unpolished game because of circumstance, not intent.
What yeah EQ had bugs galore i dont doubt that but it ran when it ran. VG doesn't even do that Hm, how did I get to lvl 50 then?and people still stayed with EQ even through the darkness and thats WAY MORE then VGs player base right now. You know this? What was EQ's player base in 1999?saying that this game will be fixed one day is possible i dont doubt but by the time they do that it will be long forgotten. Because nothing ever in business has been a 'sleeper' that slowly gains loyal fans? Best thing to do is take the loss and move on it wont ever blow up it wont ever compare to EQ. Remind me not to ask you for personal financial advice, if your advice to SOE would be to accept a 30million dollar loss.
Maybe you are right and VG will never become the EQ of the 3rd generation. It may be forgotten even. But any mmo that is released in the future I can almost guarentee will look to many of the things VG did as influence. I bet we see class mechanics in future mmo's that are VG influenced, heck, I think the classes themselves will be mimicked. I think future games will look to a pervasive (non-instanced) world as a real posibility now. I think you will see integrated spheres that were influenced by VG. I think you will see player crafted housing and player run cities looking directly toward VG as inspiration. I think a variety of mounts will become available in future mmo's, again looking to VG.
VG may not be successful, just as Van Gogh was a failure in his lifetime. But the influence will reverberate thru all future mmo's.
Too bad you and many others can't see the game through the bugs and are unwilling to allow it to succeed. You don't have to play it, but you also don't have to oppose it, it may just develop into something we all will enjoy, but if not, it will still influence future games, no matter how successful it becomes.
And like those who think that WoW created this genre, those of us who had played EQ new where WoW came from. The same will be true of Vanguard, imo. Some game will look to Vanguard, make a polished version, attract millions and many will play an never know that Vanguard was the inspiration, all the time decrying VG as the biggest failure.
Are you serious about the numbers of eq back in 99. The game had the numbers right there for you to look at. they didnt take the number of people off the servers till DAoC was released. So yes i do know that for a fact. but the simple plan part is sum people can look behind the flaws like you have done, I just couldnt seeing as i came from other mmos so if your trying to replace another mmo im playing you better be up to the challenge and VG is not no matter how you twist it. People who like it actually like it, people who play it that play it just because really nothing new is out here thats worth a damn, and people like me who got burned by the performance of this game. I didnt like that i had system requirements yet i couldnt move no matter what. so i thought it was time to upgrade still upgraded still game doesnt run as smooth as i would like. I will just say this Vanguard does have a good game somewhere in there but that game should be extracted and given a new name because VG will not see my money unless i get the station pass then im paying for it mine aswell.
I played eq in 99 and your right the numbers where listed so you could actualy read how many played each server. But the game at that time had a very small user base. Even the newbie areas were quiet at that time.
i can see your argument friend but i think most fans of VG are not trying to make others play it. We just want others to leave us to play what we think is the best out there at the moment. you prob ably hve your idea what is the best game too, and you probably play it. do you just play it because it's the best around at the min? no! you play it because you enjoy it. same as us VG players. so as you said yourself, for me to play a game other thjan VG youve just gotta simply show me a game that i will enjoy more and so far i have played...eq, eq2, wow, lotr and VG and so far other than the obvious place in my heart for Everquest, VG is the best that is out there. If there were no bugs or performance issues with it i think it would be top for a long while.
The beginning areas were not empty early in EQ. Only the Ogre/Troll ones were empty, the rest were packed. I had to wait as a DE Necromancer for mobs to spawn and it was a race to kill one almost! Gfay was even worse with OOC fights over KSing. I was on Tunare it may have been one of the most crowded servers at the time perhaps.
If you have any questions please ask. I have moved on to WoW from eq and no longer have any desire to play a dead game. Thank you. (posted by another selling his account in EQ1)
I am sorry, I don't want to stir the hornest nest here, but.. I actually, physically, laughed out loud reading this. What an amazing belief in a game
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force"
At release very early faydark was crowded for about a few on runnyeye server untill people past level 7 and moved on but the count on runnyeye was never high at the start. ok in the area around the ruins in faydark which was the newbie area was packed i do admit but remember how small that area actually was and you will reaklise that although it seemed packed, there was not really that many players there. its just they were all packed in a small area. lol if i strayed to far i would bump into orcs that tore strips of me.
graphics are great but the playing is crap and i meant really crap... i die constantly and im a paladin ffs
bought the game couple of days ago installed then played it until lev 18 orso then quitten en deinstalled the whole game..
I don't like it and besides that is hard to find decent groups to level with
i give it a 7 overall score..