Lets just Pretend that Vanguard was everything is was supposed to be.
Lets just say that Vanguard didn't have coding problems, chunking between zones, better graphics and more interesting quest, a game that had something for casual and hardcore, a good balance. Even add your own good stuff to the mix...... Lets just say everything went as planned " just pretend ". If so, I really believe this would have been another WoW, Everquest,UO,Eve, and LOTRO, possibly bigger.
With that :
I think Vanguard would have made a major impact on the short 30 day crap games that we have today. Less people would side and support short theme park, with no sociable interactions other than dynamic events.
More people would be on board with old school. In fact Old school should not even be a word. The way I see it, old school=mmo. Old school should have evolved with better graphics and interesting stuff to do. Instead DEVELOPERS COMPLETELY CHANGED THE FORMULA....Did anyone ask for this change ?....Did you ?
If Old School mmos went in the right direction and evolved properly, we would have something for the casual players mixed in with hard core. I hate to use this example but WoW sociologicaly did things right. They went into the mind of players and seen that some like hard content and others like easy...You had both in WoW ( at least in Vanilla ).
Vanguard could have changed everything....less people would put up with crap.
Vanguard was a spiritual successor to EQ1, it is a game deserving EQ2 name (unlike EQ2).
I played it for 2.5 years since launch, I had a killer gaming PC at the time that could run VGSoH without crashing issues that plagued so many other players.
But even if it had none of the problems it still wouldn't have changed anything IMO - the player base who want this type of gameplay is very limited, that is the truth.
One thing that many seem to miss is that MMO players evolve and change over time, the playerbase that played UO and EQ1 back in 1998/9 (I am one of those) has different priorities now.
I don't have 8 hours to play per day, heck nobody should be doing that - it is not healthy - and frankly MMO devs should not be designing games that encourage that sort of gameplay.
Games are entertainment, I don't support games becoming a "virtual online life" anymore, again shorter term games are obviously preferred these days as players need time for friends, family and their own wellbeing.
Anything that disrupts essential RL activities, is IMO undesirable, and this includes old-school "spend every waking hour online" MMOs.
So IMO Vanguard didn't change anything because the majority of players just are not interested in that style of gameplay, even if VG was perfect technically the same thing would have happened.
+ 1 could not agree more pal you are spot on there and I'm one of those older players too as you described in your comments.
+ 1 could not agree more pal you are spot on there and I'm one of those older players too as you described in your comments.
Being an "older player" has nothing to do with this. I'm also one of the "older players" who started with UO, and I still think Vanguard, while not a bad game per se, is an outdated design which was doomed to fail before it even was released.
For info, I still have it installed on my PC and log in sometimes. So I'm no VG hater.
I will only say one word for the highlighted part: LOL.
There's definitely more things to do in both WoW and GW2 than in EQ at end game.
And GW2 didn't replace anything, it simply suppressed the "end game grind". You don't suddenly completely change the way you play the game when you hit 80 in GW2.
And saying that GW2 is "hub based leveling" only proves one thing. That you played GW2 like a WoW clone, and you did it wrong. GW2 is a theme park, yes, but not even remotely close from being "hub based".
Yes you did not have to raid in EQ. I was in a good raid guild and had some of the best gear on the server on my Paladin when I quit and there were people who did not raid that were stronger than me just because they overwhelmed me in AAs. EQ had two paths for progression, AA and gear.
Of course GW2 has hub based leveling, it is ridiculous to say otherwise. You don't have to do the hubs in order in WoW either, you can skip some and wander around and only do the ones that interest you, heck I usually grinded as much as I quested in WoW. GW2 throws things up and says here is content and the vast majority of players spend most of their time in that content. Whether it being a big announcement to 'come here for an event' or the symbols on the map. Yeah they have some hidden areas too but so does WoW. You don't HAVE to do the hubs in either game, but they certainly do exist.
I think if you poll people who have played all 3 and ask them about their daily gameplay while leveling you will be hard pressed to find people who think WoW was more like EQ than like GW2.
+ 1 could not agree more pal you are spot on there and I'm one of those older players too as you described in your comments.
Being an "older player" has nothing to do with this. I'm also one of the "older players" who started with UO, and I still think Vanguard, while not a bad game per se, is an outdated design which was doomed to fail before it even was released.
I don't completely agree here, I am not a huge fan of Vanguard myself, but if I enjoyed raiding it would be a great game for me but I don't really like that type of play, raiding for me would be getting as many guys together to run around a kill people not Boss level NPC's lol....
No I much prefer a solitary lifestyle inside of a game where I can chose to leave my house one day and meet up with the clan to kill people or just tend to my vendors or possible collect materials, hunt mobs, look for rares, or just go shoping for low priced vanq's on hard to find vendors and resell them for a profit....
Yes I am describing Ultima Online the greatest game ever that was Ruined by Carebears and there cries for Trammel !!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Im sorry here. I kinda feel vanguard was the game that ruined MMOs. It had just enough crafting to make it appealing to sandboxers and then it split the crafting class off from a role and made it a subrole or a sphere if I remember it right.
Once that split off, from crafting being a complete charater role it became 2ndary for most developers and even an after thought or competely usless destroying any potential player based economy that at least IMO is the basic foundation for a sandbox to thrive on.
Two paths which ADDED up. To be top of the top, raiding is required, just like in WoW. Otherwise, you are only second class, sub par.
Of course GW2 has hub based leveling, it is ridiculous to say otherwise.
Wrong. Of course, you can level by following the "hearts" and play the game like a WoW clone, but that's not how the game works. Unlike WoW, you are not forced to follow some "quest hubs" in order to progress, you can play the game as you want to, even go back to lower level areas and still gain XP doing events there.
You don't have to do the hubs in order in WoW either,
Have you played WoW recently? Well, I do, and therefore can confidently say that what you posted here is bullshit. Leveling in WoW has become utterly linear, even more with "phasing" which doesn't allow you to access quest hubs until you finished the previous one.
GW2 throws things up and says here is content and the vast majority of players spend most of their time in that content.
You confuse "vast majority" with the way YOU played the game. A common mistake on these forums. You can get a character to max level with less than 25% of the world explored in GW2, and without doing any of the hearts.
I think if you poll people who have played all 3 and ask them about their daily gameplay while leveling you will be hard pressed to find people who think WoW was more than EQ than like GW2.
I know what the EQ players will answer... I spent days grinding a mob camp, and then moved to the next mob camp which provided the best XP for my level. In WoW, it's quest hubs of your own level, others don't give any XP. In GW2, it's going anywhere in the world equal or lower than what you can take at your level and be rewarded. Totally different designs, but both EQ and WOW share the hub based (mob hubs or quest hubs) level specific designs.
Now to answer the original question, there is no way to know the answer. Vanguard was dead on release because it was so poorly made. Same with Shadowbane and Warhammer Age of Reckoning. When you both your game design this badly it is very hard to survive. Somehow Anarchy Online rebounded but I'm guessing that was because all releases were so bad back then.
We will have to just agree to disagree Neo. I find your responses to be so far from any basis in reality that it shows we are never going to agree on this. Rarely have I found a person on a forum that had such complete lack of reality from my own personal viewpoint. Not saying you are just wrong, just that we obviously see these games from 180 degree different angles. Every time I read one of your posts I just think you are trolling at this point.
I'm sorry but I read that last post and I don't see a single thing you said that seems based in reality.
As for WoW I quit it before finishing the leveling in cataclysm because it ruined the game. Before then yeah you could skip around and just not do large portions of the content for sure. Some quests were based on others but most hubs started fresh.
Now to answer the original question, there is no way to know the answer. Vanguard was dead on release because it was so poorly made. Same with Shadowbane and Warhammer Age of Reckoning. When you both your game design this badly it is very hard to survive. Somehow Anarchy Online rebounded but I'm guessing that was because all releases were so bad back then.
Shadowbane was NOT a poorly made game it was a great game with POOR timing...
WoW released not long after it did, and if that had not been the case it would still be around today!!!
But WoW being the juggernaught that it is, I wont take that away from it turned it into a ghost town faster then NGE cleared out SWG.....
But once many people especially pvpers saw what WoW and wanted to come back IE trickle back in they found a game that wasn't the same 400 vrs 400 battle over cities that it once was....
Don't bad mouth shadowbane I will fight you tooth and nail everytime you do as it was one of the best 4 games ever made as far as I am concerned !!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
We will have to just agree to disagree Neo. I find your responses to be so far from any basis in reality that it shows we are never going to agree on this.
My answers are based in reality because I played all three games, and still play two of them. Your answers seem to be bathed in the soft cuddly lights of nostalgia though.
Rarely have I found a person on a forum that had such complete lack of reality from my own personal viewpoint. Not saying you are just wrong, just that we obviously see these games from 180 degree different angles. Every time I read one of your posts I just think you are trolling at this point.
Be careful with personal attacks, I didn't insult you in any way, I'm just debating, try to return the favor. I know it's hard on the Internet, but you can do it.
Calling EQ a hub based game is just beyond ridiculous to me.
Yet you were moving from level specific area to level specific area, without any other possible choice. You couldn't go back to a lower level area and be rewarded, you were forced to stick to the most efficient zone for your level. Linear progression, hub based. Same in WoW, you move from quest hub to quest hub. Which is in no way true for GW2.
Shadowbane was NOT a poorly made game it was a great game with POOR timing.
I'm not saying poor designed. I'm saying poorly made. SB was so buggy with so many disconnects that it never stood a chance. It could have been a great game but there is just no way to know because the release was so bad from a technical standpoint.
Be careful with personal attacks, I didn't insult you in any way, I'm just debating, try to return the favor. I know it's hard on the Internet, but you can do it.
There was no insult, I explicitly said I'm not saying your wrong.
We view hub based as something completely different obviously. Being able to go back and do previous content has absolutely nothing to do with being hub based.
Be careful with personal attacks, I didn't insult you in any way, I'm just debating, try to return the favor. I know it's hard on the Internet, but you can do it.
There was no insult, I explicitly said I'm not saying your wrong.
We view hub based as something completely different obviously. Being able to go back and do previous content has absolutely nothing to do with being hub based.
There was no insult, yet you called me a troll... yeah sure, whatever floats your boat.
Being able to go anywhere in the world and find content that makes you progress, and NOT only at "hubs" (be it zones of your level or quest hubs of your level), means the game is NOT hub based.
Shadowbane was NOT a poorly made game it was a great game with POOR timing.
I'm not saying poor designed. I'm saying poorly made. SB was so buggy with so many disconnects that it never stood a chance. It could have been a great game but there is just no way to know because the release was so bad from a technical standpoint.
I am sorry your computer couldn't handle being in the middle of a ball of 400 players stacking ontop of a priest.....
My computer didn't have any issues but I know many did.... That's why we always had those players utilize a different strategy and attack flanks in small groups.... you didn't have to be in the center of the healing ball especially if you weren't a caster....
Other then that bug "Which not many games today can handle that many people in the same location" the game didn't have much in the way of problems at all....
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Shadowbane was NOT a poorly made game it was a great game with POOR timing.
I'm not saying poor designed. I'm saying poorly made. SB was so buggy with so many disconnects that it never stood a chance. It could have been a great game but there is just no way to know because the release was so bad from a technical standpoint.
I am sorry your computer couldn't handle being in the middle of a ball of 400 players stacking ontop of a priest.....
My computer didn't have any issues but I know many did.... That's why we always had those players utilize a different strategy and attack flanks in small groups.... you didn't have to be in the center of the healing ball especially if you weren't a caster....
Other then that bug "Which not many games today can handle that many people in the same location" the game didn't have much in the way of problems at all....
I also played SB at release, and while I do not agree with "ender4" on other things he said, he's right here. I always had a top notch computer (I was working for the real time effect industry for movie and film back then, I needed horsepower), and SB was a very bugged and badly designed game, and that is a big part of why it failed (along with the FFA PvP design which is niche).
There was no insult, yet you called me a troll... yeah sure, whatever floats your boat.
Being able to go anywhere in the world and find content that makes you progress, and NOT only at "hubs" (be it zones of your level or quest hubs of your level), means the game is NOT hub based.
No. I said every time I read one of your posts it feels like you are trolling me, that is the simple truth.
I don't see zones of your level to be hubs. Hubs are points on the map that scream come here to get XP. EQ never had these. GW2 has them all over, it just hides them better. WoW gets you from hub to hub by sending you on quests, GW2 does it by sticking icons on your map. EQ just didn't have them at all. All 3 games you can just go explore and do your own thing and kill whatever. WoW gives you bonus XP and promotes keeping you moving by giving you XP for quests. GW2 does the same by giving you bonus XP for touching each area on the map. EQ just is nothing like those two.
WoW doesn't try to hide it at all even grouping up all the quests into a hub to begin with. GW2 does a much better job of hiding it.
There is no question that Vanguard was the Last Mohican - I mean last MMORPG
When Vanguard failed - they could have just put the key into the door of this site, and close it forever.
It was the end of the generation , end of a concept that EQ created.
And after that , all was simply ride downhill.
GW2 is probably the ultimate slap in the face of Vanguard.
To this day I am sad for it.
Dont know how many of you were on mmorpg.com in Vanguard days. But the amount of hate and arguments was something this site never seen since. And you know this site seen it a lot.
It was obvious a chance was missed, that would never come again...
Seriously.. no. Vanguard was just another Themepark.. yeap, it was maybe a hardcore themepark more the like of EQ, but nevertheless a themepark.
Point is.. i am very happy that more or less all themeparks failed in the recent past, and hope that will go on, until we got back again some sandbox games.. or even better mmos completely different as the last before them.
You can put it that way.. Vanguard was just another EQ clone, whereas almost all other games released are just another WoW clones.. i am sick of clones. And yes, i dont want to see a UO clone either. I want to see a game which should evolve the core principles of UO, but not the game.. UO would suck today, even with modern 3D graphics.
And about all the talk about GW2, basicly, it is not that different from all the other themeparks out there.. and that is not a good thing in opinion either. But from my point of view GW2 and Vanguard are very similar, both themeparks.. granted, one for a casual audience, whereas the other for a more hardcore one.. but the same core principles, the same core game.
Shadowbane was NOT a poorly made game it was a great game with POOR timing.
I'm not saying poor designed. I'm saying poorly made. SB was so buggy with so many disconnects that it never stood a chance. It could have been a great game but there is just no way to know because the release was so bad from a technical standpoint.
I am sorry your computer couldn't handle being in the middle of a ball of 400 players stacking ontop of a priest.....
My computer didn't have any issues but I know many did.... That's why we always had those players utilize a different strategy and attack flanks in small groups.... you didn't have to be in the center of the healing ball especially if you weren't a caster....
Other then that bug "Which not many games today can handle that many people in the same location" the game didn't have much in the way of problems at all....
I also played SB at release, and while I do not agree with "ender4" on other things he said, he's right here. I always had a top notch computer (I was working for the real time effect industry for movie and film back then, I needed horsepower), and SB was a very bugged and badly designed game, and that is a big part of why it failed (along with the FFA PvP design which is niche).
Yes it has a bad release many good games have had bad releases.... But after the release the game ran smooth with the exception of 400 vrs 400 healing balls where some players experience lag, admittedly......
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
There are a few games on the horizon that don't look like clones so hopefully you get what you want. Star Citizen and EQ Next do not look like clones. ESO I'm unsure about at this point. Wildstar looks like one though. Haven't followed that many of the other new games coming.
To be clear I was talking about at release for SB too. It was bad enough that my guild who enjoyed the game and enjoyed that niche of gaming had almost all quit by the time it got stabilized. The game also failed on the PvE side and while that doesn't sound important it actually does matter. You do need a combination of PvP and PvE to keep people happy. A game that can blend FFA PvP with a decent PvE game that involves fighting over the content would be one I'd actually pay a monthly sub for.
There are a few games on the horizon that don't look like clones so hopefully you get what you want. Star Citizen and EQ Next do not look like clones. ESO I'm unsure about at this point. Wildstar looks like one though. Haven't followed that many of the other new games coming.
ESO unfortunately is going to be another Instanced Theampark..... which is a real shame that could have been the sandbox to bring down wow.... but they had to go the safe route....
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Lots of games could have been great if not for the various problems that they had. There are certainly dozens and likely hundreds of games that could have been the best game ever made if not for various problems that kept them from reaching their full potential.
ESO unfortunately is going to be another Instanced Theampark..... which is a real shame that could have been the sandbox to bring down wow.... but they had to go the safe route.
Yeah I'm leaning towards agreeing with you though I've been told I'm wrong by people for this assumption too. I'll have to wait for a few more details to come out to know for sure.
There are a few games on the horizon that don't look like clones so hopefully you get what you want. Star Citizen and EQ Next do not look like clones. ESO I'm unsure about at this point. Wildstar looks like one though. Haven't followed that many of the other new games coming.
To be clear I was talking about at release for SB too. It was bad enough that my guild who enjoyed the game and enjoyed that niche of gaming had almost all quit by the time it got stabilized. The game also failed on the PvE side and while that doesn't sound important it actually does matter. You do need a combination of PvP and PvE to keep people happy. A game that can blend FFA PvP with a decent PvE game that involves fighting over the content would be one I'd actually pay a monthly sub for.
Yes.. and i am awaiting EQN and Star Citizen.. they seem to be a breeze of fresh air. Although we don't know enough about EQN, and i am somewhat afraid that it could become somewhat like a casual sandbox.. something like what WoW was for themeparks.. and i don't know if i like that. But both at least try something different, and i do hope that trend continues.
There are a few games on the horizon that don't look like clones so hopefully you get what you want. Star Citizen and EQ Next do not look like clones. ESO I'm unsure about at this point. Wildstar looks like one though. Haven't followed that many of the other new games coming.
To be clear I was talking about at release for SB too. It was bad enough that my guild who enjoyed the game and enjoyed that niche of gaming had almost all quit by the time it got stabilized. The game also failed on the PvE side and while that doesn't sound important it actually does matter. You do need a combination of PvP and PvE to keep people happy. A game that can blend FFA PvP with a decent PvE game that involves fighting over the content would be one I'd actually pay a monthly sub for.
Yes.. and i am awaiting EQN and Star Citizen.. they seem to be a breeze of fresh air. Although we don't know enough about EQN, and i am somewhat afraid that it could become somewhat like a casual sandbox.. something like what WoW was for themeparks.. and i don't know if i like that. But both at least try something different, and i do hope that trend continues.
I will take anything Sandbox at this point.....
Eve - Wurm - Salem - Ryzom - just are not cutting it..... Though if Rolf had the Money Wurm would be amazing !!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Comments
+ 1 could not agree more pal you are spot on there and I'm one of those older players too as you described in your comments.
Asbo
Being an "older player" has nothing to do with this. I'm also one of the "older players" who started with UO, and I still think Vanguard, while not a bad game per se, is an outdated design which was doomed to fail before it even was released.
For info, I still have it installed on my PC and log in sometimes. So I'm no VG hater.
My computer is better than yours.
Yes you did not have to raid in EQ. I was in a good raid guild and had some of the best gear on the server on my Paladin when I quit and there were people who did not raid that were stronger than me just because they overwhelmed me in AAs. EQ had two paths for progression, AA and gear.
Of course GW2 has hub based leveling, it is ridiculous to say otherwise. You don't have to do the hubs in order in WoW either, you can skip some and wander around and only do the ones that interest you, heck I usually grinded as much as I quested in WoW. GW2 throws things up and says here is content and the vast majority of players spend most of their time in that content. Whether it being a big announcement to 'come here for an event' or the symbols on the map. Yeah they have some hidden areas too but so does WoW. You don't HAVE to do the hubs in either game, but they certainly do exist.
I think if you poll people who have played all 3 and ask them about their daily gameplay while leveling you will be hard pressed to find people who think WoW was more like EQ than like GW2.
I don't completely agree here, I am not a huge fan of Vanguard myself, but if I enjoyed raiding it would be a great game for me but I don't really like that type of play, raiding for me would be getting as many guys together to run around a kill people not Boss level NPC's lol....
No I much prefer a solitary lifestyle inside of a game where I can chose to leave my house one day and meet up with the clan to kill people or just tend to my vendors or possible collect materials, hunt mobs, look for rares, or just go shoping for low priced vanq's on hard to find vendors and resell them for a profit....
Yes I am describing Ultima Online the greatest game ever that was Ruined by Carebears and there cries for Trammel !!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Im sorry here. I kinda feel vanguard was the game that ruined MMOs. It had just enough crafting to make it appealing to sandboxers and then it split the crafting class off from a role and made it a subrole or a sphere if I remember it right.
Once that split off, from crafting being a complete charater role it became 2ndary for most developers and even an after thought or competely usless destroying any potential player based economy that at least IMO is the basic foundation for a sandbox to thrive on.
Vanguard changed a lot.... it made developers realise that even MMORPGs need to be top knotch in all aspects of the game to be a succes..
It also showed that casual gamers dont have much with tedious game mechanics.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Two paths which ADDED up. To be top of the top, raiding is required, just like in WoW. Otherwise, you are only second class, sub par.
Wrong. Of course, you can level by following the "hearts" and play the game like a WoW clone, but that's not how the game works. Unlike WoW, you are not forced to follow some "quest hubs" in order to progress, you can play the game as you want to, even go back to lower level areas and still gain XP doing events there.
Have you played WoW recently? Well, I do, and therefore can confidently say that what you posted here is bullshit. Leveling in WoW has become utterly linear, even more with "phasing" which doesn't allow you to access quest hubs until you finished the previous one.
You confuse "vast majority" with the way YOU played the game. A common mistake on these forums. You can get a character to max level with less than 25% of the world explored in GW2, and without doing any of the hearts.
I know what the EQ players will answer... I spent days grinding a mob camp, and then moved to the next mob camp which provided the best XP for my level. In WoW, it's quest hubs of your own level, others don't give any XP. In GW2, it's going anywhere in the world equal or lower than what you can take at your level and be rewarded. Totally different designs, but both EQ and WOW share the hub based (mob hubs or quest hubs) level specific designs.
My computer is better than yours.
Now to answer the original question, there is no way to know the answer. Vanguard was dead on release because it was so poorly made. Same with Shadowbane and Warhammer Age of Reckoning. When you both your game design this badly it is very hard to survive. Somehow Anarchy Online rebounded but I'm guessing that was because all releases were so bad back then.
We will have to just agree to disagree Neo. I find your responses to be so far from any basis in reality that it shows we are never going to agree on this. Rarely have I found a person on a forum that had such complete lack of reality from my own personal viewpoint. Not saying you are just wrong, just that we obviously see these games from 180 degree different angles. Every time I read one of your posts I just think you are trolling at this point.
I'm sorry but I read that last post and I don't see a single thing you said that seems based in reality.
As for WoW I quit it before finishing the leveling in cataclysm because it ruined the game. Before then yeah you could skip around and just not do large portions of the content for sure. Some quests were based on others but most hubs started fresh.
Shadowbane was NOT a poorly made game it was a great game with POOR timing...
WoW released not long after it did, and if that had not been the case it would still be around today!!!
But WoW being the juggernaught that it is, I wont take that away from it turned it into a ghost town faster then NGE cleared out SWG.....
But once many people especially pvpers saw what WoW and wanted to come back IE trickle back in they found a game that wasn't the same 400 vrs 400 battle over cities that it once was....
Don't bad mouth shadowbane I will fight you tooth and nail everytime you do as it was one of the best 4 games ever made as far as I am concerned !!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
My answers are based in reality because I played all three games, and still play two of them. Your answers seem to be bathed in the soft cuddly lights of nostalgia though.
Be careful with personal attacks, I didn't insult you in any way, I'm just debating, try to return the favor. I know it's hard on the Internet, but you can do it.
Yet you were moving from level specific area to level specific area, without any other possible choice. You couldn't go back to a lower level area and be rewarded, you were forced to stick to the most efficient zone for your level. Linear progression, hub based. Same in WoW, you move from quest hub to quest hub. Which is in no way true for GW2.
My computer is better than yours.
I'm not saying poor designed. I'm saying poorly made. SB was so buggy with so many disconnects that it never stood a chance. It could have been a great game but there is just no way to know because the release was so bad from a technical standpoint.
There was no insult, I explicitly said I'm not saying your wrong.
We view hub based as something completely different obviously. Being able to go back and do previous content has absolutely nothing to do with being hub based.
There was no insult, yet you called me a troll... yeah sure, whatever floats your boat.
Being able to go anywhere in the world and find content that makes you progress, and NOT only at "hubs" (be it zones of your level or quest hubs of your level), means the game is NOT hub based.
UO, AC1, GW2, EvE, DFO, MO = not hub based.
EQ, AO, DAoC, EQ2, WoW, Rift, WAR, AoC, LOTRO, GW1, Vanguard, etc... = hub based.
My computer is better than yours.
I am sorry your computer couldn't handle being in the middle of a ball of 400 players stacking ontop of a priest.....
My computer didn't have any issues but I know many did.... That's why we always had those players utilize a different strategy and attack flanks in small groups.... you didn't have to be in the center of the healing ball especially if you weren't a caster....
Other then that bug "Which not many games today can handle that many people in the same location" the game didn't have much in the way of problems at all....
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
I also played SB at release, and while I do not agree with "ender4" on other things he said, he's right here. I always had a top notch computer (I was working for the real time effect industry for movie and film back then, I needed horsepower), and SB was a very bugged and badly designed game, and that is a big part of why it failed (along with the FFA PvP design which is niche).
My computer is better than yours.
No. I said every time I read one of your posts it feels like you are trolling me, that is the simple truth.
I don't see zones of your level to be hubs. Hubs are points on the map that scream come here to get XP. EQ never had these. GW2 has them all over, it just hides them better. WoW gets you from hub to hub by sending you on quests, GW2 does it by sticking icons on your map. EQ just didn't have them at all. All 3 games you can just go explore and do your own thing and kill whatever. WoW gives you bonus XP and promotes keeping you moving by giving you XP for quests. GW2 does the same by giving you bonus XP for touching each area on the map. EQ just is nothing like those two.
WoW doesn't try to hide it at all even grouping up all the quests into a hub to begin with. GW2 does a much better job of hiding it.
Seriously.. no. Vanguard was just another Themepark.. yeap, it was maybe a hardcore themepark more the like of EQ, but nevertheless a themepark.
Point is.. i am very happy that more or less all themeparks failed in the recent past, and hope that will go on, until we got back again some sandbox games.. or even better mmos completely different as the last before them.
You can put it that way.. Vanguard was just another EQ clone, whereas almost all other games released are just another WoW clones.. i am sick of clones. And yes, i dont want to see a UO clone either. I want to see a game which should evolve the core principles of UO, but not the game.. UO would suck today, even with modern 3D graphics.
And about all the talk about GW2, basicly, it is not that different from all the other themeparks out there.. and that is not a good thing in opinion either. But from my point of view GW2 and Vanguard are very similar, both themeparks.. granted, one for a casual audience, whereas the other for a more hardcore one.. but the same core principles, the same core game.
Yes it has a bad release many good games have had bad releases.... But after the release the game ran smooth with the exception of 400 vrs 400 healing balls where some players experience lag, admittedly......
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
There are a few games on the horizon that don't look like clones so hopefully you get what you want. Star Citizen and EQ Next do not look like clones. ESO I'm unsure about at this point. Wildstar looks like one though. Haven't followed that many of the other new games coming.
To be clear I was talking about at release for SB too. It was bad enough that my guild who enjoyed the game and enjoyed that niche of gaming had almost all quit by the time it got stabilized. The game also failed on the PvE side and while that doesn't sound important it actually does matter. You do need a combination of PvP and PvE to keep people happy. A game that can blend FFA PvP with a decent PvE game that involves fighting over the content would be one I'd actually pay a monthly sub for.
ESO unfortunately is going to be another Instanced Theampark..... which is a real shame that could have been the sandbox to bring down wow.... but they had to go the safe route....
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Yeah I'm leaning towards agreeing with you though I've been told I'm wrong by people for this assumption too. I'll have to wait for a few more details to come out to know for sure.
Yes.. and i am awaiting EQN and Star Citizen.. they seem to be a breeze of fresh air. Although we don't know enough about EQN, and i am somewhat afraid that it could become somewhat like a casual sandbox.. something like what WoW was for themeparks.. and i don't know if i like that. But both at least try something different, and i do hope that trend continues.
I will take anything Sandbox at this point.....
Eve - Wurm - Salem - Ryzom - just are not cutting it..... Though if Rolf had the Money Wurm would be amazing !!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem