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.
Amen! Wisdom at last, sadly, it is to late and the "I want it NOW!" kids have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and sigh.
I am honestly thinking it's time to hang the sword and start messing about in normal *boring single player games. (*Boring beats funless chore, and anyway, most of these newer MMOs WERE single player!).
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
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.
You praise someone earlier in this thread for their reading comprehension and have none of your own, go figure. Try rereading his post and see if you get it this time.
Amen! Wisdom at last, sadly, it is to late and the "I want it NOW!" kids have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and sigh.
I am honestly thinking it's time to hang the sword and start messing about in normal *boring single player games. (*Boring beats funless chore, and anyway, most of these newer MMOs WERE single player!).
nah .. also the "I want it NOW!" adults have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and cheers.
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.
You praise someone earlier in this thread for their reading comprehension and have none of your own, go figure. Try rereading his post and see if you get it this time.
I have understood what he says perfectly, thank you, he pretty much adapts the notion of "hub based" to what he thinks is right or wrong. EQ is the grandfather of all linear theme park games, emphasis on linear, forcing you to do the content according to your level with no other choice. It's pretty much hub based, farm those skeletons here for 3 days and then you'll gain a level allowing you to farm those giants for 3 more days until you level again and can farm those goblins for 4 days this time.
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.
In 2007? I doubt it. WoW was in full swing and people weren't tired of that formula yet.
It's pretty much hub based, farm those skeletons here for 3 days and then you'll gain a level allowing you to farm those giants for 3 more days until you level again and can farm those goblins for 4 days this time.
I guess if that is how you played it, I certainly didn't play it that way. I'm lvl 20 in EQ I have about 8 different zones I can go level in and I can choose what to kill or if I group etc. The game doesn't try to funnel me into specific areas or give me bonus XP for visiting each little area the way a GW2 or WoW does. More importantly it doesn't even tell me where these areas are. You either looked it up online or you explored the world to find them. GW2 pops them up on your map for you, WoW moved you from area to area with quests.
I wouldn't put EQ in that list of games you gave including AC1, UO etc but no way in heck I'd put GW2 in that list either.
But like I said we must have very different definitions of what is hub based. I didn't adapt it to my argument, I have a different opinion as to what it means. To me hub based means the game is leading you around from hot spot (hub) to hot spot. GW2 definitely does it, WOW definitely does it, EQ does not.
To use the theme park example and to call the hub a map. EQ gives you a park and just says go figure it out with no map given. WoW gives you a map and shows you the 'best' order to take the rides in and sometimes won't let you on a ride without doing a previous ride first. GW2 gives you a map of where all the rides are and lets you choose which order. GW2 and WoW still give you the map, EQ does not.
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...
I am hopeful....that you are wrong.Yes the tide has been running against games like Vanguard.But I sense a cycle.A cycle in which independents will make niche games like VG and find a place where they can thrive.We are seeing way of funding development we have not seen before and this will fuel the return of an alternative to the mindless pap of today's games.
No, the player base didn't change, at least not in the way you describe. You started MMO gaming at a time in your life when you had more free time. I was already much older and had far less time than you so I set aside what I could and focused on the aspects of older titles and skipped the others.
Time marches on, you no longer have the free time you did, but since my children grew up I now have much more free time so am looking for more time consuming content.
Also, a new generation has stepped in behind you to take your former slot and they have as much time as you ever did and can devote the time required.
10-12 years ago, there was a large number of people who would not play these games due to their time consuming virtual world designs, and what really changed is the game designs themselves to draw them into the market since they actually were the larger segment as WOW proved so that's what every AAA developer has been chasing since.
Back to Vanguard. It really was a reinvention of EQ 1, so I don't see it as the game changer the OP does, it's success might have drawn a few more dev's into creating more alternate versions of it, but WOW was the big dog in the room and it's features are what appealed to a far greater percentage of the market and even in VG was almost perfect, it would not have appealed to this new casual player base that Blizzard managed to unlock.
pretty much "all this".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ultima and Everquest were the polar opposites in the old days...
WoW has taken the Theampark thrown from EQ....
But the developers haven't made a sandbox game capable of taking the Sandbox Throne from Ultima Onile....
Mark my word the game that surpases WoW and knocks it off the stump will not be a theam park it will be a Sandbox!!!
Been hearing this for 10 years now. Still nothing but castle in the air.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
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.
I had plenty of options leveing in EQ and i dont consider public dungeons hubs
players porting around with Wizards spires and Druid rings going to different zones/dungeons for SAME level content
to you -- zone based gameplay is a hub based play
to me -- quest based game w hubs are the only "quest hubs" i recognize
Mark my word the game that surpases WoW and knocks it off the stump will not be a theam park it will be a Sandbox!!!
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
Originally posted by jfoytek Mark my word the game that surpases WoW and knocks it off the stump will not be a theam park it will be a Sandbox!!!
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
Are you trying to say that a sandbox game can't be casual friendly? I think the millions who are playing Minecraft right now are disagreeing with you.
"Sandbox" does mean "pain in the ass to play", or "FFA PvP", or any other crap significations some of the local crowd here gave it.
Mark my word the game that surpases WoW and knocks it off the stump will not be a theam park it will be a Sandbox!!!
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
I don't know where you get the idea that Sandbox games don't work for casual players....
Ultima Online was awesome for casual players infact sandbox games in my opinion work way better for a casual player then a theampark with instances does any day of the week.....
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
Mark my word the game that surpases WoW and knocks it off the stump will not be a theam park it will be a Sandbox!!!
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
I don't know where you get the idea that Sandbox games don't work for casual players....
Ultima Online was awesome for casual players infact sandbox games in my opinion work way better for a casual player then a theampark with instances does any day of the week.....
I 100% agree with you jfoytek,
I think the WoW killer will be a sandbox, but it would have to be a full size sandbox......FF14 Just got a huge following with most of us thinking it would be a sandbox. But unfortunetly it's a small 30 game like the rest of them.
Amen! Wisdom at last, sadly, it is to late and the "I want it NOW!" kids have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and sigh.
I am honestly thinking it's time to hang the sword and start messing about in normal *boring single player games. (*Boring beats funless chore, and anyway, most of these newer MMOs WERE single player!).
nah .. also the "I want it NOW!" adults have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and cheers.
LOL, you may have been playing MMORPGs back in the day, but you never were one of "us", meaning players who enjoyed those early titles as they were designed and delivered. You don't get to wave the old school flag.
One feature I actually liked in VG were all the different starting areas, really gave the world character which has largely been discarded in more modem titles. (to your great joy, yes we know Nar)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Vanguard put Sigil games out of business and made sure some of the leading people behind it never worked in the industry again. It would not have changed anything even if it was a technical masterpiece. You know what might have changed the genre a game where everyone played as sea creatures trying to survive in the open ocean. Of course that would mean companies in this industry had to be creative and not just copy something, slim chance of that happening.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I don't really have the perspective to know what Vanguard was supposed to be when it came out but I've tried the F2P version out recently and I really find it quite enjoyable. The only real drawbacks being dated graphics, sparse population and occasional lag spikes. I think it's a game where they promoted it more and repolished it with 2013 technology it could get at least a cult following like EVE has. Certainly as a game design I find it far superior to both WoW and things like GW2.
But, I don't think it would have ever changed anything. It is more well designed and fully featured than most other themeparks out there but it is still a themepark MMO with many of the tropes you can find in all of that genre. What I'm really waiting for is the game that really perfects the virtual world fantasy sandbox. It will undoubtedly be a niche game because the only thing that will kill WoW is probably something even more dumbed down and made for consoles, but I will love this niche game...
I'm not so sure that a perfected Vanguard would have done all that much, honestly. SWG was in many ways the next sandbox step after UO and though it was popular and had a great IP it didn't pull in WoW-like numbers either. Despite the popularity of sandboxes on places like MMORPG.com, I'm still unconvinced that the majority of current MMO players truly want the full-on sandbox experience in lieu of the themeparks that have cornered the market. That's not to say that a good sandbox/hybrid couldn't come along to shake things up but I don't believe VG was ever poised to be that trendsetting game.
Its a fallacy to say that you can't have themeparks or quest hubs in a sandbox. In fact themeparks/quest hubs were in SWG where the term themepark was invented.
Could have but Brad Mcquaid fucked it up with his inability to make good on ANY of his promises.
I used to have a post on here that was directly quoted from the old Vanguard Forums, where Brad Mcquaid litterally stated they had a working system in the game that allowed Mage/Caster characters to "Steal" abilities from enemies.
The exact example he gave was a Goblin Shaman in a far off cave that used a powerful fireball spell, and the player could fight the Shaman and learn the Fireball simply by the Shaman attacking him with the ability until the character learned the spell.
Sounds awesome right?
There was NOTHING CLOSE to that in the game.
IMO Diplomacy and Boats made Vanguard, ive never seen such an intricate system as the Diplomacy and the stories were intelligently written and well made, someone take THAT system and make it anew!
Comments
Amen! Wisdom at last, sadly, it is to late and the "I want it NOW!" kids have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and sigh.
I am honestly thinking it's time to hang the sword and start messing about in normal *boring single player games. (*Boring beats funless chore, and anyway, most of these newer MMOs WERE single player!).
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
You praise someone earlier in this thread for their reading comprehension and have none of your own, go figure. Try rereading his post and see if you get it this time.
nah .. also the "I want it NOW!" adults have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and cheers.
I have understood what he says perfectly, thank you, he pretty much adapts the notion of "hub based" to what he thinks is right or wrong. EQ is the grandfather of all linear theme park games, emphasis on linear, forcing you to do the content according to your level with no other choice. It's pretty much hub based, farm those skeletons here for 3 days and then you'll gain a level allowing you to farm those giants for 3 more days until you level again and can farm those goblins for 4 days this time.
My computer is better than yours.
In 2007? I doubt it. WoW was in full swing and people weren't tired of that formula yet.
Now? Most definitely.
I guess if that is how you played it, I certainly didn't play it that way. I'm lvl 20 in EQ I have about 8 different zones I can go level in and I can choose what to kill or if I group etc. The game doesn't try to funnel me into specific areas or give me bonus XP for visiting each little area the way a GW2 or WoW does. More importantly it doesn't even tell me where these areas are. You either looked it up online or you explored the world to find them. GW2 pops them up on your map for you, WoW moved you from area to area with quests.
I wouldn't put EQ in that list of games you gave including AC1, UO etc but no way in heck I'd put GW2 in that list either.
But like I said we must have very different definitions of what is hub based. I didn't adapt it to my argument, I have a different opinion as to what it means. To me hub based means the game is leading you around from hot spot (hub) to hot spot. GW2 definitely does it, WOW definitely does it, EQ does not.
To use the theme park example and to call the hub a map. EQ gives you a park and just says go figure it out with no map given. WoW gives you a map and shows you the 'best' order to take the rides in and sometimes won't let you on a ride without doing a previous ride first. GW2 gives you a map of where all the rides are and lets you choose which order. GW2 and WoW still give you the map, EQ does not.
I am hopeful....that you are wrong.Yes the tide has been running against games like Vanguard.But I sense a cycle.A cycle in which independents will make niche games like VG and find a place where they can thrive.We are seeing way of funding development we have not seen before and this will fuel the return of an alternative to the mindless pap of today's games.
pretty much "all this".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Been hearing this for 10 years now. Still nothing but castle in the air.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
I had plenty of options leveing in EQ and i dont consider public dungeons hubs
players porting around with Wizards spires and Druid rings going to different zones/dungeons for SAME level content
to you -- zone based gameplay is a hub based play
to me -- quest based game w hubs are the only "quest hubs" i recognize
EQ2 fan sites
So let's just say Vanguard was an entirely different game is what I'm getting from the OP?
Couldn't we have said this about every MMO then?
What direction would you have liked old school MMOs to evolve to? Can you give specific examples of features you'd like to see evolved?
as I already posted
Vanguard was never intended to be a WOW killer
http://web.archive.org/web/20070609181848/http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/18145-sigil-defines-core-gamers-re-vanguard-6.html
Aradune: Does our core gamer = WoW's casual gamer? I don't have their internal data, obviously, but I doubt it.
EQ2 fan sites
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
Are you trying to say that a sandbox game can't be casual friendly?I think the millions who are playing Minecraft right now are disagreeing with you.
"Sandbox" does mean "pain in the ass to play", or "FFA PvP", or any other crap significations some of the local crowd here gave it.
My computer is better than yours.
I don't know where you get the idea that Sandbox games don't work for casual players....
Ultima Online was awesome for casual players infact sandbox games in my opinion work way better for a casual player then a theampark with instances does any day of the week.....
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 100% agree with you jfoytek,
I think the WoW killer will be a sandbox, but it would have to be a full size sandbox......FF14 Just got a huge following with most of us thinking it would be a sandbox. But unfortunetly it's a small 30 game like the rest of them.
Amen! Wisdom at last, sadly, it is to late and the "I want it NOW!" kids have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and sigh.
I am honestly thinking it's time to hang the sword and start messing about in normal *boring single player games. (*Boring beats funless chore, and anyway, most of these newer MMOs WERE single player!).
nah .. also the "I want it NOW!" adults have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and cheers.
LOL, you may have been playing MMORPGs back in the day, but you never were one of "us", meaning players who enjoyed those early titles as they were designed and delivered. You don't get to wave the old school flag.One feature I actually liked in VG were all the different starting areas, really gave the world character which has largely been discarded in more modem titles. (to your great joy, yes we know Nar)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I don't really have the perspective to know what Vanguard was supposed to be when it came out but I've tried the F2P version out recently and I really find it quite enjoyable. The only real drawbacks being dated graphics, sparse population and occasional lag spikes. I think it's a game where they promoted it more and repolished it with 2013 technology it could get at least a cult following like EVE has. Certainly as a game design I find it far superior to both WoW and things like GW2.
But, I don't think it would have ever changed anything. It is more well designed and fully featured than most other themeparks out there but it is still a themepark MMO with many of the tropes you can find in all of that genre. What I'm really waiting for is the game that really perfects the virtual world fantasy sandbox. It will undoubtedly be a niche game because the only thing that will kill WoW is probably something even more dumbed down and made for consoles, but I will love this niche game...
I'm not so sure that a perfected Vanguard would have done all that much, honestly. SWG was in many ways the next sandbox step after UO and though it was popular and had a great IP it didn't pull in WoW-like numbers either. Despite the popularity of sandboxes on places like MMORPG.com, I'm still unconvinced that the majority of current MMO players truly want the full-on sandbox experience in lieu of the themeparks that have cornered the market. That's not to say that a good sandbox/hybrid couldn't come along to shake things up but I don't believe VG was ever poised to be that trendsetting game.
Could have but Brad Mcquaid fucked it up with his inability to make good on ANY of his promises.
I used to have a post on here that was directly quoted from the old Vanguard Forums, where Brad Mcquaid litterally stated they had a working system in the game that allowed Mage/Caster characters to "Steal" abilities from enemies.
The exact example he gave was a Goblin Shaman in a far off cave that used a powerful fireball spell, and the player could fight the Shaman and learn the Fireball simply by the Shaman attacking him with the ability until the character learned the spell.
Sounds awesome right?
There was NOTHING CLOSE to that in the game.
IMO Diplomacy and Boats made Vanguard, ive never seen such an intricate system as the Diplomacy and the stories were intelligently written and well made, someone take THAT system and make it anew!