My point is that the perception of it was totally different than the reality of it.....Thats why I'm miffed at so many people thinking EQN is going to be the tgreatest thing ever also.
You forgot about the mobs attack through walls, that was awful~.
Vanguard didn't have anything about it that was revolutionary though. This is a big step from what EQN is suggesting they are doing. EQN can pull of what it suggests yet have a bad game and still end up helping form the next generation of these games. Vanguard was just a slightly rebuilt EQ clone. At best Vanguard was going to find a niche for a group of gamers that didn't like the other new games on the market, it was never going to help form the next generation.
My point is that the perception of it was totally different than the reality of it.....Thats why I'm miffed at so many people thinking EQN is going to be the tgreatest thing ever also.
Who think EQN is going to be the greatest thing?
To me, the only thing going for it is that it is F2P, so there is no reason to give it 20 min. I will see if it can grab me in the first 20 min.
.....and it will never do it unless its remade on a better engine, with less generic and more dynamic content, and of course a truckload of polishing that the current game doesnt have.
Shadowbane was a completely horrendously designed game because of one gaping flaw. I remember playing back in the day in one of the most massive PvP showdowns I've ever been in. The whole world was divided up basically between one super guild and subs, a massive alliance of guilds, and a few neutrals. I was in big guild. We won and proceeded to grief the hell out of everyone after we burned their cities... weeks later the server population was drastically reduced.
I think what the OP is saying is that Vanguard represented "the old way," and, had it not been for a poor release, Vanguard would have secured the continued existence of "the old way." While there may be some merit to this, I don't think it's a complete picture. I think a bigger problem is content. Games simply are not released with substantial enough content to provide what was provided in older games. With Everquest, you had legitimate horizontal progression for much of its existence. Raiding guilds not at the top frequently do not (or did not at least) finish all of an expansion's content before the next expansion. With limited end game options (so many games focus on the leveling experience at the expense of the end game), people clear out content very rapidly and sit around with nothing to do.
Take for example Final Fantasy Reborn. I have a lot of fun playing this game for the most part. Then I beat it. Like, literally, I've cleared all the content that can be cleared. I'm geared out and there's nothing for me to do except do the FFR equivalent of making an alt. In Everquest, I played a tremendous amount- far more than I should have- yet there was always something to do. I played Vanilla WoW which didn't have the greatest amount of content and there were few times where I had nothing to do (although a lot of that was helping gear up new recruits).
Which brings me to the last point, I think part of what the OP is pleading for is the community aspect of the MMORPG. Guilds used to be a very large part of what the MMO revolved around. I've felt that, for the most part, guilds have drastically fallen and continue to fall in importance to our current "MMO" environment. When you don't have much in the way of content, the difficulty is such that pick up groups can clear it, and nothing requires a large number of people, the social aspects of the game really deteriorate.
Shadowbane was a completely horrendously designed game because of one gaping flaw. I remember playing back in the day in one of the most massive PvP showdowns I've ever been in. The whole world was divided up basically between one super guild and subs, a massive alliance of guilds, and a few neutrals. I was in big guild. We won and proceeded to grief the hell out of everyone after we burned their cities... weeks later the server population was drastically reduced.
I think what the OP is saying is that Vanguard represented "the old way," and, had it not been for a poor release, Vanguard would have secured the continued existence of "the old way." While there may be some merit to this, I don't think it's a complete picture. I think a bigger problem is content. Games simply are not released with substantial enough content to provide what was provided in older games. With Everquest, you had legitimate horizontal progression for much of its existence. Raiding guilds not at the top frequently do not (or did not at least) finish all of an expansion's content before the next expansion. With limited end game options (so many games focus on the leveling experience at the expense of the end game), people clear out content very rapidly and sit around with nothing to do.
Take for example Final Fantasy Reborn. I have a lot of fun playing this game for the most part. Then I beat it. Like, literally, I've cleared all the content that can be cleared. I'm geared out and there's nothing for me to do except do the FFR equivalent of making an alt. In Everquest, I played a tremendous amount- far more than I should have- yet there was always something to do. I played Vanilla WoW which didn't have the greatest amount of content and there were few times where I had nothing to do (although a lot of that was helping gear up new recruits).
Which brings me to the last point, I think part of what the OP is pleading for is the community aspect of the MMORPG. Guilds used to be a very large part of what the MMO revolved around. I've felt that, for the most part, guilds have drastically fallen and continue to fall in importance to our current "MMO" environment. When you don't have much in the way of content, the difficulty is such that pick up groups can clear it, and nothing requires a large number of people, the social aspects of the game really deteriorate.
Games are released with more than 10x the content of older games release. You just move through the content much faster because leveling speed is more than 10 x faster.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Games are released with more than 10x the content of older games release. You just move through the content much faster because leveling speed is more than 10 x faster.
Still, this is the norm today.
Few has the patience to spend a lot of time repetitively grind through a small amount of content. Hence content does not last long, even when there is more.
For, it is better to just go through the limited amount of content, and then move on.
Shadowbane was a completely horrendously designed game because of one gaping flaw. I remember playing back in the day in one of the most massive PvP showdowns I've ever been in. The whole world was divided up basically between one super guild and subs, a massive alliance of guilds, and a few neutrals. I was in big guild. We won and proceeded to grief the hell out of everyone after we burned their cities... weeks later the server population was drastically reduced.
I think what the OP is saying is that Vanguard represented "the old way," and, had it not been for a poor release, Vanguard would have secured the continued existence of "the old way." While there may be some merit to this, I don't think it's a complete picture. I think a bigger problem is content. Games simply are not released with substantial enough content to provide what was provided in older games. With Everquest, you had legitimate horizontal progression for much of its existence. Raiding guilds not at the top frequently do not (or did not at least) finish all of an expansion's content before the next expansion. With limited end game options (so many games focus on the leveling experience at the expense of the end game), people clear out content very rapidly and sit around with nothing to do.
Take for example Final Fantasy Reborn. I have a lot of fun playing this game for the most part. Then I beat it. Like, literally, I've cleared all the content that can be cleared. I'm geared out and there's nothing for me to do except do the FFR equivalent of making an alt. In Everquest, I played a tremendous amount- far more than I should have- yet there was always something to do. I played Vanilla WoW which didn't have the greatest amount of content and there were few times where I had nothing to do (although a lot of that was helping gear up new recruits).
Which brings me to the last point, I think part of what the OP is pleading for is the community aspect of the MMORPG. Guilds used to be a very large part of what the MMO revolved around. I've felt that, for the most part, guilds have drastically fallen and continue to fall in importance to our current "MMO" environment. When you don't have much in the way of content, the difficulty is such that pick up groups can clear it, and nothing requires a large number of people, the social aspects of the game really deteriorate.
Games are released with more than 10x the content of older games release. You just move through the content much faster because leveling speed is more than 10 x faster.
Task? Yes there are 10x the number. But how many task are actually epic quest that stand out and how many are menial task.
Not to mention that older games the content is the players and the open world.
Task? Yes there are 10x the number. But how many task are actually epic quest that stand out and how many are menial task.
Not to mention that older games the content is the players and the open world.
Exactly. I would rather a game have a small number of quest chains but all of them be epic and well written, rather than "go scoop 10 piles of manure out of the horse's stable!". I would far rather just kill monsters for xp rather than do those kinds of "quests".
Shadowbane was a completely horrendously designed game because of one gaping flaw. I remember playing back in the day in one of the most massive PvP showdowns I've ever been in. The whole world was divided up basically between one super guild and subs, a massive alliance of guilds, and a few neutrals. I was in big guild. We won and proceeded to grief the hell out of everyone after we burned their cities... weeks later the server population was drastically reduced.
I think what the OP is saying is that Vanguard represented "the old way," and, had it not been for a poor release, Vanguard would have secured the continued existence of "the old way." While there may be some merit to this, I don't think it's a complete picture. I think a bigger problem is content. Games simply are not released with substantial enough content to provide what was provided in older games. With Everquest, you had legitimate horizontal progression for much of its existence. Raiding guilds not at the top frequently do not (or did not at least) finish all of an expansion's content before the next expansion. With limited end game options (so many games focus on the leveling experience at the expense of the end game), people clear out content very rapidly and sit around with nothing to do.
Take for example Final Fantasy Reborn. I have a lot of fun playing this game for the most part. Then I beat it. Like, literally, I've cleared all the content that can be cleared. I'm geared out and there's nothing for me to do except do the FFR equivalent of making an alt. In Everquest, I played a tremendous amount- far more than I should have- yet there was always something to do. I played Vanilla WoW which didn't have the greatest amount of content and there were few times where I had nothing to do (although a lot of that was helping gear up new recruits).
Which brings me to the last point, I think part of what the OP is pleading for is the community aspect of the MMORPG. Guilds used to be a very large part of what the MMO revolved around. I've felt that, for the most part, guilds have drastically fallen and continue to fall in importance to our current "MMO" environment. When you don't have much in the way of content, the difficulty is such that pick up groups can clear it, and nothing requires a large number of people, the social aspects of the game really deteriorate.
Games are released with more than 10x the content of older games release. You just move through the content much faster because leveling speed is more than 10 x faster.
Task? Yes there are 10x the number. But how many task are actually epic quest that stand out and how many are menial task.
Not to mention that older games the content is the players and the open world.
Didn't say quests, I said content. Of which quests or tasks if you prefer is only one part. Not only are there more quests than in today's games there are more ways of leveling up (EQ - 1, vs WoW 4) more ways of designing your character in a class based game (old game all were the same, new ways 3 different trees).
True that while there are more good quests in todays games than old games (as in more than just the fedex or kill, althought those are still huge), newer games don't have the big epic quests that many old games had. I kinda wish they did have a big quest still.
There are exception of course UO had more content than most games at anytime. But by and large games today have more content. Which is kinda weird, why design so much content if you level so fast?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by nariusseldon My point is that the perception of it was totally different than the reality of it.....Thats why I'm miffed at so many people thinking EQN is going to be the tgreatest thing ever also.
Who think EQN is going to be the greatest thing?
To me, the only thing going for it is that it is F2P, so there is no reason to give it 20 min. I will see if it can grab me in the first 20 min.
Its fanbase does? The first game to have truly dynamic PvE content and probably the most sandbox of any fantasy based MMORPG to date. They have made all kinds of choices that scare me too, don't get me wrong. I dunno about it being the greatest thing ever but it is the first fantasy MMORPG since WoW came out that has a chance.
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.
Ha, ha, ha, ... with all that ANY game would be great. :-)
Didn't say quests, I said content. Of which quests or tasks if you prefer is only one part. Not only are there more quests than in today's games there are more ways of leveling up (EQ - 1, vs WoW 4) more ways of designing your character in a class based game (old game all were the same, new ways 3 different trees).
True that while there are more good quests in todays games than old games (as in more than just the fedex or kill, althought those are still huge), newer games don't have the big epic quests that many old games had. I kinda wish they did have a big quest still.
There are exception of course UO had more content than most games at anytime. But by and large games today have more content. Which is kinda weird, why design so much content if you level so fast?
Because if the pace is too slow, people get bored and quit. Nobody sees your content. Your work was for nothing.
Also, leveling speed is a poor measurement for how fast you consume content. In many games you reach the level cap well before you're through with the content. Alas, more commonly, advancement is too slow forcing the player to repeat and grind previous content.
Interestingly, Vanguard had a vast selection of bland and boring quests to choose from so, at least you got a different "kill X amount of Y" when you leveled-up. And speaking of level-ups, depending on your class, maybe half or even third of your level-ups were meaningful. As much as the world was stuffed with filler content, the advancement was stuffed with filler, level-ups with filler skills.
Fireball I, II, III anyone? How about a completely useless illusion spell which can make you appear something else for few minutes? "Uninspired" is the word for describing the combat and ability design. It was already old the day it released.
On topic: Vanguard was not very good even with the fixes.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
My point is that the perception of it was totally different than the reality of it.....Thats why I'm miffed at so many people thinking EQN is going to be the tgreatest thing ever also.
Who think EQN is going to be the greatest thing?
To me, the only thing going for it is that it is F2P, so there is no reason to give it 20 min. I will see if it can grab me in the first 20 min.
Its fanbase does? The first game to have truly dynamic PvE content and probably the most sandbox of any fantasy based MMORPG to date. They have made all kinds of choices that scare me too, don't get me wrong. I dunno about it being the greatest thing ever but it is the first fantasy MMORPG since WoW came out that has a chance.
F2P always have a chance with me. All it costs me is 15-20 min to see if it grabs me.
Personally i think they give too much power to the players and there will be exploits and griefing. But again, i will give it 20 min.
First let's list the two most important reason why Vanguard failed:
1. Microsoft pulled the plug on funding 2. SOE, as a condition of its adoption required Vanguard be significantly dumbed down, and that WoW style quest hubs be added.
Originally posted by Vunak23 The problem I see is that the casual playstyle has dictated the way a game is developed. People say that the older MMO's didn't have casual friendly content and that is completely absurd. In the older games all casual meant was that you progressed slower than the more average/hardcore player. Apparently that has become something unacceptable over the years. Now casual players progress at the same rate that hardcore players would have progressed 10 years ago. Meaning the Hardcore players are progressing 10x faster than normal and making content trivial after a few weeks. Leading to casuals still feeling gated because they can't get into the endgame. The only thing casualized development has done is shorten the lifespan an MMO has or increase the rate at which developers must churn out content. Which in the end gives us less creative content/more rushed leading to players being bored and leaving. Things need to slow back down. Not Lineage 2 slow. But perhaps FFXI slow. It shouldn't take you a day or two to get to max level (especially with the way games are releasing endgame content with only one or two dungeons and a raid). Getting to max level should feel like an accomplishment. Casualization has also brought about the dumbing down of content. As per a massively article yesterday, we have lost the Support/CC role in our MMO's. A role that was a huge tactful playstyle that would allow people to address content in a multitude of ways. Now CC is just a way to frustrate/excite people in PvP. CC is hardly ever if at all used in PvE anymore and it is all rolled into DPS classes. Whats next, Healers and Tanks?...Oh wait. Why are people burning through endgame content so fast? Why does it seem like after every expansion or every new game that releases things just keep getting easier and easier. Mob AI is unintelligent. Mechanics are lazy and don't bring about anything new. Seriously, how many times are we gonna see the don't stand in the fire mechanic being used as an endgame boss mechanic that is supposed to be super difficult. Increased HP Value =/= Increased Difficulty.
Another great post with which I completely agree.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by Neo_Viper Originally posted by Arclan2. SOE, as a condition of its adoption required Vanguard be significantly dumbed down, and that WoW style quest hubs be added.
I was in Vanguard's very early beta, and those "quest hubs" were always planned to be in the game.
Can't find the source now, but I recall reading as a condition of SOE's takover that the WoW quest hubs be put in. Too busy at work to continue looking it up. It would help to know at what date you started beta?
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
1. Memory leak at launch caused you to crash every two hours. Minor inconvenience.
2. I heard that graphics were laggy if you didn't have a Godlike computer like mine.
3. Occasionally you would fall through the world, which was kinda cool; and it only caused a few seconds inconvenience.
I did not quit VG due to bugs; I quit because gameplay sucked and mechanics in the game did not foster socializing. (quest hubs, trade broker (one npc through which all player gear is bought/sold), out of combat regen, meaningless numbers flying all over my screen, no death penalty, world was too big/empty, classes were weird non/standard, etc.)
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Comments
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You forgot about the mobs attack through walls, that was awful~.
Vanguard didn't have anything about it that was revolutionary though. This is a big step from what EQN is suggesting they are doing. EQN can pull of what it suggests yet have a bad game and still end up helping form the next generation of these games. Vanguard was just a slightly rebuilt EQ clone. At best Vanguard was going to find a niche for a group of gamers that didn't like the other new games on the market, it was never going to help form the next generation.
Who think EQN is going to be the greatest thing?
To me, the only thing going for it is that it is F2P, so there is no reason to give it 20 min. I will see if it can grab me in the first 20 min.
could have......
.....but it didnt.
.....and it will never do it unless its remade on a better engine, with less generic and more dynamic content, and of course a truckload of polishing that the current game doesnt have.
Shadowbane was a completely horrendously designed game because of one gaping flaw. I remember playing back in the day in one of the most massive PvP showdowns I've ever been in. The whole world was divided up basically between one super guild and subs, a massive alliance of guilds, and a few neutrals. I was in big guild. We won and proceeded to grief the hell out of everyone after we burned their cities... weeks later the server population was drastically reduced.
I think what the OP is saying is that Vanguard represented "the old way," and, had it not been for a poor release, Vanguard would have secured the continued existence of "the old way." While there may be some merit to this, I don't think it's a complete picture. I think a bigger problem is content. Games simply are not released with substantial enough content to provide what was provided in older games. With Everquest, you had legitimate horizontal progression for much of its existence. Raiding guilds not at the top frequently do not (or did not at least) finish all of an expansion's content before the next expansion. With limited end game options (so many games focus on the leveling experience at the expense of the end game), people clear out content very rapidly and sit around with nothing to do.
Take for example Final Fantasy Reborn. I have a lot of fun playing this game for the most part. Then I beat it. Like, literally, I've cleared all the content that can be cleared. I'm geared out and there's nothing for me to do except do the FFR equivalent of making an alt. In Everquest, I played a tremendous amount- far more than I should have- yet there was always something to do. I played Vanilla WoW which didn't have the greatest amount of content and there were few times where I had nothing to do (although a lot of that was helping gear up new recruits).
Which brings me to the last point, I think part of what the OP is pleading for is the community aspect of the MMORPG. Guilds used to be a very large part of what the MMO revolved around. I've felt that, for the most part, guilds have drastically fallen and continue to fall in importance to our current "MMO" environment. When you don't have much in the way of content, the difficulty is such that pick up groups can clear it, and nothing requires a large number of people, the social aspects of the game really deteriorate.
Games are released with more than 10x the content of older games release. You just move through the content much faster because leveling speed is more than 10 x faster.
Still, this is the norm today.
Few has the patience to spend a lot of time repetitively grind through a small amount of content. Hence content does not last long, even when there is more.
For, it is better to just go through the limited amount of content, and then move on.
Task? Yes there are 10x the number. But how many task are actually epic quest that stand out and how many are menial task.
Not to mention that older games the content is the players and the open world.
Exactly. I would rather a game have a small number of quest chains but all of them be epic and well written, rather than "go scoop 10 piles of manure out of the horse's stable!". I would far rather just kill monsters for xp rather than do those kinds of "quests".
Didn't say quests, I said content. Of which quests or tasks if you prefer is only one part. Not only are there more quests than in today's games there are more ways of leveling up (EQ - 1, vs WoW 4) more ways of designing your character in a class based game (old game all were the same, new ways 3 different trees).
True that while there are more good quests in todays games than old games (as in more than just the fedex or kill, althought those are still huge), newer games don't have the big epic quests that many old games had. I kinda wish they did have a big quest still.
There are exception of course UO had more content than most games at anytime. But by and large games today have more content. Which is kinda weird, why design so much content if you level so fast?
Who think EQN is going to be the greatest thing?
To me, the only thing going for it is that it is F2P, so there is no reason to give it 20 min. I will see if it can grab me in the first 20 min.
Its fanbase does? The first game to have truly dynamic PvE content and probably the most sandbox of any fantasy based MMORPG to date. They have made all kinds of choices that scare me too, don't get me wrong. I dunno about it being the greatest thing ever but it is the first fantasy MMORPG since WoW came out that has a chance.
Ha, ha, ha, ... with all that ANY game would be great. :-)
Because if the pace is too slow, people get bored and quit. Nobody sees your content. Your work was for nothing.
Also, leveling speed is a poor measurement for how fast you consume content. In many games you reach the level cap well before you're through with the content. Alas, more commonly, advancement is too slow forcing the player to repeat and grind previous content.
Interestingly, Vanguard had a vast selection of bland and boring quests to choose from so, at least you got a different "kill X amount of Y" when you leveled-up. And speaking of level-ups, depending on your class, maybe half or even third of your level-ups were meaningful. As much as the world was stuffed with filler content, the advancement was stuffed with filler, level-ups with filler skills.
Fireball I, II, III anyone? How about a completely useless illusion spell which can make you appear something else for few minutes? "Uninspired" is the word for describing the combat and ability design. It was already old the day it released.
On topic: Vanguard was not very good even with the fixes.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
F2P always have a chance with me. All it costs me is 15-20 min to see if it grabs me.
Personally i think they give too much power to the players and there will be exploits and griefing. But again, i will give it 20 min.
First let's list the two most important reason why Vanguard failed:
1. Microsoft pulled the plug on funding
2. SOE, as a condition of its adoption required Vanguard be significantly dumbed down, and that WoW style quest hubs be added.
Another great post with which I completely agree.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I was in Vanguard's very early beta, and those "quest hubs" were always planned to be in the game.
My computer is better than yours.
Can't find the source now, but I recall reading as a condition of SOE's takover that the WoW quest hubs be put in. Too busy at work to continue looking it up. It would help to know at what date you started beta?
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Yes, that's what caused Vanguard's downfall . . . quest hubs.
I remember everyone cursing it for it's . . . quest hubs.
Honestly though, when Vanguard came out Quest Hubs weren't nearly as despised or talked about as they are currently.
It failed because it was buggy and because no one could run it (mostly no one).
Let me see. Bugs.
1. Memory leak at launch caused you to crash every two hours. Minor inconvenience.
2. I heard that graphics were laggy if you didn't have a Godlike computer like mine.
3. Occasionally you would fall through the world, which was kinda cool; and it only caused a few seconds inconvenience.
I did not quit VG due to bugs; I quit because gameplay sucked and mechanics in the game did not foster socializing. (quest hubs, trade broker (one npc through which all player gear is bought/sold), out of combat regen, meaningless numbers flying all over my screen, no death penalty, world was too big/empty, classes were weird non/standard, etc.)
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit