I am sorry but death of Vanguard and lack luster performance of recent so called old school MMOS says otherwise. I am not saying there aren't 'old school' players ofcourse there are. But harsh reality is they are not enough to keep a MMO profitable. Unless ofcourse you are satisfied with a MMO made on shoe string budget just to appease 20 to 30 thousand players. Then you won't have a problem but Vanguard wasn't one of those MMOS.
Such as? Please don't say Wildstar. That's about as far away from Vanguard as you can get. I mean I agree Vanguard had no chance of ever being the next WoW but it could have been the semi-themepark EVE. There's a sizable niche for this type of game. The lessons are that shoving your game out the door before it's ready is an incredibly stupid idea. A bad launch will probably kill you even if you can eventually fix up most of the worst issues in your game and it has some genuinely interesting and innovative ideas. Also continuous marketing is important "build it and they will come." does not work for MMOs.
I'm curious, as well: what old school releases?
ESO? Nope. Nothing in common with old school MMOs but a fantasy theme and 3-realm keep siege PvP.
Wildstar? Maybe the difficulty of raids/dungeons. But that's about it. Even so, my experience with truly old school MMOs (back when they were new) didn't contain dungeons/raids as hard as I've heard Wildstar's are.
AA? Honestly, other than tab-targeting and housing, it had nothing in common with my favorite old school MMO.
The MMORPG genre began as a niche genre, it will die as one. The popularity of MMOs on the whole is already waning, new-school or old. That's not really a bad thing, in my eyes. Hollywood was faltering when Jaws and Star Wars got released, and the respective directors/producers of said movies would never have gotten the chance to direct/produce if it hadn't.
The fact that no other MMO has hijacked Vanguard's crafting or diplomacy systems for their MMO's boggles my mind.
Those 2 parts of the game were truly epic and need to be utilized in another MMO. Especially the Diplomacy system.
I totally agree; Diplomacy is half of the reason why I played so much VG. I supposed Blizzard has done one better with Hearthstone, but I'd still like to see a TCG along the lines of Diplomacy implemented within an MMORPG.
The fact that no other MMO has hijacked Vanguard's crafting or diplomacy systems for their MMO's boggles my mind.
Those 2 parts of the game were truly epic and need to be utilized in another MMO. Especially the Diplomacy system.
The diplomacy system sounded good on paper, but the way it turned out was kindda dull. That diplomacy was a card game I guess was nice enough. The problem was that diplomacy was completely disconnected from the world. I had expected and hoped that diplomacy would be linked to events in the world, to politics, factions, and created side stories.. Atleast to some extend. Also that diplomacy "cards", "boosters", and other resources could be found while adventuring, traded, and that there basicly would be interaction between the 3 spheres. Maybe this was the idea but it just had to be cut out.
EqNext might pick up the diplomacy idea although it will be with different mechanics. Atleast EqNext is designed to allow diplomacy mechanics with actual world influence.. The question is if SoE has the skill to make these ambitious EqNext ideas work, or they will just mess it all up as usual ;p
Same goes for crafting, it need to be a much more integrated part of the world than in vg. Personally I liked eq2 crafting system (before it was dumbed down), while vg never clicked with me, but that is a matter of taste I guess. The point is crafting needs to be integrated into the game, adventurers should need crafters items and services, and crafters should need rare materials or protection to reach special locations to do some special crafting.
These are the kind of coop mechanics that could build communities like the oldschool mmorpgs had, because I think we have to admit that hardcore group class dependency like eq will not attract enough players today.
After 4 months however subs had dropped to the point that Sigil - basically - there wasn't enough money coming in to run the game. The game was not quite DOA but it was close.
At this point SoE stepped in; hired c.50 former staff (not necessarily for Vanguard) and the right to run Vanguard.
Say what you will about SoE but they kept the game running - although they got a lot of stick from those who played over e.g. avatars looking ugly. Not a lot they could do with a corpse however.
The story that also emerged suggested a team of developers who didn't have the business acumen to pull it off. There were 200+ people working on the game - who will have wanted paying. The age of a few dozen folks creating a game in their spare time had gone. This was tens of millions of dollars a year - and it needed managing. Targets, plans, proper cost control, QA. Maybe if Microsoft hadn't been putting money in early on the game would have been less ambitious, more focused and ultimately more successful.
Vanguard didn't listen to the loud mouth minority. The people creating the game like the kind of game Vanguard was. Vanguard did have many faults but it was definitely not the game being outdated. Vanguard did have quick travel. It had riftways, flying mounts, ships, and ground mounts.
If by old school you mean it was not a cookie cutter game with cartoon graphics and no community whatsoever then I guess Vanguard was old school.
Myself until a game can come out without such limited class/race/starting area choices and have realistic graphics I wont be playing.
The most important lesson devs can learn from VANGUARD is to stop listening to loud mouth minority who are against any change. Learn to change with time, don't be stuck in old school mentality and modernize your game according to the needs of current time players.
Vanguard community was its own worst enemy. They were stuck in 'old school' mindset and were against even the simplest ideas such as portals and taxis for quick travel. This game stood no chance since no new player would want to play such an outdated game.
Well yes and no, it needs elaboration. The players who became the vg core and kept it up with subs, had to be catered to in order to keep the game alive. I know some and their opinions of which I find too religious.. I understand the background for the opinions, but I don't see every ease of playmechanic as bad, for me it is more about the volume and which are breaking immersion. So, yes those people who are against anything that can make the playing experience smoother, definately made vanguard not innovative after launch - and there I agree with the stuckin old school mindset label.. And that group is not big enough to drive a big mmorpg.
However there is another and much larger group of people who wants a game that is not old, but embrace the spirit the oldschool games were based on, but as a modern game. Many of these players don'teven know that iswhat they want because they did not play those oldschool games, all they know is that the games they play can't keep their attention. I beleive that a meaningful game experience is what many mmorpg players are yerning for, and the first mmorpg to deliver this will be a success. Such a game would be oldschool in the sense that it can give players a meaninful game that is not just a themepark questgrinder but involves players to make their own stories. The mechanics however can be totally new and innovative, the only rule is really they must not break immersion too much.
I am rambling, but the point was that vg tried to be this new innovative game with oldschool virtues, but it was because vg died and became stagnant that it did not evolve, which again made players leave which again made it more stagnant, until only the against anything crowd basically controlled the game.
It is not all that black and white though.
VG was pretty stable over the years in terms of bugs and after it went F2P it did see quite a jump in population. But like the other user said the old school mentality chased away many potential new players.
Look at EQ2 ,10 expansion and counting. Compare EQ2 of today with EQ2 at release. It is a completely different game now. Original EQ2 was as old school as it gets and was more casual unfriendly than Vanguard. But they kept changing it according to the need of time.
Where as VG was stuck in time. I myself was put off by the attitude of the VG community. They just didn't want VG to change at all and would rather see it die. i guess they all must be really happy now.
I bet i wasn't alone who said 'screw it' and moved on.
Where as VG was stuck in time. I myself was put off by the attitude of the VG community. They just didn't want VG to change at all and would rather see it die. i guess they all must be really happy now.
Yeah I don't really disagree with that. But vg could not change and evolve because there were no funding or leadership to drive any change. That is why vg ended with the players it had and eventually died. But I bet vg was intended to evolve just as eq changed massively over the years, and it probably would if it had been able.
Talking about changing with the times, there are many other ways for a mmorpg to change than to blindly follow the de-mmorpgification that all other games are. There should be plenty of room to change and evolve that does not ruin immersion and what else a mmorpg should be about.
Comments
I'm curious, as well: what old school releases?
ESO? Nope. Nothing in common with old school MMOs but a fantasy theme and 3-realm keep siege PvP.
Wildstar? Maybe the difficulty of raids/dungeons. But that's about it. Even so, my experience with truly old school MMOs (back when they were new) didn't contain dungeons/raids as hard as I've heard Wildstar's are.
AA? Honestly, other than tab-targeting and housing, it had nothing in common with my favorite old school MMO.
The MMORPG genre began as a niche genre, it will die as one. The popularity of MMOs on the whole is already waning, new-school or old. That's not really a bad thing, in my eyes. Hollywood was faltering when Jaws and Star Wars got released, and the respective directors/producers of said movies would never have gotten the chance to direct/produce if it hadn't.
The fact that no other MMO has hijacked Vanguard's crafting or diplomacy systems for their MMO's boggles my mind.
Those 2 parts of the game were truly epic and need to be utilized in another MMO. Especially the Diplomacy system.
I totally agree; Diplomacy is half of the reason why I played so much VG. I supposed Blizzard has done one better with Hearthstone, but I'd still like to see a TCG along the lines of Diplomacy implemented within an MMORPG.
The diplomacy system sounded good on paper, but the way it turned out was kindda dull. That diplomacy was a card game I guess was nice enough. The problem was that diplomacy was completely disconnected from the world. I had expected and hoped that diplomacy would be linked to events in the world, to politics, factions, and created side stories.. Atleast to some extend. Also that diplomacy "cards", "boosters", and other resources could be found while adventuring, traded, and that there basicly would be interaction between the 3 spheres. Maybe this was the idea but it just had to be cut out.
EqNext might pick up the diplomacy idea although it will be with different mechanics. Atleast EqNext is designed to allow diplomacy mechanics with actual world influence.. The question is if SoE has the skill to make these ambitious EqNext ideas work, or they will just mess it all up as usual ;p
Same goes for crafting, it need to be a much more integrated part of the world than in vg. Personally I liked eq2 crafting system (before it was dumbed down), while vg never clicked with me, but that is a matter of taste I guess. The point is crafting needs to be integrated into the game, adventurers should need crafters items and services, and crafters should need rare materials or protection to reach special locations to do some special crafting.
These are the kind of coop mechanics that could build communities like the oldschool mmorpgs had, because I think we have to admit that hardcore group class dependency like eq will not attract enough players today.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Vanguard launched early: the money had run out.
People bought the game; some subbed, some left.
After 4 months however subs had dropped to the point that Sigil - basically - there wasn't enough money coming in to run the game. The game was not quite DOA but it was close.
At this point SoE stepped in; hired c.50 former staff (not necessarily for Vanguard) and the right to run Vanguard.
Say what you will about SoE but they kept the game running - although they got a lot of stick from those who played over e.g. avatars looking ugly. Not a lot they could do with a corpse however.
The story that also emerged suggested a team of developers who didn't have the business acumen to pull it off. There were 200+ people working on the game - who will have wanted paying. The age of a few dozen folks creating a game in their spare time had gone. This was tens of millions of dollars a year - and it needed managing. Targets, plans, proper cost control, QA. Maybe if Microsoft hadn't been putting money in early on the game would have been less ambitious, more focused and ultimately more successful.
Vanguard didn't listen to the loud mouth minority. The people creating the game like the kind of game Vanguard was. Vanguard did have many faults but it was definitely not the game being outdated. Vanguard did have quick travel. It had riftways, flying mounts, ships, and ground mounts.
If by old school you mean it was not a cookie cutter game with cartoon graphics and no community whatsoever then I guess Vanguard was old school.
Myself until a game can come out without such limited class/race/starting area choices and have realistic graphics I wont be playing.
It is not all that black and white though.
VG was pretty stable over the years in terms of bugs and after it went F2P it did see quite a jump in population. But like the other user said the old school mentality chased away many potential new players.
Look at EQ2 ,10 expansion and counting. Compare EQ2 of today with EQ2 at release. It is a completely different game now. Original EQ2 was as old school as it gets and was more casual unfriendly than Vanguard. But they kept changing it according to the need of time.
Where as VG was stuck in time. I myself was put off by the attitude of the VG community. They just didn't want VG to change at all and would rather see it die. i guess they all must be really happy now.
I bet i wasn't alone who said 'screw it' and moved on.
Yeah I don't really disagree with that. But vg could not change and evolve because there were no funding or leadership to drive any change. That is why vg ended with the players it had and eventually died. But I bet vg was intended to evolve just as eq changed massively over the years, and it probably would if it had been able.
Talking about changing with the times, there are many other ways for a mmorpg to change than to blindly follow the de-mmorpgification that all other games are. There should be plenty of room to change and evolve that does not ruin immersion and what else a mmorpg should be about.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
#1 thing I hated about Vanguard was the chunks and how you would lag when you crossed one horrible design
#2 horrible class designs so many underpowered class' and no PVP till end
#3 Unfinished quests and bugs
#4 horrible management buffoons who dropped the ball time and time again too slow to
react to customer complaints.....current MMOS should take heed