I do the game was released in a very unfinished and buggy mess and fixed years later(aka to late). Then they tried to save it by going f2p only which resulted on it staying open just a couple of years more. Basically Sony fucked it up.
This makes no sense to me, most folks wanting this type of game have been waiting around since EQ "was ruined" for such an experience, how can there be a too late considering that?
The whole vanguard argument is nothing but a strawman. The game had the worst launch of any mmo in history, and by the time it was stable, they WoWified the entire experience. It is not a valid comparison.
If nothing else, the fact that in a broken state they still had over a quarter of a million box sales demonstrates the desire for an eq successor was there. That most people left before level 2 shows the game had serious issues outside of gameplay.
You don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is. That would require YOU to have made a similar argument that I'm refuting by creating a straw man in its place.
No, what I'm doing is creating my own argument and I'm not putting it in place of anything you've said.
While it's true that Vanguard had a terrible launch - there was enough people playing it AFTER it became stable and fully functional. There's no denying that - and it took years before they finally decided to shut it down.
My question is why those people all stopped playing? Lack of content? The game was massive and had a ton of classes.
Why didn't new people give it a chance at all? I mean, if so many people are looking for a new Vanguard and the game had turned around and become stable - why did it dwindle into obscurity?
I mean, look at Mortal Online. That game remained a joke for years and years - and AFAIK, it's still only barely playable - but people are still playing it.
WoWified? Come on. The game was nothing like WoW - and it retained the vast majority of its EQ-centric features.
You're talking about hundreds of thousands of players looking for a similar game. When Vanguard shut down - did it even have 5K left when it shut down?
Some features mold a gaming experience. For instance, despite the fact that p99 (a classic eq emu) is extremely top-heavy, filled with hardcores, bitter rivalries, excessive twinking and a completely broken economy, I can still log on and have fun with a random group of people I've never met before.
The main thing keeping the hundreds of thousands of people who've created accounts on that server from playing more often is failure to create new servers, lack of new content (its an emu), and a staff that has mostly lost interest and ranges from apathetic to downright crooked.
Yet I still find it enjoyable each time I go back, despite those problems and I believe wholeheartedly that a new game of the same design will be very successful.
Yes, you can log on and have some fun. No one is denying you can have fun - or that you won't have fun with Pantheon.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of players dedicating themselves in a SUSTAINED fashion like they did in the "good old days".
Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
I think an important factor to consider is expectation, many seem to have an expectation of recreation, be it recreating what EQ was, SWG, so on and so forth. When they realize it's not as it was then, disappointment and abandonment set in.
Rather than trying to create new memories, they want to relive old ones. If people can go in with the former in mind, rather than the latter, there's a better chance of such titles succeeding. The proverbial checklist simply has to be done away with.
Exactly.
People, apparently, would rather relive the past - which is impossible - then go for a brighter future.
It's amazing that people think they can recreate the past in a sustained fashion. I mean, how often does that work, exactly?
We're constantly evolving - and we're slowly dying. Is it really worth it to try and go back to something we can no longer be? For some, I guess.
Some features mold a gaming experience. For instance, despite the fact that p99 (a classic eq emu) is extremely top-heavy, filled with hardcores, bitter rivalries, excessive twinking and a completely broken economy, I can still log on and have fun with a random group of people I've never met before.
The main thing keeping the hundreds of thousands of people who've created accounts on that server from playing more often is failure to create new servers, lack of new content (its an emu), and a staff that has mostly lost interest and ranges from apathetic to downright crooked.
Yet I still find it enjoyable each time I go back, despite those problems and I believe wholeheartedly that a new game of the same design will be very successful.
Yes, you can log on and have some fun. No one is denying you can have fun - or that you won't have fun with Pantheon.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of players dedicating themselves in a SUSTAINED fashion like they did in the "good old days".
Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
I think an important factor to consider is expectation, many seem to have an expectation of recreation, be it recreating what EQ was, SWG, so on and so forth. When they realize it's not as it was then, disappointment and abandonment set in.
Rather than trying to create new memories, they want to relive old ones. If people can go in with the former in mind, rather than the latter, there's a better chance of such titles succeeding. The proverbial checklist simply has to be done away with.
Exactly.
People, apparently, would rather relive the past - which is impossible - then go for a brighter future.
It's amazing that people think they can recreate the past in a sustained fashion. I mean, how often does that work, exactly?
We're constantly evolving - and we're slowly dying. Is it really worth it to try and go back to something we can no longer be? For some, I guess.
My 23 year old son and his friends are buying remastered LPs and playing them on "record players" because of their superior sound quality apparently.
Yeah, MMORPGs are like that, they had mechanics some of us favored and we are looking for a remastered version, not exactly what we had 15 years ago.
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
Some features mold a gaming experience. For instance, despite the fact that p99 (a classic eq emu) is extremely top-heavy, filled with hardcores, bitter rivalries, excessive twinking and a completely broken economy, I can still log on and have fun with a random group of people I've never met before.
The main thing keeping the hundreds of thousands of people who've created accounts on that server from playing more often is failure to create new servers, lack of new content (its an emu), and a staff that has mostly lost interest and ranges from apathetic to downright crooked.
Yet I still find it enjoyable each time I go back, despite those problems and I believe wholeheartedly that a new game of the same design will be very successful.
Yes, you can log on and have some fun. No one is denying you can have fun - or that you won't have fun with Pantheon.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of players dedicating themselves in a SUSTAINED fashion like they did in the "good old days".
Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
I think an important factor to consider is expectation, many seem to have an expectation of recreation, be it recreating what EQ was, SWG, so on and so forth. When they realize it's not as it was then, disappointment and abandonment set in.
Rather than trying to create new memories, they want to relive old ones. If people can go in with the former in mind, rather than the latter, there's a better chance of such titles succeeding. The proverbial checklist simply has to be done away with.
Exactly.
People, apparently, would rather relive the past - which is impossible - then go for a brighter future.
It's amazing that people think they can recreate the past in a sustained fashion. I mean, how often does that work, exactly?
We're constantly evolving - and we're slowly dying. Is it really worth it to try and go back to something we can no longer be? For some, I guess.
My 23 year old son and his friends are buying remastered LPs and playing them on "record players" because of their superior sound quality apparently.
Yeah, MMORPGs are like that, they had mechanics some of us favored and we are looking for a remastered version, not exactly what we had 15 years ago.
Believe it or not, but I also favor many old-school mechanics. But you're forgetting that mechanics don't exist in a vaccuum - and if you don't take GREAT care, you risk becoming old-school just for the sake of being old-school - and that's when you're in trouble.
Unless, of course, you absolutely insist that every single modern change to MMOs is bad.
If you do that, then I simply completely disagree.
To me, there's a fantastic or even essential modern change for every atrocious or even game-breaking change.
To put it another way, I absolutely adore the complexity and challenge of old-school designs - but I also LOATHE the barren landmass and barebones approach to content. I despise the treadmill grind - and the lack of meaningful PvE alternatives. I love the distinct, and essential, class roles and the way achievements used to mean something - but I despise the lack of modern presentation of story and the clunky uninspired combat.
Some features mold a gaming experience. For instance, despite the fact that p99 (a classic eq emu) is extremely top-heavy, filled with hardcores, bitter rivalries, excessive twinking and a completely broken economy, I can still log on and have fun with a random group of people I've never met before.
The main thing keeping the hundreds of thousands of people who've created accounts on that server from playing more often is failure to create new servers, lack of new content (its an emu), and a staff that has mostly lost interest and ranges from apathetic to downright crooked.
Yet I still find it enjoyable each time I go back, despite those problems and I believe wholeheartedly that a new game of the same design will be very successful.
Yes, you can log on and have some fun. No one is denying you can have fun - or that you won't have fun with Pantheon.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of players dedicating themselves in a SUSTAINED fashion like they did in the "good old days".
Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
I think an important factor to consider is expectation, many seem to have an expectation of recreation, be it recreating what EQ was, SWG, so on and so forth. When they realize it's not as it was then, disappointment and abandonment set in.
Rather than trying to create new memories, they want to relive old ones. If people can go in with the former in mind, rather than the latter, there's a better chance of such titles succeeding. The proverbial checklist simply has to be done away with.
Exactly.
People, apparently, would rather relive the past - which is impossible - then go for a brighter future.
It's amazing that people think they can recreate the past in a sustained fashion. I mean, how often does that work, exactly?
We're constantly evolving - and we're slowly dying. Is it really worth it to try and go back to something we can no longer be? For some, I guess.
My 23 year old son and his friends are buying remastered LPs and playing them on "record players" because of their superior sound quality apparently.
Yeah, MMORPGs are like that, they had mechanics some of us favored and we are looking for a remastered version, not exactly what we had 15 years ago.
Believe it or not, but I also favor many old-school mechanics. But you're forgetting that mechanics don't exist in a vaccuum - and if you don't take GREAT care, you risk becoming old-school just for the sake of being old-school - and that's when you're in trouble.
Unless, of course, you absolutely insist that every single modern change to MMOs is bad.
If you do that, then I simply completely disagree.
To me, there's a fantastic or even essential modern change for every atrocious or even game-breaking change.
To put it another way, I absolutely adore the complexity and challenge of old-school designs - but I also LOATHE the barren landmass and barebones approach to content. I despise the treadmill grind - and the lack of meaningful PvE alternatives. I love the distinct, and essential, class roles and the way achievements used to mean something - but I despise the lack of modern presentation of story and the clunky uninspired combat.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point
I agree not all change is bad, but there are positives and negatives to each one.
Removing downtime between fights got players back into the game more quickly, but at the cost of socialization opportunities. (or to hit the head real quick)
Dungeon finders made it easier to complete content, at the cost of running them with people you never interact with and mega and cross server tech means you may never see them again.
Sure soloing is convenient and preferable, I did it all the time back in DAOC in 2003 and still do today in EVE.
But both titles strongly encourage and reward group play and interdependence between players and I spent/spend more than my fair share interacting with players in each than I did in ESO, SWTOR, and TSW.
I also miss the complexities of having different starting stats per race, a plethora of very different classes, gear with real stats, meaning weapons that did more damage to plate than chainmail or even leather, and npcs which were strong against some damage types and weak against others.
So I resist change that streamlines socialization and interaction opportunites (even negative interaction is better than none in my book) or reduces complexity and forcing the player to chose between several paths and learning to live with them.
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
Some features mold a gaming experience. For instance, despite the fact that p99 (a classic eq emu) is extremely top-heavy, filled with hardcores, bitter rivalries, excessive twinking and a completely broken economy, I can still log on and have fun with a random group of people I've never met before.
The main thing keeping the hundreds of thousands of people who've created accounts on that server from playing more often is failure to create new servers, lack of new content (its an emu), and a staff that has mostly lost interest and ranges from apathetic to downright crooked.
Yet I still find it enjoyable each time I go back, despite those problems and I believe wholeheartedly that a new game of the same design will be very successful.
Yes, you can log on and have some fun. No one is denying you can have fun - or that you won't have fun with Pantheon.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of players dedicating themselves in a SUSTAINED fashion like they did in the "good old days".
Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
I think an important factor to consider is expectation, many seem to have an expectation of recreation, be it recreating what EQ was, SWG, so on and so forth. When they realize it's not as it was then, disappointment and abandonment set in.
Rather than trying to create new memories, they want to relive old ones. If people can go in with the former in mind, rather than the latter, there's a better chance of such titles succeeding. The proverbial checklist simply has to be done away with.
Exactly.
People, apparently, would rather relive the past - which is impossible - then go for a brighter future.
It's amazing that people think they can recreate the past in a sustained fashion. I mean, how often does that work, exactly?
We're constantly evolving - and we're slowly dying. Is it really worth it to try and go back to something we can no longer be? For some, I guess.
My 23 year old son and his friends are buying remastered LPs and playing them on "record players" because of their superior sound quality apparently.
Yeah, MMORPGs are like that, they had mechanics some of us favored and we are looking for a remastered version, not exactly what we had 15 years ago.
Believe it or not, but I also favor many old-school mechanics. But you're forgetting that mechanics don't exist in a vaccuum - and if you don't take GREAT care, you risk becoming old-school just for the sake of being old-school - and that's when you're in trouble.
Unless, of course, you absolutely insist that every single modern change to MMOs is bad.
If you do that, then I simply completely disagree.
To me, there's a fantastic or even essential modern change for every atrocious or even game-breaking change.
To put it another way, I absolutely adore the complexity and challenge of old-school designs - but I also LOATHE the barren landmass and barebones approach to content. I despise the treadmill grind - and the lack of meaningful PvE alternatives. I love the distinct, and essential, class roles and the way achievements used to mean something - but I despise the lack of modern presentation of story and the clunky uninspired combat.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point
I agree not all change is bad, but there are positives and negatives to each one.
Removing downtime between fights got players back into the game more quickly, but at the cost of socialization opportunities. (or to hit the head real quick)
Dungeon finders made it easier to complete content, at the cost of running them with people you never interact with and mega and cross server tech means you may never see them again.
Sure soloing is convenient and preferable, I did it all the time back in DAOC in 2003 and still do today in EVE.
But both titles strongly encourage and reward group play and interdependence between players and I spent/spend more than my fair share interacting with players in each than I did in ESO, SWTOR, and TSW.
I also miss the complexities of having different starting stats per race, a plethora of very different classes, gear with real stats, meaning weapons that did more damage to plate than chainmail or even leather, and npcs which were strong against some damage types and weak against others.
So I resist change that streamlines socialization and interaction opportunites (even negative interaction is better than none in my book) or reduces complexity and forcing the player to chose between several paths and learning to live with them.
I agree with some of that, but I'd say that you're largely misplacing the responsibility of having social interaction in the game.
Personally, I never needed pointless and tiresome downtime to interact with people - and I never stopped interacting online. That said, I almost exclusively play with people I know in real life - so in that way communication is natural. But I do, occasionally, use tools like Dungeon Finders - and believe me, I'm not the silent type.
I think you need to accept the fact that a LOT of people simply don't enjoy interacting with strangers online.
Forcing them to interact - or "encouraging" them - won't magically increase the size of the audience willing to interact.
You'd just end up with a much smaller audience, instead.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I'm curious what data your basing the five-year peak on?
In the past, the paradigm was the game would peak (playerbase) shortly after the first expansion and then slowly decline. The modern paradigm is the game peaks at launch and then rapidly declines to a stable number then slowly declines from there.
I've never heard of a game peaking at the 5 year mark.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
My 23 year old son and his friends are buying remastered LPs and playing them on "record players" because of their superior sound quality apparently.
Yeah, MMORPGs are like that, they had mechanics some of us favored and we are looking for a remastered version, not exactly what we had 15 years ago.
Your son wouldn't happen to be into punk/hardcore/metal music would he? If so LP's, 7inches, etc.. have been the go to popular medium in those genres since the 80's. While it's a more raw sound than your typical digitally pressed CD's and sounds better than cassette, it's also just as much a "cool' factor to purchase vinyl in those "scenes"...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I agree not all change is bad, but there are positives and negatives to each one.
Removing downtime between fights got players back into the game more quickly, but at the cost of socialization opportunities. (or to hit the head real quick)
Dungeon finders made it easier to complete content, at the cost of running them with people you never interact with and mega and cross server tech means you may never see them again.
Sure soloing is convenient and preferable, I did it all the time back in DAOC in 2003 and still do today in EVE.
But both titles strongly encourage and reward group play and interdependence between players and I spent/spend more than my fair share interacting with players in each than I did in ESO, SWTOR, and TSW.
I also miss the complexities of having different starting stats per race, a plethora of very different classes, gear with real stats, meaning weapons that did more damage to plate than chainmail or even leather, and npcs which were strong against some damage types and weak against others.
So I resist change that streamlines socialization and interaction opportunites (even negative interaction is better than none in my book) or reduces complexity and forcing the player to chose between several paths and learning to live with them.
This was so beautifully put, I am almost in tears. Almost.
Change is not bad. But like a sword, it has 2 edges. One that may improve, but another that usually has "unforeseen detriments." So far for me, the changes have not improved more than hindered the genre.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
Change is not bad. But like a sword, it has 2 edges. One that may improve, but another that usually has "unforeseen detriments." So far for me, the changes have not improved more than hindered the genre.
But, that seems to be what players want.
Yes, because changes are improvements for them. No one says you need to join them, but also don't expect devs to cater to you just because.
I do the game was released in a very unfinished and buggy mess and fixed years later(aka to late). Then they tried to save it by going f2p only which resulted on it staying open just a couple of years more. Basically Sony fucked it up.
This makes no sense to me, most folks wanting this type of game have been waiting around since EQ "was ruined" for such an experience, how can there be a too late considering that?
The whole vanguard argument is nothing but a strawman. The game had the worst launch of any mmo in history, and by the time it was stable, they WoWified the entire experience. It is not a valid comparison.
If nothing else, the fact that in a broken state they still had over a quarter of a million box sales demonstrates the desire for an eq successor was there. That most people left before level 2 shows the game had serious issues outside of gameplay.
You don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is. That would require YOU to have made a similar argument that I'm refuting by creating a straw man in its place.
You did though. Your argument is that there isn't a market Pantheon, and the strawman you are holding up is Vanguard, a game that failed out the gate and did not even resemble EQ by the time it was stable.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself on what a strawman is.
Dullahan said:
You did though. Your argument is that there isn't a market Pantheon, and the strawman you are holding up is Vanguard, a game that failed out the gate and did not even resemble EQ by the time it was stable.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself on what a strawman is.
Actually, you are the one making the "it is the best game made ever, but very little people play it" type of circular reasoning argument, a strawman argument.
Every and any attempt to recapture or recreate past MMO experience has failed so far. Period, there is no more into that.
You can dance around it and make excuses for each one attempt but you will be pulling a strawman argument after strawman argument only - every game got issues.
And for that very reason, Pantheon will likely be just next in the row of such failures...
With the layering of multiple life experiences, we develop not only tastes and preferences, but also standards. Although these are sometimes tinged by nostalgia, they are mostly governed by the belief that we know better -- and the more informed we are, the more likely we are to be right. This is called expertise -- you have entered a realm of pseudo professionalism where you quite literally know about as much as the bigwigs calling the shots (and sometimes, as in the case of EA products, a whole heck of a lot more).
Expertise can be found across all hobbies/professions, mind you -- I happen to be a great fan of Cascades geology, as well as railroading, and I know a lot of people who, while not professionals, are also "experts" at both. Same goes for fans of baseball, and football, and soccer... and city building... and mountaineering... and medicine... and politics. There are a lot of very informed people out there these days who may not hold a degree in a field, but have conducted enough independent research to know what they are talking about.
For example, I protested loudly in the last two years of Star Wars TOR's development as to missteps I believed the company was making based on my over a decade of time spent devotedly playing within the genre. Hardly to my great shock, the game bombed within three months of launch -- validating my expectations (but breaking my heart in the process).
Provided your standards are not too high, you can still find pleasure in anything -- but the more a game is built up, and the more money is poured into it, the higher our standards naturally climb. I had outrageous expectations from TOR because I knew that, given an absurdly profitable IP, a staff of hundreds, and 200+ million dollars, I could have developed a better game -- I am certain of this.
By contrast, with a title like Crowfall, my standards are a lot lower -- I expect something niche, fun, functional, and -- above all else -- slick as hell. I do not, however, imagine I am going to be tramping through hours' long raids, or leading a charge of hundreds of other players on a stutter-free battleground.
The point is: it's not even slightly unfair to judge these products based on a multitude of factors, not only against their competitors but also what you believe they can (or should have) achieve/d. That's not nostalgia, it's life.
Dullahan said:
You did though. Your argument is that there isn't a market Pantheon, and the strawman you are holding up is Vanguard, a game that failed out the gate and did not even resemble EQ by the time it was stable.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself on what a strawman is.
Actually, you are the one making the "it is the best game made ever, but very little people play it" type of circular reasoning argument, a strawman argument.
Every and any attempt to recapture or recreate past MMO experience has failed so far. Period, there is no more into that.
You can dance around it and make excuses for each one attempt but you will be pulling a strawman argument after strawman argument only - every game got issues.
And for that very reason, Pantheon will likely be just next in the row of such failures...
I do the game was released in a very unfinished and buggy mess and fixed years later(aka to late). Then they tried to save it by going f2p only which resulted on it staying open just a couple of years more. Basically Sony fucked it up.
This makes no sense to me, most folks wanting this type of game have been waiting around since EQ "was ruined" for such an experience, how can there be a too late considering that?
The whole vanguard argument is nothing but a strawman. The game had the worst launch of any mmo in history, and by the time it was stable, they WoWified the entire experience. It is not a valid comparison.
If nothing else, the fact that in a broken state they still had over a quarter of a million box sales demonstrates the desire for an eq successor was there. That most people left before level 2 shows the game had serious issues outside of gameplay.
You don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is. That would require YOU to have made a similar argument that I'm refuting by creating a straw man in its place.
You did though. Your argument is that there isn't a market Pantheon, and the strawman you are holding up is Vanguard, a game that failed out the gate and did not even resemble EQ by the time it was stable.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself on what a strawman is.
No, as I've never equated the two.
I'm just using it as an example, as Vanguard is a game that a LOT of people bring up as one of the best old-school designs - and trying to deny that it's extremely similar to what Pantheon is trying to do - is just ludicrous.
But, I'm not using a straw man - because then I would be claiming or inferring that you made the same argument for Vanguard as you're doing for Pantheon.
That's not what I'm doing.
I'm asking what the DIFFERENCE is here, since Vanguard failed so hard. I'm effectively killing its use as a straw man by pointing out that there must be a difference, I just can't see it.
Your explanation is that because the launch was bad - all these hundreds of thousands of fans of this kind of design abandoned it, and lost all interest in trying it again - even when it's the only semi-modern example of the genre in existence.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
I agree not all change is bad, but there are positives and negatives to each one.
Removing downtime between fights got players back into the game more quickly, but at the cost of socialization opportunities. (or to hit the head real quick)
Dungeon finders made it easier to complete content, at the cost of running them with people you never interact with and mega and cross server tech means you may never see them again.
Sure soloing is convenient and preferable, I did it all the time back in DAOC in 2003 and still do today in EVE.
But both titles strongly encourage and reward group play and interdependence between players and I spent/spend more than my fair share interacting with players in each than I did in ESO, SWTOR, and TSW.
I also miss the complexities of having different starting stats per race, a plethora of very different classes, gear with real stats, meaning weapons that did more damage to plate than chainmail or even leather, and npcs which were strong against some damage types and weak against others.
So I resist change that streamlines socialization and interaction opportunites (even negative interaction is better than none in my book) or reduces complexity and forcing the player to chose between several paths and learning to live with them.
I agree with some of that, but I'd say that you're largely misplacing the responsibility of having social interaction in the game.
Personally, I never needed pointless and tiresome downtime to interact with people - and I never stopped interacting online. That said, I almost exclusively play with people I know in real life - so in that way communication is natural. But I do, occasionally, use tools like Dungeon Finders - and believe me, I'm not the silent type.
I think you need to accept the fact that a LOT of people simply don't enjoy interacting with strangers online.
Forcing them to interact - or "encouraging" them - won't magically increase the size of the audience willing to interact.
You'd just end up with a much smaller audience, instead.
That's the thing about today's gamers, it seems like most are only playing/socializing with folks they know IRL (I do it as well for the most part).
That's where you'll find most socialization, outside of certain types of guilds.
Back in the day there was a lot more community based interaction.
I don't really think it's the games that caused this change though. I think it's more due to the plugged-in world we're in today, people don't like to directly communicate outside of a small bubble of people they know (even that level of communication is deteriorating) . Real life socialization in general is at an all time low. People grow more introverted by the day it seems. ( i think it's by design but this isn't a political forum to discuss such things)..When people do communicate with strangers, it's mostly for negative reasons..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Purely anecdotal, but my reasons are simply: it was a buggy mess when it was released, it was slowly fixed on a piecemeal basis, but never received any love or injection of cash from the publisher. If a publisher can't be bothered with a game, then I'm not going to waste my time watching it die.
You received 25 LOLs. You are posting some laughably bad content, please desist.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Purely anecdotal, but my reasons are simply: it was a buggy mess when it was released, it was slowly fixed on a piecemeal basis, but never received any love or injection of cash from the publisher. If a publisher can't be bothered with a game, then I'm not going to waste my time watching it die.
I'm not going to deny their work post-release was atrocious - but the game was definitely playable, and I think the foundation was strong.
Fantastic classes, fantastic crafting, great dungeons, decent combat and so on.
But the way players abandoned it tells me they're not quite as big fans of old-school designs as they think.
Truth was also that it was pretty clunky and awkward, quests were mostly terrible and poorly implemented, and so on.
Meaning, it really would have benefitted from polish, high-quality content, strong presentation, superior story delivery and so on. Even if they'd added a million dungeons or raids - the engine and asset quality would still be mostly ass.
"Modern" things which I wouldn't expect from Pantheon.
DKLond said: Once again, why did Vanguard shut down?
In the end, it was fully functional and quite stable. The world was huge and full of dungeons. Tons of characters with great diversity.
Why did so very few people play it?
I don't get it.
We tend to pass verdict on games shortly after their release, and then dismiss them forever after.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
I agree the mainstream audience does that, but not the core audience.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
Any player looking for a Vanguard-like experience would, obviously, be extremely interested in Vanguard after the launch.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
I don't know what the playerbase was like prior to its shutdown, but you're trivializing the power of word of mouth and first impressions unduly.
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
It's hard to trivialise something I haven't even touched upon.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
Purely anecdotal, but my reasons are simply: it was a buggy mess when it was released, it was slowly fixed on a piecemeal basis, but never received any love or injection of cash from the publisher. If a publisher can't be bothered with a game, then I'm not going to waste my time watching it die.
Its really that simple. I've heard the statistics. Players leaving before level 2 and not returning says something. Bad launches have always spelled death for mmos. It takes a massive overhaul (ffxiv style) to come back from a bad launch, and aside from that 1 exception, its never happened.
Comments
No, what I'm doing is creating my own argument and I'm not putting it in place of anything you've said.
While it's true that Vanguard had a terrible launch - there was enough people playing it AFTER it became stable and fully functional. There's no denying that - and it took years before they finally decided to shut it down.
My question is why those people all stopped playing? Lack of content? The game was massive and had a ton of classes.
Why didn't new people give it a chance at all? I mean, if so many people are looking for a new Vanguard and the game had turned around and become stable - why did it dwindle into obscurity?
I mean, look at Mortal Online. That game remained a joke for years and years - and AFAIK, it's still only barely playable - but people are still playing it.
WoWified? Come on. The game was nothing like WoW - and it retained the vast majority of its EQ-centric features.
You're talking about hundreds of thousands of players looking for a similar game. When Vanguard shut down - did it even have 5K left when it shut down?
People, apparently, would rather relive the past - which is impossible - then go for a brighter future.
It's amazing that people think they can recreate the past in a sustained fashion. I mean, how often does that work, exactly?
We're constantly evolving - and we're slowly dying. Is it really worth it to try and go back to something we can no longer be? For some, I guess.
Yeah, MMORPGs are like that, they had mechanics some of us favored and we are looking for a remastered version, not exactly what we had 15 years ago.
"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
Unless, of course, you absolutely insist that every single modern change to MMOs is bad.
If you do that, then I simply completely disagree.
To me, there's a fantastic or even essential modern change for every atrocious or even game-breaking change.
To put it another way, I absolutely adore the complexity and challenge of old-school designs - but I also LOATHE the barren landmass and barebones approach to content. I despise the treadmill grind - and the lack of meaningful PvE alternatives. I love the distinct, and essential, class roles and the way achievements used to mean something - but I despise the lack of modern presentation of story and the clunky uninspired combat.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point
Removing downtime between fights got players back into the game more quickly, but at the cost of socialization opportunities. (or to hit the head real quick)
Dungeon finders made it easier to complete content, at the cost of running them with people you never interact with and mega and cross server tech means you may never see them again.
Sure soloing is convenient and preferable, I did it all the time back in DAOC in 2003 and still do today in EVE.
But both titles strongly encourage and reward group play and interdependence between players and I spent/spend more than my fair share interacting with players in each than I did in ESO, SWTOR, and TSW.
I also miss the complexities of having different starting stats per race, a plethora of very different classes, gear with real stats, meaning weapons that did more damage to plate than chainmail or even leather, and npcs which were strong against some damage types and weak against others.
So I resist change that streamlines socialization and interaction opportunites (even negative interaction is better than none in my book) or reduces complexity and forcing the player to chose between several paths and learning to live with them.
"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
Personally, I never needed pointless and tiresome downtime to interact with people - and I never stopped interacting online. That said, I almost exclusively play with people I know in real life - so in that way communication is natural. But I do, occasionally, use tools like Dungeon Finders - and believe me, I'm not the silent type.
I think you need to accept the fact that a LOT of people simply don't enjoy interacting with strangers online.
Forcing them to interact - or "encouraging" them - won't magically increase the size of the audience willing to interact.
You'd just end up with a much smaller audience, instead.
It's kind of sad considering that most titles cannot claim to have "peaked" before year five (give or take).
SOE had other more popular titles already in operation; a poor platform for generating new "second look" interest. No marketing, of course. Little interest in success from the corporate side.
Certainly not if we're talking about a design paradigm that's supposedly in such high demand.
We all know the majority of "established" posters on MMORPG cycle between old favorites constantly. That includes all the failed launches with ever dwindling population.
Every single day there's a new thread with an old poster asking what game he should "give another shot".
Essentially, I just don't buy that explanation. It doesn't compute.
Exactly how interested do you expect a player who didn't stumble into Vanguard until well after the launch to be?
"The Internet said this game was fail." Instant verdict delivered, very few players research more deeply than that.
Old school players pining for the 'good ole' mechanics are a constantly-dwindling market segment, just by virtue of mortality (and other reasons, of course). Is that a good model to build for future sales?
SOE took little interest in the title because Vanguard clearly missed the bus.
The SOE players showed weak interest because they already had tastes set by other titles. The verdict of the Internet was already set against it.
I don't think nostalgia is a weak argument; I think denial is strong.
That's my point.
SOE aren't stupid. If the game was profitable at ALL - it would not shut down.
It's not rocket science.
In the past, the paradigm was the game would peak (playerbase) shortly after the first expansion and then slowly decline. The modern paradigm is the game peaks at launch and then rapidly declines to a stable number then slowly declines from there.
I've never heard of a game peaking at the 5 year mark.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Change is not bad. But like a sword, it has 2 edges. One that may improve, but another that usually has "unforeseen detriments." So far for me, the changes have not improved more than hindered the genre.
But, that seems to be what players want.
VG
Even if I'm looking for a specific experience, if a game fits those general features, but has overly negative reviews, I'm not going to spend time (nor money) seeing if those reviews are wrong/outdated.
That's not uncommon, nor is it unique to video games. An early-game misstep can, indeed, doom a product to failure or irrelevancy, specifically in a heavily populated market.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself on what a strawman is.
Every and any attempt to recapture or recreate past MMO experience has failed so far. Period, there is no more into that.
You can dance around it and make excuses for each one attempt but you will be pulling a strawman argument after strawman argument only - every game got issues.
And for that very reason, Pantheon will likely be just next in the row of such failures...
Expertise can be found across all hobbies/professions, mind you -- I happen to be a great fan of Cascades geology, as well as railroading, and I know a lot of people who, while not professionals, are also "experts" at both. Same goes for fans of baseball, and football, and soccer... and city building... and mountaineering... and medicine... and politics. There are a lot of very informed people out there these days who may not hold a degree in a field, but have conducted enough independent research to know what they are talking about.
For example, I protested loudly in the last two years of Star Wars TOR's development as to missteps I believed the company was making based on my over a decade of time spent devotedly playing within the genre. Hardly to my great shock, the game bombed within three months of launch -- validating my expectations (but breaking my heart in the process).
Provided your standards are not too high, you can still find pleasure in anything -- but the more a game is built up, and the more money is poured into it, the higher our standards naturally climb. I had outrageous expectations from TOR because I knew that, given an absurdly profitable IP, a staff of hundreds, and 200+ million dollars, I could have developed a better game -- I am certain of this.
By contrast, with a title like Crowfall, my standards are a lot lower -- I expect something niche, fun, functional, and -- above all else -- slick as hell. I do not, however, imagine I am going to be tramping through hours' long raids, or leading a charge of hundreds of other players on a stutter-free battleground.
The point is: it's not even slightly unfair to judge these products based on a multitude of factors, not only against their competitors but also what you believe they can (or should have) achieve/d. That's not nostalgia, it's life.
I'm just using it as an example, as Vanguard is a game that a LOT of people bring up as one of the best old-school designs - and trying to deny that it's extremely similar to what Pantheon is trying to do - is just ludicrous.
But, I'm not using a straw man - because then I would be claiming or inferring that you made the same argument for Vanguard as you're doing for Pantheon.
That's not what I'm doing.
I'm asking what the DIFFERENCE is here, since Vanguard failed so hard. I'm effectively killing its use as a straw man by pointing out that there must be a difference, I just can't see it.
Your explanation is that because the launch was bad - all these hundreds of thousands of fans of this kind of design abandoned it, and lost all interest in trying it again - even when it's the only semi-modern example of the genre in existence.
I call bullshit on that.
I've conceded, plainly, that the game failed at launch. There's no doubt there.
But my point is that it DID get to a "profitable" stage after it became functional and stable - and I know because I used to read the Vanguard forums - where developers were getting excited about it, and they started to add significant content like that one popular raid.
My question is that if the game DID turn profitable - and "word of mouth" changed, which it did - because I tried it several times BECAUSE word of mouth had changed - why did population dwindle into nothing?
Because it was "WoWified"? That's bullshit. Sure, they made a few changes that made it slightly more convenient - but those changes were blown way, way out of proportion. It was still a very challenging group-centric game - full of distinct classes and all those other wonderful old-school things.
So, again, WHY did it not grow? Why did it not only stagnate? Why did it dwindle so much?
That's where you'll find most socialization, outside of certain types of guilds.
Back in the day there was a lot more community based interaction.
I don't really think it's the games that caused this change though. I think it's more due to the plugged-in world we're in today, people don't like to directly communicate outside of a small bubble of people they know (even that level of communication is deteriorating) . Real life socialization in general is at an all time low. People grow more introverted by the day it seems. ( i think it's by design but this isn't a political forum to discuss such things)..When people do communicate with strangers, it's mostly for negative reasons..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You are posting some laughably bad content, please desist.
Fantastic classes, fantastic crafting, great dungeons, decent combat and so on.
But the way players abandoned it tells me they're not quite as big fans of old-school designs as they think.
Truth was also that it was pretty clunky and awkward, quests were mostly terrible and poorly implemented, and so on.
Meaning, it really would have benefitted from polish, high-quality content, strong presentation, superior story delivery and so on. Even if they'd added a million dungeons or raids - the engine and asset quality would still be mostly ass.
"Modern" things which I wouldn't expect from Pantheon.