Damn straight, the devs make a concious decision to make raiding the most challenging content in the game. They do this because its the best method for slowing progession down for the least amount of effort. They could very well do the same thing for solo / small group content, but it would require so much more effort and it would reduce if not eliminate the epeen factor that so many raiders enjoy. I don't know if its just ego or a combination of ego and laziness that makes developers stick with this paradigm / game model, but its certainly getting old.
Could you please point out to me a MMO that is truly casual, where time spent in the game isn't rewarded over that of skill? Could you point out a single MMO and I stress MMO, not hybrid non-static world games like Guild Wars and Dungeons and Dragons Online that actually rewards every play style equally? Even WoW with all of its casual gameplay, fast leveling....etc, still uses the outdated reward system that gives all of the best gear to raiders and no-lifers. Casuals are stuck with ridiiculously underpowered weapons and armor. Not only is it unfair, but it makes PvP very unfun for non-raiders. The only one that comes close is City of Heroes, but its hard to even call it an MMO when everything is squashed into a single city and everything is instanced with little to no exploration, but even they reward the no-lifers with the best content in the form of Task Forces that take anywhere from 2 hours all the way to 10 hour sessions. Sure you can break those down by everyone logging off at some point then coming back to finish, but what if you want to do other things in the meantime? You can't, you have to quit the task force before you can continue with any of your other adventuring, making it very inconvenient to the very people its suppose to help, the time constrained. So yeah, we're pissed that there is yet another hardcore game coming onto an already saturated market. When the hell are we casuals actually going to get a game that rewards us with the best the game has to offer without having to spend 4 hour chunks of our precious lives and still not feel like second class citizens to raiders and hardcores.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
From what I've heard, Vanguard is aimed at hardcore gamers who don't mind time sinks and are excited at the prospect of playing a game that will scare off twelve year olds within the first five minutes of game play. If that is in fact the aim of the game, then complaining about it being aimed at hardcore players is like complaining about a new action movie that's aimed at people who like action movies. If this isn't what you want from a MMO then go play something that's not made for hardcore gamers. Don't sit here and flame this one for being what it is. What kind of casual MMO exists? I don't know. Mario? Just roleplay that all of the NPC's and mobs are players.
I'm probably going to pick this game up, as I already have an SOE all access pass (for Planetside and Everquest II).
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
Originally posted by Mrbloodworth "They are saying is that while it is their goal to create a challenging game, it is also important that players have fun. It is their job to find a balance between the two. Where that balance lies, we are told, will depend on how much challenge the market will bare."
I have to point out that line. As it reads to me "How mush of a time sink people will put up with".
Im sure ill get flamed. But thats how it reads to me going by the information on the site about the game and the article. The more i read about the game, the more it sounds like a job. Its a shame too.
I will stll try it when it comes out, and ill make my final judgment then on if this is a game that i CAN play given my lifestyle.
I just had to quote this entire post, because I have EXACTLY the same opinion of this, word for word.
And yet there is an article about risk vs reward that outright states that while grouping can get some nice rewards, they will never compare to raiding because raiding is so much more difficult and therefore should have the best rewards the game has to offer. Which one is true, they're both out of the mouths of developers and it was Brad that made the statements about rewards. Brad is old school, always has been and probably will always be. He likes raiding, he likes hardcore and he thinks they deserve the best of the best. He has a history that proves this and I have not seen a single article to show he has changed. I'm sure there will be a lot of group and maybe some small amount of solo content, but they will never be catered to the way hardcores will be.
To the previous poster that says to shut up and go away. The last I heard, Sigil is suppose to be all about player feedback and suggestions. Do you speak for Sigil? Do you not think that criticism can make for a better game experience? I know it has helped games in the past, such as EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online. I'm sure there are many more, but I know those the best. Player feedback changed those games in many ways, sometimes radically and they were better for it. Why limit your game to one specific target audience when you don't have to, especially when its still in the building stage. They can't possibly think they can make enough revenues to justify the costs if they stick with hardcores only. As far as I'm concerned, the market isn't capable yet to support niche games, there just aren't enough players to do that, they cannibalize each other to a large extent at this time. Once they tap into mainstream and gain players that don't normally play online, then they might be able to get away with it. Sadly, the design paradigms of current and near future MMO's will never attract mainstream, they are far to hardcore for non-geeks.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Well Brad was part of EQ before they sold out to SOE and in my mind I can see him doing it again. But that aside I wouldn't pruchase a game again from SOE or any company partnering with them. I drew the line in the sand and said no more. Electronics, music, games if it is made or influanced by SONY at all I am not going to buy it. That said it was a sad day for me when I found out that Vanguard was going to be distributed by SOE, I was really looking forward to playing this one. I am now looking at playing Age of Connan or Warhammer online which both will be great I amagine.
Having not played SWG I can't comment on that side of things. I can however state that I believe that no matter the MMOG that the hardcore players will always have bigger and better things than the casual players. If you don't like this then perhaps MMOG's are not for you and you should stick to games that satisfy quicker. Maybe this is a bit of a blanket statement and there are some that fit the bill.
I can say one thing however and that is whoever posted that people reading about SOE screwing with games and completely erasing months or years of accomplishments, is spot on in saying that people will think twice about playing a game with SOE involved in any way whatsoever, because that is exactly what I'm thinking right now. Making changes to a game where you cancel out rewards and accomplishments is not a good way to retain customer relations. Having read both sides of the equation ie I will never buy sony again, as opposed to SOE burned me and now I'm over it, I can certainly understand both sides of the equation with both sides making some very valid points.
It all comes down to a few facts in my opinion* will soe assume creative control of the games at some point? who know's, I'm sure Brad couldn't even answer that one, whatever his intentions are at this point will they remain the same in a year? or two years?
*Can you trust Sigil? Is it even about trust? Some say it's about principle which I can totally understand. *Will the game even be any good? Only time will tell. *Do you want a hardcore or casual experience? From what I've read this is certainly more of a hardcore gamers game.
Ultimately it comes down to the factors of the SOE involvement versus how good the game will be.
Everyone will have a different point of view.
Me, well I may just wait till a few months after launch and see how things are travelling.
There are also some other very promising MMORPG's on the horizon, age of conan anyone, how bout gods and heroes, perhaps warhammer or startrek online.
The fact is that people who will not play this game because of SOE's involvement have other choices and that is what life is all about, I am glad that they have the choice to play or not play Vanguard, that is what makes the world an interesting place in my view.
While Vanguard looks more and more to not be the game for me, as I can't play hardcore and fit in having a real life outside the game, that doesn't mean there isn't a place for that kind of game. Competition and variety are healthy in any business, including gaming as there is a wide variety of consumers. If Vanguard wants to cater to hardcore gamers, good for them! That's their niche. If other companies want to produce games for the more casual player, good for them! That's their niche.
Instead of casual gamers bashing hardcore games, and hardcore gamers bashing games that people like me gravitate to, I'd like to be happy for the hardcore gamer that this game may turn out to be an mmorpg nirvana for them the way WoW currently is for me. Some people want more of a challenge. Other's just want to jump straight into fun for a few hours between putting the kids to bed and getting oneself to bed. There is a place for both games. Game developers will have to decide if they want to produce more to fulfill a niche, or whether their priority is to produce mainstream and gain the main flow of subscription return and figure out what exactly IS mainstream, whether it be the hardcore gamer or the casual gamer. In the meantime while they're trying to figure that out, we, the consumers, are seeing an influx of a lot of games that are trying to cater to either side.
I expect with Vanguard that grinding for diplomacy and the right to talk to the king, etc, is going to be much the same as faction grinding but with another name. I really don't know, but I do know that I am not a fan of the corpse-run when everyone has to wait around for someone to get their corpse before we can move on in a raid, especially when I have an 8am surgery to attend to the next morning, but if hardcore people like that then I hope it's done well and lag/bug free. It doesn't necessarily make it a bad game, just a bad game for gamers like me. I don't enjoy games that cater to Brad's philosophy, but it works for a lot of other people, and one thing that Brad CAN bring to the table is quality. Hopefully he won't sell out in the end the way his EQ went to Verant and then to Sony, but in the meantime...hardcore gamers will likely enjoy Vanguard and more power to them and the consumer.
This is for those of you who keep complaining about how Brad "sold out" Everquest.
Originally posted by Holyavenger1 Actually, EQ was originally designed under the 989 Studios brand, which belonged in full to Sony. They later bought and transfered everything over to the name Verant (still belonging to Sony) before they re-structured to put everything under SOE. EQ2 was always developped under SOE from day 1 and the whole license always belonged to Sony.
And a more detailed version of that from Wikipeida:
Development of EverQuest began in 1996 when Sony Interactive Studios America (SISA) executive John Smedley secured funding for a 3D version of textbased MUDs following the success of the first massively multiplayer game, Meridian 59. To implement the design Smedley hired programmers Brad McQuaid and Steve Clover who had come to Smedley's attention through their work on the singleplayer RPG Warwizard. McQuaid soon rose through the ranks to become Executive Producer for the EverQuest franchise and emerged during development of EverQuest as a popular figure among the fan community through his in-game avatar, Aradune. Other key members of the development team included Bill Trost, who created the history, lore and major characters of Norrath (including Everquest protagonist Firiona Vie), Geoffrey "GZ" Zatkin who implemented the spell system, and artist Kevin Burns, who did the original character modelling in the game.
EverQuest launched with modest expectations from Sony on March 16, 1999 under its Verant Interactive brand and quickly became successful. By the end of the year, it had surpassed the leading competitor, Ultima Online in number of subscriptions. Numbers continued rising at a steady rate until mid-2001 when growth slowed. As of 2004, Sony reports subscription numbers close to 450,000.
The success of EverQuest has triggered several corporate iterations of its publishing entity which has engendered a popular misconception among newer fans of the series that ownership and creative leadership of franchise passed somehow in 2000 from an independent entity known as Verant into Sony's hands. In reality, EverQuest from its inception has continually been owned by one or other subsidiary of Sony America, with John Smedley retaining ultimate control of the product, from his creation of the concept in 1996, to this day. This confusion can be attributed to a shift in Sony's publishing priorities in the US prior to the launch of its Playstation 2 product in 1999. In anticipation of PlayStation's launch Sony Interactive Studios America had made the decision to focus primarily on console titles under the banner 989 Studios while spinning off its sole computer title, EverQuest which was ready to launch, to a new computer game division named Redeye (renamed Verant Interactive). Executives initially had very low expectations for EverQuest but in 2000, following the surprising continued success and unparallelled profits of EverQuest, Sony reorganized Verant Interactive into Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) with Smedley retaining control of the company. By 2002 however, a majority of the original EverQuest team, including Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover and Geoffrey Zatkin had left SOE and day-to-day development of new titles in the franchise continues largely in the hands of a new generation of Sony designers.
Good information. So basically when Quaid left with all the whining and accusations of the lost "Vision"tm when the name changed on the splash screen at boot-up was really Sony's property all along and Quaid was just an employee?
Anyway, that part doesn't matter to me, it's past history and I'm only concerned with the games they are creating now and if they are something that fits my playstyle. I don't think Vanguard is going to be a bad game, just a bad game for me. It's going to be great for others with a different play style. Less Bitching, more choices.
Originally posted by liquidmetal This is for those of you who keep complaining about how Brad "sold out" Everquest.
Originally posted by Holyavenger1
Actually, EQ was originally designed under the 989 Studios brand, which belonged in full to Sony. They later bought and transfered everything over to the name Verant (still belonging to Sony) before they re-structured to put everything under SOE. EQ2 was always developped under SOE from day 1 and the whole license always belonged to Sony.
Ok and your point is that he wont sell out again? Really the only difference is more paperwork. He left EQ in the full hands of SONY before, he will probably do it again. I can see a huge Vanguard playerbase waking up one day and finding SONY at the top instead of Sigil. And really does it matter "no" because even the remote possibility that years of intense character development is not worth it. You can raise the details and say but look SOE already owned EQ and I say it's all the same people to much of a chance for history to repeat it-self. I realy don't care at this point I am sure Vanguard will have it's following but they can't expect gamers that have been screwed over by SOE to subscribe, allot have made the hard choice as I did to not get stabbed in the back by SOE over and over again.
Originally posted by Stormsender Ok and your point is that he wont sell out again? Really the only difference is more paperwork. He left EQ in the full hands of SONY before, he will probably do it again.
That doesn't make any sense. Developers work for companies, not the other way around. EQ started "in the full hands of SONY." It was Sony's property while he was working on it and it was Sony's property after he left it. The difference is much more than paperwork. It doesn't matter how much of the game was masterminded by Brad. If Sony says that they want "x" aspect of "Sony product y" changed, it's going to happen. It has nothing to do with people who are farther down the chain of command. Brad left EQ for a reason. He stated that SOE has nothing to do with actual game itself, just the marketing, distribution, and hardware. Do keep in mind that Brad wants Vanguard to succeed and last for a long time. Also keep in mind that he knows that SOE destroyed SWG. I'm not a Vanguard fanboi and I'm not a Bradboi either. I'm a logical thinker and I just really can't see what logic you're using that's telling you that he'd want to destroy his own game.
I think the point he is making is that the game is no longer Brad's baby. SOE has its hands on it financially, which will if not already translate into developing politics, which will eventually lead into game direction being dictated by those who foot the bill. EQ wasn't the only game out there to have this happen to them by their supposed distributers and marketers. These companies invest in the game, if they feel like their investment is being misused or abused, they will step in and take action.
Personally, I like the changes they made to SWG, so I don't have issue with SOE possibly taking the reigns, except for one thing and that is how that company treats its customers. Their service record leaves much to be desired, they seem to take this stance that the customer in general is a liying cheat and undeserving of any kind of recompense for accidental deletions of characters, items or money. They're too lazy in most cases to even check game records in this regard. But then again, I haven't had much luck with any MMO company's customer service. They are one of the few business that don't seem to really care, they are similar to phone, cable and utility companies in many ways. The complaining customer is replacable and insignificant.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Originally posted by Vrazule I think the point he is making is that the game is no longer Brad's baby. SOE has its hands on it financially, which will if not already translate into developing politics, which will eventually lead into game direction being dictated by those who foot the bill. EQ wasn't the only game out there to have this happen to them by their supposed distributers and marketers. These companies invest in the game, if they feel like their investment is being misused or abused, they will step in and take action.
I can't for the life of me figure out what is so difficult to grasp about this relationship. SOE does not have its hands on it financially. SOE was hired by Vanguard to handle distribution, marketing, sales, and servers. That means that SOE is being PAID for its services. SOE is not footing the bill for Vanguard. And SOE was never the "supposed distributer and marketer" of EQ. EQ was owned by Sony in full from the very beginning. That is an entirely different situation.
Hmmmm, I'm not having any problems understanding. Brad calls this move a partnership with SOE, that does not denote seperatism to me.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
EQ was owned by Sony in full from the very beginning. That is an entirely different situation.
Not really, remember all that about the "vision" dying?
Well apperently the Vision didn't die, it shambles on like a brain eating zombie, unchanged and unchanging...
I was in Beta, and let me tell you that Vanguard, Saga of Suckass isn't EQ2, its EQ1.5. I told them to shove it after MONTHS of emails only ever got me form letters and bullsh*t, it definatly was NOT my PC or networks fault... what a joke.
And that retard McSquid keep talking smack about Age of Conan, about how much farther along Vanguard is and blah blah blah... well sorry charlie, you could take another year and unless you scrap your gfx and start from scratch its still going to suck compared to AoC...
So if you are looking for another EQ/WoW style raidgrind=endgame game, Vanguard is for you... as for me and mine, we are looking for innovation.
Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood. -Nietzsche
EQ was probobly the best MMORPG I've played to date. The closer Vanguard comes to replicating EQ the better. I want to know what ever happened to lv 1? Can Vanguard please make some use of lv 1. The only game that seems to make any use of beginning lvs is DDO and that whole game is instanced crap that doesn't deserve a monthly subscription fee.
Originally posted by Rattrap I understand the SOE hate here.
But no other decent MMO is coming for at least 1 year from now , except for Vanguard and LOTRO. Lotro will probably be shit. So we will probably all end up playing Vanguard at least for little while...
And for power gamer focus in Vanguard. Well good , on the end only the hard and dificult games stay interesting for long time... Easy games like WOW wear out fast.
Age of Conan is due out in Q2 2007. It looks like it's going to beat Vanguard hands down.
AoC does target a wider range of gameplay and seems to reward all of them equally, that alone makes it a more likely candidate to have larger appeal than Vanguard. Vanguard wants to be "niche" / "core", more power to them, but I don't see them ever breaking 500,000 at its peak.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
EQ was owned by Sony in full from the very beginning. That is an entirely different situation.
Not really, remember all that about the "vision" dying?
Well apperently the Vision didn't die, it shambles on like a brain eating zombie, unchanged and unchanging...
I was in Beta, and let me tell you that Vanguard, Saga of Suckass isn't EQ2, its EQ1.5. I told them to shove it after MONTHS of emails only ever got me form letters and bullsh*t, it definatly was NOT my PC or networks fault... what a joke.
And that retard McSquid keep talking smack about Age of Conan, about how much farther along Vanguard is and blah blah blah... well sorry charlie, you could take another year and unless you scrap your gfx and start from scratch its still going to suck compared to AoC...
So if you are looking for another EQ/WoW style raidgrind=endgame game, Vanguard is for you... as for me and mine, we are looking for innovation.
Please explain to me how AoC is innovative, I just read the FAQ and it looks like another Shadowbane or Lineage game.
Please explain to me how AoC is innovative, I just read the FAQ and it looks like another Shadowbane or Lineage game.
There is nothing innovative about Vanguard. Tell us what you think is 3rd generation regarding Vanguard. It's just another forced grouping/dependency, raiding offers best rewards game. Been there done that, 1st generation MMOG.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it." Brad McQuaid Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc. Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes www.vanguardsoh
Originally posted by Jorev Originally posted by Ceridan Please explain to me how AoC is innovative, I just read the FAQ and it looks like another Shadowbane or Lineage game.
There is nothing innovative about Vanguard. Tell us what you think is 3rd generation regarding Vanguard. It's just another forced grouping/dependency, raiding offers best rewards game. Been there done that, 1st generation MMOG.
When did I say I thought Vanguard was innovative. Vanguard is taking what works and making a great game. Want an innovative game, go play horizons and then shoot urself. I like what Vanguard is doing, they are bringing it back to generation 1 and planning ahead this time. WoW is basically EQ with cartoon graphics and easy gameplay and it is the largest MMO on the market. Vanguard is getting away from the stupid cartoon look and easy gameplay and making a really interesting title that will have a more realistic feel. Death will once again be something to fear and I couldn't be any happier .
Comments
Damn straight, the devs make a concious decision to make raiding the most challenging content in the game. They do this because its the best method for slowing progession down for the least amount of effort. They could very well do the same thing for solo / small group content, but it would require so much more effort and it would reduce if not eliminate the epeen factor that so many raiders enjoy. I don't know if its just ego or a combination of ego and laziness that makes developers stick with this paradigm / game model, but its certainly getting old.
Could you please point out to me a MMO that is truly casual, where time spent in the game isn't rewarded over that of skill? Could you point out a single MMO and I stress MMO, not hybrid non-static world games like Guild Wars and Dungeons and Dragons Online that actually rewards every play style equally? Even WoW with all of its casual gameplay, fast leveling....etc, still uses the outdated reward system that gives all of the best gear to raiders and no-lifers. Casuals are stuck with ridiiculously underpowered weapons and armor. Not only is it unfair, but it makes PvP very unfun for non-raiders. The only one that comes close is City of Heroes, but its hard to even call it an MMO when everything is squashed into a single city and everything is instanced with little to no exploration, but even they reward the no-lifers with the best content in the form of Task Forces that take anywhere from 2 hours all the way to 10 hour sessions. Sure you can break those down by everyone logging off at some point then coming back to finish, but what if you want to do other things in the meantime? You can't, you have to quit the task force before you can continue with any of your other adventuring, making it very inconvenient to the very people its suppose to help, the time constrained. So yeah, we're pissed that there is yet another hardcore game coming onto an already saturated market. When the hell are we casuals actually going to get a game that rewards us with the best the game has to offer without having to spend 4 hour chunks of our precious lives and still not feel like second class citizens to raiders and hardcores.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
From what I've heard, Vanguard is aimed at hardcore gamers who don't mind time sinks and are excited at the prospect of playing a game that will scare off twelve year olds within the first five minutes of game play. If that is in fact the aim of the game, then complaining about it being aimed at hardcore players is like complaining about a new action movie that's aimed at people who like action movies. If this isn't what you want from a MMO then go play something that's not made for hardcore gamers. Don't sit here and flame this one for being what it is. What kind of casual MMO exists? I don't know. Mario? Just roleplay that all of the NPC's and mobs are players.
A good read (the article).
I'm probably going to pick this game up, as I already have an SOE all access pass (for Planetside and Everquest II).
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
And yet there is an article about risk vs reward that outright states that while grouping can get some nice rewards, they will never compare to raiding because raiding is so much more difficult and therefore should have the best rewards the game has to offer. Which one is true, they're both out of the mouths of developers and it was Brad that made the statements about rewards. Brad is old school, always has been and probably will always be. He likes raiding, he likes hardcore and he thinks they deserve the best of the best. He has a history that proves this and I have not seen a single article to show he has changed. I'm sure there will be a lot of group and maybe some small amount of solo content, but they will never be catered to the way hardcores will be.
To the previous poster that says to shut up and go away. The last I heard, Sigil is suppose to be all about player feedback and suggestions. Do you speak for Sigil? Do you not think that criticism can make for a better game experience? I know it has helped games in the past, such as EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online. I'm sure there are many more, but I know those the best. Player feedback changed those games in many ways, sometimes radically and they were better for it. Why limit your game to one specific target audience when you don't have to, especially when its still in the building stage. They can't possibly think they can make enough revenues to justify the costs if they stick with hardcores only. As far as I'm concerned, the market isn't capable yet to support niche games, there just aren't enough players to do that, they cannibalize each other to a large extent at this time. Once they tap into mainstream and gain players that don't normally play online, then they might be able to get away with it. Sadly, the design paradigms of current and near future MMO's will never attract mainstream, they are far to hardcore for non-geeks.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Well Brad was part of EQ before they sold out to SOE and in my mind I can see him doing it again. But that aside I wouldn't pruchase a game again from SOE or any company partnering with them. I drew the line in the sand and said no more. Electronics, music, games if it is made or influanced by SONY at all I am not going to buy it. That said it was a sad day for me when I found out that Vanguard was going to be distributed by SOE, I was really looking forward to playing this one. I am now looking at playing Age of Connan or Warhammer online which both will be great I amagine.
I can say one thing however and that is whoever posted that people reading about SOE screwing with games and completely erasing months or years of accomplishments, is spot on in saying that people will think twice about playing a game with SOE involved in any way whatsoever, because that is exactly what I'm thinking right now. Making changes to a game where you cancel out rewards and accomplishments is not a good way to retain customer relations. Having read both sides of the equation ie I will never buy sony again, as opposed to SOE burned me and now I'm over it, I can certainly understand both sides of the equation with both sides making some very valid points.
It all comes down to a few facts in my opinion* will soe assume creative control of the games at some point? who know's, I'm sure Brad couldn't even answer that one, whatever his intentions are at this point will they remain the same in a year? or two years?
*Can you trust Sigil? Is it even about trust? Some say it's about principle which I can totally understand.
*Will the game even be any good? Only time will tell.
*Do you want a hardcore or casual experience? From what I've read this is certainly more of a hardcore gamers game.
Ultimately it comes down to the factors of the SOE involvement versus how good the game will be.
Everyone will have a different point of view.
Me, well I may just wait till a few months after launch and see how things are travelling.
There are also some other very promising MMORPG's on the horizon, age of conan anyone, how bout gods and heroes, perhaps warhammer or startrek online.
The fact is that people who will not play this game because of SOE's involvement have other choices and that is what life is all about, I am glad that they have the choice to play or not play Vanguard, that is what makes the world an interesting place in my view.
While Vanguard looks more and more to not be the game for me, as I can't play hardcore and fit in having a real life outside the game, that doesn't mean there isn't a place for that kind of game. Competition and variety are healthy in any business, including gaming as there is a wide variety of consumers. If Vanguard wants to cater to hardcore gamers, good for them! That's their niche. If other companies want to produce games for the more casual player, good for them! That's their niche.
Instead of casual gamers bashing hardcore games, and hardcore gamers bashing games that people like me gravitate to, I'd like to be happy for the hardcore gamer that this game may turn out to be an mmorpg nirvana for them the way WoW currently is for me. Some people want more of a challenge. Other's just want to jump straight into fun for a few hours between putting the kids to bed and getting oneself to bed. There is a place for both games. Game developers will have to decide if they want to produce more to fulfill a niche, or whether their priority is to produce mainstream and gain the main flow of subscription return and figure out what exactly IS mainstream, whether it be the hardcore gamer or the casual gamer. In the meantime while they're trying to figure that out, we, the consumers, are seeing an influx of a lot of games that are trying to cater to either side.
I expect with Vanguard that grinding for diplomacy and the right to talk to the king, etc, is going to be much the same as faction grinding but with another name. I really don't know, but I do know that I am not a fan of the corpse-run when everyone has to wait around for someone to get their corpse before we can move on in a raid, especially when I have an 8am surgery to attend to the next morning, but if hardcore people like that then I hope it's done well and lag/bug free. It doesn't necessarily make it a bad game, just a bad game for gamers like me. I don't enjoy games that cater to Brad's philosophy, but it works for a lot of other people, and one thing that Brad CAN bring to the table is quality. Hopefully he won't sell out in the end the way his EQ went to Verant and then to Sony, but in the meantime...hardcore gamers will likely enjoy Vanguard and more power to them and the consumer.
This is for those of you who keep complaining about how Brad "sold out" Everquest.
And a more detailed version of that from Wikipeida:
Development of EverQuest began in 1996 when Sony Interactive Studios America (SISA) executive John Smedley secured funding for a 3D version of textbased MUDs following the success of the first massively multiplayer game, Meridian 59. To implement the design Smedley hired programmers Brad McQuaid and Steve Clover who had come to Smedley's attention through their work on the singleplayer RPG Warwizard. McQuaid soon rose through the ranks to become Executive Producer for the EverQuest franchise and emerged during development of EverQuest as a popular figure among the fan community through his in-game avatar, Aradune. Other key members of the development team included Bill Trost, who created the history, lore and major characters of Norrath (including Everquest protagonist Firiona Vie), Geoffrey "GZ" Zatkin who implemented the spell system, and artist Kevin Burns, who did the original character modelling in the game.
EverQuest launched with modest expectations from Sony on March 16, 1999 under its Verant Interactive brand and quickly became successful. By the end of the year, it had surpassed the leading competitor, Ultima Online in number of subscriptions. Numbers continued rising at a steady rate until mid-2001 when growth slowed. As of 2004, Sony reports subscription numbers close to 450,000.
The success of EverQuest has triggered several corporate iterations of its publishing entity which has engendered a popular misconception among newer fans of the series that ownership and creative leadership of franchise passed somehow in 2000 from an independent entity known as Verant into Sony's hands. In reality, EverQuest from its inception has continually been owned by one or other subsidiary of Sony America, with John Smedley retaining ultimate control of the product, from his creation of the concept in 1996, to this day. This confusion can be attributed to a shift in Sony's publishing priorities in the US prior to the launch of its Playstation 2 product in 1999. In anticipation of PlayStation's launch Sony Interactive Studios America had made the decision to focus primarily on console titles under the banner 989 Studios while spinning off its sole computer title, EverQuest which was ready to launch, to a new computer game division named Redeye (renamed Verant Interactive). Executives initially had very low expectations for EverQuest but in 2000, following the surprising continued success and unparallelled profits of EverQuest, Sony reorganized Verant Interactive into Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) with Smedley retaining control of the company. By 2002 however, a majority of the original EverQuest team, including Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover and Geoffrey Zatkin had left SOE and day-to-day development of new titles in the franchise continues largely in the hands of a new generation of Sony designers.
Good information. So basically when Quaid left with all the whining and accusations of the lost "Vision"tm when the name changed on the splash screen at boot-up was really Sony's property all along and Quaid was just an employee?
Anyway, that part doesn't matter to me, it's past history and I'm only concerned with the games they are creating now and if they are something that fits my playstyle. I don't think Vanguard is going to be a bad game, just a bad game for me. It's going to be great for others with a different play style. Less Bitching, more choices.
Ok and your point is that he wont sell out again? Really the only difference is more paperwork. He left EQ in the full hands of SONY before, he will probably do it again. I can see a huge Vanguard playerbase waking up one day and finding SONY at the top instead of Sigil. And really does it matter "no" because even the remote possibility that years of intense character development is not worth it. You can raise the details and say but look SOE already owned EQ and I say it's all the same people to much of a chance for history to repeat it-self. I realy don't care at this point I am sure Vanguard will have it's following but they can't expect gamers that have been screwed over by SOE to subscribe, allot have made the hard choice as I did to not get stabbed in the back by SOE over and over again.
That doesn't make any sense. Developers work for companies, not the other way around. EQ started "in the full hands of SONY." It was Sony's property while he was working on it and it was Sony's property after he left it. The difference is much more than paperwork. It doesn't matter how much of the game was masterminded by Brad. If Sony says that they want "x" aspect of "Sony product y" changed, it's going to happen. It has nothing to do with people who are farther down the chain of command. Brad left EQ for a reason. He stated that SOE has nothing to do with actual game itself, just the marketing, distribution, and hardware. Do keep in mind that Brad wants Vanguard to succeed and last for a long time. Also keep in mind that he knows that SOE destroyed SWG. I'm not a Vanguard fanboi and I'm not a Bradboi either. I'm a logical thinker and I just really can't see what logic you're using that's telling you that he'd want to destroy his own game.
I think the point he is making is that the game is no longer Brad's baby. SOE has its hands on it financially, which will if not already translate into developing politics, which will eventually lead into game direction being dictated by those who foot the bill. EQ wasn't the only game out there to have this happen to them by their supposed distributers and marketers. These companies invest in the game, if they feel like their investment is being misused or abused, they will step in and take action.
Personally, I like the changes they made to SWG, so I don't have issue with SOE possibly taking the reigns, except for one thing and that is how that company treats its customers. Their service record leaves much to be desired, they seem to take this stance that the customer in general is a liying cheat and undeserving of any kind of recompense for accidental deletions of characters, items or money. They're too lazy in most cases to even check game records in this regard. But then again, I haven't had much luck with any MMO company's customer service. They are one of the few business that don't seem to really care, they are similar to phone, cable and utility companies in many ways. The complaining customer is replacable and insignificant.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
I can't for the life of me figure out what is so difficult to grasp about this relationship. SOE does not have its hands on it financially. SOE was hired by Vanguard to handle distribution, marketing, sales, and servers. That means that SOE is being PAID for its services. SOE is not footing the bill for Vanguard. And SOE was never the "supposed distributer and marketer" of EQ. EQ was owned by Sony in full from the very beginning. That is an entirely different situation.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Not really, remember all that about the "vision" dying?
Well apperently the Vision didn't die, it shambles on like a brain eating zombie, unchanged and unchanging...
I was in Beta, and let me tell you that Vanguard, Saga of Suckass isn't EQ2, its EQ1.5. I told them to shove it after MONTHS of emails only ever got me form letters and bullsh*t, it definatly was NOT my PC or networks fault... what a joke.
And that retard McSquid keep talking smack about Age of Conan, about how much farther along Vanguard is and blah blah blah... well sorry charlie, you could take another year and unless you scrap your gfx and start from scratch its still going to suck compared to AoC...
So if you are looking for another EQ/WoW style raidgrind=endgame game, Vanguard is for you... as for me and mine, we are looking for innovation.
Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood. -Nietzsche
Don't want to remove anything from Vanguard...
But AoC will prolly break the million subscribtions mark. Vanguard? Eh, surprise me, but I doubt it.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
There is nothing innovative about Vanguard. Tell us what you think is 3rd generation regarding Vanguard. It's just another forced grouping/dependency, raiding offers best rewards game. Been there done that, 1st generation MMOG.
"We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
Brad McQuaid
Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
www.vanguardsoh
There is nothing innovative about Vanguard. Tell us what you think is 3rd generation regarding Vanguard. It's just another forced grouping/dependency, raiding offers best rewards game. Been there done that, 1st generation MMOG.
When did I say I thought Vanguard was innovative. Vanguard is taking what works and making a great game. Want an innovative game, go play horizons and then shoot urself. I like what Vanguard is doing, they are bringing it back to generation 1 and planning ahead this time. WoW is basically EQ with cartoon graphics and easy gameplay and it is the largest MMO on the market. Vanguard is getting away from the stupid cartoon look and easy gameplay and making a really interesting title that will have a more realistic feel. Death will once again be something to fear and I couldn't be any happier