Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Death of the EQ community?
dominia
Member Posts: 191
A couple of weeks back Vanguard released their NDA allowing beta testers to talk freely about their beta. Though there we’re a few threads commending the great job Sigil had done given the situation and time constraints, the vast majority of post centered on either Vanguards huge file structure (17 gb), their high graphics requirements (even on balanced performance Vaguard would bring today’s top end computers to their knee’s), lack of content (Vanguard tried too do too much too soon in my opinion, 3 continents is a little much) or even it’s general lackluster feel (no comment). The problem is the vast majority of Vanboi’s (Vanguard fan boys) are by products of the old Everquest community which have been with out a solid game to call their own for around four years now.
In the mmorpg world, communities are an extremely tight knit group who will generally stand together and are very resistant to change. If a community gets behind your game, especially one as storied as the Everquest community, they can literally make, break and even shape the very content in your game, sometimes for the worst (alas poor World of Warcraft alpha, so much promise). Point being, if Vanguard does flop how well can the EQ community stick together? And which game of 2007 will the community get behind, Conan? Warhammer? Lord of the Rings?
Currently Playing: GW2
Retired: Shadowbane, DAoC, WoW, FFXI, Eve Online, SWToR
Comments
I cant speak for the EQ community but quite a few people in my WoW guild (including me) have now tried the VSoH beta pretty extensively and even though some may have migrated if BC wasnt about to come out. I dont know of a single one that is thinking of leaving to goto VSoH. I am probably the only one considering it even half seriously and only because I like new games, certainly not because I have a problem with WoW. In fact I wont be shutting down my account (if at all) until I see what VSoH looks like post release.
Vanguard has me a little sucked in I will admit, but at this stage I havnt seen anything that makes me want to commit to a switch.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
As said above, imo games that encourage group play over solo play tend to have more patient players. Grouping encourages social interaction and hightens the social experience. Im not happy with the current 'solo quest' culture MMO's are starting to develop.
Vanguard has a mix of grouping mid to end and starts with quests. Providing they dont quest from 1 to 50 I think the game could do well allowing people to glue together and perhaps providing a place for EQ archetype players. But dont forget that there are players alike EQ'ers in all other MMO's that are just looking for a satisfying MMO.
Personally, I think Vanguard could be great, but I cant abide it until they resolve the performance issues. I will not pay a $ until it plays decently on mid end systems. High demands I know but I dont think anything justifies releasing beta stage products, even the threat of bankruptcy.
Alternatively, my moneys on Age of Conan. Funcom did a great job with Anachy Online, I have a lot of faith in them.
---
Lets hope Funcom does a better job with AoC's launch then Anarchy Online. Given the quality of expansion's they'e put out recently, one can only assume they learned their lesson.
-D^t
Currently Playing: GW2
Retired: Shadowbane, DAoC, WoW, FFXI, Eve Online, SWToR
The Aphelion MMO Blog - GW2 Initial Impressions
It is an unfortunate trend that most MMORPG backers get impatient and force games out before they are ready. The worst case of this was Shadowbane and I hear those devs are back at it again with another MMORPG as if anyone will trust them again.
I am afraid that Vanguard is going to be another of these, although not near as bad as Shadowbane. While their game might run decent on a standard computer two or three years from now, they are limiting themselves to a very small group that has the high end machines to run it now. When you add in all the bugs that still exist, prospects for the upcoming release look dim indeed.
I certainly don't intend to spend my money helping them beta test it.
Frankly, Funcom would have to try hard to do worse than what they did with AO. I was there. It was not good.
to a very small group that has high end machines to run it now .
Ciredric very profound statement. It was my understanding EQ 2 also was slated for bang up systems and the only way to truely take advantage of eq 2 was a high end machine, they made some mistakes and bumps in the road ( though i understand it is doing lot's better now , i am wondering why the industry does not learn from their mistakes????
We are all hopeful no one out there pulls a nge soe style on any other mmorpg there is nada to stop them from those massive changes
given every box with every mmorpg says "Game play may change".
I think there is alot of distrust in newly releases games at the moment. Not just from replies of beta folks but for those that have been stung by big changes in other games.
I frankly think burn out for mmoprgs is the catch word today. No longer are we jumping on the bandwagon to be first this that or the other on the server. That is another thing that changed.
I can remember a time for a while i Jumped on most new mmorpgs that looked good to me . That is just not the case now.
I expect releases to look lots better then they do Given current publishers to push it to release it seems games the past few years
only tend to look better over time ( for the most part)
While I hope they do well and those that enjoy it have a great gaming experaince it just just not for me......
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Frankly, Funcom would have to try hard to do worse than what they did with AO. I was there. It was not good.
Ulujain are you gonna Enlighten Us? Cmon babe tell us what happened in that dreadful, nasty, brutish world of AO that upset you so much? I am interested because I have backed all my aspirations and hopes on Age of Conan and if that screws up I am gonna join a Convent for two years and play virtual reality with God
Femmes Fatales - The Power of the Feminine in MMO
Psychoanalysis appears to show that pain plays no part in the formation of the purposive aspect of the instinct drives.
---
Five words sums it up, Danielle:
You could not fucking move.
Heh, I was a fr00b in AO and even I heard about the bugs. Not that we didn't have our share of bugs that came along with patches too. Anarchy Arcanum has a short list of some of the funnier bugs.
Five words sums it up, Danielle:
You could not fucking move.
AO had the worst launch ever, as I recall. It didn't even improve much until a few months later. I don't know if anybody remembers, but they did have to make the game free to retain what few subscribers they had. I'd say, in terms of technical quality at launch, it was probably worse than Dark and Light.
Five words sums it up, Danielle:
You could not fucking move.
AO had the worst launch ever, as I recall. It didn't even improve much until a few months later. I don't know if anybody remembers, but they did have to make the game free to retain what few subscribers they had. I'd say, in terms of technical quality at launch, it was probably worse than Dark and Light.
The game didn't go free untill years after the launch, after nearly all of the problems had been fixed. In fact, only the original version of it is free. around 15K subscribers including myself are still quite happily paying monthly for the expansions. The move to go to a free with ingame advertisements model was less of a maneuver to keep fanbase, they had plenty to keep it afloat, and more of a gambit to make loads of money over the long term (without resorting to Mourningesqe BS). It worked, they made enough off of companies like Fanta and Jeep to start the development of three different games, including two other MMORPGs
But in any case, AO's launch was rushed, and poorly tested, hence the horrible result. AoC is being taken through the motions of proper game testing, so there is little to fear (from that possibility at least)
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Five words sums it up, Danielle:
You could not fucking move.
AO had the worst launch ever, as I recall. It didn't even improve much until a few months later. I don't know if anybody remembers, but they did have to make the game free to retain what few subscribers they had. I'd say, in terms of technical quality at launch, it was probably worse than Dark and Light.
The game didn't go free untill years after the launch, after nearly all of the problems had been fixed. In fact, only the original version of it is free. around 15K subscribers including myself are still quite happily paying monthly for the expansions. The move to go to a free with ingame advertisements model was less of a maneuver to keep fanbase, they had plenty to keep it afloat, and more of a gambit to make loads of money over the long term (without resorting to Mourningesqe BS). It worked, they made enough off of companies like Fanta and Jeep to start the development of three different games, including two other MMORPGs
But in any case, AO's launch was rushed, and poorly tested, hence the horrible result. AoC is being taken through the motions of proper game testing, so there is little to fear (from that possibility at least)
I wasn't talking about that. The game was so unplayable at launch that they didn't charge for the first few months. They only started the subscriptions once the game was in an acceptable state. In any case, I hope AoC doesn't go the way of Funcom's others projects (Dreamfall, Longest Journey, Anarchy Online) and end up hamstrung by lack of publicity or too many bugs.
AoC is shaping up to be pretty solid so far, though.
NGE Refugee.
I personally dont like Vanguard. To me, i feel for a game with such hype, and such a normal, mundane combat system, it offers nothing new.
To me, it feels EXACTLY like EQ 2. From the combat system, leveling system, exp system, and with the new patches, making exp harder to gain when soloing/fighting mobs your own level. Its turning into EQ 2 when it was at its launch. Most, if not all Vanguard fanbois wont admit that. It has anti kite mobs, like in EQ 2. Anti Farming, so you CANNOT farm lower level mobs for things, which is a horrible idea, especially for crafting, as mobs drop essences/ingredients for crafting. Feels like EQ, without a lot of the fun things ive enjoyed from it.
The combat system is like every other MMO ive played (excluding SWG). For a mundane, EQ style game, id rather play EQ1 instead of VG. Even though its beta, PvP seems a bit half assed, as its very simple, and not sure what sort of politics pvp will play in the game.
If i want to play a MMO like EQ, id rather play EQ 1 from a new character, and re-live all those thrills and spill i had before.
50$ for VG, i think not. Only it goes on Station Pass, which i bet it might, and become just like all the other mundane MMOs. B/C if its on Station Pass, i can play EQ1, and have my VG character in a guild fellowship, and play him...every now and then
I agree with you 100%, but I think Vanguard is simply not for us. People who play MMORPG's for combat are going to be playing Chronicles of Spellborn or Age of Conan in this next generation. Those who want PVP are going to be playing Guild Wars or Warhammer Online.
Vanguard does offer something to PVE purists, though, right? Crafting, exploration of expansive zones, etc? Or does it fail in those regards?
I agree with you 100%, but I think Vanguard is simply not for us. People who play MMORPG's for combat are going to be playing Chronicles of Spellborn or Age of Conan in this next generation. Those who want PVP are going to be playing Guild Wars or Warhammer Online.
Vanguard does offer something to PVE purists, though, right? Crafting, exploration of expansive zones, etc? Or does it fail in those regards?
Vanguard excels in PvE, but its nothing new to PvE. Its all been done so far, Vanguard is just like every other PvEcentric MMO. People who love PvE will love VG i assume, and it does have an interesting crafting system. As for there zones, imo there nothing special. One of there big advertisements are the "zero zone line" and HUGE zones. Well, they do have zone lines called chunk. You cross a chunk, it has to load the next zone. So its really nothing innovating there. And the zones seem just as big as WoWs.
The PvE has been done. Vanguard is the same as EQ 1, EQ 2, AO, CoH. When it comes to me, being a 6+ year EQ vet, i'd rather start a new character in EQ, than start one in VG.
Frankly, Funcom would have to try hard to do worse than what they did with AO. I was there. It was not good.
Ulujain are you gonna Enlighten Us? Cmon babe tell us what happened in that dreadful, nasty, brutish world of AO that upset you so much? I am interested because I have backed all my aspirations and hopes on Age of Conan and if that screws up I am gonna join a Convent for two years and play virtual reality with God
Femmes Fatales - The Power of the Feminine in MMO
AO had one of the worst releases ever. At the time it WAS the worst release ever.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas