Eh, you give the game an almost perfect score, and then gives it a TEN for "potential improvement", to me thats says a LOT about the game, and about you.
What are you going to do if they indeed live up to that, make up a new scale of 1-100?
On the other hand, on a scale of 1-100 your review would be almost spot on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it does need rabid defending because there are rabid haters out there. If you have 100k people and 2k are vocal haters, spamming every possible resource with either complete fabrications or half truths and do nothing to combat it, you are going to have some severe issues getting subs.
I find this amusing. If Brad and the Devs admit to problems, they're so honest, and they are earning the player's respect by being open about the issues they're having. If a player posts about these same problems, they're labeled as rabid haters. Often the only difference between the two is the tone...the message is the same.
For anyone out there that does not believe this game has serious issues, I suggest you take a stroll over to their Top 10 bug list. Every one of them seem pretty serious to me. Telling the truth doesn't make you a hater.
The games has alot of potential to become one of the great fantasy MMORPGs, but it needs alot of bug fixing before the potential is realized, i don't doubt that it will realize that potential in the future, but there is still a long way to go.
I am sorry. I am playing, subscribing to, and currently enjoying Vanguard very much, but no.... your analysis is not "the most realistic" one on the forums because you give it 9 or higher out of 10 for everything, and the game just is not that amazing.
graphics: 9.5 ---> looks great and will only get better with better hardware in the future. game built for the future and it will take full advantage of it. smooth animation, great scenery, nice looking characters. Depends what you are lumping into "graphics." For example their special effects for most spells are laughable. NWN had better effects and it came out 6 years ago. Their animations are mediocre at best to laughable at worst (depending on which moves you are looking at). Again, these are NWN, ca. AD 2001 quality... which was fine then but this is '07. The world graphics are excellent, but the character graphics and animations are like something out of the late 90s. No, they do not get 9.5 out of 10 for this. I'd give them 8/10 for *looks* and maybe 5/10 for FX and animations (probably less). Since both matter, I'd average them and give it about a 6.5 to 7/10.
sound: 9.0 ---> ambience music in town is great, very believable sound effects that have no faults. Music is outstanding , I will agree. Actual sound effects are pitiful. All combat is just "thunk, clang, thunk, clang." Again, I'm sorry but they need better sound FX than this. I'd give them 10 for music and 5 for general sound FX, again averaging to a medium-range score like 7-8/10. gameplay: 10.,0 ---> so many things to do, so many quests to do, such a huge world. gameplay that requires strategy and patience without mindless button spamming. boats, houses, and flying mounts only make it better. add to that, numerous races and classes, as well as diversity in crafting, and a fun mini card game called diplomacy which actually makes a difference. The gameplay is hard to rate as a single score. If you are talking combat, for example, they are exactly like all the other post-COH games in terms of how things work (buttons with individual recharge timers). COH, WOW, EQ2, SWG/CU, GW, and so on all do this. The combat itself is the same as all those other engines, more or less. The system is workable but nothing spectacular. I'd give it 8/10. Now if you are talking diplomacy, the mechanism of that is excellent (card games) but there is a lot of Civic D grinding after you do the first sets of quests (later quests are impossible with the 56 or so Diplo and 1-2 PRE you have, most of them needing dozens if not hundreds of PRE, which no starting or low level Diplo character would have). So they get a 10 for gameplay but a 5 for grinding on this, averaging (again ) to around 7.5 for Diplo. Crafting is similar -- interesting system, but too much grinding, and again I'd give them about an 8. Harvesting is plainly horrible, with no way to mark waypoints on your map (without using a buggy user mod) to mark out the resources that you have found so you can re-visit them, and ungodly slow respawn timers on even the lowest level harvesting objects. I'd give that maybe a 4.
Now, averaging out all these gameplay elements, I would give the game (rounding the one 7.5 up in VG's favor just to make the math easier in my head) about (8 +8 + 8 + 4) / 4 = 7 out of 10. Anything higher than that is, IMO, nothing but hyperbole. community: 9.5 ---> can't give it a 10 because of the presence of hater trolls that plague both in game and in forums. other than that, everyone that actually play the game are nice and mature. I disagree. Although many are nice, I have been repeatedly griefed by people either trying to kill steal, or more commonly, running around the damn dungeons dragging aggro onto me (most of the time, doing it repeatedly so there is no question but that it is deliberate). My guild is great but without them I'd have cancelled due to this kind of stupidity. 7/10 max for the community, sorry. You want a 9+ community you need to talk about a game like Ryzom (which has many flaws but community is not one of them).
customer service: 9.0 ---> no problems with having my issues, if any, being handled in a relatively timely manner. No comment -- I have had no CSR issues.
performance: 9.0 ---> runs great on my system. only problem is with chunking when making a switch from one zone to another but there is no loading screen which is a huge plus. the whiners who claim this game has performance issue either do not have the system for this game or they haven't taken good care of their systems. don't listen to these people. You need to define your terms. What does "runs great" mean. What kind of FPS do you get. To me, a good solid performance level is 24+ FPS. At that point I don't notice much visible "stutter". I can get 24+ FPS only in the wild. In towns I get 14-24 (if I am lucky) and in dungeons in a large group (4+ people) I'm usually sitting close to 10. This is not what I, personally, would call 9/10 performance. Again averaging the 3 situations (ignoring that you are in different ones for different amounts of time) and using 24 FPS as the "10" rating (which, note, most people would NOT call a 10 for performance, so here I am being massively kind to VG) I would rate this as ( (24 + 20 + 10 ) / 3 ) / 24 = 18/24 = 3/4 or 7.5. And no, it doesn't deserve above a 7.5/10 for performance.
potential for improvement: 10.0 ---> it can only get better. the devs have been releasing patches regularly to add more content. If you are going to take the opinion that any game on which improvement could be built gets a 10 then this is a moot category, since every game has potential to be improved. WILL it be improved? That is the question, and it is too early to tell.
As you can see, my rating, and this is someone who likes Vanguard and is willing to shell out $ to the hated evil of SOE each month to play it, is that it is rather around an 8ish out of 10, than the near 10 out of 10 you have given it. I would submit (not to you, since you are clearly biased beyond all reason or reality) that MY review of Vanguard is far, far more realistic than yours, and that thus your title is false, yours is not the most "realistic" one ever done. I further submit that posting something as blatantly ridiculous as this is obvious deliberate trolling.
The games has alot of potential to become one of the great fantasy MMORPGs, but it needs alot of bug fixing before the potential is realized, i don't doubt that it will realize that potential in the future, but there is still a long way to go.
I am sorry. I am playing, subscribing to, and currently enjoying Vanguard very much, but no.... your analysis is not "the most realistic" one on the forums because you give it 9 or higher out of 10 for everything, and the game just is not that amazing.
graphics: 9.5 ---> looks great and will only get better with better hardware in the future. game built for the future and it will take full advantage of it. smooth animation, great scenery, nice looking characters. Depends what you are lumping into "graphics." For example their special effects for most spells are laughable. NWN had better effects and it came out 6 years ago. Their animations are mediocre at best to laughable at worst (depending on which moves you are looking at). Again, these are NWN, ca. AD 2001 quality... which was fine then but this is '07. The world graphics are excellent, but the character graphics and animations are like something out of the late 90s. No, they do not get 9.5 out of 10 for this. I'd give them 8/10 for *looks* and maybe 5/10 for FX and animations (probably less). Since both matter, I'd average them and give it about a 6.5 to 7/10.
sound: 9.0 ---> ambience music in town is great, very believable sound effects that have no faults. Music is outstanding , I will agree. Actual sound effects are pitiful. All combat is just "thunk, clang, thunk, clang." Again, I'm sorry but they need better sound FX than this. I'd give them 10 for music and 5 for general sound FX, again averaging to a medium-range score like 7-8/10. gameplay: 10.,0 ---> so many things to do, so many quests to do, such a huge world. gameplay that requires strategy and patience without mindless button spamming. boats, houses, and flying mounts only make it better. add to that, numerous races and classes, as well as diversity in crafting, and a fun mini card game called diplomacy which actually makes a difference. The gameplay is hard to rate as a single score. If you are talking combat, for example, they are exactly like all the other post-COH games in terms of how things work (buttons with individual recharge timers). COH, WOW, EQ2, SWG/CU, GW, and so on all do this. The combat itself is the same as all those other engines, more or less. The system is workable but nothing spectacular. I'd give it 8/10. Now if you are talking diplomacy, the mechanism of that is excellent (card games) but there is a lot of Civic D grinding after you do the first sets of quests (later quests are impossible with the 56 or so Diplo and 1-2 PRE you have, most of them needing dozens if not hundreds of PRE, which no starting or low level Diplo character would have). So they get a 10 for gameplay but a 5 for grinding on this, averaging (again ) to around 7.5 for Diplo. Crafting is similar -- interesting system, but too much grinding, and again I'd give them about an 8. Harvesting is plainly horrible, with no way to mark waypoints on your map (without using a buggy user mod) to mark out the resources that you have found so you can re-visit them, and ungodly slow respawn timers on even the lowest level harvesting objects. I'd give that maybe a 4.
Now, averaging out all these gameplay elements, I would give the game (rounding the one 7.5 up in VG's favor just to make the math easier in my head) about (8 +8 + 8 + 4) / 4 = 7 out of 10. Anything higher than that is, IMO, nothing but hyperbole. community: 9.5 ---> can't give it a 10 because of the presence of hater trolls that plague both in game and in forums. other than that, everyone that actually play the game are nice and mature. I disagree. Although many are nice, I have been repeatedly griefed by people either trying to kill steal, or more commonly, running around the damn dungeons dragging aggro onto me (most of the time, doing it repeatedly so there is no question but that it is deliberate). My guild is great but without them I'd have cancelled due to this kind of stupidity. 7/10 max for the community, sorry. You want a 9+ community you need to talk about a game like Ryzom (which has many flaws but community is not one of them).
customer service: 9.0 ---> no problems with having my issues, if any, being handled in a relatively timely manner. No comment -- I have had no CSR issues.
performance: 9.0 ---> runs great on my system. only problem is with chunking when making a switch from one zone to another but there is no loading screen which is a huge plus. the whiners who claim this game has performance issue either do not have the system for this game or they haven't taken good care of their systems. don't listen to these people. You need to define your terms. What does "runs great" mean. What kind of FPS do you get. To me, a good solid performance level is 24+ FPS. At that point I don't notice much visible "stutter". I can get 24+ FPS only in the wild. In towns I get 14-24 (if I am lucky) and in dungeons in a large group (4+ people) I'm usually sitting close to 10. This is not what I, personally, would call 9/10 performance. Again averaging the 3 situations (ignoring that you are in different ones for different amounts of time) and using 24 FPS as the "10" rating (which, note, most people would NOT call a 10 for performance, so here I am being massively kind to VG) I would rate this as ( (24 + 20 + 10 ) / 3 ) / 24 = 18/24 = 3/4 or 7.5. And no, it doesn't deserve above a 7.5/10 for performance.
potential for improvement: 10.0 ---> it can only get better. the devs have been releasing patches regularly to add more content. If you are going to take the opinion that any game on which improvement could be built gets a 10 then this is a moot category, since every game has potential to be improved. WILL it be improved? That is the question, and it is too early to tell.
As you can see, my rating, and this is someone who likes Vanguard and is willing to shell out $ to the hated evil of SOE each month to play it, is that it is rather around an 8ish out of 10, than the near 10 out of 10 you have given it. I would submit (not to you, since you are clearly biased beyond all reason or reality) that MY review of Vanguard is far, far more realistic than yours, and that thus your title is false, yours is not the most "realistic" one ever done. I further submit that posting something as blatantly ridiculous as this is obvious deliberate trolling.
My comments in green.
C I'm pretty certain you just spent a lot of time and effort responding to a troll.
Kudos to Chessack. He actually explained his scores.
I haven't played Vanguard, but I have seen videos and it looks great. But not 9-10/10 great. No game can be scored near 10, by any player of the game even if that player loves the game to death. 10/10 is perfect. No game is perfect, every one has a flaw somewhere. And from what I've heard, the flaw of Vanguard is impatience. Developers rushed it into the open with gaping bugs still left, choppy animations and hasted effect sounds. This all coming from Chess's post, I haven't seen or heard any of that official except for the bugs.
Giving any game a 10/10 is like scoring a 90% on a test but getting it rounded up to 100 because you bought your teacher a muffin. Of course you'll say it's perfect, you like it. Your experiences may have been good (not perfect, but good) but that doesn't mean everyone else had those same great experiences. So, it wouldn't be right to say what you said, that this is the only accurate analysis. Every analysis is accurate in some aspects, but it is against human nature to write something without biases. Haters will automatically show the negative side, and lovers will show only positives. You showed only positives.
I think performance is supposed to be rated not on how well it runs on top-of-the-line systems or even your own system, but low level systems. My system is a joke, but runs Guild Wars fine and Guild Wars has a decent performance rating. Moderately rated games work well, but still somewhat slow. A massive game like this would likely kill weak systems, and so its performance can't be near a 9. A 9 for performance would have to run on a junk computer like mine, while a 10 would have to work flawlessly on my cell phone. After all, 10 is perfect.
I'm pretty certain you just spent a lot of time and effort responding to a troll.
No, no, it absolutely, positively must be a viral marketer. Why, our very manhood rests upon this assertion!
It's much easier to ignore the blatantly obvious, over the top nature of the original posts. Viral marketers have no respect amongst the gaming community, and are therefore all too stupid to be subtle. Instead, they prefer to make flashy, size 20, flashing multicolored font that just screams, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.". Because that's the most effective use of their advertising budget.
Well, that, or there's a number of folks here that have given up all pretense of common sense in lieu of hating/loving a video game.
If Vanguard was as good as you claim it wouldnt need such constant and rabid defending because EVERYONE would be playing it and having a grand time.
I too smell a shill... a viral shill to boot.
Well it does need rabid defending because there are rabid haters out there. If you have 100k people and 2k are vocal haters, spamming every possible resource with either complete fabrications or half truths and do nothing to combat it, you are going to have some severe issues getting subs.
If it was as good as they say then the subs would show it. Hence why WoW is huge but yet has quite a vocal and vicious hater crowd but it yet somehow survives and continues to grow. Vanguard can't survive a few haters and stand on it's own then it must be something wrong. I dont understand why you think the game is not surviving the "haters" on this forum? Or why you think the game is not standing on its own? This forum is not the end all be all of games. Also you have NO IDEA what the sub base is....NO IDEA...dont pretend you do.
My feeling is this....if this game has nice support from the community and forum activity then its standing on its own. This forum has no substantial information that a player would need in game therefor it only attracts flamers/haters and the like...(honestly is there anything on this forum of use to the game at all?) ..so of course haters are the majority here...legitimate and useful forums have more active and friendly posters...you will see the numbers in places like that.
Take a look at Dark and LIght/ Horizons/Shadowbane/insert asian game here --- examples of failed games --- they have no community or active forum base at all...even the game haters have long since abandoned these games in search of other games to hate.
Alright so someone who writes in massive blue and red text how you should buy Vanguard is unbiased. And clearly the very high ratings you gave the game despite it's way lower average review ratings from professional sites is also a testimony to how amazingly honest and neutral you are. i never said my analysis was not biased. in fact i did not even use the word that spells out b-i-a-s-e-d. the way lower average review rating is from vg troll haters who continuously bash the game for no reason whatsoever. if u say i am biased, then they are just as biased as i am. i dont see u flaming them for that. and as far as your last statement, this is MY analysis based on MY experience and contains nothing but absolute truth from MY experience. that makes me honest and as far as being neutral goes, there is no neutral. u either like it or you don't. take it or leave it.
All jokes aside. Your review is short and simple, and therefore inherently wrong. A game like Vanguard has many advantages and disadvamtages and people must decide for themselves which advantages or disadvantages are more important to them, and only then buy the game. You see only the advantages, and in many cases you lie too. I wonder if you even played the game. On second thought no I don't, I just wish you would STFU. this is MY "analysis" and i did not say it was a "review". and just because my post was short and simple, it is wrong? yes i see many many advantages but i never lied. what you expect me to do? give me low scores even tho i like the game? is that being honest? or is your idea of honest only limited to continuous troll bashing that never stops. and yes i did play the game and i am still playing it and loving it thx. and why u ask me to stfu... i have my rights to post here. this is a fan site and i love the game and i am telling people why i love the game. all u haters think that any post that is remotely positive about this game is all fanboi and yadda yadda yeah and u resort to downright flaming by stating something like stfu.
If I had written so much bullshit in a so called "review" of a game and probably influenced a few weak minded fools to waste their money on it, i'd feel bad. Getting people into a game with false expectations of grandeur only makes things worse as they'll be back on these and other forums very soon with hatred. like i said i wrote an "analysis" not a "review". i have no intention to jip anyone of their pocket. i am only saying what i saw, what i see, and what i expect to see in the future. and each and every individual is expected to set his own expectation on anything, and vg is no exception. if they dont like the game and come back and start endless hatred filled flaming for weeks on then they r only lowering themselves.
The worst part is that you claim this to be the only "realistic" review, and that you openly tell others not to listen to any other reviewers. By what right may you speak but silence others? This is the internet, everyone has a right to an opinion, and to type it up. But not everyone (you included) has the automatic right to be taken seriously. i said do not listen to people like u who are constant force determined to stop at nothing other than seeing or hearing that vg is destroyed. would that make u happy? is that why people of ur kind keep coming back here day after day after day posting this game sucks this game is horrible what a pos yadda yadda? with this post what makes YOU think you have the right to silence me? if u say everyone has the right to an opinion, then so do I. and u r the one who told me to stfu. yeah way to be taken so seriously... haha
Are you drunk?
No seriously.
have you read ANY of my previous posts? I don't think i've ever said anything bad about Vanguard, or good either. In fact this may be my first post about this game.
Your whole answer to my post consisted of two things:
a) Continuously repeating that you said "Analysis", not "Review" which is being pedantic, because they have the same meaning.
b) Insulting me, calling me a troll, flamer etc, even though I posted a perfectly reasoned response to your first post which, no offence, looked like the rant of a 10 year old.
How do you know what "kind" of person I am? You don't know me, and don't pretend to know me.
When I answered your post I critisized your review of Vanguard, not the game itself. Now you're telling me that i'm hating and flaming the game because I didn't like your "analysis" of it?
You know what's worse than lying to others? Lying to yourself. Either you've never played more than a couple of MMOs or you have very bad comparison skills, because there are many MMOs out there that beat vanguard on certain aspects, such as performance, gameplay, lag, even graphics.
This is the kind of posts that gives the vanboys a bad name. You like the game, that's fine... but why lie about how it looks, runs and plays to make that point. It only takes the credibility away from anything valid you might have had to say. You might as well tell us how it makes you lose weight, grow hair, clears up you complexion and fixes your ED problem while your at it.
Originally posted by Salvatoris This is the kind of posts that gives the vanboys a bad name. You like the game, that's fine... but why lie about how it looks, runs and plays to make that point. It only takes the credibility away from anything valid you might have had to say. You might as well tell us how it makes you lose weight, grow hair, clears up you complexion and fixes your ED problem while your at it.
Might be because they don't actually play the game, they just know the straightest line to getting the people that dislike the game into a frenzy is to make a post like the ones they have.
I was wondering about that one myself... but from this guys responses he seems to really like the game. I just think any valid points he may have had will be lost in the sea of 9.5s... When I saw the 9 on performance, I knew the guy's posts weren't worth reading.
Well it does need rabid defending because there are rabid haters out there. If you have 100k people and 2k are vocal haters, spamming every possible resource with either complete fabrications or half truths and do nothing to combat it, you are going to have some severe issues getting subs.
I find this amusing. If Brad and the Devs admit to problems, they're so honest, and they are earning the player's respect by being open about the issues they're having. If a player posts about these same problems, they're labeled as rabid haters. Often the only difference between the two is the tone...the message is the same. For anyone out there that does not believe this game has serious issues, I suggest you take a stroll over to their Top 10 bug list. Every one of them seem pretty serious to me. Telling the truth doesn't make you a hater.
Person who had experienced problems with the game would say: There are a lot of problems and I can't play the game because of them.
Hater: The game is the suxxor. Even when I logged in, My dual core, sli'd 8800 gtx and 4gbs of ram I could only get 10fps. (Which is just not possible unless your running 12 programs in the background)
Person who didn't like the game would say: I just didn't like the game and it's not for me. If you like it more power to you.
Hater: Everything about his game sux. If you like it then your retarded and must be on your knees under Brad McQuaid's desk.
Now I have some questions for you, why is it if you don't hate the game and don't trash it, your automatically a vanboi, a troll or part of the viral marketing? Why is it if you like the game, you've been suckered or are mentally deficient?
Comments
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Eh, you give the game an almost perfect score, and then gives it a TEN for "potential improvement", to me thats says a LOT about the game, and about you.
What are you going to do if they indeed live up to that, make up a new scale of 1-100?
On the other hand, on a scale of 1-100 your review would be almost spot on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES BUY VANGUARD
YES HATE IT
THEN QQ ABOUT IT
HA HA OWNED!!
YOU HAVE BEEN MCQUAIDED!!!
I find this amusing. If Brad and the Devs admit to problems, they're so honest, and they are earning the player's respect by being open about the issues they're having. If a player posts about these same problems, they're labeled as rabid haters. Often the only difference between the two is the tone...the message is the same.
For anyone out there that does not believe this game has serious issues, I suggest you take a stroll over to their Top 10 bug list. Every one of them seem pretty serious to me. Telling the truth doesn't make you a hater.
Someone needs to make a owned picture about that, like with a kitty or something that gets owned.
Anyone skilled enough to do that?
The games has alot of potential to become one of the great fantasy MMORPGs, but it needs alot of bug fixing before the potential is realized, i don't doubt that it will realize that potential in the future, but there is still a long way to go.
As it is right now, i'd rather play SWG.
My comments in green.
C
potential
SYLLABICATION: po·ten·tial
-t
n
sh
l
PRONUNCIATION: p
Sigil ™
My comments in green.
C I'm pretty certain you just spent a lot of time and effort responding to a troll.
Kudos to Chessack. He actually explained his scores.
I haven't played Vanguard, but I have seen videos and it looks great. But not 9-10/10 great. No game can be scored near 10, by any player of the game even if that player loves the game to death. 10/10 is perfect. No game is perfect, every one has a flaw somewhere. And from what I've heard, the flaw of Vanguard is impatience. Developers rushed it into the open with gaping bugs still left, choppy animations and hasted effect sounds. This all coming from Chess's post, I haven't seen or heard any of that official except for the bugs.
Giving any game a 10/10 is like scoring a 90% on a test but getting it rounded up to 100 because you bought your teacher a muffin. Of course you'll say it's perfect, you like it. Your experiences may have been good (not perfect, but good) but that doesn't mean everyone else had those same great experiences. So, it wouldn't be right to say what you said, that this is the only accurate analysis. Every analysis is accurate in some aspects, but it is against human nature to write something without biases. Haters will automatically show the negative side, and lovers will show only positives. You showed only positives.
I think performance is supposed to be rated not on how well it runs on top-of-the-line systems or even your own system, but low level systems. My system is a joke, but runs Guild Wars fine and Guild Wars has a decent performance rating. Moderately rated games work well, but still somewhat slow. A massive game like this would likely kill weak systems, and so its performance can't be near a 9. A 9 for performance would have to run on a junk computer like mine, while a 10 would have to work flawlessly on my cell phone. After all, 10 is perfect.
No, no, it absolutely, positively must be a viral marketer. Why, our very manhood rests upon this assertion!
It's much easier to ignore the blatantly obvious, over the top nature of the original posts. Viral marketers have no respect amongst the gaming community, and are therefore all too stupid to be subtle. Instead, they prefer to make flashy, size 20, flashing multicolored font that just screams, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.". Because that's the most effective use of their advertising budget.
Well, that, or there's a number of folks here that have given up all pretense of common sense in lieu of hating/loving a video game.
Well it does need rabid defending because there are rabid haters out there. If you have 100k people and 2k are vocal haters, spamming every possible resource with either complete fabrications or half truths and do nothing to combat it, you are going to have some severe issues getting subs.
If it was as good as they say then the subs would show it. Hence why WoW is huge but yet has quite a vocal and vicious hater crowd but it yet somehow survives and continues to grow. Vanguard can't survive a few haters and stand on it's own then it must be something wrong. I dont understand why you think the game is not surviving the "haters" on this forum? Or why you think the game is not standing on its own? This forum is not the end all be all of games. Also you have NO IDEA what the sub base is....NO IDEA...dont pretend you do.My feeling is this....if this game has nice support from the community and forum activity then its standing on its own. This forum has no substantial information that a player would need in game therefor it only attracts flamers/haters and the like...(honestly is there anything on this forum of use to the game at all?) ..so of course haters are the majority here...legitimate and useful forums have more active and friendly posters...you will see the numbers in places like that.
Take a look at Dark and LIght/ Horizons/Shadowbane/insert asian game here --- examples of failed games --- they have no community or active forum base at all...even the game haters have long since abandoned these games in search of other games to hate.
No seriously.
have you read ANY of my previous posts? I don't think i've ever said anything bad about Vanguard, or good either. In fact this may be my first post about this game.
Your whole answer to my post consisted of two things:
a) Continuously repeating that you said "Analysis", not "Review" which is being pedantic, because they have the same meaning.
b) Insulting me, calling me a troll, flamer etc, even though I posted a perfectly reasoned response to your first post which, no offence, looked like the rant of a 10 year old.
How do you know what "kind" of person I am? You don't know me, and don't pretend to know me.
When I answered your post I critisized your review of Vanguard, not the game itself. Now you're telling me that i'm hating and flaming the game because I didn't like your "analysis" of it?
You know what's worse than lying to others? Lying to yourself. Either you've never played more than a couple of MMOs or you have very bad comparison skills, because there are many MMOs out there that beat vanguard on certain aspects, such as performance, gameplay, lag, even graphics.
Are you my brother. and yes i totally back up this post 100%
Im going to sell you a dream.
This is the kind of posts that gives the vanboys a bad name. You like the game, that's fine... but why lie about how it looks, runs and plays to make that point. It only takes the credibility away from anything valid you might have had to say. You might as well tell us how it makes you lose weight, grow hair, clears up you complexion and fixes your ED problem while your at it.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
Might be because they don't actually play the game, they just know the straightest line to getting the people that dislike the game into a frenzy is to make a post like the ones they have.
I.E. A troll.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
Person who had experienced problems with the game would say: There are a lot of problems and I can't play the game because of them.
Hater: The game is the suxxor. Even when I logged in, My dual core, sli'd 8800 gtx and 4gbs of ram I could only get 10fps. (Which is just not possible unless your running 12 programs in the background)
Person who didn't like the game would say: I just didn't like the game and it's not for me. If you like it more power to you.
Hater: Everything about his game sux. If you like it then your retarded and must be on your knees under Brad McQuaid's desk.
Now I have some questions for you, why is it if you don't hate the game and don't trash it, your automatically a vanboi, a troll or part of the viral marketing? Why is it if you like the game, you've been suckered or are mentally deficient?