So uhm youre actually calling those that enjoy the game for fools.
Sorry to say but I think you just wasted the credabilty you had, in my eyes, after your 10 day trial review.
On the contrary-- I'm not calling fans of the game fools. I'm calling blind fanboys of the game, who refuse to see ANY issues with the game wrong. There are many people on this forum who like the game, but who are honest enough to admit the game has problems.
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
I guess it depends on one's definition of 'ready for release'. I feel it was ready for release. It's buggy, and woefully unoptimised. It's definately not finished, but still very playable, and fun. At least for me. Then again, perhaps I'm fortunate to have not have many bugs surfacing.
It's playable, working (for me), and fun. I define that as ready for release. Is it finished? Hell no!
So uhm youre actually calling those that enjoy the game for fools.
Sorry to say but I think you just wasted the credabilty you had, in my eyes, after your 10 day trial review.
On the contrary-- I'm not calling fans of the game fools. I'm calling blind fanboys of the game, who refuse to see ANY issues with the game wrong. There are many people on this forum who like the game, but who are honest enough to admit the game has problems.
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
I've yet to see ONE VG fan here claim there are no issues. Most, like me, not only talk about them, they're honest about them as well.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
Vanguard has been live for 2.5 months ( 10 weeks )...not 5 months....went live at the end of January. Sigil admitted before the game even launched that it was launching too early and that they needed more time. Everybody and their mother already knew the game was launching in a " not ready" state. That fact was publicaly announced long before the game went live by the game developers themselves! Vanguard is now at the point it should have been at launch and will continue to better with each update and run of fixes.
Vanguard is still very broken. Aside from the many game bugs, the performance and the chunking issues remain. Another 6 months the game will be in the same place. You will then say "It has only been 6 months, give it a year." After a year you will say "It has only been a year, give it another 3 months.". During beta everyone said "It is only beta".
Face it. Sigil is not capable of fixing this game. If they dissolve Sigil and give the game to SOE maybe SOE can fix it but it will be much too late. There will be a handful of diehards (about 10-20k) but that is it. Asking Sigil to fix this game is like asking a retard to build a house. It simply can not be done.
Trust me I do feel for you guys that are still playing. Hell, I bought the limited edition. Now is the time to face facts. It is ok for you to play but don't let them rob other people with this game. That is disingenuous.
So uhm youre actually calling those that enjoy the game for fools.
Sorry to say but I think you just wasted the credabilty you had, in my eyes, after your 10 day trial review.
On the contrary-- I'm not calling fans of the game fools. I'm calling blind fanboys of the game, who refuse to see ANY issues with the game wrong. There are many people on this forum who like the game, but who are honest enough to admit the game has problems.
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
I've yet to see ONE VG fan here claim there are no issues. Most, like me, not only talk about them, they're honest about them as well. It's their attempt of normalizing the issues that's the problems. Sure, they'll admit to bugs, but they'll tell you the bugs are no big deal. They'll admit to an early launch, but they won't admit to a launch that was any worse than WoW. So on and so on. It's not really admitting to the issues if you denounce the severity of them, which is the important part, or do the opposite and play the issues down as something inconsequential in consideration of the game's health.
So yes, plenty talk about them, but I don't know about the honesty part.
I've yet to see ONE VG fan here claim there are no issues. Most, like me, not only talk about them, they're honest about them as well.
Let's look at the post I was originally referring to:
Vanguard is now at the point it should have been at launch and will continue to better with each update and run of fixes.
It's the first part of that sentence that I'm concerned with. The game is nowhere near where it should have been at launch. If it was where it should have been at launch, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and this forum would look very different because VG would be stable, polished, playable for a majority of gamers out there, and people would be enjoying themselves with their guildmates as they explored a vast new world. There wouldn't be massive performance, UI, optimization, population, LFG, and bug-related issues. People wouldn't be canceling in droves because of the gamebreaking issues they're encountering.
But those issues DO exist, even today. And people ARE canceling in droves, if even Brad is talking about underpopulated servers being a problem. Ergo, the game isn't anywhere near what a launch product should be. To even suggest otherwise is absurd.
The fact is, the game was released way, WAY before it should have been. Brad was bullshitting everyone when he talked about needing another three months, because the game was just far too unpolished, unoptimized and unstable at the end of beta to ever credibly believe that three months would change anything. It still needs at least eight months to a year to get things together, and to bring it around to where it should have been when it went live.
I've yet to see ONE VG fan here claim there are no issues. Most, like me, not only talk about them, they're honest about them as well.
Let's look at the post I was originally referring to:
Vanguard is now at the point it should have been at launch and will continue to better with each update and run of fixes.
It's the first part of that sentence that I'm concerned with. The game is nowhere near where it should have been at launch. If it was where it should have been at launch, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and this forum would look very different because VG would be stable, polished, playable for a majority of gamers out there, and people would be enjoying themselves with their guildmates as they explored a vast new world. There wouldn't be massive performance, UI, optimization, population, LFG, and bug-related issues. People wouldn't be canceling in droves because of the gamebreaking issues they're encountering.
But those issues DO exist, even today. And people ARE canceling in droves, if even Brad is talking about underpopulated servers being a problem. Ergo, the game isn't anywhere near what a launch product should be. To even suggest otherwise is absurd.
The fact is, the game was released way, WAY before it should have been. Brad was bullshitting everyone when he talked about needing another three months, because the game was just far too unpolished, unoptimized and unstable at the end of beta to ever credibly believe that three months would change anything. It still needs at least eight months to a year to get things together, and to bring it around to where it should have been when it went live.
The sad thing is, you're wrong in many people's eyes.
I agree with you entirely when you say that the game is nowhere near launch-worthy, but consumer standards for buying MMORPG's have dropped so low, that games like Vanguard have become a somewhat "standard" for a launch. This is a problem for gamers, created by gamers, and the only way to remedy it is to not accept such pathetic pieces of rubbish as "acceptable".
The fact of the matter is, this is the ONLY industry I can think of where you can waste 5 years and 30+ million dollars, and yield complete and utter garbage. Had Brad and Sigil worked in a different field, they'd likely be sitting pretty on a corporate blacklist.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
I liked it when it was released and I love it now. But yes, it was probably released 3-6 months early. They patch once a week, including bug fixes, performance upgrades and new content. Overall, it has come a long way in 3 months.
The increasing enjoyment in gameplay is not solely due to patching however. The game continues to expand as one levels up. I just hit 30 this weekend and there is much more to do at this level than at lower levels. The game has broadened and there is simply so much to do, that I need to take notes on what I want to acccomplish in a given week. I'm a casual gamer and simply do not have time to fully engage in both Diplomacy and Adventuring.
So yes, probably released early, but I have really been enjoying it nevertheless.
So uhm youre actually calling those that enjoy the game for fools.
Sorry to say but I think you just wasted the credabilty you had, in my eyes, after your 10 day trial review.
On the contrary-- I'm not calling fans of the game fools. I'm calling blind fanboys of the game, who refuse to see ANY issues with the game wrong. There are many people on this forum who like the game, but who are honest enough to admit the game has problems.
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
Thank you, and sorry, your right. I was a bit quick off the reply button there, only thinking of the bandwagon.
I can't help but get continually amazed by the amount of flak and bad press this game catches on the forums. Am I one of only a handful of people that actually enjoy the game? Everyone I meet in game thinks that it rocks too. My brother a die hard WoW'er came over two weeks ago and now says he could never go back to Wow.
My only gripes with the game are that crafting needs to be a little less random in the way complications happen and the PvP servers (I'm on one) need a little more refinement and tuning. Other than that this game is superb.
After talking at length with many of my WoW friends I'm increasingly of the opinion that there are two types of MMORPG'er:
i. Those that want a deep imersive environment where their alter-egos can live and thrive.
and
ii. Those that want to just play a game.
Neither approach is intrinsically better than the other but I think I'm safe in saying that the majority of WoW players fall into catagory ii. These players I suspect just 'don't get Vanguard' and indeed from the conversations that I have had seems to confirm this. They see the travel aspect as nothing but a boring time sync and the land as completley un-imaginitive.
Whereas on the other hand I just love the travel, it makes one feel that they are in an actual world. I also find the world design in Vanguard very appealing with much more realistic terrain structures. WoW and EQ2 to me, feel like one is playing in a set of theme parks rather than one continous land, more so in EQ2 due to the zoning. As a result I have had to cancel my EQ2 account as I just can't get into it anymore.
I have taken hundreds of Vanguard screen shots simply because I find the world such an asthetically pleasing one. Some of these screen shots can be seen at http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vanguard.htm I think you will agree the world isn't as bad as some would make out.
I'm going to have to cut this one short as I have a virtual world to go to!
I can't help but get continually amazed by the amount of flak and bad press this game catches on the forums. Am I one of only a handful of people that actually enjoy the game? Everyone I meet in game thinks that it rocks too. My brother a die hard WoW'er came over two weeks ago and now says he could never go back to Wow. My only gripes with the game are that crafting needs to be a little less random in the way complications happen and the PvP servers (I'm on one) need a little more refinement and tuning. Other than that this game is superb. After talking at length with many of my WoW friends I'm increasingly of the opinion that there are two types of MMORPG'er: i. Those that want a deep imersive environment where their alter-egos can live and thrive. and ii. Those that want to just play a game. Neither approach is intrinsically better than the other but I think I'm safe in saying that the majority of WoW players fall into catagory ii. These players I suspect just 'don't get Vanguard' and indeed from the conversations that I have had seems to confirm this. They see the travel aspect as nothing but a boring time sync and the land as completley un-imaginitive. Whereas on the other hand I just love the travel, it makes one feel that they are in an actual world. I also find the world design in Vanguard very appealing with much more realistic terrain structures. WoW and EQ2 to me, feel like one is playing in a set of theme parks rather than one continous land, more so in EQ2 due to the zoning. As a result I have had to cancel my EQ2 account as I just can't get into it anymore. I have taken hundreds of Vanguard screen shots simply because I find the world such an asthetically pleasing one. Some of these screen shots can be seen at http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vanguard.htm I think you will agree the world isn't as bad as some would make out. I'm going to have to cut this one short as I have a virtual world to go to!
I am a Gamer not a virtual Tourist. If I want to tour I will go rent a Winnegabo and go to the Grand Canyon. And no you are not alone. There are about 10-20 thousand of you guys that will love Vanguard and play it. Unfortunately, that amount of people will not justify a $30 million investment. So while the servers will probably not shut down, it will be on life support like SOE's other games.
Right now EQ2 is the Sugar Daddy keeping all the other SOE games afloat.
I can't help but get continually amazed by the amount of flak and bad press this game catches on the forums. Am I one of only a handful of people that actually enjoy the game? Everyone I meet in game thinks that it rocks too. My brother a die hard WoW'er came over two weeks ago and now says he could never go back to Wow. My only gripes with the game are that crafting needs to be a little less random in the way complications happen and the PvP servers (I'm on one) need a little more refinement and tuning. Other than that this game is superb. After talking at length with many of my WoW friends I'm increasingly of the opinion that there are two types of MMORPG'er: i. Those that want a deep imersive environment where their alter-egos can live and thrive. and ii. Those that want to just play a game. Neither approach is intrinsically better than the other but I think I'm safe in saying that the majority of WoW players fall into catagory ii. These players I suspect just 'don't get Vanguard' and indeed from the conversations that I have had seems to confirm this. They see the travel aspect as nothing but a boring time sync and the land as completley un-imaginitive. Whereas on the other hand I just love the travel, it makes one feel that they are in an actual world. I also find the world design in Vanguard very appealing with much more realistic terrain structures. WoW and EQ2 to me, feel like one is playing in a set of theme parks rather than one continous land, more so in EQ2 due to the zoning. As a result I have had to cancel my EQ2 account as I just can't get into it anymore. I have taken hundreds of Vanguard screen shots simply because I find the world such an asthetically pleasing one. Some of these screen shots can be seen at http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vanguard.htm I think you will agree the world isn't as bad as some would make out. I'm going to have to cut this one short as I have a virtual world to go to!
The problem with that is you assume Vanguard satisfies everyone of (1) as much as World of Warcraft satisfies those of (2).
For example, I could argue Vanguard doesn't do (1) justice because it's a leveling based game, which encourages a grind of experience points, whereas Ultima Online employs a use-based progression where character changes are entirely dependent upon what their doing, rather than what they select in an interface menu.
I could also argue that Sosaria was just as much a "continuous" world as Telon in feeling, and still had things like Recall, Gate and etc. along with meaningful travel, mounts, houses and so on.
So while WoW has entirely proven itself as being capable of satisfying an entire chunk of the market and their likes, it doesn't mean Vanguard has done the same for those that prefer an anti-thesis to WoW's design methodology. That's exactly where Vanguard falls short; nine times out of ten, people who come to Vanguard include "I'm tired of WoW" in their reasons for playing it. Yet they end up quitting Vanguard because not liking WoW isn't enough to make Vanguard good. If Vanguard was a complete anti-thesis to WoW while actually being stable, polished and fun, Sigil would have something. Having strived and failed isn't enough though.
Vanguard is now at the point it should have been at launch and will continue to better with each update and run of fixes.
Is this a matter of opinion or the official stance of SIGIL?
Thank you in advance.I agree, am going to have to call shenanigan's on the assertion that VG is ready for launch. Gonna have to verify with that from some friends still playing....but I don't believe they would agree with this assessment.
All mmorpg's have problems at launch...least all the ones trying to push the limits ( notice i said trying too...not that VG is..yet ). Look at WoW and all the free time they gave away cause of long server down times.WoW didn't push any limits cept server loads and fancy emotes. Guild Wars was smooth...but they don't count. Sega of Ryzom....terrible at launch..much worse than Vanguard...but game was also pushing the limits. Horizons...don't get me started. Eq2 also had a terrible start....but gaining lots of good press lately. City of Heroes? ...lshould have been renamed City of Lag early on.
Vanguard was too rough around the edges at launch..agreed..particularly when one considers the time, money and talent invested. They have publicaly admited to numerous mistakes that cost both time and money. It is my opinion that they are being TOO open with the public...giving the flamers too much amunition. Can the general public even handle the truth? about anything?...many can't ..I see it everyday....anyways
Enough has been done already that I would consider Vanguard is NOW at the point where they SHOULD have been at launch. In other words...Vanguard beta is over..it's game on now. There are still issues ...simular issues one would expect on the typical...progressive mmorpg launch.
Well, its like with windchill, the subjective felt release time is prolly much longer, lol. Those 2 moths I spent in VG after release felt like years, heh.
If it can recover... who knows. I dont get so far to say. In consant movement the future is. ^^
But the errors run very deep, it will take much more than the shallow little tweaks Sigil has made the last 10 weeks. I havent seen anything breathtaking in those patchnotes, nor ANY indication what they are REALLY changing/adding in the future. Mystery and guesswork may serve a X-files episode but Telon isnt Twin Peaks: a little more details where the train is headed would not be wrong.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
City of Heroes? ...lshould have been renamed City of Lag early on.
LOL! You clearly didn't play CoH at launch. I've been in that game since closed beta, and I can tell you that it was far more polished and stable at launch than VG was in its beta. Compared to all the games I'd beta tested and launched by that point, CoH was probably the smoothest MMO launch I've seen so far, and Cryptic were a bunch of n00bs releasing their first game.
Were there issues with the game? Sure. There still are. But it was stable, polished, and playable when it went live. I know, because I was there.
Vanguard was too rough around the edges at launch..agreed..particularly when one considers the time, money and talent invested.
Vanguard wasn't rough around the edges. It was unfinished, unpolished, and unoptimized. They don't even have two of the starting classes in the game, much less standard features like scalability and Anti-Aliasing. How anyone could look at the client they launched with and see anything other than an unfinished mess is beyond me.
Is there the shell of a good game in Vanguard? Yes. And it could be a good game in another year or so. Unfortunately, it got buried under a mountain of shoddy code and less than stellar polish and soul.
I wanted to like the game. I wanted to see it succeed for two reasons: (1) I actually like Brad, and don't think he's a bad guy, just an overwhelmed one, and (2) more choices for consumers is a GOOD thing. But the client they offered up at launch was unacceptable, and the continuing issues that I see around various forums simply don't justify calling this game anything but fubar for the next several months.
Enough has been done already that I would consider Vanguard is NOW at the point where they SHOULD have been at launch. In other words...Vanguard beta is over..it's game on now.
There are enough problems still out there that I don't think this is the case. Their performance issues alone don't offer any confidence, since they're desperately hoping that people dropping lots of cash on higher end rigs will magically fix all their problems in that regard.
People should expect a lot more from these games, especially at launch. They really should. Paying full retail and subscription fees for months after launch until the game finally staggers into some sort of playable state shouldn't be acceptable. It just shouldn't.
It was already stated.. but turning 2 months and a few days into 5 months really kinda ruins your argument a bit .. but hey! Kalade
that'd be 2 months 2 weeks, 2 or so days. so pretty close to three months.
so if vanguard were released today instead of a few months back... would i think it was ready for release?
not even close.
maybe if vanguard:soe would host their own forums and have class/profession information easily available, and reliable, in a single location; then, i'd at least think they were serious about this game and believe that they don't think it's a big joke on us.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
There are enough problems still out there that I don't think this is the case. Their performance issues alone don't offer any confidence, since they're desperately hoping that people dropping lots of cash on higher end rigs will magically fix all their problems in that regard. People should expect a lot more from these games, especially at launch. They really should. Paying full retail and subscription fees for months after launch until the game finally staggers into some sort of playable state shouldn't be acceptable. It just shouldn't.
this is so true. especially the second paragraph.
but, keep in mind, you have a lot of people fed up with the games out right now. you have a lot of kids running wild with their parents' credit cards, because $15-30/month is a REAL cheap baby-sitter. you also have drooling fanbois that exist in a world beyond our own, a world where everything is within their reach and um, yeah, delusional.
i gave them a few months and i'm just so non-plussed about every aspect of this game, that it's not funny. but hey, for ONLY $30/month there's a whole slew of generically blah games you can play!
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
It isn't a matter of opinion that was really up for debate, the devs themselves have admitted this time and time again. The game was released months too early. They didn't say 3 months, they said if they had 3 more months it would have been in better shape for launch compared to when it did launch. They could have just said if they had 1 more month they would have been in better shape, it would have been true, but three sounds better and throwing the number three out there like that makes people believe they just needed 3 more months, which is not the case.
They worked on the game for 5 years and spent over 30 million on it and it was still a POS at release. Another 5 years and another 30 million and it will still be nothing but a POS. Face it Sigil just does not have the talent to design and produce a decent game and more time will not help.
Thanks for droping by. Go talk about your favorite game now. Thanks
You don't and others don't like it. Some like it. Are you so stuck up that you can't understand that? It's really that simple.
Comments
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
It's playable, working (for me), and fun. I define that as ready for release. Is it finished? Hell no!
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
I've yet to see ONE VG fan here claim there are no issues. Most, like me, not only talk about them, they're honest about them as well.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
Vanguard is still very broken. Aside from the many game bugs, the performance and the chunking issues remain. Another 6 months the game will be in the same place. You will then say "It has only been 6 months, give it a year." After a year you will say "It has only been a year, give it another 3 months.". During beta everyone said "It is only beta".
Face it. Sigil is not capable of fixing this game. If they dissolve Sigil and give the game to SOE maybe SOE can fix it but it will be much too late. There will be a handful of diehards (about 10-20k) but that is it. Asking Sigil to fix this game is like asking a retard to build a house. It simply can not be done.
Trust me I do feel for you guys that are still playing. Hell, I bought the limited edition. Now is the time to face facts. It is ok for you to play but don't let them rob other people with this game. That is disingenuous.
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
I've yet to see ONE VG fan here claim there are no issues. Most, like me, not only talk about them, they're honest about them as well. It's their attempt of normalizing the issues that's the problems. Sure, they'll admit to bugs, but they'll tell you the bugs are no big deal. They'll admit to an early launch, but they won't admit to a launch that was any worse than WoW. So on and so on. It's not really admitting to the issues if you denounce the severity of them, which is the important part, or do the opposite and play the issues down as something inconsequential in consideration of the game's health.
So yes, plenty talk about them, but I don't know about the honesty part.
Vanguard is now at the point it should have been at launch and will continue to better with each update and run of fixes.
It's the first part of that sentence that I'm concerned with. The game is nowhere near where it should have been at launch. If it was where it should have been at launch, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and this forum would look very different because VG would be stable, polished, playable for a majority of gamers out there, and people would be enjoying themselves with their guildmates as they explored a vast new world. There wouldn't be massive performance, UI, optimization, population, LFG, and bug-related issues. People wouldn't be canceling in droves because of the gamebreaking issues they're encountering.
But those issues DO exist, even today. And people ARE canceling in droves, if even Brad is talking about underpopulated servers being a problem. Ergo, the game isn't anywhere near what a launch product should be. To even suggest otherwise is absurd.
The fact is, the game was released way, WAY before it should have been. Brad was bullshitting everyone when he talked about needing another three months, because the game was just far too unpolished, unoptimized and unstable at the end of beta to ever credibly believe that three months would change anything. It still needs at least eight months to a year to get things together, and to bring it around to where it should have been when it went live.
Vanguard is now at the point it should have been at launch and will continue to better with each update and run of fixes.
It's the first part of that sentence that I'm concerned with. The game is nowhere near where it should have been at launch. If it was where it should have been at launch, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and this forum would look very different because VG would be stable, polished, playable for a majority of gamers out there, and people would be enjoying themselves with their guildmates as they explored a vast new world. There wouldn't be massive performance, UI, optimization, population, LFG, and bug-related issues. People wouldn't be canceling in droves because of the gamebreaking issues they're encountering.
But those issues DO exist, even today. And people ARE canceling in droves, if even Brad is talking about underpopulated servers being a problem. Ergo, the game isn't anywhere near what a launch product should be. To even suggest otherwise is absurd.
The fact is, the game was released way, WAY before it should have been. Brad was bullshitting everyone when he talked about needing another three months, because the game was just far too unpolished, unoptimized and unstable at the end of beta to ever credibly believe that three months would change anything. It still needs at least eight months to a year to get things together, and to bring it around to where it should have been when it went live.
The sad thing is, you're wrong in many people's eyes.
I agree with you entirely when you say that the game is nowhere near launch-worthy, but consumer standards for buying MMORPG's have dropped so low, that games like Vanguard have become a somewhat "standard" for a launch. This is a problem for gamers, created by gamers, and the only way to remedy it is to not accept such pathetic pieces of rubbish as "acceptable".
The fact of the matter is, this is the ONLY industry I can think of where you can waste 5 years and 30+ million dollars, and yield complete and utter garbage. Had Brad and Sigil worked in a different field, they'd likely be sitting pretty on a corporate blacklist.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Sigil must have really upset you.
Brad knows what he is doing.
Vanguard is a great game and is only getting better and better.
I am having a blast!
You will all be back again.
I forsee stand up comedy in your future!
I liked it when it was released and I love it now. But yes, it was probably released 3-6 months early. They patch once a week, including bug fixes, performance upgrades and new content. Overall, it has come a long way in 3 months.
The increasing enjoyment in gameplay is not solely due to patching however. The game continues to expand as one levels up. I just hit 30 this weekend and there is much more to do at this level than at lower levels. The game has broadened and there is simply so much to do, that I need to take notes on what I want to acccomplish in a given week. I'm a casual gamer and simply do not have time to fully engage in both Diplomacy and Adventuring.
So yes, probably released early, but I have really been enjoying it nevertheless.
There are others who refuse to see anything wrong with Vanguard, and who act as if the game is flawless. That second group is who I'm talking about.
And if my calling the idea of Vanguard being ready now foolish ruins anything for you, that's a personal issue. It's not anything that affects me.
Thank you, and sorry, your right. I was a bit quick off the reply button there, only thinking of the bandwagon.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
I can't help but get continually amazed by the amount of flak and bad press this game catches on the forums. Am I one of only a handful of people that actually enjoy the game? Everyone I meet in game thinks that it rocks too. My brother a die hard WoW'er came over two weeks ago and now says he could never go back to Wow.
My only gripes with the game are that crafting needs to be a little less random in the way complications happen and the PvP servers (I'm on one) need a little more refinement and tuning. Other than that this game is superb.
After talking at length with many of my WoW friends I'm increasingly of the opinion that there are two types of MMORPG'er:
i. Those that want a deep imersive environment where their alter-egos can live and thrive.
and
ii. Those that want to just play a game.
Neither approach is intrinsically better than the other but I think I'm safe in saying that the majority of WoW players fall into catagory ii. These players I suspect just 'don't get Vanguard' and indeed from the conversations that I have had seems to confirm this. They see the travel aspect as nothing but a boring time sync and the land as completley un-imaginitive.
Whereas on the other hand I just love the travel, it makes one feel that they are in an actual world. I also find the world design in Vanguard very appealing with much more realistic terrain structures. WoW and EQ2 to me, feel like one is playing in a set of theme parks rather than one continous land, more so in EQ2 due to the zoning. As a result I have had to cancel my EQ2 account as I just can't get into it anymore.
I have taken hundreds of Vanguard screen shots simply because I find the world such an asthetically pleasing one. Some of these screen shots can be seen at http://www.astroccd.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vanguard.htm I think you will agree the world isn't as bad as some would make out.
I'm going to have to cut this one short as I have a virtual world to go to!
I am a Gamer not a virtual Tourist. If I want to tour I will go rent a Winnegabo and go to the Grand Canyon. And no you are not alone. There are about 10-20 thousand of you guys that will love Vanguard and play it. Unfortunately, that amount of people will not justify a $30 million investment. So while the servers will probably not shut down, it will be on life support like SOE's other games.
Right now EQ2 is the Sugar Daddy keeping all the other SOE games afloat.
For example, I could argue Vanguard doesn't do (1) justice because it's a leveling based game, which encourages a grind of experience points, whereas Ultima Online employs a use-based progression where character changes are entirely dependent upon what their doing, rather than what they select in an interface menu.
I could also argue that Sosaria was just as much a "continuous" world as Telon in feeling, and still had things like Recall, Gate and etc. along with meaningful travel, mounts, houses and so on.
So while WoW has entirely proven itself as being capable of satisfying an entire chunk of the market and their likes, it doesn't mean Vanguard has done the same for those that prefer an anti-thesis to WoW's design methodology. That's exactly where Vanguard falls short; nine times out of ten, people who come to Vanguard include "I'm tired of WoW" in their reasons for playing it. Yet they end up quitting Vanguard because not liking WoW isn't enough to make Vanguard good. If Vanguard was a complete anti-thesis to WoW while actually being stable, polished and fun, Sigil would have something. Having strived and failed isn't enough though.
Is this a matter of opinion or the official stance of SIGIL?
Thank you in advance.I agree, am going to have to call shenanigan's on the assertion that VG is ready for launch. Gonna have to verify with that from some friends still playing....but I don't believe they would agree with this assessment.
All mmorpg's have problems at launch...least all the ones trying to push the limits ( notice i said trying too...not that VG is..yet ). Look at WoW and all the free time they gave away cause of long server down times.WoW didn't push any limits cept server loads and fancy emotes. Guild Wars was smooth...but they don't count. Sega of Ryzom....terrible at launch..much worse than Vanguard...but game was also pushing the limits. Horizons...don't get me started. Eq2 also had a terrible start....but gaining lots of good press lately. City of Heroes? ...lshould have been renamed City of Lag early on.
Vanguard was too rough around the edges at launch..agreed..particularly when one considers the time, money and talent invested. They have publicaly admited to numerous mistakes that cost both time and money. It is my opinion that they are being TOO open with the public...giving the flamers too much amunition. Can the general public even handle the truth? about anything?...many can't ..I see it everyday....anyways
Enough has been done already that I would consider Vanguard is NOW at the point where they SHOULD have been at launch. In other words...Vanguard beta is over..it's game on now. There are still issues ...simular issues one would expect on the typical...progressive mmorpg launch.
Well, its like with windchill, the subjective felt release time is prolly much longer, lol. Those 2 moths I spent in VG after release felt like years, heh.
If it can recover... who knows. I dont get so far to say. In consant movement the future is. ^^
But the errors run very deep, it will take much more than the shallow little tweaks Sigil has made the last 10 weeks. I havent seen anything breathtaking in those patchnotes, nor ANY indication what they are REALLY changing/adding in the future. Mystery and guesswork may serve a X-files episode but Telon isnt Twin Peaks: a little more details where the train is headed would not be wrong.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
LOL! You clearly didn't play CoH at launch. I've been in that game since closed beta, and I can tell you that it was far more polished and stable at launch than VG was in its beta. Compared to all the games I'd beta tested and launched by that point, CoH was probably the smoothest MMO launch I've seen so far, and Cryptic were a bunch of n00bs releasing their first game.
Were there issues with the game? Sure. There still are. But it was stable, polished, and playable when it went live. I know, because I was there.
Vanguard wasn't rough around the edges. It was unfinished, unpolished, and unoptimized. They don't even have two of the starting classes in the game, much less standard features like scalability and Anti-Aliasing. How anyone could look at the client they launched with and see anything other than an unfinished mess is beyond me.
Is there the shell of a good game in Vanguard? Yes. And it could be a good game in another year or so. Unfortunately, it got buried under a mountain of shoddy code and less than stellar polish and soul.
I wanted to like the game. I wanted to see it succeed for two reasons: (1) I actually like Brad, and don't think he's a bad guy, just an overwhelmed one, and (2) more choices for consumers is a GOOD thing. But the client they offered up at launch was unacceptable, and the continuing issues that I see around various forums simply don't justify calling this game anything but fubar for the next several months.
There are enough problems still out there that I don't think this is the case. Their performance issues alone don't offer any confidence, since they're desperately hoping that people dropping lots of cash on higher end rigs will magically fix all their problems in that regard.
People should expect a lot more from these games, especially at launch. They really should. Paying full retail and subscription fees for months after launch until the game finally staggers into some sort of playable state shouldn't be acceptable. It just shouldn't.
that'd be 2 months 2 weeks, 2 or so days. so pretty close to three months.
so if vanguard were released today instead of a few months back... would i think it was ready for release?
not even close.
maybe if vanguard:soe would host their own forums and have class/profession information easily available, and reliable, in a single location; then, i'd at least think they were serious about this game and believe that they don't think it's a big joke on us.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
this is so true. especially the second paragraph.
but, keep in mind, you have a lot of people fed up with the games out right now. you have a lot of kids running wild with their parents' credit cards, because $15-30/month is a REAL cheap baby-sitter. you also have drooling fanbois that exist in a world beyond our own, a world where everything is within their reach and um, yeah, delusional.
i gave them a few months and i'm just so non-plussed about every aspect of this game, that it's not funny. but hey, for ONLY $30/month there's a whole slew of generically blah games you can play!
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I also think they went the entirely wrong path with their graphics engine. Horrible.
If you haven't noticed changes in VG in the last couple months, you are clearly not playing
eqnext.wikia.com
You don't and others don't like it. Some like it. Are you so stuck up that you can't understand that? It's really that simple.
eqnext.wikia.com