I agree with both sides of the coin, being that there was great potential, but it has been very mismanaged to the train wreck we see now. I do have one thing to add to the con side: Horrible voice acting. Very lifeless lines as compared to EQ2 at launch which were incredibly vivid.
When I played the open beta and then my 1st month, my mind was going WTF? this is bad!!! Really bad acting. I know then it caused damage to my wanting to play. Even the repetative 5-8 voice actors in Oblvion had more life. Heck, all the mobs from Doom had more life lines!
Anyway, my 2 cents. Peace out.
Wolflaynce
Good gods, yes. As much as I love Vanguard, I think I agree with that more than the people who hate it. I cringe whenever an NPC speaks. Hearing a High Elf speak with a Californian 'Valley Girl' accent is painful beyond expression.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
The high system requirements were a HUGE bullet to the head for this game.
For WoW to have 8 million subscribers, first the game must run on those 8 million computers. I wonder how many gamers had computers that would run Vanguard on launch day.
I pre ordered the damn thing. Upgraded my PC with a Nivida 7950/512MB grapichs card and 2 gigs of RAM.
Played the game for a week. Quit, back to LOTRO beta. Yay, no lag in Bree or anywhere.
Been playing LOTRO since. Having great fun.
SOE will never get a penny more from me.
Pre-CU FTW
You really cant compare the game graphicaly to LOTR online. The Turbine mmo engine is pretty nice but at the same time its very plain, smilliar to WOW as how it uses to real "next gen" special effects. Having recently upgraded my pc for the sole purpose to play mmo's - Vanguard is a normal mapped beauty. I believe its the high system req's that turn people off, but at the same time I dont really think VG failed. The mmo business is huge, not everygame that releases is going to attract both the casual and harcore gamer.
You really cant compare the game graphicaly to LOTR online. The Turbine mmo engine is pretty nice but at the same time its very plain, smilliar to WOW as how it uses to real "next gen" special effects. Having recently upgraded my pc for the sole purpose to play mmo's - Vanguard is a normal mapped beauty. I believe its the high system req's that turn people off, but at the same time I dont really think VG failed. The mmo business is huge, not everygame that releases is going to attract both the casual and harcore gamer.
Graphics alone don't make a good game. There is nothing else in vanguard that would attract anyone. I dont like Lotro either but i PREFER it because its playable without horrible bugs.
The OP has all good points and I agree with them. There are even more individual problems with the game but the main problem is that the game was not fun. Some people like to use an MMO to replace something missing in real life and like to work at a video game. Unfortunately for Sigil there is only a small number of these people.
Hopefully Brad and his Lackeys will not have a major influence in any game in the future.
I agree with the OP in large part, although I do want to say that I don't believe Vanguard has failed as in it's dead, although I do believe it failed at reaching a sucdess it could have attained.
The two big facts that sand out in my mind that are responsible:
1) Poorly thought game mechanics. Everything from combat, crafting, trading, housing, fellowships and caravans. Not all of it is bad but none of it is thought out and or properly planned. Some of them are just relics of the past and others just seem so comfusingly out there, why bother wanting to fight for it and get there in time?
2) Hype/Vision/Lies/Not following through with plans. Some games usualy have at least some stuff working so players don't concentrate on what's missing but since so much was broken right from the start, what else was there to focus on? Things like player cities, flying mounts, Inquisitors and the like with no forseable plans to get anything kinda hit home for lots of people.
Add on top of all that the bugs/technical issues and poor performance all kind of wrapped up in this pretty looking package of ignorance that is Brad and Co., well I think it's pretty obvious why it's had some a poor start.
Can it turn around though? Aboslutely. Can Vanguard turn into a really good game? Yeah for sure. Will it ever be the epic, masterful wonder of a gaming experience that Brad said it would be, a place to call home and live out a virtual life? Nope, never.
1. Know your target audience, and make a game they can play. The fact that the game would not run at acceptable frame-rates discouraged many people from trying the game. It doesn't matter how good the game looks - 50+% of people can't play it.
2. The developers over-extended themselves with the concept of "bigger is better". Well, bigger is not better . . more fun is better.
- Overambitious. They had to cut down the size of Vanguard's world of Telon dramatically, there was supposed to be 4 continents ending up cutting one out as well as reducing the sizes of the others. Many features that were supposed to be in the game aren't. They went overboard with the whole concept and wasting large amounts of developmental time trying to reduce things and reduce their concepts.
While your right about being over ambitious it wasn't 4 continents it was 10!
It's a fun game, with WAY to many flaws due to early release.
It's biggest flaw: Performance. A majority of people I know that quit like VG, but got tired of the performance issues. It should have never been released as it was.
IMO, it didn't fail, but it also fell FAR short of what it should have been: A finished game.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
I agree with both sides of the coin, being that there was great potential, but it has been very mismanaged to the train wreck we see now. I do have one thing to add to the con side: Horrible voice acting. Very lifeless lines as compared to EQ2 at launch which were incredibly vivid.
When I played the open beta and then my 1st month, my mind was going WTF? this is bad!!! Really bad acting. I know then it caused damage to my wanting to play. Even the repetative 5-8 voice actors in Oblvion had more life. Heck, all the mobs from Doom had more life lines!
Anyway, my 2 cents. Peace out.
Wolflaynce
Good gods, yes. As much as I love Vanguard, I think I agree with that more than the people who hate it. I cringe whenever an NPC speaks. Hearing a High Elf speak with a Californian 'Valley Girl' accent is painful beyond expression.
The Vulmane voices are the worst!!!!! It seems like the devs hired a drunken Jar-Jar binks to do the role. I thought EQ2 had the worst voice acting in video game history but Vanguard wins the trophy. I agree the High Elf voices sounded like a valley girl too. Omg. All the human voices were just as bad my Mordebi lady sounded like a mentally challenged stooge or something.
I agree with the OP except for one thing... you didn't need to leave out the Vanbois angle on this.
Back in beta 2 when we'd only have 80 people on at any given time doing beta testing, we tried to tell Sigil something was wrong. The Vanbois drums would constantly be beating us back that were trying to voice our concerns. The Vanbois didn't want to hear it. We were constantly getting dogged and told "but it only beta" and that the game has so much "potential". To me, when companies buy into their (in this case) own "Vanbois" crowd and disregard those of us with legit issues, it is a downward spiral that will do nothing but crash land. To all you "Vanbois" out there that were in beta two, HA, TOLD YOU SO!!!! There was a damn good reason why there was usually 100 or so of us on at any given time with 500 at peaks time during beta two.
Now you see why you don't buy a car from the dealership with promises of a transmission in the future. Sure, there might be potential, but if you can't drive it with style now chances are you never will.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
I agree with both sides of the coin, being that there was great potential, but it has been very mismanaged to the train wreck we see now. I do have one thing to add to the con side: Horrible voice acting. Very lifeless lines as compared to EQ2 at launch which were incredibly vivid.
When I played the open beta and then my 1st month, my mind was going WTF? this is bad!!! Really bad acting. I know then it caused damage to my wanting to play. Even the repetative 5-8 voice actors in Oblvion had more life. Heck, all the mobs from Doom had more life lines!
Anyway, my 2 cents. Peace out.
Wolflaynce
Good gods, yes. As much as I love Vanguard, I think I agree with that more than the people who hate it. I cringe whenever an NPC speaks. Hearing a High Elf speak with a Californian 'Valley Girl' accent is painful beyond expression.
The Vulmane voices are the worst!!!!! It seems like the devs hired a drunken Jar-Jar binks to do the role. I thought EQ2 had the worst voice acting in video game history but Vanguard wins the trophy. I agree the High Elf voices sounded like a valley girl too. Omg. All the human voices were just as bad my Mordebi lady sounded like a mentally challenged stooge or something.
I vote the swim animation the worst. That was just pitiful.
I pre ordered the damn thing. Upgraded my PC with a Nivida 7950/512MB grapichs card and 2 gigs of RAM.
Played the game for a week. Quit, back to LOTRO beta. Yay, no lag in Bree or anywhere.
Been playing LOTRO since. Having great fun.
SOE will never get a penny more from me.
Pre-CU FTW
You really cant compare the game graphicaly to LOTR online. The Turbine mmo engine is pretty nice but at the same time its very plain, smilliar to WOW as how it uses to real "next gen" special effects. Having recently upgraded my pc for the sole purpose to play mmo's - Vanguard is a normal mapped beauty. I believe its the high system req's that turn people off, but at the same time I dont really think VG failed. The mmo business is huge, not everygame that releases is going to attract both the casual and harcore gamer.
Just as a pretty face is not enough to keep a relationship going, a normal mapped beauty is not enough
to keep an MMO going. Pretty graphics do not make a game.
The high system requirements did not turn people off, it made it impossible for them to even play. Even
when they had decent/current systems it was still a hit or miss proposition as to whether one would be
able to run the game satisfactorily or not.
Whether Vanguard failed or not depends on how you define failure. If failure is defined as not attaining
enough subscriptions to pay for development costs, infrastructure, etc. it failed. If it is producing a game
that a significant number of the potential player base will want and be able to play, it failed. So my
question is how did it not fail ?
The MMO marketplace is indeed huge, however you have to know the market that you are going after. By
know, I mean you have to be aware of the market preferences, market trends, market demographics, etc.
You can not develop a viable market strategy in a vacuum. Nor can you develop a market strategy by
assessing trends when you begin development and assume that the trends will hold for a long
development cycle. In the end, the resulting product must pay for itself to be considered viable and
sadly the number of players needed to assure viability were never attained.
This talk of 'failure' is disheartening. I play Vanguard because it is the only MMO thus far that does not disgust me to the point of complete disinterest. Because it has power and dignity. Because it feels less 'sterile' than the others. Because it has some soul. It could have been better, of course. Much better. It disappointed me plenty. But there is nothing better for me, yet. I needed a world I could immerse myself into with my friends and loved ones, and all the other MMOs seemed to fail to take themselves seriously in terms of actually creating even a slightly immersive world of any reasonable size, beauty, atmosphere -- they fail to be anything poignant to me, while Telon is a piece of artwork I liken to any decent novel, piece of music, or worthwhile dream. Vanguard is as close to EVE in pure mood and emotion that mediaeval fantasy has come at the moment, and unlike EVE it does not hinge on hypercapitalism. Sorry for the, erm, 'fanboy' attitude, but I am being sincere.
By all means, if you enjoy it, play it. ^^
I call it a failure because it seems Sigil is bankrupt and it does not appeal a lot a players. Personal tastes are free and you are entitled to enjoy yourself nevertheless. Since I hope VG has some future, it needs some who stay with it in the time of transition.
As to the other questions, yes I think VG can be saved. However, it needs a big rework, and I am not sure SOE is willing to do that. Nothing I know from SOE - and i am not hater! - indicates they do that. What we WILL hear is likely this: the bugs and performance issues brought an almost perfect game down, we solve them and voila, game is good. Which is, of course totally BS, but the fanbois already work on that myth, trust me.
The simple truth is, almost all ppl who said the quit wrote they left because it was boring, for one or another reason. Other MMOs started equally bugged, but they were fun. Anyone recalls how SWG started will know what I mean.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I figure it like this, I usually stay away from games that Brad had ANY voice or opinion in making but, i saw VG and It actually caught my interest.... Until I played it for an hour. I didnt stop there I actually played it for about a month And Didnt even renew I couldnt do it to myself. VG Lacks the Storyline and gameplay that LoTRO, WoW, and EQ2 offer. I was not only severly depressed over that but also with the NUMEROUS bugs i ncountered even within the first 20 minutes of the game. The concept that they tried to introduce in VG of diplomacy and Adventuring was a good idea but they didnt pull it off. As was said in a couple of other posts, they made it feel like you either participated in Adventuring or Diplomacy, one or the other, It never really was able to pull the two together and make it feel like you were honestly doing both at the same time or even that While you were hunting you were making an impression in the whole diplomacy aspect of the game. My next issue is the diplomatic card game they introduced. While again a nice concept. It felt more like you play the card fame because you were bored of grinding then to actually get involved more into the Diplomatic side of the game. I am sorry if I offend any Fanbois out there but to me VG would and probably could be a great game but not until they get their asses in gear and LISTEN to the community and actually do something about it, like say Take it off the shelf and start all over from scratch.
~I've Said my piece.... Deal with it~
Sataron DarkGift
~Live and Let Live, But get in my way and I'll kill you...~
SOE pushed them to release the game to early, brad confirmed this. Old news.
Last time I checked, Brad and Sigil had 5 years and over 30 million to spend building a game, and you are going to suggest that their publisher is to blame because they did not want to continue to dump money into a game? HAHAHAHAHA, no responsibility for the people who built the game huh?
Project was over ambitious.
Sigil did not understand how the market had changed.
Without an IP that had built in fans, they made the world lore harder to come by.
They bought into their own hype, and were confident they were right, and their testers did not represent the "average gamer"
They tried to push an untested engine to go somewhere it had never gone.
Banked too much on people upgrading technology quickly, not enough cutting edge.
This talk of 'failure' is disheartening. I play Vanguard because it is the only MMO thus far that does not disgust me to the point of complete disinterest. Because it has power and dignity. Because it feels less 'sterile' than the others. Because it has some soul. It could have been better, of course. Much better. It disappointed me plenty. But there is nothing better for me, yet. I needed a world I could immerse myself into with my friends and loved ones, and all the other MMOs seemed to fail to take themselves seriously in terms of actually creating even a slightly immersive world of any reasonable size, beauty, atmosphere -- they fail to be anything poignant to me, while Telon is a piece of artwork I liken to any decent novel, piece of music, or worthwhile dream. Vanguard is as close to EVE in pure mood and emotion that mediaeval fantasy has come at the moment, and unlike EVE it does not hinge on hypercapitalism. Sorry for the, erm, 'fanboy' attitude, but I am being sincere.
I feel very similar Saerain...and I see it as something that is developing, growing and improving. I hardly see it as a failure. It is an intellectually challenging MMO that doesn't put me to sleep but that is also fun and full of adventure.
The game world was very sterile. I never had the sense of belonging to the game. Personally I do not think SOE can turn this game around. It will be another small niche game that no one plays. SOE seems to like those games, they have a lot of them.
Brad should never write MMO's again, he sucks at it.
The MMORPG genre has finally started to truly evolve after a decade of stagnation. Not everyone approves of the way the genre is evolving but that will not stop it. Evolution doesn't wait for approval, it just moves forward.
The OP also summarized quite nicely how MMORPGs are changing and it's completely appropriate how he used the term 'dinosaur' when refering to certain game mechanics to which some developers continue to cling.
Vanguard will be remembered as a lesson. Let us hope other developers learn from it.
It sounds great, so great in fact, I pitty those who canceled - Some deluded SWG fanboi who pities me. I don't like it when you say things. - A Vanguard fan who does too. 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
I would have given SOE the benifit of a doubt after taking the game over but when they brought brad in to give ideas thats where i lost all hope. Sorry vanguard.........
~Live and Let Live, But get in my way and I'll kill you...~
VSoH failed because Brad McTool (or Mcquaid, depends how you pronounce it) sucks...plain and simple. You can blame it on HIS team which may be true, but he implemented that team. Nothing else really to talk about here lol
Too much bullshite from brad and too many vanbois in forums in early beta stage.
I was in at the first beta after friends and family and I tell you. Everything wrong in the game today was said many times!!!! But when people did speak out there where packs of vanbois come flooding in not even listening to REAL points just flaming and having blind faith in Brads vision and telling them to go play wow
I rember 3-4 pages flame war of people looking better maps lol
In the end people just gave up trying to make points and how to make the game better
Comments
The high system requirements were a HUGE bullet to the head for this game.
For WoW to have 8 million subscribers, first the game must run on those 8 million computers. I wonder how many gamers had computers that would run Vanguard on launch day.
You really cant compare the game graphicaly to LOTR online. The Turbine mmo engine is pretty nice but at the same time its very plain, smilliar to WOW as how it uses to real "next gen" special effects. Having recently upgraded my pc for the sole purpose to play mmo's - Vanguard is a normal mapped beauty. I believe its the high system req's that turn people off, but at the same time I dont really think VG failed. The mmo business is huge, not everygame that releases is going to attract both the casual and harcore gamer.------------------------------
Check out some of the mmo's I have played:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/129987/page/1
PC STATS:
- Q9550
- Evga GTX 280 SSC x2 (SLI)
- 8GB DDR3
- Nforce 790i Ultra
The OP has all good points and I agree with them. There are even more individual problems with the game but the main problem is that the game was not fun. Some people like to use an MMO to replace something missing in real life and like to work at a video game. Unfortunately for Sigil there is only a small number of these people.
Hopefully Brad and his Lackeys will not have a major influence in any game in the future.
I agree with the OP in large part, although I do want to say that I don't believe Vanguard has failed as in it's dead, although I do believe it failed at reaching a sucdess it could have attained.
The two big facts that sand out in my mind that are responsible:
1) Poorly thought game mechanics. Everything from combat, crafting, trading, housing, fellowships and caravans. Not all of it is bad but none of it is thought out and or properly planned. Some of them are just relics of the past and others just seem so comfusingly out there, why bother wanting to fight for it and get there in time?
2) Hype/Vision/Lies/Not following through with plans. Some games usualy have at least some stuff working so players don't concentrate on what's missing but since so much was broken right from the start, what else was there to focus on? Things like player cities, flying mounts, Inquisitors and the like with no forseable plans to get anything kinda hit home for lots of people.
Add on top of all that the bugs/technical issues and poor performance all kind of wrapped up in this pretty looking package of ignorance that is Brad and Co., well I think it's pretty obvious why it's had some a poor start.
Can it turn around though? Aboslutely. Can Vanguard turn into a really good game? Yeah for sure. Will it ever be the epic, masterful wonder of a gaming experience that Brad said it would be, a place to call home and live out a virtual life? Nope, never.
Important Information regarding Posting and You
1. Know your target audience, and make a game they can play. The fact that the game would not run at acceptable frame-rates discouraged many people from trying the game. It doesn't matter how good the game looks - 50+% of people can't play it.
2. The developers over-extended themselves with the concept of "bigger is better". Well, bigger is not better . . more fun is better.
http://aion.24-hrgaming.net
It's a fun game, with WAY to many flaws due to early release.
It's biggest flaw: Performance. A majority of people I know that quit like VG, but got tired of the performance issues. It should have never been released as it was.
IMO, it didn't fail, but it also fell FAR short of what it should have been: A finished game.
I'll start my own SWG... with Black Jack... and Hookers!!!
In fact, forget the SWG!!!!
The Vulmane voices are the worst!!!!! It seems like the devs hired a drunken Jar-Jar binks to do the role. I thought EQ2 had the worst voice acting in video game history but Vanguard wins the trophy. I agree the High Elf voices sounded like a valley girl too. Omg. All the human voices were just as bad my Mordebi lady sounded like a mentally challenged stooge or something.
I agree with the OP except for one thing... you didn't need to leave out the Vanbois angle on this.
Back in beta 2 when we'd only have 80 people on at any given time doing beta testing, we tried to tell Sigil something was wrong. The Vanbois drums would constantly be beating us back that were trying to voice our concerns. The Vanbois didn't want to hear it. We were constantly getting dogged and told "but it only beta" and that the game has so much "potential". To me, when companies buy into their (in this case) own "Vanbois" crowd and disregard those of us with legit issues, it is a downward spiral that will do nothing but crash land. To all you "Vanbois" out there that were in beta two, HA, TOLD YOU SO!!!! There was a damn good reason why there was usually 100 or so of us on at any given time with 500 at peaks time during beta two.
Now you see why you don't buy a car from the dealership with promises of a transmission in the future. Sure, there might be potential, but if you can't drive it with style now chances are you never will.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
The Vulmane voices are the worst!!!!! It seems like the devs hired a drunken Jar-Jar binks to do the role. I thought EQ2 had the worst voice acting in video game history but Vanguard wins the trophy. I agree the High Elf voices sounded like a valley girl too. Omg. All the human voices were just as bad my Mordebi lady sounded like a mentally challenged stooge or something.
I vote the swim animation the worst. That was just pitiful.
Just as a pretty face is not enough to keep a relationship going, a normal mapped beauty is not enough
to keep an MMO going. Pretty graphics do not make a game.
The high system requirements did not turn people off, it made it impossible for them to even play. Even
when they had decent/current systems it was still a hit or miss proposition as to whether one would be
able to run the game satisfactorily or not.
Whether Vanguard failed or not depends on how you define failure. If failure is defined as not attaining
enough subscriptions to pay for development costs, infrastructure, etc. it failed. If it is producing a game
that a significant number of the potential player base will want and be able to play, it failed. So my
question is how did it not fail ?
The MMO marketplace is indeed huge, however you have to know the market that you are going after. By
know, I mean you have to be aware of the market preferences, market trends, market demographics, etc.
You can not develop a viable market strategy in a vacuum. Nor can you develop a market strategy by
assessing trends when you begin development and assume that the trends will hold for a long
development cycle. In the end, the resulting product must pay for itself to be considered viable and
sadly the number of players needed to assure viability were never attained.
By all means, if you enjoy it, play it. ^^
I call it a failure because it seems Sigil is bankrupt and it does not appeal a lot a players. Personal tastes are free and you are entitled to enjoy yourself nevertheless. Since I hope VG has some future, it needs some who stay with it in the time of transition.
As to the other questions, yes I think VG can be saved. However, it needs a big rework, and I am not sure SOE is willing to do that. Nothing I know from SOE - and i am not hater! - indicates they do that. What we WILL hear is likely this: the bugs and performance issues brought an almost perfect game down, we solve them and voila, game is good. Which is, of course totally BS, but the fanbois already work on that myth, trust me.
The simple truth is, almost all ppl who said the quit wrote they left because it was boring, for one or another reason. Other MMOs started equally bugged, but they were fun. Anyone recalls how SWG started will know what I mean.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I figure it like this, I usually stay away from games that Brad had ANY voice or opinion in making but, i saw VG and It actually caught my interest.... Until I played it for an hour. I didnt stop there I actually played it for about a month And Didnt even renew I couldnt do it to myself. VG Lacks the Storyline and gameplay that LoTRO, WoW, and EQ2 offer. I was not only severly depressed over that but also with the NUMEROUS bugs i ncountered even within the first 20 minutes of the game. The concept that they tried to introduce in VG of diplomacy and Adventuring was a good idea but they didnt pull it off. As was said in a couple of other posts, they made it feel like you either participated in Adventuring or Diplomacy, one or the other, It never really was able to pull the two together and make it feel like you were honestly doing both at the same time or even that While you were hunting you were making an impression in the whole diplomacy aspect of the game. My next issue is the diplomatic card game they introduced. While again a nice concept. It felt more like you play the card fame because you were bored of grinding then to actually get involved more into the Diplomatic side of the game. I am sorry if I offend any Fanbois out there but to me VG would and probably could be a great game but not until they get their asses in gear and LISTEN to the community and actually do something about it, like say Take it off the shelf and start all over from scratch.
~I've Said my piece.... Deal with it~
Sataron DarkGift
~Live and Let Live, But get in my way and I'll kill you...~
Last time I checked, Brad and Sigil had 5 years and over 30 million to spend building a game, and you are going to suggest that their publisher is to blame because they did not want to continue to dump money into a game? HAHAHAHAHA, no responsibility for the people who built the game huh?
Project was over ambitious.
Sigil did not understand how the market had changed.
Without an IP that had built in fans, they made the world lore harder to come by.
They bought into their own hype, and were confident they were right, and their testers did not represent the "average gamer"
They tried to push an untested engine to go somewhere it had never gone.
Banked too much on people upgrading technology quickly, not enough cutting edge.
The game world was very sterile. I never had the sense of belonging to the game. Personally I do not think SOE can turn this game around. It will be another small niche game that no one plays. SOE seems to like those games, they have a lot of them.
Brad should never write MMO's again, he sucks at it.
The OP made excellent points.
The MMORPG genre has finally started to truly evolve after a decade of stagnation. Not everyone approves of the way the genre is evolving but that will not stop it. Evolution doesn't wait for approval, it just moves forward.
The OP also summarized quite nicely how MMORPGs are changing and it's completely appropriate how he used the term 'dinosaur' when refering to certain game mechanics to which some developers continue to cling.
Vanguard will be remembered as a lesson. Let us hope other developers learn from it.
2. Fantasy has been done to death.
3. Promised too much and didn't deliver.
4. $OE was involved.
Shayde - SWG (dead)
Proud member of the Cabal.
It sounds great, so great in fact, I pitty those who canceled
I don't like it when you say things. - A Vanguard fan who does too.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
~Live and Let Live, But get in my way and I'll kill you...~
Why did it Sigil fail?
Simple.
VSoH failed because Brad McTool (or Mcquaid, depends how you pronounce it) sucks...plain and simple. You can blame it on HIS team which may be true, but he implemented that team. Nothing else really to talk about here lol
Too much bullshite from brad and too many vanbois in forums in early beta stage.
I was in at the first beta after friends and family and I tell you. Everything wrong in the game today was said many times!!!! But when people did speak out there where packs of vanbois come flooding in not even listening to REAL points just flaming and having blind faith in Brads vision and telling them to go play wow
I rember 3-4 pages flame war of people looking better maps lol
In the end people just gave up trying to make points and how to make the game better