Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Was it the idea or the implementation that went wrong?
Rekindle
Member UncommonPosts: 1,206
Was this game destined to fail from the beginning because of the concept it was trying to implement or was it because of how it was implemented?
I know the Sigil story well. If I knew anymore I'd evalutate my nerd level. I had a man crush for Brad and what he was trying to implement: An open world sandbox fantasy mmo with lots of powerfully creative places to go. This game was to be a saviour, the last bastion for the first gen mmo gamer who used to play in worlds.
This game isn't doing well because Sony has not done a good job of letting people know the game exists. In fact I'd go as far as to say one of the main reasons this game was acquired was to make sure it didn't do well against EQ2. V anguard with a fraction of the support is game people seriously evalutate against EQ2 and other heavily funded/advertised titles all the time.
Imagine the game that could have been if the game were actually advertised. Don't tell me SOE doesn't advertise, I saw the pictures of Lucan D'lere holding pizza hut pizza, dear god.
Vanguard IS EQ3. I said it before but people flamed me instead of thinking about it: A sub to Vanguard ,despite the fact it gives SOE some dollars, is a vote in their face for suppressing this game.
If you ask me Vanguard captures the feeling of the original EQ game. The settings do, the background music does, those brief moments inside a dungeon when your group is just standing around.
But maybe at the end of the day you just don't think its a good game. I disagree, the dam thing could be re launched today and it would look and feel like a 2010 product, easily.
Some are going to say the game is just bad, buggy, whatever. I'll tell thats not been my experience (post beta). It had horrible optimization at the beginning but I bet if you think back many of you, not all, had crap gear back then too. Yes, yes, dwell on the 8700 issue but other games had issues with new cards too.
Perhaps its the fact this game has teh holy trinity group dynamic - tank -dps-healer. Maybe people are tired of it.
Comments
The dev's basically pissed away 30 - 40 mil worth of microsoft's money, and Vanguard's funding got pulled. SOE bought the IP and did not want to put too much cash into it while not getting any in return so the game was released early....... and we all know what happened from there on.
A bit of both.
Implementation wise
You can release a game in a buggy state and just get away with it you cannot release a game in a poorly optimised state though.
People can see past and bypass in game bugs but when the game runs like rubbish on even beheamoth machines then you are asking for trouble you are instantly causing problems for over 80% of your playerbase who arent running on top spec hardware.
I had no problems in respect of running VG and was on a 940 D 2GB ram and a X1950 Pro at the time hardly cutting edge but my machine just seemed to like VG.
Vision Wise
Vision wise it was great marketing wise it was poor.
Vanguard arrived at a strange time people where still in love with the new found casualness offered by other products tom dick and harry where all jumping on board the MMO train due to the WOW phenomena and searching out something they could jump into and have some insta fun.
How utterly shocked they where to find what greeted them in VG at launch with vast travel sometimes upwards of 30 mins from location to location the MMO playerbase at that time did not want this apart from those 500k of us from a bygone era everyone else wanted insta gratification.
Vanguard through not adapting to market change and poor optimisation signed its own death warrant.
The sad thing is Vanguard and the worldof Telon are stunning works of art they are living breathing wonders and those same people who in there millions shunned VG at launch have now matured in MMO years and are harking for that more hardcore game.
Sadly Vanguards time came and passed I honestly feel if it was launching today in its present state of playability it could be a mass success.
Unfortunately very few of us give a game a second chance and often can;t see past the good that it became but mereley focus on the failiure it was.
I played for 6 months then the conversion of Rangers Ranged attacks to use mana killed it for me a change nobody Rangers nor others asked for a change that equipment in game wasnt ready for as there was no armour specific to a ranged ranger and it was extrmeley poorly timed just as many Rangers where completeting their faction armour sets.
If not for the above change and sheer ignorance of the playerbase's plea that it wasnt asked for nor required by SOE then i would probably still be playing VG today I just vowed never to be shafted by SOE again like the NGE did.
I know Vanguard had tons of potential, but once SoE bought it, they never planned to give it the dedication and extra time to make the game amazing like it could have been. They rather let it rot to protect there other investments.
I think the style of the game also played a big part of it too. The type of players who play the style of game are a minority. Most people don't want crafting items to take longer than 5 seconds. Most people don't want to take 2-3 times longer than the average MMO to kill monsters. The politics system is neat.... at first... then it's just a simple card game. They should have allowed player vs. player politics allowing players to put in game money, items or land up for stake.
The big problem is that most players (not all), but most want instant gratification and never want any form of downtime or *looks around* an empty world devoid of players. If the above statement was a valid excuse then, today's Vanguard would be at the point of which the game was supposed to be released as. Also, it's silly to think that SOE wouldn't want competition between EQ2 and Vanguard. The money all goes to the same place. If someone leaves EQ2 for Vanguard and gets bored... more than likely they will return to their previous MMO which was EQ2. Not to mention, it also gets the player into buying the station pass which doesn't have discounts for purchasing quarterly or semi-annually.
Ignoring the EQ2 argument for just a moment, there is a good chance that SOE would not get a return for any investment into Vanguard. So, why would they? Just leave it on support which at the moment, costs less than the incoming revenue. Once it costs more to support it, then simply pull the plug.
I've wondered exactly the same thing as what the OP posted.
I think it boils down to two things for why Vanguard did not not live up to its full potential. That said, I still think it is by far and away the best PvE MMO available. However, SoE is simply not going to invest much more in this game.
1) The game concept is brilliant on almost every level. But the size of the world, all the races, all the classes, all the starting cities, all the abilities (passive, active, permanent, etc.), all the dungeons, etc. etc. etc. All that is simply too much to maintain on an ongoing basis in any economical way. You could see how the developers where completely overloaded trying to maintain the game AND add new content. There is no game nearly as complex and in depth as Vanguard.
- Take Aion as a comparision. Very simple, very linear, graphics on the cheap very little content. But it is an economic masterpiece.... low investment in the game, market the hell out of it, sell a ton of boxes and just let players gank one another at the higher levels for 'end-game content'.
2) Brilliance game concept, but really poor initial coding and design. SoE made massive improvements to this game in terms of bug fixing and performance. But by then, VG had lost many players. And even though SoE saved the game, I don't think they could completely fix everything because of the code and the graphic engine. They basically got it as good as they could, but for many players, it wasn't good eough. If the game doesn't run smoothly in all areas, then some people will simply quit.
- Aion as an example again. Logging into that game for the first time is a snap. Nice intro sequence, nice character creation screen, runs smooth, I found very few bugs. Even though I did not find one second of enjoyment in the game, it was polished and smooth. If a players logs into Isle of Dawn for the first time, shaders are loading initially, game is hitchy for awhile, they need to spend time configuring the UI and it'll probabaly take 10-15 levels to start to grasp your own class.
Part of me fears that Vanguard will be the last great MMO and everything to follow will be the cookie-cutter generic crap we say throughout 2009.
So many things went wrong with VG it would be impossible to list them all. People having affairs in the office, mismanagement of money and resources on a large scale. The game was hyped to target those who enjoyed the original EQ+Kunark+SoV but changed in beta in an attempt target the larger EQ2/WoW audience. The result was a buggy pile of crap that neither the old school 'core' gamers or the newer 'casual' gamers wanted.
I swear VG was more fun in Nov 05 - Mar 06 than it is today. Back then they knew who they were making the game for and it seemed more focused for that playstyle.
It was doomed from the start due to Brad McQuaid's drug habit. A project this big needs it's leader.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Majority of it is implementation, this includes bad choice of engine (which to this day, still is crappy and iffy).
Some of it was design decisions & ideas, because Brad had an utopian idea that thinks everything was going to work out exactly as he had imagined. No matter how many people enjoyed the old Commonlands trading back in EQ days, it will not work today. And their idea of "regional trading" was partly because some of them were lusting over the nostalgia of commons trading. They should've known better, and that is an example of bad idea & design decision.
Overall, it really was a badly run business from an inexperienced CEO, to drama in the office, to hiring unqualified coders/developers, to bad design decision and bad choice of game engine (unreal 2.x), to bad decisions on going above high tech sys specs while expecting players to wait a year for technology to catch up, to launching the game 2 years ahead of finishing it, to revamp certain things ingame in big sweeping way rather than taking small steps (such as riftways). I'm sure everybody involved learned a great deal from this.
It definitely had potential, I played it for 1 full year before quitting. I played through bugs, crashes, unfinished content, badly balanced PvP. But hey, I had fun while playing it. It could've been that next EQ1 people have been waiting for (which SOE still fails to deliver, and no EQ2 isn't an upgraded EQ1).
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I think VG is still the best fantasy class-based PvE game on the market.
Creative people in charge of money is not a good thing.
Then, I agree, SOE basically bought it to keep it from leeching subs from EQ2.
They didn't want to invest a proper team in it from day one. So, although I appreciate them keeping the game alive after the Sigil fiasco, it was very much a double-edged sword in that they absolutely refused to give it a full sized Dev team, share resources with other titles in their stable, or advertise it in any real way.
They kept it alive to kill it.
i posted a thread named vanguard on what should be done to help vanguard but im sure it will fall on deaf ears
Vanguard is no way EQ3. It was a great concept with a decent engine that was never fully fleshed out with content and mechanic and was mis-managed by the leadership team. SOE tried to make something out of it but there was no meat on the skeleton when they took it over and probably too complex a task to try to make it so afterward - although I applaud their effort in trying to do so and at least stepping in when everyone else would have watched it die.
EQ3 would be designed by SOE through whatever process they have that clearly works based on EQ2 and with the right resources, finance and development process to launch it as best as any launch hopes to be.
VG is a pretty shell of a game that could have been a decent EQ2 clone but sadly never had the chance to live the potential.
To err is human....to play is divine
I actually think it comes down to faith that the game will still be around. We've seen a lot of crash and burn in MMOs lately - and folks just don't want to invest the time into something that might not be around next week. And Vanguard does require a lot of time investment.
I'd love to be playing Vanguard still, but as you say - I don't want to put in the time investment when I'm unsure if they'll pull the plug on it 'soon'.
Sigil office drama-------> Vanguard launch buggy and unfinished--------> Sigil out of cash-----> Sony--> Shit. That is all.
All things that Brad M. has done I think he can design a great game.
I think Brad is a true gamer at heart and by natural calling he's a game designer....
I think Brad is NOT a good CEO nor should he ever thought he could be. His was coming off of EQ and wanted things done his way... so why not start your own company and put yourself on top if you want it your way..... (I like the idea myself.. but its flawed thinking)
Problem is CEO's usually don't design games... they run the business.. I think Brad got in over trying to do both.. a la mismanagement, office issues, personal issues etc...
The other thing is I truly believe Brad wanted to make the greatest MMO ever.. Look at the size of the world.. look at all the different races... all the different variety of classes... you don't see that in any new game.. I know companies run to make money.. but I don't think Brad though about making money.. I think he just thought the money would roll in with his ideas all bundled up in a game called 'Vanguard'.
Here is the thing.. I have to give it to Brad he has a solid vision of a game.. most people make games to cater to the masses.. I think Vanguard is a niche game in today's market. However I think the game design, world, content, lore, etc is beyond any other game out there (in the same age bracket).
Vanguard is a great game...Made by true gamers... Not business men.. and that's why it flopped.
https://www.youtube.com/user/NemsGaming
I will give my take,because i am a real nosey player,i get to learn the different communities in games and see what people are all about.
To start off,there just was not any kind of player base to draw from.All Vanguard got was some game hoppers and some players bored of the current games.This type of player base is VERY finicky,VERY hard to keep them,the first sign of anything bothersome,they go running back to their old game.
There is one other CORE of players running around,those that game hop in hopes of being the top dog on the server,once they realize they cannot be the top dog,they leave the game.These are the two types of core players IMO that VG had,and why it had ZERO chance for success.The game is awesome no question,it offers everything the other games offer with better quality,outside of FFXI's combat and class structure,to witch no game can touch.
Anyhow the player base in VG was not a stable one,it was one i knew right away was going to leave,they were itching for reasons to leave.If a player got stuck or whatever,they would blow a top and quit,to me it was laughable ,it is just a game,not a big deal,happened to me once in a month of play,but that is the difference between mature players and hyperactive kids.
The player base in VG was extremely selfish ,definitely not an outgoing grouping type community.The reason i say this is because i was logged on a lot and whenever someone asked for help,there was ZERO response,i mean nothing !day after day the same thing.But guess what i saw in chat 24/7 non stop WTS spam.So these people were there in the game,but instead of helping players and playing the game,they were too worried about selling items lol..geesh pathetic gamers.I already eluded to why these gamers were selfish and not very good community players,it is because they had no real desire to play VG,there was the crafters and the players that were not really there for the long haul,probably a lot were current and former WOW players.
It felt like all the players were trying to get to end game in one month,so they could feel they got their monies worth ,quit the game and go back to their old game.
SO IMO Vanguard had no chance to succeed,just bad timing for the game.There is at this very moment ,i believe another million or so WOW players hopping around,but unless a game offers them a LARGE stage to PVP and have things to brag about,they don't want it.The sad part is that i believe there is a VERY small community of actual mature game quality players out there,maybe 2 million in total,not enough to spread across 5 good games.The rest are just a bunch of egotistical kids,looking for weak gaming and end game PVP,nothing more,they are not true RPG gamers.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I do not agree,the vision for VG was a great game and it delivered,there was just not the player base to draw from.Where was VG going to get the player base from?They were already playing large established games,so VG had no chance,it was not a flawed design.
The simple reason is this,if you think Blizzard has the better design or way of thinking,do you honestly think if VG COPIED WOW ,but made their game BETTER quality ,the WOW players would jump ship?I for one do not believe they would even if GOD himself told them VG was a better game.WOW has the LARGE STAGE ,this is what the majority of gamers want a stage to brag on,they want to be a part of the BIG game,no matter how crappy or weak that game is ,it does not matter.
So what i am saying is that because SIGIL was not a BRAND name and because it had no chance at all,there is NO design that would have worked for Brad,so it is not his fault.
It is obvious ,look no further than the game AION.This game was massively hyped,broadcasted to be the next biggest game behind WOW and literally had ZERO competition from other games in 2009.So you would figure with ZERO competition ,the game would muster 5 million plus easily?There lies the problem,that i have eluded to,they got what a maximum of 500k?That is about all there is to draw from,and there was even less when VG came out,because people were not yet bored of WOW and other games like FFXI and EQ2 still had booming pops.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It was the bugs and half finished features.
There is a huge market for people wanting this type of game (full world real old style MMO with good level design and no instancing) but it needs a competant company.
Someone should pony up and buy it from SOE, give it the love it deserves.
There's a theory that SOE saw it as competition for EQII which is why they didn't give it adequate funding and advertising.
Some others have said that it was the buggy and unfinished launch that killed it. That's my opinion as well. There are some pet peeves that I have such as plopping an animal head onto a human body, but... whatever.
I have no problem with the game's travel time. Vanguard was to be an open world MMO with flying mounts. There wouldn't have been problem, IMO, with earning those mounts. VG was not supposed to be a game that appeals to the instant gratification crowd in WoW.
The concept was great. The launch was crash-and-burn. I still have my VG collector's edition. I suspect that it's the only SOE box that I still have, and it sure is pretty.
There's an old saying in programming lore: the third project is the right one:
1st project -- programmer not really sure how to do it, makes a lot of mistakes
2nd effort -- programmer THINKS he knows how to do it, puts in way too much, and fails
3rd effort -- programmer knows to only do the bare minimum, and therefore gets it right
VG is effort #2 -- full of good ideas, way too many good ideas to really implement correctly.
------------
2025: 48 years on the Net.
The idea was bascially sound, but failed to take to into account that players tastes had changed.
Losing experience and having to make long and dangerous corpse runs that could get you killed again was a game mechanic of the past that only a few wanted to see in a game again. It was especially tedious on the PVP servers (which the game never was properly designed for) when someone would corpse camp the res spot and kill you over and over, letting you pile up 4 or 5 gravemarkers that you couldn't clear.
Long travel times were also something players have gotten tired of. It would be OK to make a long run the first time, but I recall playing one time and trying to group up, and when I found a group it took me almost 45 minutes to get to them. By time I did, they had lost interest and broken up. There should have been a few quick travel options to quickly get around the major areas of the game.
The quests started off decent enough, but around level 20 they almost completley involved lots more elite level mobs that required people to group up (for most classes) and provided no real soloing options, also something most players didn't want to see. (because levleing rewards in groups really wern't all the great, they just permitted you to get the quests done which wasn't enough)
Couple these (and more) design issues with the fact that at implementation, the game ran badly on many systems, sometimes with on correlation on how powerful they were, but rather on what drivers a players PC had. Some people with average hardware reported few problems, and some people with monster boxes found it to be unplayable. I recall issues with graphic and sound drivers being the big demons, but on my own, older gaming laptop, it just ran sort of cludgy and slow (I had AGP graphics which Brad himself said were in adequate) and I had all the setting on very low.
The game did crash some, but I had much more trouble with the infamous falling through the world to oblivian or my death bug. Happened at least 2 times a day to me, and frequently left my corpse in an unreachable position. This used to piss me off to no end.
Well, all of this made players unhappy, and in my guild people started rapidly leaving so after 2 months, I found myself with out anyone to play with and decided to move on.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The implementation. It's always been about the execution of Vanguard, not the ideas behind it.
They pissed away millions in development money from Microsoft. Whatever the hell they did to the Unreal engine and its code has crippled the VG client for years now, and they'll never fix all of the tech issues in the game because that would involve completely scrapping all the code they have and starting over.
If they'd properly developed the game and hadn't fubar'd the code from the beginning, Vanguard might have done better when it launched. The initial sales of the game showed that there was a market for a game like VG. The technical issues, however, destroyed it before it ever got off the ground.