Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Its a fallacy to say that you can't have themeparks or quest hubs in a sandbox. In fact themeparks/quest hubs were in SWG where the term themepark was invented.
There were several version's of SWG,
Unfortunatley Lucas Arts felt the initial subscription base wasn't enough for the Name Star War's although it was quite healthy, and on par with everquest....
No it wasn't on par with WoW but nothing has ever been....
The original SWG was most definitely a sandbox, and possibly the best game ever released, but as it went on it got dumbed down and the push to make it more theampark like consumed it till it was a flaming piece of poo......
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Lets just Pretend that Vanguard was everything is was supposed to be.
Lets just say that Vanguard didn't have coding problems, chunking between zones, better graphics and more interesting quest, a game that had something for casual and hardcore, a good balance. Even add your own good stuff to the mix...... Lets just say everything went as planned " just pretend ". If so, I really believe this would have been another WoW, Everquest,UO,Eve, and LOTRO, possibly bigger.
With that :
I think Vanguard would have made a major impact on the short 30 day crap games that we have today. Less people would side and support short theme park, with no sociable interactions other than dynamic events.
More people would be on board with old school. In fact Old school should not even be a word. The way I see it, old school=mmo. Old school should have evolved with better graphics and interesting stuff to do. Instead DEVELOPERS COMPLETELY CHANGED THE FORMULA....Did anyone ask for this change ?....Did you ?
If Old School mmos went in the right direction and evolved properly, we would have something for the casual players mixed in with hard core. I hate to use this example but WoW sociologicaly did things right. They went into the mind of players and seen that some like hard content and others like easy...You had both in WoW ( at least in Vanilla ).
Vanguard could have changed everything....less people would put up with crap.
There is a conflict. The new audience would still far outnumber the old. Casual designs would inevitably be put into place and it would still be a "WoW copy". I don't have a time machine but I know Vanguard wouldn't have changed everything just by being in a better state at launch. Only way it could is if it was perfectly crafted, by the right people, and came before WoW.
Lets just Pretend that Vanguard was everything is was supposed to be.
Lets just say that Vanguard didn't have coding problems, chunking between zones, better graphics and more interesting quest, a game that had something for casual and hardcore, a good balance. Even add your own good stuff to the mix...... Lets just say everything went as planned " just pretend ". If so, I really believe this would have been another WoW, Everquest,UO,Eve, and LOTRO, possibly bigger.
With that :
I think Vanguard would have made a major impact on the short 30 day crap games that we have today. Less people would side and support short theme park, with no sociable interactions other than dynamic events.
More people would be on board with old school. In fact Old school should not even be a word. The way I see it, old school=mmo. Old school should have evolved with better graphics and interesting stuff to do. Instead DEVELOPERS COMPLETELY CHANGED THE FORMULA....Did anyone ask for this change ?....Did you ?
If Old School mmos went in the right direction and evolved properly, we would have something for the casual players mixed in with hard core. I hate to use this example but WoW sociologicaly did things right. They went into the mind of players and seen that some like hard content and others like easy...You had both in WoW ( at least in Vanilla ).
Vanguard could have changed everything....less people would put up with crap.
There is a conflict. The new audience would still far outnumber the old. Casual designs would inevitably be put into place and it would still be a "WoW copy". I don't have a time machine but I know Vanguard wouldn't have changed everything just by being in a better state at launch. Only way it could is if it was perfectly crafted, by the right people, and came before WoW.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
What made WoW.
Polish to be able to digested by the average person. Clean UI, easy on the computers.
Popular rabid ONLINE fan base by the developer. Battlenet was big before WoW.
Great marketing and Online IP.
And just a good game based on half on old school principles but accessiblity of a modern game.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
What made WoW.
Polish to be able to digested by the average person. Clean UI, easy on the computers.
Popular rabid ONLINE fan base by the developer. Battlenet was big before WoW.
Great marketing and Online IP.
And just a good game based on half on old school principles but accessiblity of a modern game.
Added to that list I would add
5. Easy to play, challenging to master = which a sandbox could absolutely have.
6. a whole smoking truckload of content.
Now you would have half the sandbox people here saying that with that much content it would not be sandbox which inevitably brings us back to the question of... what is a sandbox. Egads.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
What made WoW.
Polish to be able to digested by the average person. Clean UI, easy on the computers.
Popular rabid ONLINE fan base by the developer. Battlenet was big before WoW.
Great marketing and Online IP.
And just a good game based on half on old school principles but accessiblity of a modern game.
Added to that list I would add
5. Easy to play, challenging to master = which a sandbox could absolutely have.
6. a whole smoking truckload of content.
Now you would have half the sandbox people here saying that with that much content it would not be sandbox which inevitably brings us back to the question of... what is a sandbox. Egads.
As far as a sandbox. I only consider something a sandbox when the players are allowed to make changes to the world that are perm. Its not really a hard or confusing standard. I think people confuse an open world with sandbox which I disagree with. World of Warcaft has an open world and is nowhere near a sandbox.
Mark my word the game that surpases WoW and knocks it off the stump will not be a theam park it will be a Sandbox!!!
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
Are you trying to say that a sandbox game can't be casual friendly? I think the millions who are playing Minecraft right now are disagreeing with you. "Sandbox" does mean "pain in the ass to play", or "FFA PvP", or any other crap significations some of the local crowd here gave it.
Has a true sandbox game ever been casual-friendly? Using Minecraft as an example doesn't work, either, since it's not an MMORPG in any way, shape, or form. Try to make a game like Minecraft with updated graphics and complete freedom to create the world around you, and I guarantee you'd have a mess of a game.
So I'll say it again...a true sandbox game will NOT ever dethrone a game like WoW, because that specific type of player wouldn't be attracted to a true sandbox type of game in the first place. And to dethrone WoW, you've got to have a game able to pull players away from them. There is a finite amount of players that play MMORPGs, and you can't dethrone WoW without stealing some of their players. So you've still got to appeal to those players in some way. Hence, the hybrid model.
That's the thing though, sandboxes don't tend to be easy to learn (well, not that they're *hard*, but a sandbox can't lead you by the nose like WoW's low level content does.)
I know I've seen very similar discussions on music fan sites where it's "If people only knew about [insert band here, they'd be *huge*!" The sad reality is that most people don't want to be challenged and certainly don't want to risk being annoyed or inconvenienced. They want safe and vaguely pleasurable entertainment experiences that never force them to leave their comfort zones. If you doubt that, just look at the direction game design has gone since WoW got big. Look at Justin Bieber or 95% of blockbuster movies. It's not a coincidence that mediocrity usually rises to the top of most entertainment industries because mediocrity is what a lot of people want and reward with their money.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
What made WoW.
Polish to be able to digested by the average person. Clean UI, easy on the computers.
Popular rabid ONLINE fan base by the developer. Battlenet was big before WoW.
Great marketing and Online IP.
And just a good game based on half on old school principles but accessiblity of a modern game.
Added to that list I would add
5. Easy to play, challenging to master = which a sandbox could absolutely have.
6. a whole smoking truckload of content.
Now you would have half the sandbox people here saying that with that much content it would not be sandbox which inevitably brings us back to the question of... what is a sandbox. Egads.
As far as a sandbox. I only consider something a sandbox when the players are allowed to make changes to the world that are perm. Its not really a hard or confusing standard. I think people confuse an open world with sandbox which I disagree with. World of Warcaft has an open world and is nowhere near a sandbox.
I generally agree, there can still be tons of quests and content. But lets not go there, it's a pit from which there is no escape.
To me, even if Vanguard were completely smooth, polished and bug free I don't think anything would have changed. It wouldn't have had the spectacular launch it did, and therefore may have the 50-500k subscribers that all the other games do, but it wouldn't do enough to change the industry.
To me the biggest issue with VG was thats it's too slow now. I"m not talking about leveling speed either I'm talking about the gameplay itself. Combat is very slow, animations are very slow. While playing I was getting bored with the combat and my favorite was bard a great deal of fun mixing those songs. That, IMO, is one of the biggest failings the game has, the gameplay itself was generally dull, and this would still occur and drive many many away.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Mark my word the game that surpases WoW and knocks it off the stump will not be a theam park it will be a Sandbox!!!
I can absolutely 100% guarantee that you're wrong about that. A true sandbox game will never pull in the amount of players to surpass WoW, because the casuals will stay away from it. And without the casuals, you won't get the kind of numbers you'd need to dethrone a game like WoW.
No, the game that would have a chance to dethrone WoW would be a hybrid. Enough player-made content to sustain itself indefinitely and with enough challenge to keep the hardcores around, yet also enough developer-created content, lore, and ease of gameplay to keep casuals happy and involved.
Are you trying to say that a sandbox game can't be casual friendly? I think the millions who are playing Minecraft right now are disagreeing with you. "Sandbox" does mean "pain in the ass to play", or "FFA PvP", or any other crap significations some of the local crowd here gave it.
Has a true sandbox game ever been casual-friendly? Using Minecraft as an example doesn't work, either, since it's not an MMORPG in any way, shape, or form. Try to make a game like Minecraft with updated graphics and complete freedom to create the world around you, and I guarantee you'd have a mess of a game.
So I'll say it again...a true sandbox game will NOT ever dethrone a game like WoW, because that specific type of player wouldn't be attracted to a true sandbox type of game in the first place. And to dethrone WoW, you've got to have a game able to pull players away from them. There is a finite amount of players that play MMORPGs, and you can't dethrone WoW without stealing some of their players. So you've still got to appeal to those players in some way. Hence, the hybrid model.
There has never been a polished modern sandbox ever. I think UO after the PvE world counts as a causal game. There is far less grind than most MMORPG's even today because the purpose of the game isn't getting to max.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
What made WoW.
Polish to be able to digested by the average person. Clean UI, easy on the computers.
Popular rabid ONLINE fan base by the developer. Battlenet was big before WoW.
Great marketing and Online IP.
And just a good game based on half on old school principles but accessiblity of a modern game.
Added to that list I would add
5. Easy to play, challenging to master = which a sandbox could absolutely have.
6. a whole smoking truckload of content.
Now you would have half the sandbox people here saying that with that much content it would not be sandbox which inevitably brings us back to the question of... what is a sandbox. Egads.
As far as a sandbox. I only consider something a sandbox when the players are allowed to make changes to the world that are perm. Its not really a hard or confusing standard. I think people confuse an open world with sandbox which I disagree with. World of Warcaft has an open world and is nowhere near a sandbox.
Hopefully EQN delivers what they are promising, but I'm not holding my breath.
Back on top topic, while I agree I don't think a successful launch of Vanguard would have "changed everything", I do think the themepark end of things would have splintered differently.
I think at its core Vanguard has a lot of elements that would draw players then (and now) to it. A real open world, one that doesnt funnel you through the zone, but adds to immersion. Dungeon crawls that served a purpose, and had the feel of danger (crowd control is a lost art). That you were there with other players, and not just "running an instance" added to the immersion of the world. As stated diplomacy was innovative and has yet to be replicated. And the crafting actually could have been something special.
Vanilla WoW alllowed you to have the feel of the games that came before it, but you didnt need to spend hours on end to accomplish something. It became more accessible for the general gamer, while still challenging enough at the end game. And the PVP was some of the best around. Walking around wondering if someone was going to pick you off was rush. But there really weren't open world mobs that you had to battle other guilds for. For a lot of people (myself included) the community aspect was missing.
I find these arguments sort of entertaining, because everyone has a different opinion of what makes a great mmo., and theres no right answer so they continue.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
More popular IP???
Gee have you forgotten about Warcraft, Warcraft II, Warcraft III, StarCraft
Which had a huge following of GAMERS (BLIZZARD is damn popular for many good reason they make good crap)
Then you have have Star Wars
A MOVIE, is it a popular IP sure!!!! Is it a more popular IP within the Gaming community??? That could easily be argued....
****However what is the real difference between SWG and WoW, was then****
WoW was fresh it was new it was something not like the rest......
SWG was very much a lot like Ultima Online, but that was far far far from a bad thing....
But WoW was new and shinny.... I played wow for quite a while before the novelty of a Theampark wore off and I craved the world of UO and SWG pre NGE again.... and I doubt that I am the only person who eventually tired of having his hand held and being feed quest content over and over again....
Well the MMO genre needs Fresh and the Sandbox has been so long gone from the forefront that when the upcoming Sandbox's release like, Camelot Unchained, The Repopulation, Black Desert, Greed Monger
You will see some real movement of subscription's because it will be Fresh for so many that weren't even alive when UO and SWG pre NGE were in there prime!!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Amen! Wisdom at last, sadly, it is to late and the "I want it NOW!" kids have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and sigh.
I am honestly thinking it's time to hang the sword and start messing about in normal *boring single player games. (*Boring beats funless chore, and anyway, most of these newer MMOs WERE single player!).
nah .. also the "I want it NOW!" adults have won.
As an older gamer, and part of that "old school" I look back over the last few years of the MMOs that came out and cheers.
LOL, you may have been playing MMORPGs back in the day, but you never were one of "us", meaning players who enjoyed those early titles as they were designed and delivered. You don't get to wave the old school flag. One feature I actually liked in VG were all the different starting areas, really gave the world character which has largely been discarded in more modem titles. (to your great joy, yes we know Nar)
Thank god i am never one of "you".
All i claim is that i play those old games when they were released.
"Great joy"? That is such an exaggeration. Let me put it this way. If MMOs did not become better games to me, i wouldn't be back to give them a little time. Don't make it sound like modern MMO is my only hobby. It is not even my #1.
Indeed Vanguard could have changed the way mmos are played today but as always SOE seems to always make sure they fail. It is their destiny to disappoint the masses. They can't live without failing. Just when you think they nailed it "BOOM" they do something stupid. Classic SOE fail.
Originally posted by ThomasN7 Indeed Vanguard could have changed the way mmos are played today but as always SOE seems to always make sure they fail. It is their destiny to disappoint the masses. They can't live without failing. Just when you think they nailed it "BOOM" they do something stupid. Classic SOE fail.
Vanguard "failed" long before SOE got its hands on it. Granted SOE didnt do anything for Vanguard for years except keep the server running.
OP, everybody asked for a change to old school because.....it sucked.
Old school is only good in your head.
Why?
Because if you went back to playing it IRL, you would rage quit in a week.
See, this is closed minded thinking.
Your confusing Old school with old games. Thats why the word Old School is a bad name for it......Sure a game would look bad if you concentrate on 2003-2005 !
Not only this, but who asked for the new crap handed to us now ?....or did developers decide on their own to make games linear and carrot-on-a-stick, AND CALL IT AN MMO.
Your confusing Old school with old games. Thats why the word Old School is a bad name for it......Sure a game would look bad if you concentrate on 2003-2005 !
Not only this, but who asked for the new crap handed to us now ?....or did developers decide on their own to make games linear and carrot-on-a-stick, AND CALL IT AN MMO.
Who asked?
The millions of people over the past 7+ years that made the genre mainstream.
I seriously avoided interacting with anyone that said 'I play MMOs' back in Pre-WoW days and I was a gamer.
'awkward and socially-inept people in high school' was the perception of GAMERS by mainstream back then and even the gamers avoided interacting with MMO players.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Your confusing Old school with old games. Thats why the word Old School is a bad name for it......Sure a game would look bad if you concentrate on 2003-2005 !
Not only this, but who asked for the new crap handed to us now ?....or did developers decide on their own to make games linear and carrot-on-a-stick, AND CALL IT AN MMO.
Who asked?
The millions of people over the past 7+ years that made the genre mainstream.
I seriously avoided interacting with anyone that said 'I play MMOs' back in Pre-WoW days and I was a gamer.
'awkward and socially-inept people in high school' was the perception of GAMERS by mainstream back then and even the gamers avoided interacting with MMO players.
So you like linear games. Do quest A move to quest B all the way to Z. Move from Zone 1 to zone 2 until you reach zone 50 ?..The if you feel like doing something MMOish jump into a fifty person dynamic event.
Hey maybe you do, who am I to judge !..........I don't think anyone asked for this except you. You must have found that magic developer poll to vote. I could never find that Poll on the internet !
OP, everybody asked for a change to old school because.....it sucked.
Old school is only good in your head.
Why?
Because if you went back to playing it IRL, you would rage quit in a week.
See, this is closed minded thinking.
Your confusing Old school with old games. Thats why the word Old School is a bad name for it......Sure a game would look bad if you concentrate on 2003-2005 !
Not only this, but who asked for the new crap handed to us now ?....or did developers decide on their own to make games linear and carrot-on-a-stick, AND CALL IT AN MMO.
theyre called "focus groups" very popular with game devs and instrumental in their decision making
I got into phase 3 of beta for Vanguard.....Whats funny is people would post all kinds of stuff (non beta people I mean) of what they thought the game was going to be.....Meanwhile Im there trying to play this piece of grabage game, falling through the world and dying, not finding our corpses, most of the world completely untouched, mobs fading in and out of view, etc...The game was a complte disaster t=yet here were all these non beta people thinking it was going to revolutionize the industry and how it was going to be the greatest game ever made......My point is that the perception of it was totally different than the reality of it.....Thats why I'm miffed at so many people thinking EQN is going to be the tgreatest thing ever also.
Comments
There were several version's of SWG,
Unfortunatley Lucas Arts felt the initial subscription base wasn't enough for the Name Star War's although it was quite healthy, and on par with everquest....
No it wasn't on par with WoW but nothing has ever been....
The original SWG was most definitely a sandbox, and possibly the best game ever released, but as it went on it got dumbed down and the push to make it more theampark like consumed it till it was a flaming piece of poo......
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
There is a conflict. The new audience would still far outnumber the old. Casual designs would inevitably be put into place and it would still be a "WoW copy". I don't have a time machine but I know Vanguard wouldn't have changed everything just by being in a better state at launch. Only way it could is if it was perfectly crafted, by the right people, and came before WoW.
Actually, I think if WoW was desinged as a Sandbox we'd have sandbox games now. Emulate has denied a chance to have a field test if the new players will actually play and old school type game. Polling/metrics/theory are that they won't. But it actually hasn't be tested.
Nah, if WoW had been a sandbox why would it have been more successful than SWG? (Much more popular IP than Warcraft and most people consider it a good sandbox game)
WoW's initial design is what attracted people. As much as I can criticize it in terms of actually being a "good" game, you can't argue with its success.
What made WoW.
Added to that list I would add
5. Easy to play, challenging to master = which a sandbox could absolutely have.
6. a whole smoking truckload of content.
Now you would have half the sandbox people here saying that with that much content it would not be sandbox which inevitably brings us back to the question of... what is a sandbox. Egads.
As far as a sandbox. I only consider something a sandbox when the players are allowed to make changes to the world that are perm. Its not really a hard or confusing standard. I think people confuse an open world with sandbox which I disagree with. World of Warcaft has an open world and is nowhere near a sandbox.
Has a true sandbox game ever been casual-friendly? Using Minecraft as an example doesn't work, either, since it's not an MMORPG in any way, shape, or form. Try to make a game like Minecraft with updated graphics and complete freedom to create the world around you, and I guarantee you'd have a mess of a game.
So I'll say it again...a true sandbox game will NOT ever dethrone a game like WoW, because that specific type of player wouldn't be attracted to a true sandbox type of game in the first place. And to dethrone WoW, you've got to have a game able to pull players away from them. There is a finite amount of players that play MMORPGs, and you can't dethrone WoW without stealing some of their players. So you've still got to appeal to those players in some way. Hence, the hybrid model.
That's the thing though, sandboxes don't tend to be easy to learn (well, not that they're *hard*, but a sandbox can't lead you by the nose like WoW's low level content does.)
I know I've seen very similar discussions on music fan sites where it's "If people only knew about [insert band here, they'd be *huge*!" The sad reality is that most people don't want to be challenged and certainly don't want to risk being annoyed or inconvenienced. They want safe and vaguely pleasurable entertainment experiences that never force them to leave their comfort zones. If you doubt that, just look at the direction game design has gone since WoW got big. Look at Justin Bieber or 95% of blockbuster movies. It's not a coincidence that mediocrity usually rises to the top of most entertainment industries because mediocrity is what a lot of people want and reward with their money.
I generally agree, there can still be tons of quests and content. But lets not go there, it's a pit from which there is no escape.
To me, even if Vanguard were completely smooth, polished and bug free I don't think anything would have changed. It wouldn't have had the spectacular launch it did, and therefore may have the 50-500k subscribers that all the other games do, but it wouldn't do enough to change the industry.
To me the biggest issue with VG was thats it's too slow now. I"m not talking about leveling speed either I'm talking about the gameplay itself. Combat is very slow, animations are very slow. While playing I was getting bored with the combat and my favorite was bard a great deal of fun mixing those songs. That, IMO, is one of the biggest failings the game has, the gameplay itself was generally dull, and this would still occur and drive many many away.
There has never been a polished modern sandbox ever. I think UO after the PvE world counts as a causal game. There is far less grind than most MMORPG's even today because the purpose of the game isn't getting to max.
Hopefully EQN delivers what they are promising, but I'm not holding my breath.
Back on top topic, while I agree I don't think a successful launch of Vanguard would have "changed everything", I do think the themepark end of things would have splintered differently.
I think at its core Vanguard has a lot of elements that would draw players then (and now) to it. A real open world, one that doesnt funnel you through the zone, but adds to immersion. Dungeon crawls that served a purpose, and had the feel of danger (crowd control is a lost art). That you were there with other players, and not just "running an instance" added to the immersion of the world. As stated diplomacy was innovative and has yet to be replicated. And the crafting actually could have been something special.
Vanilla WoW alllowed you to have the feel of the games that came before it, but you didnt need to spend hours on end to accomplish something. It became more accessible for the general gamer, while still challenging enough at the end game. And the PVP was some of the best around. Walking around wondering if someone was going to pick you off was rush. But there really weren't open world mobs that you had to battle other guilds for. For a lot of people (myself included) the community aspect was missing.
I find these arguments sort of entertaining, because everyone has a different opinion of what makes a great mmo., and theres no right answer so they continue.
More popular IP???
Gee have you forgotten about Warcraft, Warcraft II, Warcraft III, StarCraft
Which had a huge following of GAMERS (BLIZZARD is damn popular for many good reason they make good crap)
Then you have have Star Wars
A MOVIE, is it a popular IP sure!!!! Is it a more popular IP within the Gaming community??? That could easily be argued....
****However what is the real difference between SWG and WoW, was then****
WoW was fresh it was new it was something not like the rest......
SWG was very much a lot like Ultima Online, but that was far far far from a bad thing....
But WoW was new and shinny.... I played wow for quite a while before the novelty of a Theampark wore off and I craved the world of UO and SWG pre NGE again.... and I doubt that I am the only person who eventually tired of having his hand held and being feed quest content over and over again....
Well the MMO genre needs Fresh and the Sandbox has been so long gone from the forefront that when the upcoming Sandbox's release like, Camelot Unchained, The Repopulation, Black Desert, Greed Monger
You will see some real movement of subscription's because it will be Fresh for so many that weren't even alive when UO and SWG pre NGE were in there prime!!!
UO,Shadowbane,SWG,Darkfall,MO,Wurm Online,Secretworld,GW,GW2,PotBS,LotR,Atlantica Online,WWII Online,WoT,Battlestar Galactica,Planetside2,Perpetuum,Fallen Earth,Runescape,WoW,Eve,Xsylon,Dragon Prophet, Salem
Thank god i am never one of "you".
All i claim is that i play those old games when they were released.
"Great joy"? That is such an exaggeration. Let me put it this way. If MMOs did not become better games to me, i wouldn't be back to give them a little time. Don't make it sound like modern MMO is my only hobby. It is not even my #1.
OP, everybody asked for a change to old school because.....it sucked.
Old school is only good in your head.
Why?
Because if you went back to playing it IRL, you would rage quit in a week.
Vanguard "failed" long before SOE got its hands on it. Granted SOE didnt do anything for Vanguard for years except keep the server running.
See, this is closed minded thinking.
Your confusing Old school with old games. Thats why the word Old School is a bad name for it......Sure a game would look bad if you concentrate on 2003-2005 !
Not only this, but who asked for the new crap handed to us now ?....or did developers decide on their own to make games linear and carrot-on-a-stick, AND CALL IT AN MMO.
Who asked?
The millions of people over the past 7+ years that made the genre mainstream.
I seriously avoided interacting with anyone that said 'I play MMOs' back in Pre-WoW days and I was a gamer.
'awkward and socially-inept people in high school' was the perception of GAMERS by mainstream back then and even the gamers avoided interacting with MMO players.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
So you like linear games. Do quest A move to quest B all the way to Z. Move from Zone 1 to zone 2 until you reach zone 50 ?..The if you feel like doing something MMOish jump into a fifty person dynamic event.
Hey maybe you do, who am I to judge !..........I don't think anyone asked for this except you. You must have found that magic developer poll to vote. I could never find that Poll on the internet !
theyre called "focus groups" very popular with game devs and instrumental in their decision making
No, it couldn't have.
Vangaurd had some awesome ideas, and most were executed very well.....but revolutionary? Nope.
I don't think we'll see a true evolution in MMOs for a very very long time.
Even if EQNext delivers on all its promises (doubtful), that's still not a true evolution.
-The only sure thing about the future is uncertainty