Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Vanguard: Saga of Heroes: E3 2006 Preview
Dana
Member Posts: 2,415
Laura Genender files this report on what she saw from Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. The brainchild of EverQuest creator Brad McQuaid recently jumped from Microsoft to SOE in a surprise deal.
;) layers can choose from all the fantasy races you would expect, from Wood Elves to Humans to Orcs and Halflings there are 20 races total. And with tons of customization and options, two Wood Elves can look totally different, allowing each player to have their own individual look.
McQuiad and Butler next showed me the player housing system. Each player can own a house (and only one per player), but they are expensive to upkeep and by no means are players entitled to a house from the start. Like the character creation system, Vanguards houses are very customizable. There are many different plots across the three continents of Vanguard. On these plots, players can build houses of varying designs, then decorate them freely using an easy to use and freeform system that lets you place furniture and objects exactly where you want it. Houses are a perfect place to show off trophies earned during battle Butler showed me a mounted bears head in his house that had come, appropriately, from a battle with a bear. Eventually, houses will also be used for storage and crafting stages, and according to McQuaid, player housing also leads in to player run towns and villages. |
You can read more here.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
Awesome....cant wait.
Cheers Sigil!
I'm sorry, but how can this game NOT be intriguing. I mean, it has almost everything players have been asking for, for years in MMO's now. The quest systems sound very awsome, having a certain race/class to be able to advance in some quest is just eye opening. It's bringing the RP back into MMOG. People are judging this game way too much because SOE is just publishing it.
Vanguard is going to be an excellent game, what Sigil has done is just brilliant!
Go Sigil go sigil Go!
Total time played: 9125 Days, 21 Hours, 29 Minutes, 27 Seconds
Time played this level: 39 Days, 1 Hour, 24 Minutes, 5 Seconds
It all sounds great to me, except the last sentence about visual and flat areas . . . but the game is not finished, so I'm going to remain optimistic about Vanguard.
I like interdependency between classes in the game, and the option to solo, with the realization that groups are needed to access certain content.
Most of all, I like the character customization options, the large seamless world where we can have houses, and the travel system.
The move to SOE. How many mmorpg players, myself included, have so completely given up on SOE that we have sworn on everything most precious to us "Never Again". SOE may not be the developer, but if their role includes running servers and customer service, it makes the task of this game capturing my cash a very uphill battle.
The 20% solo content figure. I'm not going to get into the whole mmo soloability arguement. The market has provided it's own data and 20% is just way too low for a successful game in the evolving MMO market. If they double the planned solo content to 40% and the game itself is incredibly content rich, they may have a chance. I'd guess that 60%+ would probably be the magic number for today's audiences, at the very least.
There are a lot of otherwise good MMORPGs out today that have had their success extremely limited by forced grouping. No matter what theoretical arguements the devs have for these decisions, or what basis they have in play trends from 5+ years ago, the market is continuing to evolve in the direction of there being a huge thirst for soloable content.
If MMO devs would take advantage of the tools available to them and try to increase the amounts of dynamically adjusting, well designed and compelling content, then the solo vs. group argument could be greatly muted. MMO players wanting soloable content aren't looking for solo-only content, there is no problem if that content can scale to allow them to also enjoy it with a small group, in fact that is by far the most desirable design goal.
Grouping should offer advantages, but if 80% of a games content makes in mandatory, it's going to be a financial flop.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
It really sounded if mmorpg.com reviewer was not a fan of Vanguard and had no intention of writing a positive review. She just could not find anything to complain about so instead she wrote a generic article with no new information or insights. More or less just going through the motions of writing an article. She could have just as easily written this article by reading a preview from 3-4 months ago. MMPORG.com always seems to have a bias against non pvp games and more hardcore pve games. This preview is no exception and a waste of space. If one is intrested in Vanguard E3 information there are close to 20 much better written and informative previews from other sites.
If one wants better Vanguard information there are much better links contained in the thread below.
http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53263
People have been spoiled with World of Warcraft clones for far too long. There has to be penalties and downsides to everything, otherwise we wouldn't be able to enjoy it as much.
I'm rather glad Sigil has the balls to go in the other direction of what you say the market is evolving towards. You have to remember that while I'm sure they wouldn't flat out say no to it I doubt very much they have the same target audience as any of the WoW clones out there. Thats not what Vanguard is about, it's not ment to be easy. Leveling takes time, as does Traveling. There's a debt system for dieing so you don't have reckless idiots running amok like you do in WoW. There's hopefully also a steap learning curve so we have less high level newbies that can't operate properly when alone.
As for the whole SoE thing. I can't really say anything bad about SOE. I never saw them as some sort of monster, and I don't believe the public hype about it. Let the man make his game in piece, and if it's not your cup of tea then kindly bow out, rather than start the whole vocal power trip to get things changed.
I fully expect alot of people to get dissapointed because they were expecting WoW with additional things to do. But hopefully that is not going to happen. Here's to hoping lads!
I'll buy Vanguard, if it's the game they say it will be then I'll praise it and keep playing but untill then it's just another game a year away with promises they may never keep.
Right now after hearing what people had to say abou E3 and Vanguard Beta, WAR and Conan look to be the only things worth keeping an eye on.
**Still respect for them trying to step outside the box, I'll just wait and see.
**Still respect for them trying to step outside the box, I'll just wait and see.
What are you talking about, most of the reviews are positive about the game, there's only 2 that are bad and they come from some random site out there, the gamespot and ign ones were pretty good. Tho i agree that warhammer looks awesome, but conan is crappy, its a guild wars style game...ull get tired of it pretty fast.
**Still respect for them trying to step outside the box, I'll just wait and see.
What are you talking about, most of the reviews are positive about the game, there's only 2 that are bad and they come from some random site out there, the gamespot and ign ones were pretty good. Tho i agree that warhammer looks awesome, but conan is crappy, its a guild wars style game...ull get tired of it pretty fast.
Thanks for proving my point, one persons view of a game can be very different from another, even more so when a game has yet to come out. As soon as anyone makes a post or raises a point that Vanguard isn't going to be as great as people think you get a fanboi that has yet to even see the game running leaping on the post with some random rubbish about how's it's going to be the best game ever (I'm not calling you a fanboi).
Everything thing I've been told about Vanguard has been very "meh", I've yet to hear anyone who's seen Conan or WAR at E3 say anything but good things. I'm not talking about reviews I'm talking about what people I know have said about the games.
Until I play Vanguard I won't be getting that excited about it.
It does look interesting.
But I have a hard time thinking it's going to be "excellent". At least from my point of view. This will be an old style raiders/HUGE TIMESINK game. They've already said as much. Back in the original EQ days, they could get away with that. I don't think that's really true now. I'm thinking that they're going to be just another niche game off in a corner.
The fact that they're being published by SOE is even worse from my point of view. I really didn't figure this would be a game for me. But as long as SOE is involved, I can guarentee I won't be buying it. I refuse to give SOE even one more dime. Money whore's like Smedly just don't deserve it.
I have a good feeling about Vanguard. I think that it will come a lot closer than any of the games I have tried since EQ, to bring back that "brave new world" type of feel.
I admit to some misgivings with the addition of SOE to the mix, but as long as they stick to what Brad and co. say they can/cannot do, then it all comes down to gameplay and content.
~H
Haradek Shadowstalker
EQ,EQII,SWG,AO,DAOC,Planetside,COH,WOW
I'm really looking forward to Vanguard though, it has more of the features I'm looking for in a game. I'm definitely buying Warhammer as well.
I didn't find this review really interesting overall. Reminded me of a book report more than anything else. I was hoping for some more detail (good or bad). It was pretty vague.
-T
**Still respect for them trying to step outside the box, I'll just wait and see.
What are you talking about, most of the reviews are positive about the game, there's only 2 that are bad and they come from some random site out there, the gamespot and ign ones were pretty good. Tho i agree that warhammer looks awesome, but conan is crappy, its a guild wars style game...ull get tired of it pretty fast.
Thanks for proving my point, one persons view of a game can be very different from another, even more so when a game has yet to come out. As soon as anyone makes a post or raises a point that Vanguard isn't going to be as great as people think you get a fanboi that has yet to even see the game running leaping on the post with some random rubbish about how's it's going to be the best game ever (I'm not calling you a fanboi).
Everything thing I've been told about Vanguard has been very "meh", I've yet to hear anyone who's seen Conan or WAR at E3 say anything but good things. I'm not talking about reviews I'm talking about what people I know have said about the games.
Until I play Vanguard I won't be getting that excited about it.
Yes this is my first post here, although I registered quite awhile ago. And yes, I have been following Vanguard for several years and am a fan of what I've observed and learned.
As an admirer of the game and its developers, its very hard NOT to jump into a thread where you see false comments or simply negative comments and try to give another more positive point of view. I dont consider doing so "random rubbish" anymore than the negative opinions. There is also the distinct possibility many of the vocal defenders of Vanguard on this and other forums actually HAVE seen the game, are actively beta testing it, but are not able to say so. Assuming anyone with a positive opinion is a worthless fanboi but someone who saw the game for 10 minutes at E3 is an expert doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
That said, I appreciate that you are a person who is willing to try the game personally before deciding it completely sucks based on the opinions of others
The jist I'm getting from Vanguard is the same I got from EQII in '04. It seems to be missing that fun factor to make it a really great game. Good maybe, but takes itself too seriously overall.
As an admirer of the game and its developers, its very hard NOT to jump into a thread where you see false comments or simply negative comments and try to give another more positive point of view. I dont consider doing so "random rubbish" anymore than the negative opinions. There is also the distinct possibility many of the vocal defenders of Vanguard on this and other forums actually HAVE seen the game, are actively beta testing it, but are not able to say so. Assuming anyone with a positive opinion is a worthless fanboi but someone who saw the game for 10 minutes at E3 is an expert doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
That said, I appreciate that you are a person who is willing to try the game personally before deciding it completely sucks based on the opinions of others
My post wasn't aimed directly at you when I mention fanboi's and "random rubbish", you just happened to quote me so you got a reply.
While bashing the game for no reason is un-fair, there are a lot of fanboi's here who are seem to post a lot of rubbish just for the sake of defending a game very few of them have played when the truth is that until the game is out we don't really know what it will be like. The beta testers might have a very good idea but they are still only playing a beta.
If Vanguard ships with broken promises and missing features it wouldn't be the first time a MMO has let us all down. Saga of Ryzom was very nearly a flop and shipped without the promised PvP and Outposts, WoW was a huge hit and yet it still went live with a lot of things missing (Battlegrounds, PvP ranking etc).
More than once in the last week people who have seen the game or even played it have posted that they felt let down by it and the fanboi's leap on the posts with "it's going to be great la la la I'm not listening". It's just dumb.
I can't wait for WAR but I'm not going to blindly defend it and its promises until I play it for myself.
**Forgive any bad spellings etc, I'm trying to get back into my power-nap Uberman sleep cycle and I've not slept properly for 2 days , lol.**
If it's true that there's going to be only 20% of solo content then that might indeed worry some people. But from what I've read the game should have a lot of other content as well apart from soloing mobs. It would surprise me if only 20% of the game would be solo content, sounds very unlikely and I'm myself waiting for official statements on this matter before making any conclusions.
i have to agree here . . .
I think Vanguard has a lot of promise. One great thing is that it will be an online world, not an online game. More like UO and EQ and less like Diablo and DDO. Not that there's anything wrong with those online games!
I think a stumbling point might be the difficulty Sigil is trying for. For example, travel time, corpse runs, etc are gonna scare away lots of players.
I know at first, hardcore gamers like myself will think "good, more room for me!" but we need to be realistic. Meaning, funding will drop off, and the product will suffer. Obviously, "dumbing" the product down and making it "easier" can result in huge sales (ie. WoW).
With the ever growing competitive market, it will be interesting.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
There are quite a lot of beta testers in this game. There are a lot of people that have spent a lot of time in this game. They have been testing since last year. So I am very certain that there are opinions posted here from folks that have an intimate knowledge of the current state of the game, but (as mentioned earlier) can't express them in detail.
The most important fact to look at before you even consider Vanguard is that it IS a fantasy MMO. The gaming world is full of these in just about every shape, form or fashion. It is quite hard to find an idea or concept that has not been tried and failed or is not currently in use. The developers have to be very creative to conjure new and exciting things in an 'old' concept of fantasy MMO. The fact is... you can't change too much about it or it is no longer the game you intended to create. Does that mean it should be? That I don't know, but I do know that they are jealously defending the original intentions of its creation. I admire that. It was the lack of this attitude that turned EQ and EQ II into a game that I will no longer play.
It seems to me that the culmination of this game birthed due to the outcry of players tired of easy MMO's. EQ was once a formidable MMO. It took years to develop a character to its full potential. The best weapons in the game were weapons that are considered trash in the game today. You can now max out your level in EQ in as little as a month. That may be fun for some, heck... it may even be for the majority. There are games that are for instant gratification, but there are some of us who wish for that not to be the case. WOW is a perfect example. You can max level in a month or less and top out of the game. You spend the rest of your existence searching for a PUG or Guild that can help you assemble an elite collection or armor... but for what. You have topped out of the game and will see the same content from now on. Unless you are on a PVP server, you will get bored of the game eventually. And fan boys, please spare me... I love WOW... but it is what it is... I won't even respond to your attacks. I don't play WOW anymore because of this ceiling.
What is my point to this? Vanguard seems to be answering the call of those of us who want the traditional, hard core fantasy MMO that is NOT an instant gratification game. We want to be able to play it and immerse ourselves 2 years after its release just as we will on the first day of release. We WANT a game that takes itself to seriously. We DON'T want a game that gives the same advantage to casual, 3 hour a week players as those who play daily. While we don't want to spend a majority of time traveling in the game, we DON'T want to simply port around from place to place as POP allowed for EQ. We would rather earn what we get, and appreciate what we earn. If that makes us the minority, then this will simply be a minority game. At least those minority will be jealously loyal (assuming the game is fundamentally complete when released). I say all of this with the assumptions that Vanguard will meet the expectations of those who fit the category that I just described. Thus far, it seems to.
Please don't take this post as a rant... it isn't meant to be. It is simply an alternate point of view that is shared by many who do not want to see Vanguard turn into a kiddie game. I know this is hard to believe *sarcasm* , but not everyone is going to like every game created. That doesn't make it bad, it just doesn't fit the play style of every player.
Ardien
Decent review, not much new but the caravan info was something I hadn't seen yet.
Anything I've seen of VG's finished areas looks plenty detailed to me.. I do agree some objects seem to blend in too much in screenshots though, and seem a bit bland color-wise.
As for negative reviews I'd say 10% of them have been negative so I'm not sure where you naysayers are getting your facts from.
I agree. Now I am a quasi-fanboi and I HOPE that Vanguard will be what it has been touted...a harder MMORPG. Harder meaning less coddling. I am tired of whiners getting what they want. Vanguard is my hope for a refreshing new breath into the industry.
Like WoodenDummy said, "I'll wait and see."
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests