Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Vanguard recieves horrible reviews from e3 links inside
Neurox1
Member Posts: 260
http://www.actiontrip.com/features/e32006dayonepart2.phtml
"Now let me tell you, it's almost unbearably obvious why MS got rid of this one. Merely looking at the game was a disappointment right off the bat"
"One of the folks from the development team was trying half-heartedly to explain the game's features, controlling an avatar in a five-man party and clearing some monsters in a keep. All I could do was stare at, what appeared to be, an unattractive and unappealing fantasy MMO world. "
"The character animation seemed stiff and the models were very poor ....... Most of the areas were practically swimming in gray tones, and well, it's kind of hard to explain. In my humble opinion, the game just doesn't look appealing in the least bit."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
http://cad-comic.com/index.php#1107
"As I mentioned, there were some disappointments at E3. Vangaurd among them...... All in all, I was completely unimpressed by the game. It was offering me nothing I couldn't get elsewhere, while Age of Conan is trying a bunch of new things."
" it looked exactly like Everquest 2. I don't see us needing another. I guess it makes sense, given the developer, but I also find it ironic given the game's recent migration back to its roots at SOE."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
http://www.gamersinfo.net/index.php?art/id:1048
"At first glance the game ( vanguard:soh ) smacks with its generic-ness. It looks like every other game out there, and worse in places. The UI is uninspired, and from what I was able to gather the combat and class system is exactly what we’ve seen in almost every other game out there. Which is exactly what the guys at Sigil are shooting for. "
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Are these accurate? do you share any of the opinions? do you disagree with them? if you do why?
Comments
Review #1: I've seen gameplay videos from E3, and I just don't agree in the slightest bit. It looks very appealing, visually. Occasionally stunning, even....
Review #2: Even if Vanguard was only offering features that I could get in other MMOs, I'd have to pay 3 or 4 subscriptions to different MMOs to get all the features that are in Vanguard. At worst Vanguard is a compilation of the best ideas. At best they'll have something new and interesting. Either way, it should make for a good buy.
Review #3: I can't really complain about this review. It seems like a valid opinion about the game that I can't rebuke until I've played the game
All in all, I think 2/3 of the bad reviews (and there where many more good reviews) either are complaining about something that speaks for it's self or misinterpreting something good as something bad. /shrug. I guess we won't know until Winter.
Review #3: I can't really complain about this review. It seems like a valid opinion about the game that I can't rebuke until I've played the game
well one thing i saw which was blatantly WRONG in the 3rd review was this statement...
"The really innovate thing that Sigil is doing with their combat system is their reactionary system. Players can start off combat chains with certain moves that will open up other options to their party members. The other players have to react to this move and keep the combo chain going long enough for a finisher option to become available. "
that there is NOT innovative in the least bit and is actually part of ( or was when i played) the combat system in Everquest 2 ... where you could kick off a team chain, and then would have to react to an ICON next to your bars in combat which would have a symbol on it that was linked to corresppinding moves .. and when you completed the chain you pulled off special moves that either greatly amplified your teams damage, or defense ...
its actual;y a carbon copy of the mechanic found in everquest 2
It is NOT like EQ2. Yes, EQ2 has chains, but they are hardset.
In Vanguard, what you do can directly affect others. Warrior knocks down one mob, the rogue then, if having enough perception, spots this opening and can utelize a combination that will further the combo of the warrior. or pherpas another class. So far, that is similar to the EQ2 system, with the differation of the perception system.
What Vanguard also have is symbiotic attacks. If you start one attack, and a class that has symbiotics towards you (they will not be listed, this is something players learn) and they percieve it, they can then cast something on top of that to make the entire spell different. Unlike EQ2 where you do your move, they do theirs, and in the end, if you click the right buttons, you get an extra little boom
http://www.silkyvenom.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1893
go there to read up more on the combat, it's the best review of it so far (and it is old).
------------
As to the negative reviews. The first one you can straight off dismiss offhand after reading it. It looked at the graphics, did not like them, and them did not give any attention to anything else of the game. No gameplay, no nothing. It's basically not a negative review of anything than an opion of "i did not like the graphics"
The second review, of Tim from Cad. It goes pretty much on the same token.
The third review, I posted above, that they are correct in that the combat system is indeed innovative, tho in a more of an evolutionary way than making something new. However, their perception system is something I've never seen in a mmorpg before. And in the combation with the combat system, it opens up for things that have not been done in any game so far. (For instance, a warrior that focuses on pure str, might do more damage, but one that focuses on INT will be more inclined to pick up on mobs attacking other players, or reacting to symbiotic attacks, or countering mobs).
Countering mobs is also something in the combat system that is not done. For instance as a pscionist, if you are able to see what the mob is casting, you can for instance reflect the spell back on them, make the spell less effective or even turn the incoming spell into a buff (IE: they sense fireball is the next attack from the mob, they counter it, and the group is hit with a fireshield)
So,,, ummm. no. Not a carbon copy of EQ2.
Please read up on things before you just make statements such as that.
You forgot the ones that gave it a good review:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/708/708176p1.html
http://e3.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7...UserId=5380367
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/vangu...&mode=previews
http://www.tentonhammer.com/index.ph...splay&ceid=167
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/vanguard-sa.../708620p1.html
http://vs.warcry.com/scripts/columns...site=64&id=498
http://www.vanguardcrafters.com/inde...d=214&Itemid=2 (Genda from Vanguard Crafters, E3 diary in 4 parts)
http://www.stratics.com/content/port..._cogs_2006.php (Stratics Award for Best Game at E3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the bad reviews:
Review 1: Never heard of actiontrip. Out of all my "gamer" friends, they have never heard of him either.
Review 2: Can't really say anything about this one.
Review 3: "At first glance" - They lose all credibility after that. Anything can be crappy "at first glance".
"
Sigil looks to have done a lot of things right with Vanguard, but part of me is hesitant to say that this game will be amazing. The graphics aren’t spectacular and the fact that core design ideas come from the belief that Everquest was right make me think that Sigil designed the game that they wanted to play, but they didn’t bother to check with the rest of the world. The MMO has come along way since Everquest was king, and Sigil has one foot squarely planted in the past and the other in the future. The question now is whether or not players will find something they like and chose to stand with them"
Review 3.... if you read the whole review, it is not all negitive.
The writer is just worried that Sigil maybe to far in the past to make a game for the future, not that he does not thing vanguard is a good game or not.
Sooner or Later
The article makes some good points.
The truth of the matter is that as fantasy mmos have evolved, in most instances they have become more about player status than roleplaying, immersion in a fantasy world, fun and adventure with friends, or anything resembling play. Instead, a sizeable number of players are focused solely on being higher level, having better items, being the first to accomplish something, etc. Vanguard is lasered in on that type of player. The "I have something you don't have noobstain" contingent.
To sate these players, Sigil has gone back to tried and true methods of creating player stratification - time sinks, long travel, heavy death penalties, grinds, downtime, etc., etc. to ensure that only the people who will attain those things are those who live in Vanguard as opposed to playing in it.
Now, up until this point there really isn't anything wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with a player wanting to be challenged, taking pride in their virtual achievements, and so on. A game oriented to that type of player might be welcome. But the problem is that it doesn't take a genius to make a game hard. Any damn fool can do that. Any of us could sit down with a pencil and in an hour sketch out 100 ways that a game could be made more challenging. The real genius comes from making a game hard AND fun.
Here is where Sigil has dropped the ball. How do we know that? We know that from the fact that they have publically proclaimed that casual players will probably not enjoy their game. There can only be one reason for that. It isn't a fun game. It appeals only to those who couldn't care less what's in the game so long as they have stuff that most other people lack.
I have played, as a casual player, a lot of games that had these types of stratifications, and I enjoyed myself! I was not the highest level and my gear sucked, but I had a great time because even though the game was hard, it was also fun! If Sigil feels the need to turn away customers then it's because they know that the only people who will like their game are those willing to forgive its shortcomings because all they ever wanted anyway was a certain level and some rare items.
Everquest had all of the things referenced above (downtime, travel, death penalties, long camps, lots of time required, etc) and it had droves of casual players. I personally knew hundreds of them like myself and they were having a good time. Verant and later SOE never tried to shoo them away. But of course, that was actually a fun game ...
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
In fact, Sigil has publically proclaimed:
We are NOT trying to drive out solo players -- that would be foolish. In fact, we're making casual areas to support solo players, as well as players who have less contiguous time to play, and then even the occasional more hard core player who wants to log on briefly and actually still get something done.
The focus of the game is on the group experience. On each side, you have the solo or more casual content, and then the raid content.
At least try to quote them fairly.
~ Ancient Membership ~
I think there are a few things you are missing that also pertain and influence part of this facet of the game...
They aren't making it "hard"...they are making it community oriented. "Casual" players have become synonymous with "solo" gameplay, and the majority (about 65%) of the content will be designed for groups of 3-6 players. The game isn't geared towards raiders, though it has raids for those that like to do that sort of thing....but even those raids are smaller, about 25 people per group, varying depending on each raid.
Now they have said that causal players may not like the game, and if anything it will be because of their slow progress. Most causual players have become accustomed to the MMOs of late, with relatively fast progression, with mechanisms that will aid in the progression of casual players.....and to Sigil, and alot of us who are looking to play Vanguard, that would cheapen the experience. I really can't imagine there being any other meaning than that...There is no reason that a game developer would come out and openly admit that the game they've been working on isn't any fun.
Whether or not it IS fun has yet to be determined. If they are aiming at appealing to the "Core gamer" (Note: That isn't the "HARDcore" it's the "Core", meaning they play a 10-20 hours a week and most of their experience is in groups) then that is just fine, but that doesn't mean that entire sections of the playerbase are going to be left out. Buuuuut....only the future can tell. I'm gonna hope for a beta slot...
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
In fact, Sigil has publically proclaimed:
We are NOT trying to drive out solo players -- that would be foolish. In fact, we're making casual areas to support solo players, as well as players who have less contiguous time to play, and then even the occasional more hard core player who wants to log on briefly and actually still get something done.
The focus of the game is on the group experience. On each side, you have the solo or more casual content, and then the raid content.
At least try to quote them fairly.
It is difficult to fairly quote a company that routinely contradicts itself and says things that are misleading.
For example, in a recent article on this website Sigil stated that casual players may be better suited to being tradesmen as opposed to an adventure class. Does that sound like a casual/solo friendly game to you? They have said that 10% or less of the game is devoted to casual/solo play. Does that sound casual/solo friendly to you? I could go on and on. They have been invoking that same mantra for years (and been quite proud of it) , but only now, as we get closer to launch, is it beginning to dawn on them that, in their own words, that is "foolish." It is. And it will be.
But like so many other supporters of this game, you read what they say with an uncritical eye. This "content", what is it? What comes from doing it? Is it fun? You can be your own judge of that someday. Hypothetically, I would say that putting a rat or rat equivalent in a field for solo players to beat on to no constructive purpose that drops nothing isn't content - it's crap.
You see, the problem is that Sigil, in its heart of hearts, believes that casual players are losers. They have indulged the ridicule of casual players on their official boards for years. A casual player's purpose in their game is merely to help defray the expense of keeping the servers on for what Sigil feels are the "real" players, and to afford those "real" players the admiration and adoration they crave. "The bleeding edge", Brad calls it. If casual players were to enjoy the game and have a good time, without need of idolizing the l33t, then the target audience would feel underappreciated and it would screw up the entire Vision. Make no mistake. If you are a casual player in Vanguard you are not supposed to be enjoying yourself. You are supposed to stand in the town square and "oooh" and "aaaah" over people who are enjoying themself (but, ironically, only because of your "ooohs" and "ahhhhs").
Third generation? Hardly.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Just go read these reviews in this thread. I don't where these guys are from but they were probably not at the E3.
Get a life you freaking Gamer.....no no, you don't understand, I'm a Gamer, I have many lives!!
In fact, Sigil has publically proclaimed:
We are NOT trying to drive out solo players -- that would be foolish. In fact, we're making casual areas to support solo players, as well as players who have less contiguous time to play, and then even the occasional more hard core player who wants to log on briefly and actually still get something done.
The focus of the game is on the group experience. On each side, you have the solo or more casual content, and then the raid content.
At least try to quote them fairly.
It is difficult to fairly quote a company that routinely contradicts itself and says things that are misleading.
For example, in a recent article on this website Sigil stated that casual players may be better suited to being tradesmen as opposed to an adventure class. Does that sound like a casual/solo friendly game to you? They have said that 10% or less of the game is devoted to casual/solo play. Does that sound casual/solo friendly to you? I could go on and on. They have been invoking that same mantra for years (and been quite proud of it) , but only now, as we get closer to launch, is it beginning to dawn on them that, in their own words, that is "foolish." It is. And it will be.
But like so many other supporters of this game, you read what they say with an uncritical eye. This "content", what is it? What comes from doing it? Is it fun? You can be your own judge of that someday. Hypothetically, I would say that putting a rat or rat equivalent in a field for solo players to beat on to no constructive purpose that drops nothing isn't content - it's crap.
You see, the problem is that Sigil, in its heart of hearts, believes that casual players are losers. They have indulged the ridicule of casual players on their official boards for years. A casual player's purpose in their game is merely to help defray the expense of keeping the servers on for what Sigil feels are the "real" players, and to afford those "real" players the admiration and adoration they crave. "The bleeding edge", Brad calls it. If casual players were to enjoy the game and have a good time, without need of idolizing the l33t, then the target audience would feel underappreciated and it would screw up the entire Vision. Make no mistake. If you are a casual player in Vanguard you are not supposed to be enjoying yourself. You are supposed to stand in the town square and "oooh" and "aaaah" over people who are enjoying themself (but, ironically, only because of your "ooohs" and "ahhhhs").
Third generation? Hardly.
I reaaaly don't know where you are getting this....how can any of us possibly know how the game dynamics work when it isn't live yet? o.O and when like 95% of us who will buy the game on release aren't playing it?
But back to the thread topic, the "horrible" reviews....
~~~
Best of Show: Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
Developer: Sigil Games Online
A lot of people have speculated that the publishing rights to Vanguard: Saga of Heroes were not being sold by Microsoft Games Studio on good terms, but rather because the game was a failure. We can’t lay that theory to rest; however, we can tell you that the “failure” impressed us to no ends. Vanguard: Saga of Heroes features the most robust crafting, combat, and faction systems that we’ve seen to date. It also doesn’t hurt that the game is gorgeous, has great potential, and is being created by some of the industry’s most infamous developers.
~~~
Was this one of the "horrible" reviews to which you were referring?
~ Ancient Membership ~
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
That is the dumbest arguement ever.
That must mean that MMORPG can't give a bad review either, because every MMO advertises on here. OMG THEY ARE OUT TO GET US!!1111
Shut up, and make a valid arguement, with backed up information next time.
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
That is the dumbest arguement ever.
That must mean that MMORPG can't give a bad review either, because every MMO advertises on here. OMG THEY ARE OUT TO GET US!!1111
Shut up, and make a valid arguement, with backed up information next time.
Was going to say something to this effect, but there just isn't arguing with conspiracy theorists.
These "games of the future" you speak of always suck. I think the reason why is that too many companies try their hand at re-inventing the wheel when the games of the past were so much more engrossing than just about anything out right now. The best Fantasy MMORPG out right now in my opinion is DAoC, and the thing is 7 friggin' years old!
I loved EQ with the passion of a thousand suns. All I really want is that with up to date graphics, new storiesmore and no instancing. That's what Brad is giving me. If you don't want it there will be plenty of games for you.
Stratics gave Vanguard their best game of the E3 award. Stratics is a good weathervane for the type of game that I will enjoy so I'm more excited than ever. And I don't care if the game is published by Exxon, Satan and one of those companies that kills little forest animals so rich ladies can have a fancy coat. Brad made the game, not them, and Brads dream game is my dream game.
DAoC frustrating? ROFL
Hate to see you play a complicated game then.
No Offense..
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
That is the dumbest arguement ever.
That must mean that MMORPG can't give a bad review either, because every MMO advertises on here. OMG THEY ARE OUT TO GET US!!1111
Shut up, and make a valid arguement, with backed up information next time.
well part of what this guy is saying is true ... Vcrafters, and and vs.warcry are affiliated with sigil and not only promote the game but sell vanguard fan stuff ...the guy at tenton and 1up are both close friends of people on the sigil team....
the stuff i posted was neutral and had no biase one way or another towards vanguard ...i mean you want quantity i can dig up every single negative review on vanguard and post it here as you have done with positive reviews .. i just posted from three sources i browse often ...
but my point isnt to flood this thread with negative reviews ... as you can see im not trolling the thread and flaming .. i was just genuinly interested in people's opinions regarding the reviews ...
and ty everyone for you input ... there was a lot of detailed analyses in here
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
I write for the WarCry Network and I take personal offense to that comment. None of us at WarCry are 'whoring' out for advertisement dollars. I am also personal friends with some of the IGN crew and I can tell you they don't either.
As for the other sites, may or may not be the case but to assume that they all do because they are popular venues for gaming journalism is pretty idiotic.
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
I write for the WarCry Network and I take personal offense to that comment. None of us at WarCry are 'whoring' out for advertisement dollars. I am also personal friends with some of the IGN crew and I can tell you they don't either.
As for the other sites, may or may not be the case but to assume that they all do because they are popular venues for gaming journalism is pretty idiotic.
thats why your site has links to a vanguard store, a link to " vanguardian phislophy" and in fact link named " FANGUARD" all of the site's news are headlined by vanguard news and articles about eq?
i wouldnt use the word " whoring" thats wrong .. in that you have a right to be fans ... but admit the site VS.warcry is a site which promotes vanguard and are fans of brad, sigil, vanguard ... and the original everquest
i dont see anywhere near as much attention put on any other game.. your homepage has nothing but "vanguard" on it .. and discussing only the positive reviews of vanguard .. so yes its not a " whore" site but its a vanguard fan site ...
p.s. nothing wrong with that im just observing/commenting
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
I write for the WarCry Network and I take personal offense to that comment. None of us at WarCry are 'whoring' out for advertisement dollars. I am also personal friends with some of the IGN crew and I can tell you they don't either.
As for the other sites, may or may not be the case but to assume that they all do because they are popular venues for gaming journalism is pretty idiotic.
thats why your site has links to a vanguard store, a link to " vanguardian phislophy" and in fact link named " FANGUARD" all of the site's news are headlined by vanguard news and articles about eq?
i wouldnt use the word " whoring" thats wrong .. in that you have a right to be fans ... but admit the site VS.warcry is a site which promotes vanguard and are fans of brad, sigil, vanguard ... and the original everquest
i dont see anywhere near as much attention put on any other game.. your homepage has nothing but "vanguard" on it .. and discussing only the positive reviews of vanguard .. so yes its not a " whore" site but its a vanguard fan site ...
That is why it is called an affiliat fansite... Vanguard is saying they are affiliated with them, gives them interviews, etc. This is the whole point of the site. Vanguard. A Vanguard affiliate site....get it yet?
Being a fan site does NOT equal being payed off by a company to praise it. This sounds strong of a conspiracy theory
LMAO! This guy actually thinks these websites give good reviews, again, LMAO!!!
These websites are on the doll big time with all of these devs... SOE also advertises heavily on these websites too, seems to me you are ass-backwards on this... The reviews from the OP are from people who saw the game at E3, all of the above reviews are from the websites that (for lack of a better term) whore themselves to these game companies for advert dollars...
I write for the WarCry Network and I take personal offense to that comment. None of us at WarCry are 'whoring' out for advertisement dollars. I am also personal friends with some of the IGN crew and I can tell you they don't either.
As for the other sites, may or may not be the case but to assume that they all do because they are popular venues for gaming journalism is pretty idiotic.
thats why your site has links to a vanguard store, a link to " vanguardian phislophy" and in fact link named " FANGUARD" all of the site's news are headlined by vanguard news and articles about eq?
i wouldnt use the word " whoring" thats wrong .. in that you have a right to be fans ... but admit the site VS.warcry is a site which promotes vanguard and are fans of brad, sigil, vanguard ... and the original everquest
i dont see anywhere near as much attention put on any other game.. your homepage has nothing but "vanguard" on it .. and discussing only the positive reviews of vanguard .. so yes its not a " whore" site but its a vanguard fan site ...
That is why it is called an affiliat fansite... Vanguard is saying they are affiliated with them, gives them interviews, etc. This is the whole point of the site. Vanguard. A Vanguard affiliate site....get it yet?
Being a fan site does NOT equal being payed off by a company to praise it. This sounds strong of a conspiracy theory
P.S. Don't post unless you know your share about the game. Stop posting hateful threads off 3 bad reviews without looking at the good ones, and vice versa for fan boys.
That is why it is called an affiliat fansite... Vanguard is saying they are affiliated with them, gives them interviews, etc. This is the whole point of the site. Vanguard. A Vanguard affiliate site....get it yet?
Being a fan site does NOT equal being payed off by a company to praise it. This sounds strong of a conspiracy theory
P.S. Don't post unless you know your share about the game. Stop posting hateful threads off 3 bad reviews without looking at the good ones, and vice versa for fan boys.
and ive never said they were being " paid off" but #1 since they are of and relating to vanguard they make their business off of vanguard indirectly no?
and #2 being an affiliated fan site you would assume there is a certain bias towards the game .. more forgiving interpretation of its current state ... and in general a much more " exicted and welcoming" atmosphere for vanguard than a neutral site would contain ... yes?
where in this thread have i said anything HATEFUL for vanguard? WHERE??? i showed people OTHER reviewers words .. and asked them to comment on it .. and then i explained why i disagreed with one reviewers statements ...
but NEVER in this thread have i stated one " hateful" thing towards vanguard .. i havent even stated a negative thing towards this game in this thread ..