f13.net

f13.net General Forums => News => Topic started by: ForumBot 0.8 beta on January 28, 2007, 01:17:58 AM



Title: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: ForumBot 0.8 beta on January 28, 2007, 01:17:58 AM
I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Falconeer on January 28, 2007, 01:34:38 AM
Whoa. Nice review.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: pxib on January 28, 2007, 02:27:18 AM
It's only a model.
I didn't think it could happen, but you've brought Vanguard to life for me. Looks like somebody finally made that dream MMOG I've been waiting for since I got tired of UO: the proverbial "last game I'll ever buy." I'm heading out and get my preorder as soon as the stores open in the morning. Bless you, Schild. You smug bastard... you've made me hope again.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on January 28, 2007, 02:41:48 AM
I can't figure out whether you understood what I just did. The internet is hard.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: pxib on January 28, 2007, 02:49:46 AM
I love you, man.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Signe on January 28, 2007, 07:20:39 AM
I can't figure out whether you understood what I just did. The internet is hard.

I see what you did there.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Miasma on January 28, 2007, 08:15:10 AM
I keep forgetting to buy that movie.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Llava on January 28, 2007, 08:31:47 AM
I was expecting cursing.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Arthur_Parker on January 28, 2007, 08:43:20 AM
Didn't get the joke.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: bhodi on January 28, 2007, 08:49:27 AM
Is he saying that, like Monty Python, the entire game is one elaborate joke? If so...

(http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/502/fryseewhatyoudidthereqq2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: bignatz on January 28, 2007, 12:18:58 PM

What was wrong with "you guys never learn... where's the game" ?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 28, 2007, 01:02:51 PM
Let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Soln on January 28, 2007, 01:05:36 PM
"HUGE tracks of land"  sic


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Falconeer on January 28, 2007, 01:21:51 PM
I was about to re-organize my amateurish preview (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=9013.msg262440#msg262440) of Vanguard.
Then again I thought: "Fuck that. I talked enough about Vanguard. Now I just wanna play it."

It's addictive as expected, it's better than expected and it's fucking explorators heaven.
There's no need you believe it, it's more than enough that it delivers for me. Thread closed. I'm relogging in VG right now and you all can go playing whatever you like.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 28, 2007, 01:22:51 PM
Lets not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Signe on January 28, 2007, 02:59:13 PM
Stray! Falconeer said, "Thread closed!"  Don't make him stamp his foot!   :x


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Falconeer on January 28, 2007, 03:32:48 PM
Yah, thanks Signe. Tell'em.

 :-D


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Hoax on January 28, 2007, 04:01:14 PM
I dont get it, this whole thing left me feeling sad that there wasn't some kind of write-up with cursing and stuff.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 28, 2007, 04:41:08 PM
Has it not come to that though? This type of game isn't even worth rage anymore.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: pxib on January 28, 2007, 04:50:32 PM
You know the old joke about There...

"There's no There There."

We've already talked this game's flaws to death. All that was left was to offer it a chance to surprise and delight us... apparently the Pallid Scorpion will have none of that. Vanguard went a slightly different direction, but it's no further from Everquest than DAoCAMELOT! and there's nothing new to complain about. All Schild could have done is make the same tired rants that he, and the rest of us, have been reading and writing for nearly a decade.

McQuaid and team obviously haven't been listening.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on January 28, 2007, 04:51:07 PM
That's exactly it. There's nothing left to rant about in any way. If these fuckers don't even want to try to create an engaging experience from the first moment you log in, then fuck'em. These people are never, ever, ever going to learn. And when I say these people, I mean MMOG devs. No one wants to think outside the goddamn box, and the people that do think outside the box almost never create any sort of cohesive experience. I realize f13 started off pretty MMOG-centric, and I realize I used to be a lot more tolerant of MMOGs. But it's just not worth the expulsion of any sort of energy anymore. The most any shitty game is going to get out of me is some obscure joke and a photoshop. I just don't have the sort of time to waste that I used to have on this sort of shit. There's too many good games. When a _good_, from the get-go, MMOG comes out, I'll gladly come back and talk about it ad nauseum. But until then? Meh. Was of customer's money. Waste of development money. Just a big waste of money. Want something positive? I'm sure there's lots of good people at these companies, and I'm glad they have jobs. The videogame industry is a harsh place and those people are the glue that keeps it together. Too bad QA doesn't get paid enough to have the cajones to call something as they see it. When that happens, we might see some positive change.

Edit: Pxib, you get cookies.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Tannhauser on January 28, 2007, 07:44:04 PM
Fucking brilliant review Schild.



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 28, 2007, 11:35:44 PM
Very funny as an inside joke, but I think it's a missed opportunity.  I realize that you're throwing in the towel since anything you say won't change things... but why not at least take a shot?  People come here for the straight story and this would be a chance to show them that you're at least objective enough to provide it.  There are a lot of disenfranchised gamers out there dying for a place to read a REAL review of this game from somone that is intelligent, articulate, and experienced.  I think just such a review done right could generate some traffic.  Now they're left with the usual review fansite garbage from the standard people making a turd smell like a rose because they want a free peek at the next game on the horizon.   

Perhaps I'm naive.



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Velorath on January 28, 2007, 11:43:18 PM
Very funny as an inside joke, but I think it's a missed opportunity.  I realize that you're throwing in the towel since anything you say won't change things... but why not at least take a shot?  People come here for the straight story and this would be a chance to show them that you're at least objective enough to provide it.  There are a lot of disenfranchised gamers out there dying for a place to read a REAL review of this game from somone that is intelligent, articulate, and experienced.  I think just such a review done right could generate some traffic.  Now they're left with the usual review fansite garbage from the standard people making a turd smell like a rose because they want a free peek at the next game on the horizon.   

Perhaps I'm naive.


I think it's more Haemish's style to write long reviews on why something sucks than it is schild's.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 28, 2007, 11:51:26 PM
I think it's more Haemish's style to write long reviews on why something sucks than it is schild's.

Good reviews take time and work.  Anyone can say a game sucks.  Few can articulate why with an air of objectivity while maintaining credibility.  I certainly don't have the talent to do it, nor do most people.  That's why we come to sites like this... to read well-written reactions that state our exact feelings more eloquently than any of us ever could put into words.  I have a great deal of respect for Haemish as he possesses an uncanny ability to do just that.     



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Rasix on January 28, 2007, 11:57:00 PM
A good post release MMO review really needs around a week's worth of playtime (calendar, not /played). Even then it's difficult, because it's hard to motivate yourself to play something that sucks.  For a week. And then you have to write about it, then it has to get editted and posted.

Then you write it up, and 5 people read it.  No one cares about the game anymore because it's last week's news a week late.  Kinda like my AA review. </bitter>

You know, you could write a review.  You're intelligent.  You can write. Your views on what makes a good MMO are a lot different than mine, but I'd be interested anyhow.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Falconeer on January 29, 2007, 12:00:02 AM
Very funny as an inside joke, but I think it's a missed opportunity.  I realize that you're throwing in the towel since anything you say won't change things... but why not at least take a shot?  People come here for the straight story and this would be a chance to show them that you're at least objective enough to provide it.  There are a lot of disenfranchised gamers out there dying for a place to read a REAL review of this game from somone that is intelligent, articulate, and experienced.  I think just such a review done right could generate some traffic.  Now they're left with the usual review fansite garbage from the standard people making a turd smell like a rose because they want a free peek at the next game on the horizon.   

Perhaps I'm naive.



How can he do anything like that when he played about 3 minutes?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Velorath on January 29, 2007, 12:04:08 AM
Then you write it up, and 5 people read it.  No one cares about the game anymore because it's last week's news a week late.  Kinda like my AA review. </bitter>

Now you know how I feel posting about comics in a sub-forum that only about 6 people read on a regular basis.  I guess if you enjoy doing it though, it doesn't matter much how many people read it.  I think that's why Haemish is good at what he does.  He loves to hate bad movies, comics, TV, and games.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Margalis on January 29, 2007, 12:05:21 AM
People are tired of same old, same old.

Once you've played Knights of the Round, Aliens. vs. Predator, Final Fight and The Punisher do you really need a comprehensive review of Cadillacs vs. Dinosaurs? (Obscure analogy for the win!)

It is pretty boring to say that something sucks in a predictable, tired way that everyone saw coming, or that a game suffers from the same problems most other games suffer from. A whole bunch of aggravating bugs - wow what a surprise! "Same as it ever was" sounds like a fine review to me.

At least if you are going to make mistakes, make new interesting ones. A game with a bunch of "potential" and a mess of problems, bugs and jagged edges...original.

At least AA was an original (in the MMORPG world) premise. A mediocre fantasy MMOPRG? Been there, done that, burned the T-shirt.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 12:09:02 AM
A good post release MMO review really needs around a week's worth of playtime (calendar, not /played). Even then it's difficult, because it's hard to motivate yourself to play something that sucks.  For a week. And then you have to write about it, then it has to get editted and posted.

Then you write it up, and 5 people read it.  No one cares about the game anymore because it's last week's news a week late.  Kinda like my AA review. </bitter>

You know, you could write a review.  You're intelligent.  You can write. Your views on what makes a good MMO are a lot different than mine, but I'd be interested anyhow.

I'm sure I could write an objective article about Vanguard.  I'm also sure it wouldn't have the same punch as anything Schild or Haemish could write... I don't have the gift for writing that they do.  That's why this left me disappointed.  I enjoy reading their reactions to games.  That's one of the things that led me here.  I think that's a part of what brings many people here.  

Maybe we can coax a comic out of Samprimary.  





Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Azazel on January 29, 2007, 12:22:44 AM
/yawn.



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on January 29, 2007, 01:23:23 AM
Guys, look. I don't know how else to put this. So I'll say it simply. 50+ Games come out every year that I think are worth playing. I beat maybe 15-25 of them. The other 25 sit around and I come back to them and thrash them on rainy days and holidays. I absolutely refuse to play anything that turns me off in my first moments in the game. It's the most basic of things to get right and one of the easiest things TO get right. Wow me with colors. Shock me with well-written dialogue. Just do something. Everything in gaming comes down to the first impression. Do you know why things like Indigo Prophecy and God of War and Resident Evil 4 were played and beaten by _so_many_people who often don't beat games? Because they were grabbed from the get go. Ookii, who almost never beats anything that isn't an FPS played almost all the way through Indigo and God of War in one sitting each. Even if they hadn't been crafted well enough to stick with, the openings sure pulled me in.

Honestly, I don't care how much depth something has if it's not good from the first moment. Learning curves are one thing, boredom is another. Vanguard is fucking boring. BORING, BORING, BORING. I don't care if the diplomacy is the most badass thing since Civiliation 2 met Romance of the 3 Kingdoms. I don't care if the crafting system is Atelier Iris mixed with fucking Magic the Gathering. I know what the core gameplay is. And it licks my balls. The game doesn't even try to say "Play me, I could be fun." No, it just says, "Hey, I'm another asshole who moved into your neighborhood, can I borrow a shovel?" Man, that just sucks and I don't have time for it. I'm playing 3 games right now that aren't out yet (reviews in February!) - all 3 of them are far superior to anything Sigil could have put out. Sure, that's due to the development team, but in the short time I was in Vanguard, I'd already given it more of a chance than any other MMOG this year (including some :nda: stuff). Why? Because someone decided it was ready for release.

As I said before, when you support games like this - that are nowhere near ready for release - purely in terms of bugs and WORLD CHANGING patches every week- you're part of the problem. Do yourself a favor. Stay away. Stay far the fuck away. Go play on a UO server. Go play SW:G. Go play Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine's beta even if you don't understand moonspeak. Any of those will be better than this. This is a game that's about to charge you money. That's something I just can't put up with anymore. And if that upsets you, I'm sorry. I just don't have time for crappy games and frankly, they don't deserve respect from any of us. We're better than that.

Edit: I'd like to clarify, there are SOME THINGS that you go into expecting buildup. The aforementioned Romance of the 3 Kingdoms titles, first impressions for that came from when I was younger and more easily attached to games. I know what to expect from them. They don't deliver the hard hitting "oomph" of a God of War type. They do something else. They give results that make you feel better for using proper strategy and such. There's more self-perfection in those games than any MMOG, and I realize that goes against the bulk of my argument. But even those games I got into when I was younger have to try harder and harder to keep my attention. The last Romance I played before 10 was 8, and before that it was way back in the SNES era. I must've logged a total of 15 hours on 8 and 10. Must've logged 60-100 hours back in the day. The new ones just don't pull me in enough and say "This is a good way to spend your time." We'll see how XI does in a few weeks.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: pxib on January 29, 2007, 01:44:20 AM
Vangaurd has contracted out a system through one of those web companies that lets you make flash avatars to deliver messages. I imagine it was intended to allow excited players to invite ignorant friends. This requires imagination on my part because it is not an intuitive result of the application. The twitchy, squinting avatars are immediately off-putting in every available costume, and the speech synthesis ably mumbles and mispronounces any custom message. There are three pre-recorded options, however... and I believe they artfully express the piss-poor planning and relentlessly half-assed execution that shadows every corner of this project:
Quote from: Excitable Rogue
If you're lucky, I'll let you take a ride on my flying mount!
Can you make that sound sleazy? So can he.
My Vanguard Review: C
Quote from: Leading Man
When you get to the world of Vanguard, look to the skies. You'll see me there... on the wings of a dragon!
The best voice actor of the trio, with the trill and timbre of a action hero from the 1930's. I imagine him much as I imagine the barnstormers of that era... bravely standing atop the wings of his dragon while his pilot does barrel rolls and laughs at danger. I don't imagine this functionality is available in-game.
My Vanguard Review: B+
Quote from: Effeminate Elf
Set yourself free and join me in a world without boundaries. A land where we will forge our own destinies.
Several female avatars are available, but this is the only voice that isn't baritone or beyond. It is also obviously a man speaking in falsetto. I won't ask why he chose to forge that destiny, but it's a boundary he can cross on his own.
My Vanguard Review: D

Worse yet, one of the available backgrounds is (I kid you not) the outside of Brad McQuaid's office.

The ways one might use this tool to mock and debase the game, they are beyond counting... but I can't figure out how anybody could successfully use it for what is, doubtless, it's intended purpose. That, writ large, is the trouble with Vanguard. PLEASE DO NOT HUNT THIS THING DOWN AND USE IT TO MOCK AND DEBASE THE GAME. We don't need another 30 page thread about this trash, and frankly Sigil doesn't need your help.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Yoru on January 29, 2007, 02:10:28 AM
(stuff)

That, writ large, is the trouble with Vanguard. PLEASE DO NOT HUNT THIS THING DOWN AND USE IT TO MOCK AND DEBASE THE GAME. We don't need another 30 page thread about this trash, and frankly Sigil doesn't need your help.

Someone hasn't been watching the Den. There was some usage of this tool for argumentative/comedic effect in another Vanguard-centric thread. Then it got stupid and got sent to bed without its supper.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 07:41:36 AM
Upset? Naw.  I saw this as a wasted opportunity given some of our conversations.  Ultimately this is your sandbox and whatever you decide is what will happen.   I respect your choices and your gaming opinions and I'm in no way telling you how to go about your business.  Here's why I thought this was a lost opportunity:

1) I seem to recall you telling me that the MMOG forums have been the most active forums lately.  Unless I'm forgetting something obvious, Vanguard, Age of Conan, LotR Online, and Warhammer are the titles on the horizon receiving the most hype.  That's 4 games in the next calendar year in the genre receiving the most attention on your own forums.  Compared to the number of console titles you'll play/review, that's nothing. 

2) If you really mean it when you say that the consumer is part of the problem (and I agree with you completely), then why not do what you can to spread the word in educating the consumer?  Provide an entertaining review that lets them know immediately what they're getting into.  Each person you steer away is like another starfish thrown back into the sea...

3) You're an entertaining writer.  This is an opportunity to demonstrate it to people outside the niche.

It's not what you tell the niche audience here.  We're all here because we take the time to research this crap and make educated decisions about it.  It's the chance to spread the word to those that would normally get the candy-coated version from Warcry, IGN, Stratics, etc. 

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Miasma on January 29, 2007, 08:15:15 AM
There are a couple of starting areas that have a fleeting amount of "wow, cool" at the very beginning.  When you start an orc or goblin you spawn on top of a boat as a freed slave with a large battle raging below you as you try to run to your side's camp.  Then the whole starter line of quests revolves around the invasion you are in the middle of as you fight and spy your way to defending your territory.  There is a diplomatic quest where you have to relieve the local garrison's commander so that they stay and fight (although there is nothing awesome like actually being able to order the entire army to attack the invaders).

The imperials start off by massacring a city full of innocent people and stealing their goods, then (spoiler) you attack the final monk and he gives you a chance at redemption by stripping you of your weapons and sending you to a peaceful fishing village.  The whole thing seemed liked it was a flashback to when you were evil.

The area with the cats is weird.

I understand the hate ambivalence and why you wouldn't bother playing it though, Vanguard not only fails in being revolutionary but is actually a giant leap backwards into the past.  I really don't play MMOs so much for the game as for being part of a little virtual community, the game only need be tolerable but I have to like the other people in it.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Falconeer on January 29, 2007, 08:35:21 AM
So what about the thestran human starting questline that let you lead the brownie revolution?
Or the Kojan one, where you have to repent.
That's great stuff. But it doesn't matter anymore. Vanguard sucks.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on January 29, 2007, 09:14:58 AM
I agree with schild. There is zero value-add in any new MMO review UNLESS the game adds something that no one has seen before. There is no point writing a VG review which at its core will read like "they did this like WoW and that like circa 2000 EQ and that like circa 2004 EQ."

That said, it is my opinion that if you have a PC with 2G of RAM and a NVIDIA 6600 era or better video card, rolling up a character in every racial city and playing that character to level 6 or 7 MIGHT be worth the $49.99 first month entry fee just for the scenic variety involved. Forget the game is an MMO and just consider it "constant newbie character creation syndrome nirvana" for a few weeks.

The only thing remotely new in VG is the diplomacy mini-game and I can review that for you now: by itself, it isn't fun in any way shape or form. As a system for changing the world in real time, we need 6 months to find out. My bet is that it will just be one more part of the grind to gain access to encounters that give access to loot.

Disclosure: I have a level 7 dog druid in VG.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 10:05:56 AM
I agree with schild. There is zero value-add in any new MMO review UNLESS the game adds something that no one has seen before. There is no point writing a VG review which at its core will read like "they did this like WoW and that like circa 2000 EQ and that like circa 2004 EQ."

I agree completely.  Writing an article that states "they did this like WoW and that like circa 2000 EQ and that like circa 2004 EQ." is pointless.  Food, movie, art, and music critics have to review the same things hundreds of times yet the best of them still find a way to do even the mundane with style and class. 

I'm just asking people to consider what their goals are.  Is this a niche site where people gather to chat and joke that they "didn't even know there was a front page"?  I think that the people here have significantly more to offer to the gaming community at large than inside jokes in the clubhouse.  So much energy gets expended on alienation that many opportunities to educate are squandered.  I say this knowing that I'm guilty of it myself.     


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Engels on January 29, 2007, 10:16:25 AM
Seems to me that Schild comes at MMOs as one would come to a single player game, and that right there is a problem. Diku MMOs and Vanguard in particular do not strive to blow the player away with opening cinematic sequences or spectacular game play within the first 40 minutes. Perhaps they should, but they just don't. There's a tacit understanding that teh shiney won't come till much much later.

That said, there is absolutely no excuse for the threadbare newbie experience in Vanguard. There's no presented lore, no sense of who or what you are in any real sense, just a series of necessary 'find a trainer' quests without any purposeful introduction to the world Sigil has created.

EQ1 at launch did 12 times better than Vanguard in this regard. After a few hours of play, you got a sense of what your race was, how your class fit in, etc. In Vanguard, its nearly as if they've left this out with a cynical presumtion that the vanbois out there simply want to be uberleet and smack raid mobs, but I think they forget that those people are playing WoW now, and aren't going to leave it for Vanguard.



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on January 29, 2007, 10:44:45 AM
No, I don't come into MMOGs expecting it to act like a single player game. But I do expect to have the developers show me they at least want me in their world.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 10:56:20 AM
No, I don't come into MMOGs expecting it to act like a single player game. But I do expect to have the developers show me they at least want me in their world.

I see Vanguard treating the newbie very much like ATitD did.  They drop you in the middle of it and let you figure things out for yourself.  Now I have to wonder if they did this on purpose or it was the end result of a serious lack of planning.  In the case of Vanguard, I'm guessing the latter... but games where the player isn't told what to do or how they fit in appeal to some people.  In essence they get to make it up as they go along.  It's that whole sandbox world vs. game thing and I know how you feel about those topics.     


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 29, 2007, 11:06:38 AM
Why can't a crappy game just be a crappy game, a good one a good one? Everything's so over-complicated and excusable with MMO's. Just because something is persistent doesn't mean the criteria for good gameplay change.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 11:15:41 AM
Why can't a crappy game just be a crappy game, a good one a good one? Everything's so over-complicated and excusable with MMO's. Just because something is persistent doesn't mean the criteria for good gameplay change.

Rhetorical question.  You know the answer.  1) The concept of fun is not the same for everyone.  2) Popular need not equal good.

Why just focus on MMO's?  It's true in every form.  Shitty art, shitty music, shitty food, shitty console games, shitty cars... the list is endless.  Just because you or I think something is good doesn't make it universally good.  It's all opinion.   Of course, some cases lean more obviously one way than the other. 

     


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on January 29, 2007, 11:19:11 AM
Nebu, ATiTD put you in a closed environment with specific goals and even provided some character progression on that island. it was very EQ2 and a very good way to introduce people to the game. Vanguard just says "What? You expected something exciting? This world is as boring as yours." I think that should be one of the requirements for reasonably well-budgeted MMOGs. Is the world more exciting to live in than our current world? If not, hey, you fucked up.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 29, 2007, 11:28:12 AM
Why can't a crappy game just be a crappy game, a good one a good one? Everything's so over-complicated and excusable with MMO's. Just because something is persistent doesn't mean the criteria for good gameplay change.

Rhetorical question.  You know the answer.  1) The concept of fun is not the same for everyone.  2) Popular need not equal good.

I really don't know the answer. I could find some gripes even you've pointed out about single player games (say, some particular Fight Night mechanic you didn't like, for one) that you and many others would probably praise in an mmo (hell, Fight Night would be downright revolutionary in mmo land).

These games are pretty crappy through and through, but there's always something about them that makes some people hold on and keep on talking about them....Looking for something positive....Something that makes everything else worth forgiving.

"But...But....Diplomacy!"

"But...But...Sandboxing!"

No.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 11:28:25 AM
Nebu, ATiTD put you in a closed environment with specific goals and even provided some character progression on that island. it was very EQ2 and a very good way to introduce people to the game. Vanguard just says "What? You expected something exciting? This world is as boring as yours." I think that should be one of the requirements for reasonably well-budgeted MMOGs. Is the world more exciting to live in than our current world? If not, hey, you fucked up.

This is exactly what I'm talking about Schild.  Saying these types of things in a review would do far more to get your point to the gaming community.  You have a soapbox available at your disposal... is it wrong for me to be disappointed when you don't take advantage of it?  There's enough evidence that people are listening.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 11:34:06 AM
I really don't know the answer. I could find some gripes even you've pointed out about single player games (say, some particular Fight Night mechanic you didn't like, for one) that you and many others would probably praise in an mmo (hell, Fight Night would be downright revolutionary in mmo land).

These games are pretty crappy through and through, but there's always something about them that makes some people hold on and keep on talking about them....Looking for something positive....Something that makes everything else worth forgiving.

"But...But....Diplomacy!"

"But...But...Sandboxing!"

No.

All I'm saying is that sometimes you know exactly why you like something and sometimes you don't.  I can't really verbalize why I like Coke more than Pepsi or vanilla ice cream more than chocolate.  I think it's the same with games.  How does anyone go about defending their tastes... I'm not sure there's really any objective way to do so. 

I also think that everyone is falling to understand my point here. I don't think Vanguard is anything new or special.  I just think that someone with the writing gifts of Schild or Haemish could educate the gaming world by articulating how they perceive what I'd term a very overhyped game. 


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: pxib on January 29, 2007, 12:16:17 PM
Is the world more exciting to live in than our current world? If not, hey, you fucked up.

This is exactly what I'm talking about...  Saying these types of things in a review would do far more to get your point to the gaming community.

...but he's said it before. Hundreds of people on this site and elsewhere have said it before. They have been saying it dozens of different ways for almost as long as the genre has existed. When a game breaks new ground and tries to address the mistakes of games past, that attempt (even in failure) can be profitably critiqued. When a game blatantly ignores the common sense signposts with which reviewers and theorists have littered the landscape, another simple restatement of those tired observations isn't going to change anybody's mind.

If Sigil needs to hear "the game must be fun to play" at this point in MMOG evolution, they're beyond help.

All I'm saying is that sometimes you know exactly why you like something and sometimes you don't (...) How does anyone go about defending their tastes... I'm not sure there's really any objective way to do so.

Then obviously you shouldn't be writing reviews.

Quote from: Ibid.
I don't think Vanguard is anything new or special.  I just think that someone with the writing gifts of Schild or Haemish could educate the gaming world by articulating how they perceive what I'd term a very overhyped game.

Vanguard offers nothing new or special, but I still want teh funny. Dance, fat boy, dance!

What makes you think "a very overhyped game" isn't all that needs to be said?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on January 29, 2007, 12:24:56 PM
I think that's the point, yea, there's 2 camps. One doesn't want to expend breath on crap anymore. Sometimes, on special occassions, I will. For an MMOG though? It at least has to try something new to be treated as something new. Vanguard may have something new somewhere. But I'm not willing to waste 30 hours of my life getting to it. And that's what's at the core here - companies need to be bold in the face of WoW and where the genre has gone. Don't hide that boldness in something that ISN'T fun OR a game. Maybe there's something there that's worthy of it's own article, but a review isn't it.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 12:29:17 PM
If Sigil needs to hear "the game must be fun to play" at this point in MMOG evolution, they're beyond help.

A review isn't necessarily about Sigil.  It's also about educating the public. If you want to help the consumer stop being a part of the problem, you have to show them the light. 

Then obviously you shouldn't be writing reviews.

Let's not make this about me, mmmkay?

What makes you think "a very overhyped game" isn't all that needs to be said?

Because I've played the game for a reasonable amount of time.  The game, despite its MANY problems does have a few merits.  Even bad mistakes can occasionally produce fertile ground for new lessons. 


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 29, 2007, 12:32:48 PM
Is the world more exciting to live in than our current world? If not, hey, you fucked up.

This is exactly what I'm talking about...  Saying these types of things in a review would do far more to get your point to the gaming community.

...but he's said it before. Hundreds of people on this site and elsewhere have said it before. They have been saying it dozens of different ways for almost as long as the genre has existed. When a game breaks new ground and tries to address the mistakes of games past, that attempt (even in failure) can be profitably critiqued. When a game blatantly ignores the common sense signposts with which reviewers and theorists have littered the landscape, another simple restatement of those tired observations isn't going to change anybody's mind.

If Sigil needs to hear "the game must be fun to play" at this point in MMOG evolution, they're beyond help.

All I'm saying is that sometimes you know exactly why you like something and sometimes you don't (...) How does anyone go about defending their tastes... I'm not sure there's really any objective way to do so.

Then obviously you shouldn't be writing reviews.

Quote from: Ibid.
I don't think Vanguard is anything new or special.  I just think that someone with the writing gifts of Schild or Haemish could educate the gaming world by articulating how they perceive what I'd term a very overhyped game.

Vanguard offers nothing new or special, but I still want teh funny. Dance, fat boy, dance!

What makes you think "a very overhyped game" isn't all that needs to be said?

Exactly.

We must move on beyond Diku Bitching 101. It's like we're stuck in a loop. We're all better than that.

If there's any defense as to why I'm being so pissy lately, it's because of that very reason. I'm up to my ears in WoW/Vanguard/SWG whining. I've gotten to the point where the mere slight of a bump of an MMO gripe/brainstorming thread gets me antsy. Especially when I know that the people doing it actually have other interests (if there's anything to write and rant about, it's those things).


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Falconeer on January 29, 2007, 12:37:22 PM
No, I don't come into MMOGs expecting it to act like a single player game. But I do expect to have the developers show me they at least want me in their world.

I see Vanguard treating the newbie very much like ATitD did.  They drop you in the middle of it and let you figure things out for yourself. [...] ... but games where the player isn't told what to do or how they fit in appeal to some people. 

I am one of those who likes this. I don't want to be babysat and there's nothing more intriguing for me than entering a "virtual world" having to learn it by doing or by sharing with other players. Guess it's me... and a few other dumbsters.

So I think they made it like this on purpose, BUT (is it huge enough?) there's no excuse for the lame lame lame character creation screen with tiny and almost hidden races info box and the utter lack of a proper introduction to the lore (not to the world or the mechanics).


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 12:39:31 PM
I think that's the point, yea, there's 2 camps. One doesn't want to expend breath on crap anymore. Sometimes, on special occassions, I will. For an MMOG though? It at least has to try something new to be treated as something new. Vanguard may have something new somewhere. But I'm not willing to waste 30 hours of my life getting to it. And that's what's at the core here - companies need to be bold in the face of WoW and where the genre has gone. Don't hide that boldness in something that ISN'T fun OR a game. Maybe there's something there that's worthy of it's own article, but a review isn't it.

Like I said above Schild, it's your soapbox.  I'm allowed to want what I want and you're allowed to tell me I'm batshit insane for wanting it.  I just think that you have a lot to offer the mmog community despite your disdain for it.  I was disappointed that you didn't make your point harder... especially at a time when people will be doing Google searches for Vanguard reviews.  I think seeing an honest account (like that in the posts above) might get a few of them to reconsider... which seems like a perfect way to make your point to the industry, even if it only has a small effect.  

The path of apathy seldom has the power of the path of action.  Robert Frost and all that jazz.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 29, 2007, 12:48:34 PM
Exactly.

We must move on beyond Diku Bitching 101. It's like we're stuck in a loop. We're all better than that.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.  I'm not advocating Diku bitching 101.  I'm saying that WoW has opened up the mmog market to MILLIONS OF NEW PEOPLE.  These people could benefit from the experiences of people like Schild, especially as far as a games like Vanguard is concerned.  A well articulated review could a) save those people from becoming a part of the problem and b) generate new traffic to this site.  I don't necessarily see how either of those would be a bad thing for Schild. 

I'm talking about a missed opportunity here, that's all.  I'll shut up now.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 29, 2007, 01:10:51 PM
No, don't shut up.

I'll correct myself: Fair enough point.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on January 29, 2007, 01:32:11 PM
Nebu, I think I'm gonna do an article that includes parts of Vanguard. But it's going to be more of a catchall open letter to the industry. I think you're right. The shit they're trying to pull can't keep going on. And yea, if I didn't do it, I'd be doing the industry and myself a disservice. Look for it later this week.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Sairon on January 29, 2007, 01:34:32 PM
I agree with Nebu in fact, on pretty much all of his points. While a photoshoped picture and a cool title might make you chuckle I for one would in fact be intrested in a review of some sort. There's obviously some of the more or less jaded people here who's in fact giving this shit a fair shot, so there's obviously something in there. I can understand that Schild doesn't want to suffer and spend enough time in this in order to give it a fair review, but perhaps someone else wants to? Or perhaps something collaborative?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Soukyan on January 29, 2007, 01:35:20 PM
No, I don't come into MMOGs expecting it to act like a single player game. But I do expect to have the developers show me they at least want me in their world.

This is an important point. Web developers are constantly concerned about keeping people on the site and grabbing people's attention in the first X number of seconds. The same should be true of MMOGs. Perhaps minutes or hours are more the measure because I'm not sure what the average time is to addict a person to your game, but the important part is selling the player on the game from the start. Once the player is sold, the rest is easy. Need an example? WoW gves high production value at the start to get the player hooked.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: HaemishM on January 29, 2007, 01:41:50 PM
A good post release MMO review really needs around a week's worth of playtime (calendar, not /played). 

No, it really, really doesn't. I used to think so, but now I follow the rule I blogged about, the 30-minute MMOG. If the gameplay is not in anyway engaging or NEW after 30-minutes of play time, especially when talking about a DIKU, there is no amount of playtime that will ever change what you think in that first 30 minutes. And if the good stuff takes more than 30 minutes to get to, the devs are just being grind-hungry dicks who want me to subscribe for months before I'm given any of the goodie.

Schild's review only lacked an Everquest reference but Camelot will do as well.



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: pxib on January 29, 2007, 01:46:40 PM
Yes, it would be an easy way to pick up some eyeballs. I skipped right over this point:
I agree completely.  Writing an article that states "they did this like WoW and that like circa 2000 EQ and that like circa 2004 EQ." is pointless.  Food, movie, art, and music critics have to review the same things hundreds of times yet the best of them still find a way to do even the mundane with style and class. 

I'm just asking people to consider what their goals are.  Is this a niche site where people gather to chat and joke that they "didn't even know there was a front page"?  I think that the people here have significantly more to offer to the gaming community at large than inside jokes in the clubhouse.  So much energy gets expended on alienation that many opportunities to educate are squandered.  I say this knowing that I'm guilty of it myself.
because it brought to mind how pointless such efforts at education feel.

Vanguard is boring to review because it offers so little that hasn't been argued to death before. Games which experiment in innovative ways, even when they fail, add to the conversation. If, by some miracle, WAR (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=9274.0) turns out to be a less successful game than Vanguard, it will still be worth reviewing in a way Saga of Heroes never shall. It will provide new examples of and inspire new conversation about PvP based advancement, adaptive quest environments, and its other quirky twists on unconventional gameplay.

DDO is absolute tripe, but it added new data points in old arguments about the uses of instanced mission-based content, twitch-heavy gameplay, and the leveling power curve. Vanguard's innovative Diplomacy system might be equally worth comment when it's completely implemented, even if that implementation fails to make it fun.

Reviews of that sort of stuff almost write themselves. New traffic will come to the site and they'll have something the old guard wants to talk about on their minds. Win/Win.

That said, I'm not sure WoW players have a particularly dire need to be educated. They'll realize what's wrong with the games they're playing as quickly as we did. Developers need to be educated... but most of them have been around as long as the bitter veterans here and they continue to make the same mistakes. Maybe it deserves a sticky in the Game Design/Development forum:  "READ THIS FIRST! A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF COMMON WAYS DEVELOPERS SCREW THEMSELVES", but I don't think that would add much more than a link to the stuff Raph wrote (http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/playerrights.shtml) back in 2000 while he helped produce crap like SWG.

Somebody needs to figure out how to bridge the gap between what they ought to know by now and "the shit they're trying to pull"... between what's worth playing and what gets published.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: koboshi on January 29, 2007, 02:22:18 PM
As I see it...

There are three problems with what you are saying Nebu:
  A)  Vanguard was the result of inbreeding.  Whatís worse is itís a preemie.  You really want to start counting fingers and toes? Itís amazing itís got fingers and toes! You want to yell at the parents about their choices now? you heartless bastard!
  B) Youíre not yelling at Schild anymore, youíre yelling at the wall Schild used to yell at. The only difference between you and Schild is he knows no one is listening.
  C) Don't warn them.  Pray that thousands of people play vanguard. Let them learn the hard way how shitty the mmorpg genre is. Let them play clone after clone until they fall before the onslaught. We are the army of the undead.  We survive by resurrecting the fallen.  One day we will be strong enough to rout the old guard, but we are not strong enough yet.


There are three problems with what you are saying Schild:
  A) You donít like sandboxes.  Stop pretending you do.  That said this isnít a sand box, itís lazy programming from unimaginative pricks.
  B) Stop being glib. I no longer have the opportunity to say this to your face anymore, but seriously, stop expecting jokes to make points for you. (Even if this was a particularly inspired one) If you have something to say, say it, if you just donít have the time or energy, defer to someone who does.
  C) You have a front page, FUCKING USE IT!!!!!!!  You may only have a soap box but itís a nice sturdy one, where lots of people can hear you. Stop posting NIS/Atlas press clippings and start posting articles.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Strazos on January 29, 2007, 02:31:19 PM
All I'm going to say is that while I agree with Nebu wholeheartedly, I believe that (and I'm fairly sure everyone will agree with me on this point) asking someone, particularly Schild, to do a full review of something like Vanguard...

It's asking a lot. Perhaps too much. As we all know, Schild isn't really being paid for any of this, and he has lots of other games to play that are actually fun. Asking him to do a full review of Vanguard is a huge sacrifice. This is a different situation than the people at the "more professional" (for lack of a more precise description) outlets such as Gamespy or IGN, where the reviewing editor is being paid to deal with something such as Vanguard.

Personally, the scathing reviews are why I ended up here in the first place, and I'm not the only one who might like to see Vanguard give the same treatment and raked over the coals...but I know I'm not going to sacrifice myself to get it done. In that case, it's not really fair for me, personally, to ask or expect anyone else to do it for me. I'm no masochist, and I also don't enjoy making other people hurt themselves with bad games.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Hoax on January 29, 2007, 03:14:32 PM
Why can't a crappy game just be a crappy game, a good one a good one? Everything's so over-complicated and excusable with MMO's. Just because something is persistent doesn't mean the criteria for good gameplay change.

Rhetorical question.  You know the answer.  1) The concept of fun is not the same for everyone.  2) Popular need not equal good.

I really don't know the answer. I could find some gripes even you've pointed out about single player games (say, some particular Fight Night mechanic you didn't like, for one) that you and many others would probably praise in an mmo (hell, Fight Night would be downright revolutionary in mmo land).

These games are pretty crappy through and through, but there's always something about them that makes some people hold on and keep on talking about them....Looking for something positive....Something that makes everything else worth forgiving.

"But...But....Diplomacy!"

"But...But...Sandboxing!"

No.

That something positive is pretty obvious if you spend 10 seconds thinking before you hit reply.  MMOG's clearly offer certain things that no other game can or ever will.  For whatever psychological reason many people seem to be unwilling to go back to single player games or even multiplayer lobby&gameroom games (ala fps and rts) once they've stepped foot on a virtual landscape populated by other player-characters.  Somehow the concept of virtual worlds and the unique community and gameplay aspects that such worlds entail makes them worth holding onto and talking about for some people.  Now I'm all for analyzing why that is.

OTOH pointing out the fact that the fighting in Soul Caliber III kicks the shit out of the fighting in WoW...

Just stop posting that type of crap, it has NEVER added anything to any thread.  EVER.  If you dont like MMO's fuck off and stop reading threads about them.  If all you have to add are some captain obvious statements but insist on reading them, dont hit reply.

*added after finishing  thread*
Stray it seems that you backpeddled from your stance and explained you are mostly just sick of VG threads.  I have to say though last I checked the MMOG threads are all in the MMOG section.  Perhaps just stop going there till there is a new game that actually seems new released?  You were still being a dumbass, but perhaps the post was overly harsh.  I'm just sick of that type of comment in the same way you are sick of MMOG threads...


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: stray on January 29, 2007, 03:29:15 PM
It's obviously not obvious. Nebu couldn't pinpoint anything for himself. I'm sure there are others.

And yes, I can see the draw of community and persistency. It's what kept me going longer than it should have. That eventually had to give though.

And Soul Caliber is entirely relevant (or _insert non mmo game here_). If only to point out how much MMO's can not ride on community and world forever. They need to be good games too. And guess what? They don't need to reinvent the wheel to do it. They can copy those thousands of other games out there. They're so deprived in this area that they could take ideas from a 20 year old platformer, and mmo players would consider it Robot Jesus.

Besides all that, neglecting community and world, mmo strong suits if anything, has become a trend now. The things that make these things unique are traded in for a more party and instanced oriented experience. With the same crappy gameplay to boot.

[EDIT] Oh yeah, the only reason I mentioned Fight Night is because Nebu and I were talking about some of it's flaws the other day in IRC. I brought it up here because I was wondering whether he'd point out the flaws of typical diku combat....Or forgive it because of other game features.

Eh, long story, I guess. Needless to say, it had nothing to do with "OMG Fight Night roxxors WoW!!" (but it does).


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Yoru on January 29, 2007, 04:02:58 PM
Okay, look, stop abusing the idea of a 'sandbox'. Vanguard is not a sandbox.

In an undirected sandbox, you're free to choose what to do without having to worry about whether or not you're doing the "right" thing. You can switch directions on a dime and you HAVE to make your own fun. You're given some basic tools and the rest is up to you.

Not to bring song lyrics into it, but in a sandbox you can go your own way. That's the essence of it. ATITD, very sandbox. EVE, somewhat sandbox. Pre-NGE SWG, somewhat sandbox. Old UO, sandbox. Flipping over: SimWhatever - they're sandboxes. What Will Wright terms "software toys". The key here is systemic game design as opposed to guided, experiential design.

In Vanguard, WoW and their ilk, you have a heavily directed experience. Now, just because it's directed doesn't mean it's guided (in that you're strongly told what to do). From what I've understood from Falc, Vanguard, unlike WoW, is a very unguided experience. You're dropped in and expected to pretty much assign your own meaning to the grind, and figure out how to grind - but make no mistake about it, you're grinding levels.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Bunk on January 29, 2007, 04:24:21 PM
I'd just like to point out that this thread is the perfect example of how people can have differing opinions here, but argue them out in a level headed manner, and manage to concede points on both sides.

It's not all that funny to read, but it is constructive.

Oh, and my general opinion on the matter, is that while I think a site like F13 would be well served to put out a review on Vanguard, I would not ask that it be written by someone that obviously has no urge to play the game. I'd much prefer a review from someone who had hopes for the game, and then had their dreams crushed.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: CmdrSlack on January 29, 2007, 05:00:49 PM
I don't think there's really been a diaspora/community site with a good front page.  By good I mean regularly updated with useful content.  Most of the value has always been in the forums, where you can get more than enough useful info about a game.  Does that make it suck for the uninitiated and the people new to the community or the average googler?  Sure.  Is there a way around it?  Not really.  I guess if someone wanted to do reviews based on compiling opinions from the forums, that'd be interesting.  It would also be time-consuming and tedious for the person doing it.  Maybe that person would be someone who enjoys doing it.  When a front page lacks people who write for the pleasure of writing, it shows and the writing seems forced. 

So yeah, frontpages have always been overrated for community sites.  The real value is in the forums.  Trying to aggregate that value and opinion onto the front page would be a tedious and thankless task.  That's why so many people blog, IMO.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: MikeRozak on January 29, 2007, 10:26:33 PM
Oddly, the worse Vanguard's reviews, the more tempted I am to try it.

The current comments (here) remind me of the 1950's movie, "Plan nine from outer space", rented on VHS in the 80's, and billed as the worst movie ever. That's the only reason you'd rent it, and it was pretty bad. But it was also a low-budget film.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: ahoythematey on January 30, 2007, 03:36:18 AM
That has a slightly twisted sense of logic to it.  Unbelievably shitty MMO's almost uniformally get good to great reviews.

Of course, things may have changed.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: koboshi on January 30, 2007, 04:22:16 AM
The current comments (here) remind me of the 1950's movie, "Plan nine from outer space", rented on VHS in the 80's, and billed as the worst movie ever. That's the only reason you'd rent it, and it was pretty bad. But it was also a low-budget film.

  Yea and this... not really low budget at all.  It's more like Hollywoodís Godzilla then some cute cult film made for less than ten grand. True they both have kitsch but big budget and "massively multiplayer" can't live on kitsch. Multiverse may be able to, but not SOE.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Murgos on January 30, 2007, 05:51:49 AM
So yeah, frontpages have always been overrated for community sites.  The real value is in the forums.  Trying to aggregate that value and opinion onto the front page would be a tedious and thankless task.  That's why so many people blog, IMO.

Bring back Arcadian biotch!


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: slog on January 30, 2007, 06:33:59 AM
A good post release MMO review really needs around a week's worth of playtime (calendar, not /played). 

No, it really, really doesn't. I used to think so, but now I follow the rule I blogged about, the 30-minute MMOG. If the gameplay is not in anyway engaging or NEW after 30-minutes of play time, especially when talking about a DIKU, there is no amount of playtime that will ever change what you think in that first 30 minutes. And if the good stuff takes more than 30 minutes to get to, the devs are just being grind-hungry dicks who want me to subscribe for months before I'm given any of the goodie.

Schild's review only lacked an Everquest reference but Camelot will do as well.



In the first 30 minutes of LOTRO I learned that my character would auto attack and I would mash a few hot keys for special attacks and I was destined to work for a shipping company.

good rule


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: CmdrSlack on January 30, 2007, 07:43:55 AM
So yeah, frontpages have always been overrated for community sites.  The real value is in the forums.  Trying to aggregate that value and opinion onto the front page would be a tedious and thankless task.  That's why so many people blog, IMO.

Bring back Arcadian biotch!

Let me tell you about baseball and my quest for hats....

But yeah, his writing style was great, even if people knocked him for some of his subject matter. 


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: HaemishM on January 30, 2007, 09:08:40 AM
In the first 30 minutes of LOTRO I learned that my character would auto attack and I would mash a few hot keys for special attacks and I was destined to work for a shipping company.

good rule

Amazingly enough, I learned that as well. I seem to learn that lesson a lot in MMOG's. In Vanguard, I even had to teach myself that lesson instead of having it taught for me.

Look, I gave everyone a review of Vanguard way back when the closed beta started, before I ever played the damn game. I'll repeat it here for you.

Quote from: Me Being Right
Vanguard sucks monkey balls. It is over polygonated used douche canisters. It is fecal matter given virtual wings. Playing it is the equivalent of hiring a really ugly she-man to come to your house and pound your testicles and other tender bits with a meat mallet. It is a bloated, steaming pile of shaders and bumpmapping loosely draped about the corpse of a dead gameplay design philosophy that's barely able to shamble its zombie-fied remains online.

And you can quote me on that.

So I quoted myself. Then after playing it:

Quote
Like I've said before, the game is EQ1 with a WoW-like quest interface and a shitty, overblown unoptimized graphics engine that chugs even on a top-end machine. If you liked EQ1, you'll be playing the same fucking game. It's 1998 all over again.

That's all the review needed, though if you really want an accurate one, go back to 1998 and read a review of EQ1. It's the same game. It's like an expansion pack where they changed the name of everything and added a new skillset or class and called it a day.

The game is so retro, it's not worth the 5 threads and counting we have on it.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Signe on January 30, 2007, 09:25:43 AM
I agreed with Haemish then and I do now.  Personally, I think Schild's review was spot on.  Maybe a touch too verbose.   :-P  I can't even force myself to agree with the people who say that they released Vanguard too early and that it's needs to cook at least six months longer.  You might be able to fix the bugs and stability, but you can't really fix the fact that the entire concept is based on a "vision" that's old and tired.  I think, however, that as time goes by, you'll see adjustments to the "retro" rubbish to bring it more in line with today's products, if ony to attract more subs.  (which I think they're going to find themselves needing)  BUT... we already have EQ2 which did exactly the same thing, so what's the point?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on January 30, 2007, 10:00:07 AM
BUT... we already have EQ2 which did exactly the same thing, so what's the point?

They're not exactly the same.  Nor is EQ1 exactly the same.  They're VERY CLOSE to those two, but not exactly the same. 

Why comment?  Because every new game brings a small new audience.  An audience willing to listen and perhaps, with new ideas worth considering.  Every game will be someone's first game.  The number of someones varies with each title of course, but it still happens.  Each of these someones also doesn't know the legacy before them.  What's so wrong about wanting to give them a fair and honest evaluation to help get them up to speed... this way they don't have to suffer as we have.  The greatest majority of these someones will read their first few reviews from those "other sites".  We all know that most of those reviews have some agenda attached. 

There is a wealth of knowledge here that could be used to empower consumers.  At least consumers willing to look at things with their eyes open.  I happen to think that educating the consumer is one way to help change the industry, albeit a minor one.   


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: sigil on January 30, 2007, 12:39:39 PM
I feel really, really sorry for someone whose first game is  an MMO.

Especially Vanguard.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Soukyan on January 30, 2007, 12:58:58 PM
I feel really, really sorry for someone whose first game is  an MMO.

Especially Vanguard.

Oh, the irony of the post and the poster's name. Har!


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: jpark on January 30, 2007, 07:44:30 PM
I thought I would have a look at this game - and picked it up today.

The moment I launch the DVD - after the intial intro screen - it crashes.  Set-up.exe problem.

Bah.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on January 31, 2007, 06:02:40 AM
Ok, this has to be a motherfucking first. Vanguard's launch broke EQ2.

Jesus fucking Christ. I could not access any expansions or adventure packs in EQ2 last night. I knew VG would be a nightmare but why the goddamn hell should it spill over?

Talk about fule for the "burn SOE" movement.

Yes, I know half the community is about to type "I told you so."


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Trippy on January 31, 2007, 06:35:09 AM
Ok, this has to be a motherfucking first. Vanguard's launch broke EQ2.

Jesus fucking Christ. I could not access any expansions or adventure packs in EQ2 last night. I knew VG would be a nightmare but why the goddamn hell should it spill over?

Talk about fule for the "burn SOE" movement.

Yes, I know half the community is about to type "I told you so."
Refresh my memory: I recall there was something funky about the way EQ2 handled those things.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on January 31, 2007, 08:00:10 AM
I am on Station Pass so all adventure packs (as long as you were a Station Pass sub when it launched and 100% of the time since) should be available to me. I logged out of EQ2 and tried to log into VG and was told I did not have a valid subscription. Umm, how did I play the previous two days then?

That said, I could not even log into my Station account this morning to post something on the EQ2 tech forums. The log in kept timing out.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Signe on January 31, 2007, 08:06:10 AM
This morning I received this email from SOE:
Quote
Greetings,

By using the auto-unsubscribe URL at the bottom of an email you received, you have been removed from the mailing list for the newsletter or promotional email that you previously requested.


To re-subscribe to this newsletter or promotional mailing list or to otherwise change your mailing list preferences, please go to https://secure.station.sony.com/optin/viewOptins.m to edit your Email Newsletters and choose which emails you would like to receive.


Thank you!

I never did it.  Someone should review their website.  Like them maybe.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: HaemishM on January 31, 2007, 09:02:52 AM
This morning I received this email from SOE:
Quote
Greetings,

By using the auto-unsubscribe URL at the bottom of an email you received, you have been removed from the mailing list for the newsletter or promotional email that you previously requested.


To re-subscribe to this newsletter or promotional mailing list or to otherwise change your mailing list preferences, please go to https://secure.station.sony.com/optin/viewOptins.m to edit your Email Newsletters and choose which emails you would like to receive.


Thank you!

I never did it.  Someone should review their website.  Like them maybe.

Why? They'll just fuck it up more. Like making it release demons from the 5th circle of hell onto anyone using email.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Sky on February 01, 2007, 07:03:40 AM
Hey, don't knock 5th circle of hell, man. We had a drummer from the 5th circle for a while. Sure, he was a cranked-out overweight mexican on a 7-day high, ready to snap at any minute...but that fucker could play the shit out of speed metal.

Drummers...they're a funny bunch.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Krakrok on February 02, 2007, 12:01:23 AM
So yeah, frontpages have always been overrated for community sites.  The real value is in the forums.  Trying to aggregate that value and opinion onto the front page would be a tedious and thankless task.  That's why so many people blog, IMO.

One way to do this would be to make it so posts can be rated. With X number of + ratings or whatever a link to the post shows up on the home page and then gradually slides down and off the bottom as newer posts get rated up.

It might be kind of weird dropping people into the middle of threads from the home page though.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: eldaec on February 03, 2007, 02:18:51 PM
http://www.machinima.com/films.php?id=508


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Samwise on February 03, 2007, 03:05:48 PM
One way to do this would be to make it so posts can be rated. With X number of + ratings or whatever a link to the post shows up on the home page and then gradually slides down and off the bottom as newer posts get rated up.

I do like me some emergence.  Isn't that how Slashdot works, sorta?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Trippy on February 03, 2007, 03:33:00 PM
One way to do this would be to make it so posts can be rated. With X number of + ratings or whatever a link to the post shows up on the home page and then gradually slides down and off the bottom as newer posts get rated up.
I do like me some emergence.  Isn't that how Slashdot works, sorta?
No. Slashdot has a moderation/karma system for rating comments rather than a pure voting system and articles themselves are picked by editors. What Krakrok is proposing is more like Digg.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on February 03, 2007, 04:36:28 PM
I've wanted to make a proper Digg clone just for games since the first time I saw Digg. le sigh.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Sky on February 05, 2007, 06:30:35 AM
Instead of 'digg this' pages could say 'f this!'. I like it.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Slyfeind on February 06, 2007, 09:16:27 PM
How can he do anything like that when he played about 3 minutes?

Personally, I'd love to give every MMO at least 3 minutes of playtime. But there's over 100 of them out there now, and I have to work during the weekdays.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: HaemishM on February 07, 2007, 09:31:18 AM
Most don't deserve 3 minutes.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on February 07, 2007, 10:18:38 AM
The first Vanguard "I quit" rant:

Quote
Cancelled subscription. Deleted character. Good riddance.

1. Worst customer support ever. The first couple of days were execllent. /petition - GM response - problem solved. Wow, thank you. Now I have serious problems and my petition gets deleted and ignored. Eff you.

2. Fansite only developer interaction is the dumbest thing imaginable for an mmo. When all the fan sites look like they were developed by people with extremely minimal web development skill, and the ones that actually do look nice (vanguardspheres.com) are so unorganized and cyptic (normal forum names, please?) I'd rather not waste my time. And in the end, there are simply too many fansites. ..zzZZ

3. Annoying community. People have been rude in other games I have played, which is tolerable and something I can ignore. But vg players... wow. Amazing. You guys are truly unique. Even people in my guild react like fanboy's when I speak of bugs and problems I have. I get responses like "you can play without animations and sound, you don't need them." "If you don't like it, del your toon and cancel your sub." Neat.

4. Boring/pointless PVP. Still no decent reward for PVP because everyone banks their coin. You might catch someone out grinding and they have accumulated a few silver and you net yourself some copper. Not worth my time. I've played free mmorpgs with superior pvp systems (conquer online, namely). Third generation mmo my ass.

5. Balance. The idiots say "you can't balance for pvp and pve at the same time." Hey folks, I'm a software developer. It's pretty simple. Unless you code like a clueless lackey who got his coding skills from a BS in CS, you can keep pve dmg/spells/effects/etc the same and have the dmg/spells/effects/etc -completely- different when targeting a player character. My guess is that this was poorly planned and not implemented from the start. Way to go.

6. Boring (yes, more boredom, this time from the pve side). LFG... hey, lvl 20 rogue LFG... Boss run! Hell, I had a group at a boss -spamming- my ass off for people to come kill it. "LF3M to kill a xxxxx boss! Don't even have to fight to get to him, just join and we will summon you, come for heroic loot." No response. Bunk. Don't tell me to go craft when I can't find a group, I don't want to craft. I'm an adventurer and I make my coin from... adventuring. I also have a life. I want to have fun when I log in, not feel like I'm going to work.

Enough with the points, its time rant (as if I hadn't done enough). Quest rewards. I remember in beta, the quest feedback form. Apparently no one used this except for me. I can do a lvl 12 quest and get 3s and a nice rare item. Or... I can do a lvl 18-20 quest for... 1s! Kill a boss after camping it for 3 hours for a reward of... 1s! OMG, not to mention I spend 4 hours killing mobs to get to the boss that drop... NOTHING! OMG, yes NOTHING! 200 mobs killed, zero drops. Talk about fun.

I'm falling asleep here. Risk vs. Reward is unbelievably junked in this game. I can run to a far off land (mildy amusing, but the fun wears off fast) and solo some quests below my level, but they run out fast. And once that resource is exhausted, its back to going into a dungeon with a group for nothing at all, or to complete a quest with a shit reward. Or, better yet, get crap exp for killing 4 dot mobs 2-3 levels above my own in that dungeon with my group, only to wipe after 3-4 hours and lose more exp than gained in that time. Excellent.

The final word. Why give up? Why not speak up and give my suggestions to help better the game? Uhm, where? What location are the devs actually paying attention to? Its bad enough that I wasted 10 minutes at work to post this on this site... should I now go and spend all the time it takes to register on all the other forums and paste this over and over again? Who is listening? I don't think they are. Even on the official forums in beta, I posted suggestions that got over a thousand positive replies from players backing up my suggestion, with zero response from anyone from sigil.

Hey sigil, thank you though, for making me giggle the first time I cut down a tree. That was neat. Thank you for making me spend $1,200 on upgrades (can't really call them upgrades, I basically built an entirely new system) to play the game that still only gets mediocre performance. This will come in handy when I go play some other game by some other company. My machine really does rock now. I appreciate it. Thank you for taking away my will to even log into the game and spend more time with my gf, I know she appreciates it.

You know, honestly, I told myself: This game is good enough that I can live through the bugs. I can stick it out, get that head-start by being in pre-release and be ahead of the pack when the game finally blows up. I told myself I could play yet another stupid game with the same unimaginative Orcs/Elves/Goblins/Hybrid-Humanoid fantasy setting... come on, you guys are worse than the Lucas universe where 90% of all alien life is nothing more than humanoids with strange heads placed upon them. Negative. Give me a break. Better yet, give me some originality. Add in all the broken skills, broken and boring quests, missing inventory items, missing experience, missing mail, poor balance and you have one very unsatisfied gamer. The list goes on far longer than I have patience to explain.

Peace out. Have fun. I'm going to go play medieval total war 2 until another decent mmorpg comes out. Or maybe UFO: Extraterrestrials (the closest thing to a true sequal to the greatest TBS game of all time, X-COM: UFO Defense, hope it doesn't suck).
http://forums.tentonhammer.com/showthread.php?p=57239#post57239 (http://forums.tentonhammer.com/showthread.php?p=57239#post57239)


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on February 07, 2007, 10:33:19 AM
Technically speaking, my comic was the first "I quit" rant.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Miasma on February 07, 2007, 10:44:16 AM
That was funny.  He was in the beta so he knew about every single problem he listed but still went out and bought the game, then he also spent $1,200 on upgrades for his machine and only now does he realize he doesn't like it...

I'm always suspicious of people who complain about petitions too, I get the feeling they create about a dozen a day and that they are mostly issues related to user error/ignorance.  In all the MMO's I've played I can count on my fingers how many petitions I've had to create.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on February 07, 2007, 12:14:55 PM
I lasted a week before I got bored.  I'm not surprised and I don't feel a need to rant about it.  It held my interest long enough to be worth the box price.






Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Rasix on February 07, 2007, 12:21:57 PM
I lasted a week before I got bored.  I'm not surprised and I don't feel a need to rant about it.  It held my interest long enough to be worth the box price.

I can't remember the last MMO I actually bought and played for less than the entire free month. I'd feel ripped if I only got a week out of it.

Too each their own.  Just seems like a rather poor return on investment.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Sairon on February 07, 2007, 12:28:38 PM
Quote
Natural selection. Those with lower tolerances for pain will weed themselves out early on.

I think MMOs are unique in the entire industry of entertainment in the regard that they can have consumers say things like when being positive about your product.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on February 07, 2007, 12:44:10 PM
I can't remember the last MMO I actually bought and played for less than the entire free month. I'd feel ripped if I only got a week out of it.

Too each their own.  Just seems like a rather poor return on investment.

Trying things for myself often results in a significant cost without a lot of return.  I guess I just consider that the price of an education (of sorts).  I've spent a lot more on bottles of wine that didn't do anything for me.  Figure that's the price to form my own opinion. 

It would have been cheaper had I gotten into the beta, but I'm hardly the target demographic.  (I did apply for the beta long ago btw)


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Strazos on February 07, 2007, 10:17:39 PM
I think he was really spot-on in his rant, Especially with regards to PvP balance. Seriously, how hard it is to write code for an attack to differentiate between Mob or PC, and apply the appropriate damage tables?

The only game I can think of that tried this method is CoX. Why haven't more people tried? Is an IF THEN ELSE statement hard?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Margalis on February 08, 2007, 12:22:22 AM
What is so odd is that people don't consider this sort of thing up front. Talk about not learning from the past.

Roots, sleeps, two hit kills - fun against mobs, not so fun against humans.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on February 08, 2007, 07:44:16 AM
I had a wake-up call last night. I have played VG exclusively for the last two weeks during my usual gaming time (rarely more than 10 hours a week.) Last night, I fired it up again, but all the servers were down. So, back to EQ2 where I have one character, a 65 berserker, that I started at launch. I played for 90 minutes. I saw two new zones (both much more interesting visually than anything yet experienced in VG), dinged 2 AAs and made level 66 from 75% into 65. It has taken me probably 15 hours of play to go from 1-10 in VG.

What the hell was I thinking?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Rithrin on February 08, 2007, 08:25:19 AM
I think he was really spot-on in his rant, Especially with regards to PvP balance. Seriously, how hard it is to write code for an attack to differentiate between Mob or PC, and apply the appropriate damage tables?

The only game I can think of that tried this method is CoX. Why haven't more people tried? Is an IF THEN ELSE statement hard?

Actually, spells in VG do less damage against players. I have one spell that is supposed to do a minimum of 400 dmg or so, and it rarely breaches 200 against players.

The flaw in this method is that there is no way to differentiate the values of healing spells between PvP and PvE. How does a spell know if its healing damage dealt by a player instead of a mob? Which leads to healers being able to spent 20% mana to stay alive while multiple players expend their entire pool in a futile attempt to kill them.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Tmon on February 11, 2007, 03:23:16 PM
Heck just have two damage pools, one for pvp one for pve.   Then you could have a damage spell do 200  damage when cast at a mob and 100 damage when cast at a player.  Heal spells would heal both pools at the same time but would heal 200 points against the pve pool and only 100  in the pvp pool.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Murgos on February 12, 2007, 05:34:12 AM
HAY GUYS!  I gots an ideas.  Why not make mobs and players have equivalent hit points and attack ability at a given level and then you don't have to dork around with pvp/pve damage tables.

OH NOS!  You men players will be fighting mobs higher level then themselves when in a groups!!!  How can this be?  Dev Rule #1 "Make player feel inferior" must be obeyed!!!


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Sky on February 12, 2007, 06:15:08 AM
Murgos, that breaks rule #1 of mmo: start relatively powerful (rat pwner), end incredibly gimpy (raid peon).

Friggin mmo. You guys crack me up.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on February 13, 2007, 11:11:37 AM
Newest wrinkle: Sigil has banned a bunch of people for having too much money. Brad always said he wanted to fight RMT, but is this the best way to do it this early in the game?

http://forums.station.sony.com/vg/posts/list.m?topic_id=2815

http://forums.tentonhammer.com/showthread.php?t=7708

There are reports of RMT email spam and /tells in game but I haven't seen them myself yet.

To put the amounts in perspective, the nicest housing plots are 50g, I believe, so if some players already have 20g you can see how Sigil might be alarmed.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Miasma on February 13, 2007, 12:28:34 PM
I sure as hell hope they have more evidence than just the amount of gold on the characters, something like logs of large amounts of coin being traded between people who have never met before.  The hard-core crafter community who earned all that money is one of the last communities you would want to piss off en masse.

I've stopped playing, turns out I did only like it because of my guild.  But they were on the PvP server and I just can't stand PvP, I don't like getting killed while crafting and I take no joy in kills I make, lose-lose.  After I had some fun burning through a half dozen of the newbie areas on a PvE server I quit because I had to spend an hour grinding out the last bit of level six on my gnome due to lack of quests.  The future was no brighter.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: HaemishM on February 14, 2007, 09:57:41 AM
Since coin-banking only recently was added, and you could lose every cent you had on a PVP server, I can see many people emailing themselves all their money on a level 1 alt. That should be obvious to anyone who has paid attention to the community in the game.

Oh wait, this is McQuaid. The community doesn't exist.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on February 15, 2007, 02:11:02 PM
Brad posted

Quote
I can't get into specifics, but we are well over 100,000 and growing steadily every day.

in thread at Ten Ton Hammer that was speculating about sales/subscribers. What the "100,000" actually is remains unclear and we will likely never know given SOE's tight lips.



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Engels on February 21, 2007, 10:10:08 AM
I have this image of Brad behind an executive desk with a huge WW2 poster stating "Loose Lips Sink Ships MMOs"


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: shiznitz on February 21, 2007, 12:26:16 PM
Brad posted

Quote
I can't get into specifics, but we are well over 100,000 and growing steadily every day.

in thread at Ten Ton Hammer that was speculating about sales/subscribers. What the "100,000" actually is remains unclear and we will likely never know given SOE's tight lips.

Clarifying, the 100,000 is box sales/digital downloads according to Nino on the FoH forums. I am link lazy, sorry.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on February 21, 2007, 01:32:39 PM
I have this image of Brad behind an executive desk with a huge WW2 poster stating "Loose Lips Sink Ships MMOs"

The sign I see is more like:

"MMOG's: When one full-time job isn't enough."


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on February 21, 2007, 01:45:18 PM
Funny, because these are what he actually has on his wall:

(http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/persistence.jpg)

(http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/mistakes.jpg)



Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: schild on February 21, 2007, 01:52:39 PM
These can be seen in various cubicles around the office.

(http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/leaders.jpg)

(http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/irresponsibility.jpg)

(http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/ineptitude.jpg)

(http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/ignorance.jpg)

(http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/gettowork.jpg)


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Sky on February 21, 2007, 01:57:10 PM
The one at my desk:

(http://usera.imagecave.com/edwardsrf/compromise.jpg)


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Margalis on February 21, 2007, 10:58:27 PM
Interesting that nearly all the people on this board that liked Vanguard have now either already quit or cooled to it. If what we are seeing here is any indication those 100k box sales are going to end up as 30k subs...

People realize that potential doesn't mean squat in the present tense.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Engels on February 22, 2007, 12:04:24 AM
I was luke warm to it, but am still playing, mostly because the girlfriend, of all people, really is enjoying it. I'm mostly in it for the crafting. They did do a nice job on various weapon types and styles, with different types per ore level. It is grindy tho. Not quite mind crushing at my level, but if EQ's anything to go buy, what I call a grind at level 18 smith will look like a skip and a hop by level 40-50.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Surlyboi on February 23, 2007, 09:39:38 PM


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Rithrin on February 24, 2007, 06:50:30 AM
Although a lot of people have probably already up and quit, the last patch seems to have a lot of people happy. Less memory leak, the client runs better, FPS is higher, and XP is a good amount faster. In fact, it got me to give it another try over the weekend. If the patches continue like this, it'll help. Whether or not its too late is another issue.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Nebu on February 24, 2007, 03:25:31 PM
I can hardly wait until there are lots of level 45+ people all clammoring to get into the same 5 dungeons.  Won't that be fun?!?


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Trippy on February 24, 2007, 06:22:26 PM
camp check!


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Sky on February 26, 2007, 06:40:34 AM
I like when people up and quit. So much better than just quitting. I knew a guy once who down and quit. Never heard from him again. Sometimes I just up, but don't quit.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: Xanthippe on March 05, 2007, 09:11:33 AM
Coming to the thread late, only read first and last pages.

Brilliant review.  Told me everything I need to know without wasting my time. 

Thank you.


Title: Re: I See What You Did There. A Vanguard Review.
Post by: jpark on March 05, 2007, 10:48:07 AM
Well I still can't load this game.

After reviewing subsequent posts in this thread - I think I will dump it my garbage and consider this the moment I save myself opportunity cost by "playing" this crap.