SOE to Publish Vanguard

[Endie]

The two of you are adorable because you still have hope.   

What's with the "still"?  I have, until the last couple of days, had not even a mild interest in trying this game out.  It seemed antithetical to every reason I play games.  Now I am vaguely interested in giving it a whirl.  Partly to see how they get on with their "balance pass" (reference to SWG intentional) and partly because it seems to have some fun ideas.  "Fun".  That's why I play games.  I have played some very unbalanced and buggy but perfectly fun games.  First sign of catassery being demanded of me, the fun excuse goes.

[Nebu]

I'll play Vanguard at release for the same reason that I played AC2 and Horizons, morbid curiosity.  It will be interesting to see what the playerbase is like if nothing else.  It can't possibly be worse than WoW's general chat channel... or can it?

[McCow]

I'll play Vanguard at release for the same reason that I played AC2 and Horizons, morbid curiosity.  It will be interesting to see what the playerbase is like if nothing else.  It can't possibly be worse than WoW's general chat channel... or can it?

[Signe]

The two of you are adorable because you still have hope.   

What's with the "still"?  I have, until the last couple of days, had not even a mild interest in trying this game out.  It seemed antithetical to every reason I play games.  Now I am vaguely interested in giving it a whirl.  Partly to see how they get on with their "balance pass" (reference to SWG intentional) and partly because it seems to have some fun ideas.  "Fun".  That's why I play games.  I have played some very unbalanced and buggy but perfectly fun games.  First sign of catassery being demanded of me, the fun excuse goes.

So which part do you want me to take back?  The adorable... or the hope?   

[Endie]

The two of you are adorable because you still have hope.   

What's with the "still"?  I have, until the last couple of days, had not even a mild interest in trying this game out.  It seemed antithetical to every reason I play games.  Now I am vaguely interested in giving it a whirl.  Partly to see how they get on with their "balance pass" (reference to SWG intentional) and partly because it seems to have some fun ideas.  "Fun".  That's why I play games.  I have played some very unbalanced and buggy but perfectly fun games.  First sign of catassery being demanded of me, the fun excuse goes.

So which part do you want me to take back?  The adorable... or the hope?   

Touché.

[Trippy]

Still, what is now clear to me is that no matter how much work and passion they put into it... the whole project is too freckling ambitious. I don't know if it's too ambitious for their pocket, for their talent, for their brains or just for the release date they set up, but to be as nicer as I can here, I foresee a re-enactment of the EQ2 launch: a game that could have been an uberdiku but instead took 2 years to actually reach the point that deserved to be called "release".

Yes the whole thing sounds very much like EQ2 with a bazillion features all implemented in a half-ass fashion. This one especially gave me a chuckle:

• A more in depth character customization system that is unique to Vanguard will be implemented shortly after launch. We chose to push this post ship because we want to give it the attention it deserves.

Here's a novel idea, why not give it the attention it deserves now?

[SnakeCharmer]

From a completely outsiders point of view who has been following the game with about as much interest as I have with the jam between toes, why does it seem like this game will be the second coming of Dark and Light?

[Tale]

Because you're only reading about it on F13.net?

I can see it going badly, but nowhere near as badly as D&L. Two different things.

[Signe]

No, it won't go badly like DnL or Mourning.  In fact, it might not go too badly at all.  It's a big name making it, published by another big name, and it's well made by competent people who have all done this before.  DnL had a couple of talented people but that's about it.  Mourning seems to have had nothing.  Vanguard will look good, it'll probably work well and it'll contain all the features that make up a big name MMO.  It'll also have a lot of the features that people enjoyed with EQ and EQ2.  One of them being a really large number of races to choose from.  It will also have decent crafting.  I would expect it to do at least as well as EQ2, maybe better.  I'm sure it won't be a total failure like DnL.  What a sad little game that turned out to be.

[Slyfeind]

Whenever there's a bit of downtime while raiding in WoW, my thoughts go to EQ as I wonder, "So this is something like the high levels of EQ." And I contemplate going back there, just for the more content. All my friends, who've been there and done that, tell me not to go. I heed their advice.

Vanguard is for people like me, who want more content. It's also for people who don't know better. I'm sure it'll do okay.

And McCow's avatar rox. MOO COW YAY YAY!

[geldonyetich]

No, it won't go badly like DnL or Mourning.  In fact, it might not go too badly at all.  It's a big name making it, published by another big name, and it's well made by competent people who have all done this before.

This still leaves some unfortunate possibilities.

Vanguard's feature list sounds promising, and the people who cannot seem to contain their usually have good things to say about it, but I'm not counting it a success until it happens.

[caladein]

It's a big name making it, published by another big name, and it's well made by competent people who have all done this before.

I'm not really sure about their competency, on either the technical or design sides. The rest is relatively true though :P.

[Venkman]

The success of Vanguard is linked to managed expectations. It's not about the star power of "from the makers of EQ" though. That mattered two years ago. It's about whether the game can stand up on its own. I don't have the time to check it out, so you're all a better judge of that.

I'll say this though: if it's only as good as EQ2 was at launch, then it's not going to go well for them. They may not get the two years to fix it. But that depends on how much money can be shaved from All Access Passes to go to VG...

[Murgos]

The success of Vanguard is linked to managed expectations.

Funny, I thought the one thing they had done was manage expectations right into their own irrelevance?  Unless you think catering to masochists is really a viable business model...

[Venkman]

I meant the managed expectations of SOE and Microsoft. The "success" of VG is based on their expectations, that being how many boxes they expect to sell, how many they expect to turn into accounts (never 100%) and how many they expect to maintain those accounts after 30 days (never 100%).

[pants]

I'm part of a guild that formed in EQ1, moved to WoW, and is currently having we-are-bored-with-wow-cant-wait-for-vanguard-to-come-out step.  Its interesting chatting to the guys who are hanging out for VG - while we were all uni students with plenty of spare time when we could catass in EQ1, these days most of us are married with kids and don't have nearly the spare time we used to.  I keep telling em that VG isn't going to be nearly as good as what they expect, due to the lack of spare time they used to have, and the fact that they can never have the 'good old days' of EQ back - you only ever lose your virginity once.

However they raise one good point.  I barely know a lot of my new guildmates in WoW, because there is little time to sit around shooting the breeze.  When you are fighting in wow, you are pressing hotkeys, spamming attacks, running around etc.  This is good in that it creates a dynamic game - however it leaves little time for actually chatting with each other - the social side of a mmorpg.  While it sucked saying 'mana break - 2 mins til I med up' - it did mean you could then chat about life n stuff.  They are looking forward to being able to chat and form communities again etc.

I'm honestly not sure if its a valid point, or if they are rose-coloured-glassing things.  Its true, I do spend little time chatting when in a group.  Saying 'Hang out in Org chatting' doesn't really cut it - most people like to be doing stuff when theyre online.  Is there value in having a game where fights are slower, but maybe yuo get more bang for your buck per fight?  Will VG even do this?  Honestly dont know - just thought it was an interesting point I haven't heard raised before.

[Venkman]

That's been Raph's point for years: that you need to program in downtime to foster social interaction.

Interaction happens regardless of system in my opinion. You might chat more with people in a game with more downtime, but that game is going to have less cumulative people to chat with at all :)

Seriously, some would rather have a game populated by folks with similar preferences than take a chance with the masses in the hopes of eventually finding some folks they are compatible with.

[El Gallo]

However they raise one good point.  I barely know a lot of my new guildmates in WoW, because there is little time to sit around shooting the breeze.  When you are fighting in wow, you are pressing hotkeys, spamming attacks, running around etc.  This is good in that it creates a dynamic game - however it leaves little time for actually chatting with each other - the social side of a mmorpg.  While it sucked saying 'mana break - 2 mins til I med up' - it did mean you could then chat about life n stuff.  They are looking forward to being able to chat and form communities again etc.

I'm honestly not sure if its a valid point, or if they are rose-coloured-glassing things.  Its true, I do spend little time chatting when in a group.  Saying 'Hang out in Org chatting' doesn't really cut it - most people like to be doing stuff when theyre online.  Is there value in having a game where fights are slower, but maybe yuo get more bang for your buck per fight?  Will VG even do this?  Honestly dont know - just thought it was an interesting point I haven't heard raised before.

Exactly right.  EQ1 was a virtual chatroom or, more precisely, a virtual fishing expedition.  It was all and only about sitting around doing basically nothing; the game was an excuse to socialize and little else.  WoW is a multiplayer video game.  The two should not be confused.  According to McQuaid (this was about ten or so visions ago of VG, wo who knows wtf he is trying to do now) VG was supposed to be attention-intensive like WoW but as social as EQ, which is a recipe for utter failure.  Now, if he has changed course and is heading back to the "stand-around-and-chat-
because-all-you-need-to-do-is-hit-"2"-once-every-45-seconds-to-win-any-encounter" EQ1 model, he may have a successful game on his hands -- if enough people will still play a game like that long enough to get hooked on the socialization with real (i.e. not UO) other options.

[geldonyetich]

That's been Raph's point for years: that you need to program in downtime to foster social interaction.

Interaction happens regardless of system in my opinion. You might chat more with people in a game with more downtime, but that game is going to have less cumulative people to chat with at all :)

Seriously, some would rather have a game populated by folks with similar preferences than take a chance with the masses in the hopes of eventually finding some folks they are compatible with.

Good points here.

I agree with DQ that downtime isn't the only way to get players to socialize, as any social activity should achieve much the same affect, at least so long as you allow players the time to communicate (typing time if by keyboard, for example).  You don't get very high quality social interaction in a soloer's game, although I hestitate to say one gets none at all.  MMORPGs are rife with congregation areas that have no valid game function tied for them, the bars and taverns, and these will be vacant of players for the vast majority of the time.  Then there's Second Life which is functionally one big social congregation with the only game function being those the players invent... it doesn't seem to have bombed, no, not at all.

To an extent, I think that a kind of game determines the types of players likely to be playing them.  After the initial curiosity phase that is - that being the one where they are finding out what the game is versus what it says on the box.  So it's understandable that social areas would be barren in EverQuest where players are primarily interested in playing a game versus where Second Life's players do nothing but socialize because that's all they're interested in.  (That and oddball cybersex, apparently.)  It's a simple principle really: Build it and they will come and define your niche for you.  If you make socializing the name of the game, you'll attract social players.

An interesting, perhaps heavily debatable, aspect is that I believe games are capable of subtly retraining people's preferences. I'll use the classic example: How many people in the early Ultima Online apocolypse started off as griefing whores?  Probably not that many, but once the curiosity phase wore off and players found the game somewhat lacking, griefing caught on like wildfire.  I think that these days there exist griefers who probably have their experiences in early UO to thank for their preferences.

[hal]

Its all interesting. I have been playing COX for a bit and the groups at low level are better than wow. At lowish (12 or so) are much better than wow. I understand that children are much more social (herd) than adults and wow is the equivalent of pop music. I feel that I enjoy games based on community if the core game is workable. There is allmost no conversion in COX as its a very fast paced game. A little chatter in between missions about what are we going to do next. So how? I ASK MYSELF DO i judge that the community is better? I don't know, I feel like the judge that defined pornography "i know it when I see it"

[Sky]

• A more in depth character customization system that is unique to Vanguard will be implemented shortly after launch. We chose to push this post ship because we want to give it the attention it deserves.

Here's a novel idea, why not give it the attention it deserves now?

Yeah...that's a doozy. How about a counter: When (if) it ever gets implemented, I'll give Vanguard the attention it won't deserve until then.

That's been Raph's point for years: that you need to program in downtime to foster social interaction.

Forcing people trying to play a game to not play so they'll talk to each other is the kind of stupid ideas that have given us the mmorpg 'genre'. Meanwhile, Raph's work on UO gave us the best (most 'meaningful' if you must) social interaction yet seen in the mmo space (though I'm way out of touch with mmo and Second Life is probably more socially interactive these days, I admit).

Put in loads of avatar customization, lots of private customizable space, minigames, etc. That's how you foster social interaction. Being able to set up a tavern in the woods, brew your own beer, cook your own steaks, set up chess tables, etc, so the local player associations could relax between their own roleplaying events...that was something that kind of died with the advent of EQ. I'm glad I have my time out at Serpent's Cross Tavern on the UO Atlantic shard to remember, because it's not really a viable option anymore. Hell, I'm past the point in my own life where I'd enjoy it.

Now it's all about 'xp' and 'phat lewtz' and 'raids' and people wonder why there's not enough socialization? Stop making games designed for achievers, numbnuts.

[McCow]

That's been Raph's point for years: that you need to program in downtime to foster social interaction.

Forcing people trying to play a game to not play so they'll talk to each other is the kind of stupid ideas that have given us the mmorpg 'genre'. Meanwhile, Raph's work on UO gave us the best (most 'meaningful' if you must) social interaction yet seen in the mmo space (though I'm way out of touch with mmo and Second Life is probably more socially interactive these days, I admit).

Put in loads of avatar customization, lots of private customizable space, minigames, etc. That's how you foster social interaction. Being able to set up a tavern in the woods, brew your own beer, cook your own steaks, set up chess tables, etc, so the local player associations could relax between their own roleplaying events...that was something that kind of died with the advent of EQ. I'm glad I have my time out at Serpent's Cross Tavern on the UO Atlantic shard to remember, because it's not really a viable option anymore. Hell, I'm past the point in my own life where I'd enjoy it.

Now it's all about 'xp' and 'phat lewtz' and 'raids' and people wonder why there's not enough socialization? Stop making games designed for achievers, numbnuts.

For me the GAME is my downtime so I tend to want stuff to do within a short period of time..  Programmed downtime along the lines of "catass in a tavarn with this beer while you heal" results in me un-subscribing and using that money on real beer. 

I'm not sold on the fact that a developer should look at social interaction as something to program in.  Either your game has it or it doesn't.   I think the time would be better served looking at tools to make communication amongst the players more fluid and for a GOOD method of differentiating yourself among the masses.   I'm of the opinion that people will build social networks on their own as long as the game presents an appropriate challenge or space and has the appropriate means for people to communicate. 

Let's take WoW for example; it is *ESPECIALLY* terrible for most of the leveling game as most challenges are beatable solo.  Even if you did want to find some help with a tougher area, they didn't really provide a good mechanism for grouping. The method of finding a group at 60 presents the same problems as you don't really have any other method in game other than /LFG (or the laughable meeting stones).   As for social interaction, I'm not sure Ironforge would have not been better if you could craft your own beer or had to rest in the comfort of some NE dancer.   

For most of the current (achiever) MMO's on the market, you really need communicate out of band in order to experience community.   I've had more social interaction using out of band communication (Vent, TS, Forums) with friends than I ever have had in /localchat or an in game mail.  The MMO's just provide the excuse to talk.   You might have to take a look at a non-diku based game for better examples of communication methods.  Maybe someone can fill me in on how EVE works.  (From what I understand you group up to gain access to certain zones/protection from competing corps and they provide you with game mail and a web-browser that is usable while your ship flies itself/mines rocks).

And McCow's avatar rox. MOO COW YAY YAY!

Muu~

[HaemishM]

Guys, in one of those quotes, Brad told you EXACTLY what game he is making. He said he is making a prettier EQ1 for people who liked EQ1.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PLAY A PRETTIER EQ1? If so, you deserve what you get.

[Azazel]

I'm already doing that. It's called World of Warcraft.

[Morfiend]

I'm already doing that. It's called World of Warcraft.

Minus a shitload of annoying stuff. Like horrible corpse runs, and forced downtime, and spawn camping.

[HaemishM]

I'm already doing that. It's called World of Warcraft.

No, you are playing EQ1 without the more obvious bits of soul-crushing stupid. Vanguard IS EQ1. There's no disguising it, for anyone who knows enough. Oh sure, it may have some added bits, some shinier graphics, the names may be different. But it is fundamentally the same goddamn game with just about all of the annoying, soul-crushing stupid as a feature.

[Venkman]

I'm not sold on the fact that a developer should look at social interaction as something to program in.  Either your game has it or it doesn't

Counter to Sky's point, that's not what I was saying. The bad thing to do is to program in social interaction. What you get is SWG's Battle Fatigue. In that system, you gained this by hunting and it could only be cured by going to a tavern and watching a player Entertainer, who was most likely AFK because that system was boring except for a very few amount of players.

That was effectively the worst version of "forced grouping", itself a concept I'm glad has gone away. It's long been obvious that most players would rather have the opportunity to group than be forced to. They'll accept it occasionally, but not en masse. It's not the time requirement that keeps people from Raiding. It's the fact that they need to have 39 other people they at least partially trust in order to do so. I don't care how many people are at level 60 in WoW. Far less than 15% of them are Raiding I am quite sure. It's Forced Grouping ++.

What you do program in is the tools for socializing, and then you let the players decide when and how. Global chat channels, integrated voice chat, auction houses, crafting centers, worlds designed to funnel players into activity areas, that sort of thing.

Coincidentally, I just blogged about this, the fact that this genre has grown considerably not because of the players who've migrated from UO to SWG to Second Life seeking a virtual lifestyle. It's because the genre opened itself to gamers. Gamers socialize when they want to, but they're here to play a game.

[geldonyetich]

I'd be okay with EQ1, if they spiced up the gameplay a bit from the old 1999 standards.  It was, I don't know: more worldly, less gamey.  It felt like it mattered more in that game than a simple game.  So, along these levels, I can sympathyse with the Vanguard Fanbois who are afraid it's turning into WoW with the addition of dangerous things like maps and less downtime.  *Shudder!*  But seriously, if Vanguard bores me it'll bore me, worldly or not.

[Sky]

Did you just say EQ1 was worldy and not gamey? Now I might be calling you Captain Shoelaces :P

UO was wordly. EQ1 was gamey. UO you set up player communities and baked bread. EQ1 you camped mobs for xp and lewtz.

EQ killed mmo.

[HaemishM]

I think what he means is EQ1 had a deep world with lots of history written. It was ignored by most of the player base, especially when planar loot and dragons became well-publicized, but it was there.

[Sky]

Yeah, I'll give ya that one. I actually liked EQ despite it's flaws in the early days. What actually killed it for me was the other players (surprise). I was in the upper crust (heh) of players when the game was released (beta exp + unemployment ftw) and when we got into Cazic and that rubicite shit started going down it got ugly and never got pretty again imo. Greed and selfishness are the flavors of mmo in my experience.

I would still like to see a decent analogue to Guk. There might be one in EQ2, I know I was pretty deep into Stormhold before something saw through my invis and I died in a split second. But EQ2 is not for people like me (solo). I've resigned myself to it, but like the 2k football, it's a sandy vaginal issue.

[Nija]

I think what he means is EQ1 had a deep world with lots of history written. It was ignored by most of the player base, especially when planar loot and dragons became well-publicized, but it was there.

Right, but he's just recreating all the bad stuff as well. Take this scenario.

You're wandering around outside the 2nd city you come upon as a newbie. You're in a desert. You see these .. big matches sticking up in the desert, a ways off. You go towards these gigantic matches for about 30 seconds before some other stuff dynamically loads and you realize those are tent stakes, and now the canvas stuff has actually loaded and you can see that. Also you see some pillars, and some cages now. You get a bit closer, about 50 yards away and some flames pop into being on top of the pillars, and tent flaps appear on the tents, some shrubs, that sort of thing. You approach further, 20 yards now, and some NPCs finally pop into place - some of them with "Guard" above their heads, some with "Prisoner", and yet a few more with "Political Prisoner" above their heads. None of them are moving. You walk up to the guards and they don't acknowledge you. They don't start a conversation with you, they don't tell you to get lost, they don't even respond to your conversation attempts.

Trying to get your attention you walk past the guards and into the cage area where there are half a dozen prisoners. You can walk right into the prison camp and jump around the prisoners, doing your own thing with no attention from the guards, and no attention from the prisoners. None of them move.

This is a game slated as a NEXT GENERATION game that comes out in 2007.

(I know this is a tiny specific example and it's BETA BETA BETA OMG SUPER CLIENT IS GOING TO COME OUT AND FIX ALL THE PROBLEMS AI IS DISABLED IT'S LAGGY BECAUSE THEY ARE DEBUGGING. Watch it not change. I've seen it all before, from M59 beta onward.)

If this is the kind of DEEP, MEANINGFUL GAMEPLAY that I missed by calling EQ shit in phase 3 beta and skipping release, then boy am I glad I didn't waste my time with that one.

[HaemishM]

Yeah, that pretty much illustrates it.

[geldonyetich]

My point about EQ1 was indeed somewhat lore-based, basically I'm saying the game felt immersive and worldly from the inside.  The game was just a game, though, and of course Ultima Online was much more the virtual world.  I was comparing EQ1 to most of its clones, not UO.  Still, maybe this is just nostalgia talking.  FFXI, if you can get past the jpop aspects, managed to do worldly better than EQ1.

[Venkman]

When the world aspects matter to the game portion, then the lore becomes something to design for. Right now, it's just backdrop, something to care about between pulls, and therefore of very narrow interest. Like those books in WoW you can read that contain snippets of the overall WoW lore. Who actually reads them all? They're quest text without objectives.

For the time invested into being logged in, that's arguably "wasting" it. It's not because people don't care about lore or immersion. It's because they want to spend time being engaged by the game.

VG, whatever. "Worldy" games won't drag in the critical mass of players until they have WoW/GW-level of game polish within them. Games within more worldy experiences can work. It's just that nobody's got the money to do it that way, based on how much it costs just to do game right.