SOE to Publish Vanguard

[Endie]

...You know, the quirky differences between British and American usage and diction? General vocabulary falls under that scope as well, not just spelling and stylistic construction.

Words like "contumely", for example. Or "lorry". "Carriageway". "Knickers". "Pullover". "Plimsolls".

This may come as a shock to you, but very few in America would use any of those words. Even in educated circles. They're fucking whacky (btw, do you guys use the word "whacky"  ).

Secondly, I didn't say that I've never come across the word "fortnight". I'm just talking about common 20th/21st century usage. <snip>

The list of words you use is pretty much loaded with archaisms in non-US English, too.  More fun examples would be rubber (to us, an eraser), smoking fags (cigarettes) and gay (American sports).  We would use wacky, but usually ironically and with very audible scare quotes, and when written we drop the "h" in modern usage.

I hope you don't think that Vanguard will have easy mode English-usage.

[stray]

I hope you don't think that Vanguard will have easy mode English-usage.

Is that what this is about? Shit man. I have no problem seeing the word in fantasy or some period piece. Or possibly, an Ab Fab episode. I made a simple comment about Anglicisms, and you read all that into it?

To be honest, I had no idea this was about how Vanguard would present it's quest text. I had no idea this thread wasn't even about Vanguard. I just thought the conversation had shifted to a simple discussion about the word "fortnight".

[edit] Also, you're beating me while I'm already down. I corrected myself on the "h".

[Endie]

I hope you don't think that Vanguard will have easy mode English-usage.

Is that what this is about? Shit man. I have no problem seeing the word in fantasy or some period piece. Or possibly, an Ab Fab episode. I made a simple comment about Anglicisms, and you read all that into it?

To be honest, I had no idea this was about how Vanguard would present it's quest text. I had no idea this thread wasn't even about Vanguard. I just thought the conversation had shifted to a simple discussion about the word "fortnight".

[edit] Also, you're beating me while I'm already down. I corrected myself on the "h".

I threw in the Vanguard bit (which is a reference to the quote "I hope you don't think Vanguard will have easy-mode travel" that was cross-posted from their boards to here somewhere earlier in the thread, I think during the baiting episode) merely to try and pretend I wasn't being massively tangential.  The rest of it was just because I like words. Not arguing in the least.

And "whacky" and "wacky" were once interchangeable in usage.  I wasn't even arguing with you about that, just discussing what you mentioned.

[stray]

Ah. Sorry. Good, I don't want to argue with you anyhow.

Besides, I'm the only person at this site who's ever had a Kevin Shields avatar. And....I praised you last week for using Stalin as a derisive term. We should be friends. :)

[Endie]

I'm feeling a lot of love in the room right now. 

[Signe]

What a roller coaster ride!  I laughed!  I cried!  I vomited a little.

[Venkman]

You people will argue about anything.

The only time I've ever heard the term used was in RP environments. Otherwise, people just say "two weeks". There's a reason for this. Because everyone over the age of 6 knows what that means.

We don't need a national poll to compare that to the number of people who'll know what a fortnight is without looking it up.

[Simond]

The only time I've ever heard the term used was in RP environments. Otherwise, people just say "two weeks".

Which people?

We don't need a national poll to compare that to the number of people who'll know what a fortnight is without looking it up.

Which nation?

;)

[Venkman]

Heh. People in various industries and walks of life in the U.S, over the last 20 or so years. I don't attribute the lack of the use of "fortnight" to any national substandard literary level. Language is fluid. Words are added and dropped from vernacular all the time.

[Hutch]

New Vanguard Interview

I found this linked from EvilAvatar.

First screamer:

Vanguard screams for a native 64 bit client at some point because of its seamless world. When the time comes for a 64 bit client, when graphics cards are even more powerful but also cheaper, when RAM prices go down, etc. we will be able to access more than 2 gigs with a 64 bit client and then load up a huge amount of the world at one time. Right now you can see 4+ km in the game -- which creates views and an immersiveness that MMOG gamers love. With a 64bit client and a lot of RAM, we will be able to load up much more of the world at one time and the way we have architected the engine ahead of time, knowing where technology, operating systems, etc. are going to go in the future, it will be very easy to create vistas in the game (pardon the pun) where you could see 10, 15, maybe even more km.

This is, essentially, McQuaid admitting that the game will require hardware from TEH FUTAR to have acceptable framerate and look good at the same time.

[Miasma]

Have they even managed to get it to work in Vista yet, let alone the 64bit version of Vista?

[HaemishM]

Yeah, that approach of building for future theoretical hardware worked so well for EQ2.

Asstardic noogiemonkey.

[Venkman]

"Because of its seamless world"

So they're pushing into as-yet-not-invented tech for a feature nobody's even asking for anymore...

All kidding aside, I can see where they want teh pretty. But it is the same problem EQ2 had, an arbitrary limitation for a game already without huge mass appeal.

[Sky]

Didn't Asheron's Call feature a seamless world? At least in the sense Brad means it, I remember zoning into dungeons.

[Venkman]

I specifically meant players asking for this feature. As in, they're not really anymore :)

But yes, a few games at seamless worlds except dungeons/adventure-instances:

UO, AC1, DAoC, AC2, SB, WoW

[UnSub]

Vangard apparently wants your PC hardware to grind as much as you do in-game.

[Sunbury]

A mostly seamless world is an absolute requirement for me to buy a MMORPG.  I don't mind zoning into dungeons, but I don't like zoning between zones, and I *hate* zoning in an out of every tiny buildings while staring at loading screens like Anarchy Online, DDO and  where I can't even look at my pack or char while waiting.

Also seamless: Horizons and ArchLord - someone please buy these worlds and add a game...

[El Gallo]

Just curious, is it the seamlessness or the lack of loading screens that you need?  WoW doesn't have loading screens overland, but it also isn't a "seamless world" in the sense that AC1 or UO were or VG wants to be (i.e. WoW's outdoor zones are basically dungeon rooms like EQ1).

[Sunbury]

Like everything 'seamlessness' is a continuum and technically how it works and appears is part of it.  A related concept is 'open' vs 'not open'.

DAOC I would consider 'seamless' but not 'open'.  The world was a set of big squares that adjoined (maybe not aligned) other big squares.  Invisible walls blocked all but the allowed crossover points.  Also one zoned into and out of big cities.

I count WoW as 'seamless' because I can stand in one zone, and see into the next one, and when I cross over, there is no loading screen, or even much of a hiccup.  Some boundaries are 'open' and some are not.  Also running into a big city you didn't seem to zone, as there was no loading screen, and when not many PCs in the city, virtually no hiccup.

EQ1 is not-seamless but open, for the 1 month I saw of it.  The zone boundaries were pretty big, but you had to zone, and if you stood on the edge of one looking at the other, when you stepped across the invisible line, what you now see is totally different.

AC1 was seamless and open, with no invisible walls (except 'deep water' and unclimbable hills, but the hills never were at the edge of the world but inside of it).  Actually AC1 worked in landblocks, where it loaded up the details in the landblock you were in, and all the surrounding ones.  If you looked at an overhead or off in the distance, you could see ouside those 9 landblocks, but it was 'low rez' and sometimes funny, like water on a hillside.  So you did a 'mini-seamless-zone' every time you crossed a landblock boundary, as it unloaded 3 and loaded 3 (typically).  And if one loaded is full of PCs, trees, and  buildings, its a noticable hitch in play.

[Venkman]

I appreciate that this is a requirement for you. But I would suggest you are in the distinct minority as a result. I don't say that to denegrate or anything. It just seems to me that the vast majority of players don't really care that much about it.

I agree the seamless zone-loading of WoW is much more palpable than the zoning of EQ1/2, but I don't see that disparity having any impact on the total success of the game. And, while WoW is divided into discrete content zones, the outdoors are all connected seamlessly. The best way to prove this is by pulling mobs from one "zone" to another (like when folks would pull Stitches from Duskwood to Elywnn). You can't do that in EQ1 (of course). I'm not sure it's possible in DAoC either.

[shiznitz]

For me, a seamless world is nice but not if it means I need a top of the line rig to enjoy it. I also doubt the ability of the developers to "fill" a huge seamless world. If one looks at some of the bigger zones in EQ2 (Antonica, Commonlands, Thundering Steppes) they are some of the most boring zones in the game.

[Venkman]

Just got this from gameindustry.biz:

Vanguard Guild Mail System. Basically, a promo site where you can create a voice-based email using a few Vanguard templated assets. You create the message (including either a stock phrase, something text-to-speech, or recorded by mic), and enter the email of your friend.

I love viral marketing. I also am curious to see just how many people even know about this, as it's nowhere obvious on the main vanguard site.

[Miasma]

From the EB page for the game I guess the earlier collector's edition has been completely changed too.  I don't see any mention of getting multiple keys anymore, they're just doing the nicer box, cloth map type of thing.  They added one thing that is guaranteed to flummox the most rabid of fans though.  You get a "Hero Card" that will give you a unique in-game item but there are three different kinds so they will have to go out and buy multiple (hundred dollar) boxes if they want to collect them all.

[Venkman]

VG will probably be a game where they generate a buttload of cash from a relatively few amount of players. If that helps them afford to keep the thing going, all power to them.

[Falconeer]

Well, this is so much fun.
It's in todays' Gamespy newsletter (delivered to a billion gamers around the world, I guess) and it sports the prestigious (?) signature of Fargo. You can't avoid it because the title of the mail is: "Final Fantasy XIII Screens, and an MMO that Dares to Be Different" (Vanguard), and the first thing you see as you open the message is the quoted article, with an art from Vanguard.
Maybe the fact that Gamespy/Fileplanet is hosting the "open" beta starting in a couple of days has nothing to do with this..  I really don't know, but the title alone is worth a quote in my book.

Why Vanguard is an Important Milestone 
 
"Will a U.S.-Developed MMO Ever Break the One-Million Subscriber Mark?" people used to ask. That was back in early 2004, when EverQuest was the top-of-the-heap for U.S. games with over half a million subscribers. Back then, those numbers seemed astronomical. In one way or another, most games tried to copy EverQuest ... Then World of Warcraft came along and the landscape changed. WoW already has over seven million subscribers Worldwide, and numbers are expected to climb even higher with a coming expansion.

Needless to say, since its release at the end of 2004, most developers have been looking at WoW's game design as a model for how to build a modern MMO. Venture capitalists and publishers are surprisingly eager to fund projects that play "Just like World of Warcraft..." The clones, they are a-comin'.

But then there's Vanguard.

It's ballsy nowadays to push forward with a massively multiplayer game that's different from World of Warcraft in almost every conceivable way, but Vanguard is aiming for a very different experience. Like EverQuest, it's a serious game for hardcore players who aren't afraid of lengthy adventures, brutal PvP, and complicated raids. And like Ultima Online or Star Wars Galaxies, characters are able to deeply impact the game world: building their own houses, shops, and even ships. Building up a successful crafter is as intense as creating a combat character.

Will Vanguard be a huge success? It's definitely aimed at a more serious crowd looking for a deeper online roleplaying experience. That might limit its mainstream appeal. On the other hand, if it's even a tenth as popular as World of Warcraft, it'll still have more subscribers than the original EverQuest. Hardcore gamers are eagerly looking forward to this one.

As you can see from today's lead story, The Beta-Test of Vanguard is About to Kick Off on FilePlanet, so gamers will get to see for themselves what to expect.

      -Fargo

 

[Simond]

I wouldn't actually call VG's graphics 'art', you know.

[schild]

Who the hell is Fargo and why is he such a bucket of retarded?

[Nebu]

Will Vanguard be a huge success? It's definitely aimed at a more serious crowd looking for a deeper online roleplaying experience.

How exactly does camping a spawn = deeper roleplaying experience anyway?

Who the hell is Fargo and why is he such a bucket of retarded?

It's amazing what people will say when it gets them into a beta or garners free stuff. 

 

[AlteredOne]

It's really not clear what this "deeper online roleplaying experience" will mean.  The public pre-release info indicates they've drastically simplified the combat, questing, and crafting systems.  By all accounts the world is huge, but that means nothing if it's AC-style enormous with gigantic swathes of random-generated terrain and monsters.  Maybe the "diplomacy" minigame will somehow add depth, but Sigil hasn't described how this will work. 

As for art, funny how the anime-inspired WoW graphics which run on 5-year-old rigs have trounced every attempt at hyper realism, to the point that even EQ2 has gone with a WoW-ish style in their latest expansion.

[Lantyssa]

Fargo writes humorous pieces over at GameSpy.  This was just more subtle than his normal stuff.  The joke will come when people take it seriously.

[Nebu]

Fargo writes humorous pieces over at GameSpy.  This was just more subtle than his normal stuff.  The joke will come when people take it seriously.

If he was joking then he got me... if not... I worry for the guy.

[Venkman]

That piece wasn't terrible. They actually are "trying" different things. There's not much of a "crafting" game in WoW beyond resource gathering, nor houses nor craftable boats. There aren't that many lengthy adventures if length is defined by "you can't even take a bio break", as most content has obvious rest points. Raids are complicated, but only until you've mastered the one or maybe two ways to beat the specific elements in the encounter (which isn't to say VG won't be exactly the same thing).

We rate VG based on what we know about it. But the context of that piece is pretty much right to the unitiated who don't know better yet :)

[Lt.Dan]

Have they even managed to get it to work in Vista yet, let alone the 64bit version of Vista?

Why would they need DRM protection in Vista when their copy protection is pretty much uncrackable...who'd copy and torrent a 20+Gb install?

 

[Falconeer]

I am the only one around here who doesn't hate Vanguard (actually I am open to the opposite feeling).
And I think too that lots of people are underestimating Vanguard features. I don't know if it will actually be a milestone, but I really think that the mail title was funny, if nothing else, because everyone in the world seems to think the exact opposite: that Vanguard is the oldest of the old school MMO.

So receiving in the mail (and with me oodles of other people) a comment about Vanguard being something like the most original MMO in production,  well.. "ballsy" :)

On actually commenting the game, as you know, I am dying for the NDA to drop. Seriously.

[HaemishM]

And I think too that lots of people are underestimating Vanguard features.

Any "features" it has that I haven't already seen in EQ1 will be buried under such a large mound of crotchvice grindplay that I would never ever see it.