Well, I just resubscribed for a couple of months, I was interested in seeing how it was, the last time I played it was in 2007. I was really surprised at the vast improvements across the board when it came to performance, they streamlined the game really well, I think there is still room for some improvements here and there, but it's definitely a totally night/day experience.
I also like the new character models, and the new hairstyles coming up look cool. Except I wish they'd give Wood Elf women more attractive, longer options. This game really is what a mmoRPG should be like. I love the enormous world, it's not static, and it's very open, you can litterally go anywhere you see in the distance. I also like the fact you can get a mount early on. One complaint I have is the level of difficulty, especially once you leave the early levels, solo content could use expansion, and the difficulty for some quests that claim to be solo quests should be toned down.
Aside from that I really don't see a reason *not* to play this game. It's by far one of the prettier games on the market, it's full of unique systems, and overall just has that *thing* that draws you back in each time. I really hope SOE will begin to market and re-introduce this game to the public after their next couple GU's, as it has plenty to offer, and such great potential to actually compete in the current market, and against games that aren't even out yet.
I logged in a bit tonight having been playing eq2 for awhile. My but vg isn't a pretty game :P Still wish the animations esp the cape animations were better but the environment and graphics are so pretty and run very nicely on my system. I'm focused on eq2 for now but I'm starting to look forward to returning to vg. The servers xeth and seradon said medium pops which is good but there weren't as many lower level players as I expected. around 80-100 players for each tier not counting 50. I really don't know why more poeple don't play vg.
It isn't perfect for sure but what game is, and it does have some very nice features.
I haven't played VG for quite some time now, I have station pass from SoE, but I no longer have the game discs for VG, is there somewhere I can redownload the game?
I haven't played VG for quite some time now, I have station pass from SoE, but I no longer have the game discs for VG, is there somewhere I can redownload the game?
Just go to http://www.station.sony.com/ and Download the station launcher beta. It will download the whole thing for ya
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Yes the game still has performance issues, yes it has come along way where at the beginning it was almost unplayable. It does lack the polish and smoothness of wow , eq2 , lotro, etc. fun game but still needs major work on stuttering, hitching and lag in combat. Keep working Sony I hope you get it right.
So Microsoft not wanting to piss any more money away parted ways with Sigil. So then SOE eagerlly buys it, and does hardly anything to develop it, and now is pissing it away with RMT crap.
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
So Microsoft not wanting to piss any more money away parted ways with Sigil. So then SOE eagerlly buys it, and does hardly anything to develop it, and now is pissing it away with RMT crap.
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
Microsoft bailed on marvel online, because they did not believe they could compete in the current market. That is where your reference comes from, not from thier dealings with vanguard.
Microsoft was killing the VG project, because it wasn't on schedule and there was some internal direction changes at microsoft.
Soe invested in the game only to have the same results as microsoft. Throwing good money after bad is never positive. Investing in a game so it can have a terrible release will just push more investors away from investing in more open world "sand boxlike" style games in favor of games that did better using other formats.
Sadly all vanguard has really done is offer a case study of what not to do, which is why I have said in the past it would have better off not released at all. Even though I think the foundation of the game is a much better direction for my personal play style and maybe the market overall.
With Spore, yes. If you do a quick search of the error I was getting you would find out that it is a HUGE problem with that game on various cards. As was stated before, video drivers wouldn't change the physics of the game itself. It was the experience I had when I gave it one more shot. It did't work, period. No bashing, trolling, or whatever you want to call it. I stated my experience and claimed nothing more about it. Basically, it's still like it was at launch, some people have bugs, some don't. I remember some folks claiming to have zero problems with the game when I first tried it at launch. Some are playing it without problems now, good for them! If you want to search my posts you'll see that I've stated before that I don't want to see any game fail, it's not good for the genre. Go ahead....search it...
For not wanting a game to fail and being a computer junkie, you sure didn't put up much of a fight, is all everyone is saying. It most likely is a drivers issue, regardless of what you think, and you did not remotely try to fix it. If you didn't want the game to fail, you might of checked a forum or fiddled with something on your PC. Basically what I am saying and what the other guy is saying is there are some holes in your logic.
So Microsoft not wanting to piss any more money away parted ways with Sigil. So then SOE eagerlly buys it, and does hardly anything to develop it, and now is pissing it away with RMT crap.
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
Microsoft bailed on marvel online, because they did not believe they could compete in the current market. That is where your reference comes from, not from thier dealings with vanguard.
Microsoft was killing the VG project, because it wasn't on schedule and there was some internal direction changes at microsoft.
Soe invested in the game only to have the same results as microsoft. Throwing good money after bad is never positive. Investing in a game so it can have a terrible release will just push more investors away from investing in more open world "sand boxlike" style games in favor of games that did better using other formats.
Sadly all vanguard has really done is offer a case study of what not to do, which is why I have said in the past it would have better off not released at all. Even though I think the foundation of the game is a much better direction for my personal play style and maybe the market overall.
Well I guess that is your point of view.
The story as I know it has been that Microsoft invested anywehre between $24 Million to $60 Million into the project. Microsoft carried this game for 4 years of development.
April 2002... May 2006. (I was in the beta when Microsoft was still hosting it).
If *you* were in beta at that time.. then you wouldn't have posted what you just did.
SOE became a co-publisher of Vanguard in May of 2006.
The game launched in January of 2007.
Which means that SOE made sure development was funded from May 2006... Jan 2007. SOE also took resources off other projects and had them assist the Sigil team.
So I'm not sure where this idea that the game wasn't invested in by anyone or given a chance comes from.
That's almost 5 years of development costs covered by other companies (Microsoft and SOE). How many more years did you expect anyone to fund it?
Do you think SOE had 40 to 100 million dollars laying around just in case some game could be bought cheap? Do you think Smedley has the authority to append the SOE budget that much? Or do you think that people higher up in Sony Corporation actually have to approve anything like that?
I mean there is a pretty easy to see logic pattern here.
Who else do you think would have picked this game up and had the resources and server hosting to finish it?
In the US the only companies with that kind of setup at the time were NCSoft and EA.
Short version: If SOE didn't pick the game up it wouldn't have been published at all.
Yes perhaps that would have been better to some people... I don't know what else to say.
*note*
I'm not a big fan of SOE... but people blaming what VG "launched as" on SOE is just something I can't see any logic to.
Yes I had high hopes for VG... Yet when I got invited to the Microsoft beta that changed pretty fast. I remember reading the beta leak threads on FoH forums back then... (as an example) and most people (who weren't in beta) just said it couldn't be that bad... oh well.
So Microsoft not wanting to piss any more money away parted ways with Sigil. So then SOE eagerlly buys it, and does hardly anything to develop it, and now is pissing it away with RMT crap.
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
Microsoft bailed on marvel online, because they did not believe they could compete in the current market. That is where your reference comes from, not from thier dealings with vanguard.
Microsoft was killing the VG project, because it wasn't on schedule and there was some internal direction changes at microsoft.
Soe invested in the game only to have the same results as microsoft. Throwing good money after bad is never positive. Investing in a game so it can have a terrible release will just push more investors away from investing in more open world "sand boxlike" style games in favor of games that did better using other formats.
Sadly all vanguard has really done is offer a case study of what not to do, which is why I have said in the past it would have better off not released at all. Even though I think the foundation of the game is a much better direction for my personal play style and maybe the market overall.
I was trying to point out that Microsoft probably/apperantly is not a good at MMO. And also their views on it. Our chance to be dominating is to small and we are not doing small stuff.
Maybe they noticed that Vanguard won't be the greatest game... (Oh, wait.)
Comments
Vanguard....
Well, I just resubscribed for a couple of months, I was interested in seeing how it was, the last time I played it was in 2007. I was really surprised at the vast improvements across the board when it came to performance, they streamlined the game really well, I think there is still room for some improvements here and there, but it's definitely a totally night/day experience.
I also like the new character models, and the new hairstyles coming up look cool. Except I wish they'd give Wood Elf women more attractive, longer options. This game really is what a mmoRPG should be like. I love the enormous world, it's not static, and it's very open, you can litterally go anywhere you see in the distance. I also like the fact you can get a mount early on. One complaint I have is the level of difficulty, especially once you leave the early levels, solo content could use expansion, and the difficulty for some quests that claim to be solo quests should be toned down.
Aside from that I really don't see a reason *not* to play this game. It's by far one of the prettier games on the market, it's full of unique systems, and overall just has that *thing* that draws you back in each time. I really hope SOE will begin to market and re-introduce this game to the public after their next couple GU's, as it has plenty to offer, and such great potential to actually compete in the current market, and against games that aren't even out yet.
I logged in a bit tonight having been playing eq2 for awhile. My but vg isn't a pretty game :P Still wish the animations esp the cape animations were better but the environment and graphics are so pretty and run very nicely on my system. I'm focused on eq2 for now but I'm starting to look forward to returning to vg. The servers xeth and seradon said medium pops which is good but there weren't as many lower level players as I expected. around 80-100 players for each tier not counting 50. I really don't know why more poeple don't play vg.
It isn't perfect for sure but what game is, and it does have some very nice features.
---
Ethion
I haven't played VG for quite some time now, I have station pass from SoE, but I no longer have the game discs for VG, is there somewhere I can redownload the game?
Just go to http://www.station.sony.com/ and Download the station launcher beta. It will download the whole thing for ya
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Thanks Eki!!!
Yes the game still has performance issues, yes it has come along way where at the beginning it was almost unplayable. It does lack the polish and smoothness of wow , eq2 , lotro, etc. fun game but still needs major work on stuttering, hitching and lag in combat. Keep working Sony I hope you get it right.
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
Microsoft bailed on marvel online, because they did not believe they could compete in the current market. That is where your reference comes from, not from thier dealings with vanguard.
Microsoft was killing the VG project, because it wasn't on schedule and there was some internal direction changes at microsoft.
Soe invested in the game only to have the same results as microsoft. Throwing good money after bad is never positive. Investing in a game so it can have a terrible release will just push more investors away from investing in more open world "sand boxlike" style games in favor of games that did better using other formats.
Sadly all vanguard has really done is offer a case study of what not to do, which is why I have said in the past it would have better off not released at all. Even though I think the foundation of the game is a much better direction for my personal play style and maybe the market overall.
For not wanting a game to fail and being a computer junkie, you sure didn't put up much of a fight, is all everyone is saying. It most likely is a drivers issue, regardless of what you think, and you did not remotely try to fix it. If you didn't want the game to fail, you might of checked a forum or fiddled with something on your PC. Basically what I am saying and what the other guy is saying is there are some holes in your logic.
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
Microsoft bailed on marvel online, because they did not believe they could compete in the current market. That is where your reference comes from, not from thier dealings with vanguard.
Microsoft was killing the VG project, because it wasn't on schedule and there was some internal direction changes at microsoft.
Soe invested in the game only to have the same results as microsoft. Throwing good money after bad is never positive. Investing in a game so it can have a terrible release will just push more investors away from investing in more open world "sand boxlike" style games in favor of games that did better using other formats.
Sadly all vanguard has really done is offer a case study of what not to do, which is why I have said in the past it would have better off not released at all. Even though I think the foundation of the game is a much better direction for my personal play style and maybe the market overall.
Well I guess that is your point of view.
The story as I know it has been that Microsoft invested anywehre between $24 Million to $60 Million into the project. Microsoft carried this game for 4 years of development.
April 2002... May 2006. (I was in the beta when Microsoft was still hosting it).
If *you* were in beta at that time.. then you wouldn't have posted what you just did.
SOE became a co-publisher of Vanguard in May of 2006.
The game launched in January of 2007.
Which means that SOE made sure development was funded from May 2006... Jan 2007. SOE also took resources off other projects and had them assist the Sigil team.
So I'm not sure where this idea that the game wasn't invested in by anyone or given a chance comes from.
That's almost 5 years of development costs covered by other companies (Microsoft and SOE). How many more years did you expect anyone to fund it?
Do you think SOE had 40 to 100 million dollars laying around just in case some game could be bought cheap? Do you think Smedley has the authority to append the SOE budget that much? Or do you think that people higher up in Sony Corporation actually have to approve anything like that?
I mean there is a pretty easy to see logic pattern here.
Who else do you think would have picked this game up and had the resources and server hosting to finish it?
In the US the only companies with that kind of setup at the time were NCSoft and EA.
Short version: If SOE didn't pick the game up it wouldn't have been published at all.
Yes perhaps that would have been better to some people... I don't know what else to say.
*note*
I'm not a big fan of SOE... but people blaming what VG "launched as" on SOE is just something I can't see any logic to.
Yes I had high hopes for VG... Yet when I got invited to the Microsoft beta that changed pretty fast. I remember reading the beta leak threads on FoH forums back then... (as an example) and most people (who weren't in beta) just said it couldn't be that bad... oh well.
If the statement on Microsoft that I read on this forum, concerning another game, is correct then I think it was not only about pissing out more money.
Something along the lines, meaning something like this: Blizzard have been the only game that have 11 million subscribers so we are not interested in the market.
So in perspective. SOE buying a game is a positive thing counting in favour for SOE is it not?
Microsoft bailed on marvel online, because they did not believe they could compete in the current market. That is where your reference comes from, not from thier dealings with vanguard.
Microsoft was killing the VG project, because it wasn't on schedule and there was some internal direction changes at microsoft.
Soe invested in the game only to have the same results as microsoft. Throwing good money after bad is never positive. Investing in a game so it can have a terrible release will just push more investors away from investing in more open world "sand boxlike" style games in favor of games that did better using other formats.
Sadly all vanguard has really done is offer a case study of what not to do, which is why I have said in the past it would have better off not released at all. Even though I think the foundation of the game is a much better direction for my personal play style and maybe the market overall.
I was trying to point out that Microsoft probably/apperantly is not a good at MMO. And also their views on it. Our chance to be dominating is to small and we are not doing small stuff.
Maybe they noticed that Vanguard won't be the greatest game... (Oh, wait.)
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"