Each of those starting points will tend to lead to very different types of games being made, with a very different focus:
A MMO designed solely around the goal of "wanting to make lots of money" is going to follow the "themepark standard" of the day. It's going to try and be as "mainstream" as possible, appealing to "everyone". They're going to play it safe, do nothing too far off the "beaten path", and ultimately produce more of the cookie-cutter sameness we've been served up for a decade now.
A MMO being designed around a vision/dream of a group of developers, is going to implement new/different ideaswhich are not commonly seen in the genre. It's going to be designed for a specific niche of players, not for "everyone". See ArtCraft with Crowfall for an example of this. Pantheon is an example of this. Project Gorgon is an example of this.
While above is your opinion and you have every right to have it... It does not make it per se "right".
I could turn this around and say that games like Crowfall and Pantheon are even more intent on making money as they intentionally play on the nostalgia and blind dedication of a specific niche. Placeing their bet on this group being large enough to sustain the game but not so big as to drive operational costs to high... In short hitting the financial sweetspot. Is that not a much more cynical and coldly calculated move then to just follow the "trend". To bank on the higher than average number of "whales" and their desire to regain that what they can not have.
Are mainstream MMO´s more open with their agenda... Sure... But that is not the same as saying those games lack vision or that the devs did not have a dream..
Or just do what the indie-music muchnkins have done for decades... put on a pained face and act like it is the end of an era.
ROTFLMAO!!! The era isn't ending. It ended years ago.
"Modern MMOs" are shallow, easy mode, no thought required to play successfully, mindless gear grinds, solo centric gameplay in an "imaginary" social online, tell you where you should be because you are too stupid/lazy to figure it out yourself, include mechanics that discourage real life communication between actual living, breathing human beings, designed for those who refuse to pay a sub but will sink tons of money into a cash shop because they lack the skills to earn it but mom and dad will buy it, sorry excuse for games.
If anyone thinks that list is just my own bitter opinion, you are wrong. All of those points reflect game design and/or mechanics that are considered must haves by "gamers". I embellished to make a point though. We all like different things, that's what makes life interesting, but every since EQ2 and WoW launched the genre has become increasingly dumbed down and centered around solo content and crappy PvP. If a gamer is too young to have played the early games in their golden age, you have no common ground to make comparisons that us older farts can.
If a gamer did play them but loves the newer games, that could mean several things. They didn't have the skills required to be a welcome addition to groups or raids, didn't have the time to invest (EQ was almost a second job), or the games just weren't their thing. There are probably many other reasons as well, but my point is the same.
Gamers such as myself prefer the older MMOs because we had to think for ourselves, form friendships with other players, helped complete strangers out for no other reason than to be nice. Sure there were jerks, there always are, but everyone knew who they were. There was a since of fear when playing and there were times when you would have feelings of accomplishment when you finished a difficult quest or were part of world or server first as a couple of examples. The games had soul. For us, newer games lack all of that. Again, if a gamer didn't play the good old games, they lack a common reference point and will never be able to understand posts like the OPs. At least, not until the next generation of gamer starts to influence game designs of their own. Then and only then will they understand.
I only read the OPs first post so my response will be to that. WoW was before Vanguard and based on your criteria WoW is considered a real MMO. Many games (not all) follow many points from WoW (not all), so that makes them not real MMOs if they do that or real? Confusing. Anyway, in my earlier days of MMOs (like 2003?) I was used to the grind fest, like Diablo II, Ragnarok Online, FFXI (pre-abbysea) where the quests you did do had some kind of importance, such as to get certain types of gear for your class, advance your status to unlock certain content, etc. Good thing about grinding was that if you worked together with others you got stuff done faster, like more exp over all or made money helping people level etc. As well as learning more about your class and how the game's economy worked. From my experience after actually playing wow in like 2012, it kinda killed the feel of general mmos for me. Not to say WoW is bad cause I kind of got used to its style after some life changes. But it doesn't feel statisfying. And that's the same for most mmos now that do follow their formula. Quest to level, getting boosts etc to make it more "realistic" for the average adult gamer who can't slave away grinding from area to area and taking week/months to level 1 character to max level. It killed it for me because I dont want to go back to those days but the current days aren't satisfying either. Well the leveling speed and the stupid pointless gear grinding. Item levels should be burned. It makes no sense to me to grind for gear only to replace that gear with something else in like a week, only to replace everything I just grinded for in 3 months. All with dictated stats for my class or being surrounded by people who only care about your item level and not actually about the knowledge you have of stats actually beneficial to your class.
Regardless of how utterly terrible Vanguard was OP brings up a good point. Could it be that most MMO gamers aren't really MMO fans but more fans of single player games with a chatroom attached? I think the success of GW2 is living proof of that.
Originally posted by mogi67 Asheron's Call was better in my opinion.
Fix it for ya.
Nah AC was actually better in a large number of ways.
Edit:
In fact its so dramatically better that its the only "First gen" game I would say that people should give an honest month's worth of play time in just to see how skewed their view of modern MMO is.
Its not perfect by a long shot, but the things it did and had working versus many modern MMOs attempting and failing while claiming these were "new" features is pretty ... well ... stark.
I'll say it again "in your opinion" unless your saying that everyone else agrees with you which any sensible person who understands what the word 'opinion' means wouldn't.
Originally posted by Albatroes I only read the OPs first post so my response will be to that. WoW was before Vanguard and based on your criteria WoW is considered a real MMO. Many games (not all) follow many points from WoW (not all), so that makes them not real MMOs if they do that or real? Confusing. Anyway, in my earlier days of MMOs (like 2003?) I was used to the grind fest, like Diablo II, Ragnarok Online, FFXI (pre-abbysea) where the quests you did do had some kind of importance, such as to get certain types of gear for your class, advance your status to unlock certain content, etc. Good thing about grinding was that if you worked together with others you got stuff done faster, like more exp over all or made money helping people level etc. As well as learning more about your class and how the game's economy worked. From my experience after actually playing wow in like 2012, it kinda killed the feel of general mmos for me. Not to say WoW is bad cause I kind of got used to its style after some life changes. But it doesn't feel statisfying. And that's the same for most mmos now that do follow their formula. Quest to level, getting boosts etc to make it more "realistic" for the average adult gamer who can't slave away grinding from area to area and taking week/months to level 1 character to max level. It killed it for me because I dont want to go back to those days but the current days aren't satisfying either. Well the leveling speed and the stupid pointless gear grinding. Item levels should be burned. It makes no sense to me to grind for gear only to replace that gear with something else in like a week, only to replace everything I just grinded for in 3 months. All with dictated stats for my class or being surrounded by people who only care about your item level and not actually about the knowledge you have of stats actually beneficial to your class.
Regardless of how utterly terrible Vanguard was OP brings up a good point. Could it be that most MMO gamers aren't really MMO fans but more fans of single player games with a chatroom attached? I think the success of GW2 is living proof of that.
Interesting
GW2 is 10 times MMO than Vanguard was.
Vanguard was a bad game all around. "Fixing" it would have ment taking it offline and make something else. like FFXIV did.
And i dont know why diplomacy is so praised, it turned out to be just very simple and limited "CCG" minigame. Crafitng (very very simple minigame) also got so repetitive so fast that it got uber boring.
OP is right in a way it was the last MMORPG made for MMORPG players.. MMORPGs these days are mostly made for gamers in general so are a lot different from what MMORPGs used to be because general gamers never really liked them.
Its a shame for the people who enjoyed the old style of MMORPGs but companies are out to make money and its as simple as that.. so catering for the masses makes more sense.
Still I dont think that anyone will come up with something tha will make as much cash as wow so maybe the devs should realise that and make a good mmorpg fo the morpgs palyers again and be happy with having a 100k subs or something.
I did enjoy Vanguard even with all the issues it had.. i think if SOE did not have EQ2 then it would have been a lot better.
Regardless of how utterly terrible Vanguard was OP brings up a good point. Could it be that most MMO gamers aren't really MMO fans but more fans of single player games with a chatroom attached? I think the success of GW2 is living proof of that.
Interesting
GW2 is 10 times MMO than Vanguard was.
Vanguard was a bad game all around. "Fixing" it would have ment taking it offline and make something else. like FFXIV did.
And i dont know why diplomacy is so praised, it turned out to be just very simple and limited "CCG" minigame. Crafitng (very very simple minigame) also got so repetitive so fast that it got uber boring.
LMFAO, you really think GW2 crafting is better than Vanguards, GW2 is part of what's wrong with mmo today. There dungeons are actually pathetic and lack imagination. The class system of Vanguard is way better than GW2, the races the actual world and weather system.
Then you have the ships building and housing of Vanguard, WHERE IS GW2 system?
Yes Vanguard had problems but i manged to play it from release to end with 6 level 55 characters and after all those years there were still places and quests i never done or seen.
Now of course this is just my opinion but to suggest that GW2 is more mmo than Vanguard is just dumb imo.
Regardless of how utterly terrible Vanguard was OP brings up a good point. Could it be that most MMO gamers aren't really MMO fans but more fans of single player games with a chatroom attached? I think the success of GW2 is living proof of that.
Interesting
GW2 is 10 times MMO than Vanguard was.
Vanguard was a bad game all around. "Fixing" it would have ment taking it offline and make something else. like FFXIV did.
And i dont know why diplomacy is so praised, it turned out to be just very simple and limited "CCG" minigame. Crafitng (very very simple minigame) also got so repetitive so fast that it got uber boring.
LMFAO, you really think GW2 crafting is better than Vanguards, GW2 is part of what's wrong with mmo today. There dungeons are actually pathetic and lack imagination. The class system of Vanguard is way better than GW2, the races the actual world and weather system.
Then you have the ships building and housing of Vanguard, WHERE IS GW2 system?
Yes Vanguard had problems but i manged to play it from release to end with 6 level 55 characters and after all those years there were still places and quests i never done or seen.
Now of course this is just my opinion but to suggest that GW2 is more mmo than Vanguard is just dumb imo.
Thats why you put things that work and are desired in MMOs and leave out things that are redundant and hindering (cut off the fat).
"Throw in more" is rarely good way to go about things and Vanguard is prime example. Big world.....and nothing/very little of anything in it aside from mobs littered around the scenery. Sorry, just lot of wasted space.
VGs crafting was not good, boring and uber repetitive (but that was problem with whole game), comparing 2 not good things is kinda pointless, and if its not good i want as little as i can get away with and not to be forced repeating it endlessly.
Saying Vanguard is "definiton of MMO" is laughable, it there was a fail MMO its VAnguard because it was bad all over, no head and tail, just stuff trhown in for sake of stuff being thrown in.
Regardless of how utterly terrible Vanguard was OP brings up a good point. Could it be that most MMO gamers aren't really MMO fans but more fans of single player games with a chatroom attached? I think the success of GW2 is living proof of that.
Interesting
GW2 is 10 times MMO than Vanguard was.
Vanguard was a bad game all around. "Fixing" it would have ment taking it offline and make something else. like FFXIV did.
And i dont know why diplomacy is so praised, it turned out to be just very simple and limited "CCG" minigame. Crafitng (very very simple minigame) also got so repetitive so fast that it got uber boring.
LMFAO, you really think GW2 crafting is better than Vanguards, GW2 is part of what's wrong with mmo today. There dungeons are actually pathetic and lack imagination. The class system of Vanguard is way better than GW2, the races the actual world and weather system.
Then you have the ships building and housing of Vanguard, WHERE IS GW2 system?
Yes Vanguard had problems but i manged to play it from release to end with 6 level 55 characters and after all those years there were still places and quests i never done or seen.
Now of course this is just my opinion but to suggest that GW2 is more mmo than Vanguard is just dumb imo.
Thats why you put things that work and are desired in MMOs and leave out things that are redundant and hindering (cut off the fat).
"Throw in more" is rarely good way to go about things and Vanguard is prime example. Big world.....and nothing/very little of anything in it aside from mobs littered around the scenery. Sorry, just lot of wasted space.
VGs crafting was not good, boring and uber repetitive (but that was problem with whole game), comparing 2 not good things is kinda pointless, and if its not good i want as little as i can get away with and not to be forced repeating it endlessly.
Saying Vanguard is "definiton of MMO" is laughable, it there was a fail MMO its VAnguard because it was bad all over, no head and tail, just stuff trhown in for sake of stuff being thrown in.
I actually agree with you completely. I remember playing VG and thinking to myself "wtf is this" lol. Been playing mmos for 15+ years. So, I wasn't new to mmos. I think VG has some of the funniest whiteknights. I can't tell if it's just because they can't stop sucking Brad's D....k or what. But, I can't help but be amused when reading these comments.
Video games - quick fun, fast, follow a story path. Watch some cut scenes to advance the story. Usually have about 30 days worth of value, but entertaining never the less.
MMO's - different kind of fun, a building over time fun, slow advancement fun, exploring. A world to be filled with people of potential friends, potential enemy's. Something made for years or at least months of value. Downtime needed to rebuild self, or help others. Make a name for yourself. Not always action packed but entertaining never the less.
Important :
Video games and MMO's are now one........Can't have both because it will be a video game.
Developers have TOTAL DOMINATION of how people will play. They call the shots.....Give the players total freedom ?....That's still up to developers.
My point is :
We only have video games. There is a market for an mmo, A BIG MARKET. The greed filled mmo called Archage proved that.
Vanguard was made for the money too... Don´t kid your self anything else.
Like every single mmorpg game ever made. Fact is Vanguard was the last of a dying breed.
I think this is the most important statement about vanguard and everyone should mourn that.
Sure Vanguard was effectively dead on arrival when it released, but it was still an MMO that was attempting to make a game targeting a specific audience. Designing content and gameplay that would directly cater to that set of players.
That set may not be for you or me, but Vanguard had the chance to show developers that a game with s target market could attract and retain enough players to be very successful.
Instead it crashed before it was even released and the trend of other companies attempting to out-Wow Wow continues. Games being made in the most generic watered down attempt to appeal to everyone and end up not appealing to very many.
Was hoping for some better replies in this thread, to be honest. Not sure if I should be surprised to find none, or not.
Good posts generate good replies. When someone posts outrageous things purely to generate responses, presenting no evidence and completely ignores posters who provide valid, evidence-based reasons he's wrong, then that someone tends to develop a reputation of what they are.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only thing Vanguard prooved at launch: theres not enough people interested in such game
The only thing Vanguard proved during its lifetime: theres not enough people interested in such game in that niche even if it has AAA production value (cost)
The only thing Vanguard prooved at launch: theres not enough people interested in such game
The only thing Vanguard proved during its lifetime: theres not enough people interested in such game in that niche even if it has AAA production value (cost)
the problem with vanguard were technical issues, during my whole time playing vanguard, I have never heard a single person say
"I am not interested in this type of game"
the gameplay of vanguard was actually one of it's best assets, it was the bugs and non stop crashes that drove people off, not the gameplay or world, which was rather amazing
The only thing Vanguard prooved at launch: theres not enough people interested in such game
The only thing Vanguard proved during its lifetime: theres not enough people interested in such game in that niche even if it has AAA production value (cost)
the problem with vanguard were technical issues, during my whole time playing vanguard, I have never heard a single person say
"I am not interested in this type of game"
the gameplay of vanguard was actually one of it's best assets, it was the bugs and non stop crashes that drove people off, not the gameplay or world, which was rather amazing
^This.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
The only thing Vanguard prooved at launch: theres not enough people interested in such game
The only thing Vanguard proved during its lifetime: theres not enough people interested in such game in that niche even if it has AAA production value (cost)
the problem with vanguard were technical issues, during my whole time playing vanguard, I have never heard a single person say
"I am not interested in this type of game"
the gameplay of vanguard was actually one of it's best assets, it was the bugs and non stop crashes that drove people off, not the gameplay or world, which was rather amazing
And then you read the second part. Noone was playing regardless was it fixed or not, either they had no interest in the frst place or were playing something more enjoyble. And it had LOT of time to prove itself, SOE dragged it around for 7 years, even made it F2P and it still didnt help until it was finally shut down (what any reasonable company would do waaaaaaay before SOE did)
And first part: it didnt sell well, 240k for AAA title is nothing.
And then you read the second part. Noone was playing regardless was it fixed or not,
by the time the crashing was fixed for good, we were multiple weeks into launch, by then the majority had left the game
SoE gave Vanguard only 2 full time developers, who spent more time figuring out the code than actually fixing anything
since Vanguard was primarilty a grouping game, new players couldn't find help in the game due to empty servers, things like getting your arena points to get your weapon were impossible since it required a certain population
etc
gameplay, it was not, vanguard was a great game, in spite of the bugs
What is this BS about making derogatory remarks about a business being motivated to make money. ? ` That is what capitalism is...people risking their hard earned money to provide goods or services in the HOPE they will earn back more than it cost them to start the business..
Unless of course you are a government.. They just confiscates other peoples money(taxes) to build their own bureaucratic (non profit) monopolies to provide goods and services.
Vanguard, even if it had high production quality, was a horrible game. People didn't play it because it was buggy, people didn;t play it because the game was horrible.
This is the truth, sadly.
SWG was this way too. Take off the rose colored glasses, and it is/was painfully obvious how poorly coded and optimized SWG was.
Great ideas. For sure. Some really, really cool ideas they put into SWG. Unique.
But the execution was PISS poor from launch all the way to the game's death.
I remember at one point, about a year before it finally shut down, creating a trial account to see if the game had any redeemable qualities worth playing.
The EXACT same animation and rubber-banding bugs and glitches during the opening tutorial stuff as were in the game back in 2003.
Pathetic.
If it isn't obvious yet, execution is more important than the ideas themselves, apparently. The games that are/have been really successful in this genre? All about execution. That "feel" of polish and smooth interaction. Just "feels" well built.
Games that have had it? WoW - GW1/2 - FFXIV: ARR, EvE, and to some extent SW:TOR & Rift (on the fence.)
Look where those games are now, versus games like SWG, EQ2, WAR, AoC, TSW, Vanguard, ArcheAge... the list of mega-hype and the flop/flounder goes on and on.
Those piss poor quality games had some GREAT ideas, and some GREAT systems in place, but the execution was SO bad, people really can feel the difference almost immediately.
It's the most important thing in game development, but nearly impossible to explain and quantify.
Companies like Blizzard have that secret recipe locked away. Everything they do comes out with the same feeling. Warcraft, WoW, SC, Hearthstone, Diablo, Heroes of the Storm, Overwatch...
I don't know if it is just better talent - or more money?
But whatever it is, it's pretty easy to tell which games will "fail" within the first few minutes.
The only thing Vanguard prooved at launch: theres not enough people interested in such game
The only thing Vanguard proved during its lifetime: theres not enough people interested in such game in that niche even if it has AAA production value (cost)
Which people are those? The ones that want a half finished buggy game with hardware requirements that outpace what 99% of gamers have?
The only thing Vanguard proved (once again) is that if you release a game filled with bugs, has terrible performance issues and is generally unfinished, then yes people will flee. If the developer strips all the development resources, no one will come back.
I'm not saying Vanguard was an awesome game. For some I'm sure it was and others not. The point is that a niche game in current times could easily be 500,000 players. Which was once considered the runaway success for the biggest game of its time.
Developers currently keep aiming for millions of players with gameplay designed to appeal to everyone and end up with a game that appeals to no one, because it doesn't solve any issues with current games or advance gameplay in a way that will pull gamers back into MMO or away from their current MMO.
Comments
ROTFLMAO!!! The era isn't ending. It ended years ago.
"Modern MMOs" are shallow, easy mode, no thought required to play successfully, mindless gear grinds, solo centric gameplay in an "imaginary" social online, tell you where you should be because you are too stupid/lazy to figure it out yourself, include mechanics that discourage real life communication between actual living, breathing human beings, designed for those who refuse to pay a sub but will sink tons of money into a cash shop because they lack the skills to earn it but mom and dad will buy it, sorry excuse for games.
If anyone thinks that list is just my own bitter opinion, you are wrong. All of those points reflect game design and/or mechanics that are considered must haves by "gamers". I embellished to make a point though. We all like different things, that's what makes life interesting, but every since EQ2 and WoW launched the genre has become increasingly dumbed down and centered around solo content and crappy PvP. If a gamer is too young to have played the early games in their golden age, you have no common ground to make comparisons that us older farts can.
If a gamer did play them but loves the newer games, that could mean several things. They didn't have the skills required to be a welcome addition to groups or raids, didn't have the time to invest (EQ was almost a second job), or the games just weren't their thing. There are probably many other reasons as well, but my point is the same.
Gamers such as myself prefer the older MMOs because we had to think for ourselves, form friendships with other players, helped complete strangers out for no other reason than to be nice. Sure there were jerks, there always are, but everyone knew who they were. There was a since of fear when playing and there were times when you would have feelings of accomplishment when you finished a difficult quest or were part of world or server first as a couple of examples. The games had soul. For us, newer games lack all of that. Again, if a gamer didn't play the good old games, they lack a common reference point and will never be able to understand posts like the OPs. At least, not until the next generation of gamer starts to influence game designs of their own. Then and only then will they understand.
I really really liked Vanguard, the sheer size of the world was amazing.
Regardless of how utterly terrible Vanguard was OP brings up a good point. Could it be that most MMO gamers aren't really MMO fans but more fans of single player games with a chatroom attached? I think the success of GW2 is living proof of that.
Interesting
I'll say it again "in your opinion" unless your saying that everyone else agrees with you which any sensible person who understands what the word 'opinion' means wouldn't.
Paragraphs are your friend.
Since I'm surprisingly not a charity for rich people, I couldnt care less about that part, and neither should you.
GW2 is 10 times MMO than Vanguard was.
Vanguard was a bad game all around. "Fixing" it would have ment taking it offline and make something else. like FFXIV did.
And i dont know why diplomacy is so praised, it turned out to be just very simple and limited "CCG" minigame. Crafitng (very very simple minigame) also got so repetitive so fast that it got uber boring.
OP is right in a way it was the last MMORPG made for MMORPG players.. MMORPGs these days are mostly made for gamers in general so are a lot different from what MMORPGs used to be because general gamers never really liked them.
Its a shame for the people who enjoyed the old style of MMORPGs but companies are out to make money and its as simple as that.. so catering for the masses makes more sense.
Still I dont think that anyone will come up with something tha will make as much cash as wow so maybe the devs should realise that and make a good mmorpg fo the morpgs palyers again and be happy with having a 100k subs or something.
I did enjoy Vanguard even with all the issues it had.. i think if SOE did not have EQ2 then it would have been a lot better.
LMFAO, you really think GW2 crafting is better than Vanguards, GW2 is part of what's wrong with mmo today. There dungeons are actually pathetic and lack imagination. The class system of Vanguard is way better than GW2, the races the actual world and weather system.
Then you have the ships building and housing of Vanguard, WHERE IS GW2 system?
Yes Vanguard had problems but i manged to play it from release to end with 6 level 55 characters and after all those years there were still places and quests i never done or seen.
Now of course this is just my opinion but to suggest that GW2 is more mmo than Vanguard is just dumb imo.
Thats why you put things that work and are desired in MMOs and leave out things that are redundant and hindering (cut off the fat).
"Throw in more" is rarely good way to go about things and Vanguard is prime example. Big world.....and nothing/very little of anything in it aside from mobs littered around the scenery. Sorry, just lot of wasted space.
VGs crafting was not good, boring and uber repetitive (but that was problem with whole game), comparing 2 not good things is kinda pointless, and if its not good i want as little as i can get away with and not to be forced repeating it endlessly.
Saying Vanguard is "definiton of MMO" is laughable, it there was a fail MMO its VAnguard because it was bad all over, no head and tail, just stuff trhown in for sake of stuff being thrown in.
I actually agree with you completely. I remember playing VG and thinking to myself "wtf is this" lol. Been playing mmos for 15+ years. So, I wasn't new to mmos. I think VG has some of the funniest whiteknights. I can't tell if it's just because they can't stop sucking Brad's D....k or what. But, I can't help but be amused when reading these comments.
Video games and mmo's :
Video games - quick fun, fast, follow a story path. Watch some cut scenes to advance the story. Usually have about 30 days worth of value, but entertaining never the less.
MMO's - different kind of fun, a building over time fun, slow advancement fun, exploring. A world to be filled with people of potential friends, potential enemy's. Something made for years or at least months of value. Downtime needed to rebuild self, or help others. Make a name for yourself. Not always action packed but entertaining never the less.
Important :
Video games and MMO's are now one........Can't have both because it will be a video game.
Developers have TOTAL DOMINATION of how people will play. They call the shots.....Give the players total freedom ?....That's still up to developers.
My point is :
We only have video games. There is a market for an mmo, A BIG MARKET. The greed filled mmo called Archage proved that.
I would to play an mmo, just one, how about you ?
I think this is the most important statement about vanguard and everyone should mourn that.
Sure Vanguard was effectively dead on arrival when it released, but it was still an MMO that was attempting to make a game targeting a specific audience. Designing content and gameplay that would directly cater to that set of players.
That set may not be for you or me, but Vanguard had the chance to show developers that a game with s target market could attract and retain enough players to be very successful.
Instead it crashed before it was even released and the trend of other companies attempting to out-Wow Wow continues. Games being made in the most generic watered down attempt to appeal to everyone and end up not appealing to very many.
Good posts generate good replies. When someone posts outrageous things purely to generate responses, presenting no evidence and completely ignores posters who provide valid, evidence-based reasons he's wrong, then that someone tends to develop a reputation of what they are.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only thing Vanguard prooved at launch: theres not enough people interested in such game
The only thing Vanguard proved during its lifetime: theres not enough people interested in such game in that niche even if it has AAA production value (cost)
the problem with vanguard were technical issues, during my whole time playing vanguard, I have never heard a single person say
"I am not interested in this type of game"
the gameplay of vanguard was actually one of it's best assets, it was the bugs and non stop crashes that drove people off, not the gameplay or world, which was rather amazing
^This.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
And then you read the second part. Noone was playing regardless was it fixed or not, either they had no interest in the frst place or were playing something more enjoyble. And it had LOT of time to prove itself, SOE dragged it around for 7 years, even made it F2P and it still didnt help until it was finally shut down (what any reasonable company would do waaaaaaay before SOE did)
And first part: it didnt sell well, 240k for AAA title is nothing.
by the time the crashing was fixed for good, we were multiple weeks into launch, by then the majority had left the game
SoE gave Vanguard only 2 full time developers, who spent more time figuring out the code than actually fixing anything
since Vanguard was primarilty a grouping game, new players couldn't find help in the game due to empty servers, things like getting your arena points to get your weapon were impossible since it required a certain population
etc
gameplay, it was not, vanguard was a great game, in spite of the bugs
for a game that was barely advertised, because Microsoft bailed on the game and SoE didn't promote it, it sold very well
Yeah, your logic that it was so awsome that noone wanted to play it is...well....not really catching on.
Thats also something i heard EQ2 dev say about EQ2.
Well, heres a tip: dont make your game so awesome next time lol
What is this BS about making derogatory remarks about a business being motivated to make money. ? ` That is what capitalism is...people risking their hard earned money to provide goods or services in the HOPE they will earn back more than it cost them to start the business..
Unless of course you are a government.. They just confiscates other peoples money(taxes) to build their own bureaucratic (non profit) monopolies to provide goods and services.
This is the truth, sadly.
SWG was this way too. Take off the rose colored glasses, and it is/was painfully obvious how poorly coded and optimized SWG was.
Great ideas. For sure. Some really, really cool ideas they put into SWG. Unique.
But the execution was PISS poor from launch all the way to the game's death.
I remember at one point, about a year before it finally shut down, creating a trial account to see if the game had any redeemable qualities worth playing.
The EXACT same animation and rubber-banding bugs and glitches during the opening tutorial stuff as were in the game back in 2003.
Pathetic.
If it isn't obvious yet, execution is more important than the ideas themselves, apparently. The games that are/have been really successful in this genre? All about execution. That "feel" of polish and smooth interaction. Just "feels" well built.
Games that have had it? WoW - GW1/2 - FFXIV: ARR, EvE, and to some extent SW:TOR & Rift (on the fence.)
Look where those games are now, versus games like SWG, EQ2, WAR, AoC, TSW, Vanguard, ArcheAge... the list of mega-hype and the flop/flounder goes on and on.
Those piss poor quality games had some GREAT ideas, and some GREAT systems in place, but the execution was SO bad, people really can feel the difference almost immediately.
It's the most important thing in game development, but nearly impossible to explain and quantify.
Companies like Blizzard have that secret recipe locked away. Everything they do comes out with the same feeling. Warcraft, WoW, SC, Hearthstone, Diablo, Heroes of the Storm, Overwatch...
I don't know if it is just better talent - or more money?
But whatever it is, it's pretty easy to tell which games will "fail" within the first few minutes.
Which people are those? The ones that want a half finished buggy game with hardware requirements that outpace what 99% of gamers have?
The only thing Vanguard proved (once again) is that if you release a game filled with bugs, has terrible performance issues and is generally unfinished, then yes people will flee. If the developer strips all the development resources, no one will come back.
I'm not saying Vanguard was an awesome game. For some I'm sure it was and others not. The point is that a niche game in current times could easily be 500,000 players. Which was once considered the runaway success for the biggest game of its time.
Developers currently keep aiming for millions of players with gameplay designed to appeal to everyone and end up with a game that appeals to no one, because it doesn't solve any issues with current games or advance gameplay in a way that will pull gamers back into MMO or away from their current MMO.