Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Vanguard is the best out there..
fswa
Member Posts: 5
I started playing Vanguard when it went live. I had to pull the plug on it as the game wasn't "ready". I went through hours of EQII, WOW, EVE, a dozen free MMO's, Guildwars, LoTRO, and FF XI, as I sat there, 3 months later, I actually logged into my old EQ account reach for what seemed to be the last straw..
As I looked through my half dozen characters I glanced below my monitor to see my Vanguard disc.
After a few hours of downloading new content I logged back in and haven't looked back.
I find it to be the best online game available.
Just thought I would share as I always here so much chap about it.
FSWA
Just Play Dammit!
Comments
In what way you found it good?
Vanguard is not the first game killed by a to early release and will not be the last either. Too bad that sony did that mistake again but I am afraid that Vanguard will fade away anyways, If they waited until it were finished it would probably be really big now. Same thing with EQ2, took over a year to get that one playable.
I have just looked on it early, the problem everybody talks about is that it has too little content and you soon plays through it. Do you think its enough too play for a year or will you tire when you hit max level?
And its not fare comparing it to Guildwars, thats not an MMO but more comparably with old Diablo, a game you play online with a few friends. Still the best programmed game I seen in ages though. GW2 will be a MMO however.
I am happy that Conan and Warhamster seems to learn from Vanguards mistake, the gaming developers have to learn that we want a finished product when we pay for it. Still sad but i really doubt Vanguard will get back all the players who bought it and stopped soon.
Is it lagging now BTW? Thats still the biggest problem with EQ2, even with my 8800 card and settings to minimum.
Sorry I cut out most of your response but.. You pretty much lost me with the entire response.
I'll agree that Vanguard was released to early (we told them it was fubar in beta when MicroSoft was handing out paychecks to brad..)
However.. you then seem to imply that VG being released early or in the state it was in had something to do with Sony... How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Brad had taken 10's of millions from Microsoft and had an unfinished turd to show for it. SOE then bailed his arse out so that this project could even see light of day.
When you consider that SOE had their own games in development and a certain budget.. do you expect that after they bailed Brad out.. they could afford the 2 extra years needed to get this game ready?
That is something that Brad should take 100% and it had nothing to do with SOE. Other than it probably would have been best to let the game.. just not be released.
As to EQ2 over a year to be playable? I'm not sure what EQ2 you're playing.. I have been around since friends and family beta... and don't seem to have ever had a problem with it being "playable".
And if you are having issues running EQ2 on minimum settings... with a 8800 you need to look at your system.
I run high quality in raids... and don't have the issue you are describing.
However, if that's your experience I won't try to convince you that it hasn't been... its just not even close to mine.
Now if you said you were having "lag" issues with Vanguard.. I'd be able to understand... totally.
(just to close EQ2 on my second box which has a 8600GTS in it.. can run the game on high quality.. but has to be set to "high performance" if I run through a raid zone on that one..)
Too funny, i did the EXACT same thing lol, even the part of installing everquest! I went through all of those games, now me and my bud's are back on Vanguard and we love it! OMG FPS you questioned? They have increased a lot, and are still working on it! Latest news they talk about reworking the player model with less "bones," making it much easier to load and process. They have done a lot of work and really polished up Vanguard.
If VG started posting some commercials or some major advertising and got some population base back it could be a VERY GOOD game, very popular! Comon people, join the PvP server!
Boy, i have played so many games. Want an opinion on any major game? PM me.
I agree I just came back since april it is ;ots better and can see It can only get better same thing happend with Eq 2
Vanguard may well eventually get back the players it once had, but it will only do that by giving literally everything on that original box and more.
People who wanted to play the game are likely to still want to play the game - as it was meant to be at launch. What it was at launch was a genuine disaster, which will take a lot to come back from. But if SoE keep squishing bugs, improving performance, adding content, and then enabling half-there content such as flying mounts, then people would be happy to play it. The thing that may save Vanguard was the strength and extent of its original vision. If SoE can fulfill that, and then give a "all former subscribers have a free 28 day return trial" promotion, then they could start pulling back their original players. But they should not crow too loudly yet - they have, in my view, not even come close to finishing this game to the box yet. Right track, just a lot of work was never done / finished, so there is a lot to keep on doing.
Your facts are wrong. Sony never took over vanguard till after Sigil went belly up. Sony was providing hosting and distribution support. Sigil was in control of the game, development, tech support and was the owner controlling the game. Sony had some money invested but didn't have a controlling investment in the company a point Brad was quite adamate are reitterating.
What Sony did do was pick up vanguard after Sigil folded. And Sony is responsible for a lot of the work that has been going on to stabilize, add missing features, and polish the game since 2-3 months after the game launched.
Frankly having the game fail could very well have worked to Sony's benefit in this instance and I personally think they only reason they set up a relationship with sigil was they suspected it would fail and they could pick up the game entirely for pennies on the dollar...
---
Ethion
*looks at the title of this thread*
...
It seems interesting how there are more and more posts nowadays with titles that seem like they're trying to provoke posters on purpose.
I know it wasn't really that you were trying to make anyone angry, but you can instill some aggravation in people when you post things like "Vanguard is the best out there.." especially when it's just your opinion.
*shrugs*
I like vanguard though, so I can't say anything about that.
nm
The things I like the best about it are the quests, the "diplomacy" game, the races, and the "world" itself. I have played most all races, just getting a feel for each.
I have found beginning as a Goblin slave is a real kick. I really wasn't expecting it. Fun.
I don't mind playing solo and I have been able to a lot of entertaining stuff by myself.
Lastly, I like enjoy the way mining, skinning, and creating is done.
I just like the way it all works together. I sometimes get a bit of lag, but I get that in all the games I have played online.
It is just my opinion, but the changes Vanguard has made really makes a huge difference and I, for one, am hooked!
Just Play Dammit!
A quote from an interview with SOE Smedley::
''Microsoft had wanted to launch this thing in July of 2006,'' Mr. Smedley said. ''We felt like the game needed more time, and we have given it more time, but at some point enough is enough, and we have to ship the game and start generating revenue.''
If SOE decided to get into bed with Sigil they should have either committed to it or just let it die. Cutting funding when they did ensured the game released in a terrible state. I am not saying SOE is responsible for the mismanagment within the sigil staff for missing milestones, but SOE should have had better oversight before getting in bed. Vanguard didn't need 2 more years to finish. Even with the staff suffering over a 50% manpower cut, the game sounds somewhat release ready now.
Smedley just doesn't get it yet. If Vanguard had been given enough time to finish it would have most likely been a big success. Far larger than his views of generating revenues by shipping.
The end result is SOE generated some revenue at the expense of several hundred thousand people who bought the game in the shape it was in.
I really wish this game had another 6-12 months work done before hitting the streets.
I thought about getting the game recently because it sounds like the MMORPG I have been wanting to play. Death penalties, some travel time, and other things I miss about MMORPGs but thank goodness I read the article as of late SOE is going to turn it into another pile of crap like EQ2 and WoW.
Don't supposed it has occured to anyone that letting sigil die might have been a win for soe??
Soe invested an unknown amount in vanguard but given that it only lasted a few months I'm guessing it wasn't much, perhaps a few million dollars. Then SOE was no doubt getting a good chunk of the revenue from the launch of the game at a minimum to cover the costs of data center and equipment to host vanguard which was their obligation.
Vanguard sold around 200k copies no doubt making several million dollars or which I'd bet a nice chunk went to soe. Had vanguard gotten the 300-400k Brad wanted things would have been rosy and sigil a winner. However the game was released to early and died. Do you really think people at soe didn't see this as a possibility?
So if Sigil dies what happens? The company liquidates and pays creditors what they can from their assets. They sell everything they can to make as much money as possible. So who did they owe the most money too? Probably Microsoft and Soe... Who would be interested in buying the assets from sigil?? Probably the only one really looking at it would be Soe who was buying it to pay themselves back some as well as MS...
Does anyone smell a sweet deal here? Soe invests what $5M?? and gets a game that has had 5x that put into development? As has been said before Vanguard has the potential to be a great game but was released too early and is buggy. Bugs can be fixed and so can content so what really matters is the fundamentals of the game and in that area vanguard is top shelf.
If SOE is keeping a staff of 40-50 people going thats maybe 10-12M per year for people, office and equipment. If VG has say 50K subs thats 750K per month or a bit over 9M per year. So can Soe make this break even and start making money for 10-15M invested? I would say easily and I think there is the potential to do a lot better then break even. If they can grow it to 150k or more then it's a business that is making 10m+ per year... Seems like a pretty good bet to me.
Personally I think that the way Soe played this is cutthroat business and very shrewd. If Brad pulled it off they would no doubt get a very lucrative part of the revenue from working a deal in the 11th hour and saving Sigil. If Sigil failed they would be in the best position to pick up the company and all assets and they might even have setup a deal where they get a lot of their initial investment back.
---
Ethion
Don't forget the SoE is keeping only 20 people for VG development nowadays. I think that was a reasonable cut to lower the costs of the studio maintaince. That probably means they have around 30-35k subscribers atm and they are slightly in positive balance
Also don't forget about the fact that the game is ready to ship now (after 11months). If the game wouldn't be released and they would be working on it while the servers are offline.. the time needed to fix all the issues will be much shorter. Maybe 2-4 months. And this game would get the credit it deserves.
REALITY CHECK
Too bad I got HGL and a couple more games yesterday, I think I will not come back to VG till they launch a free trial. Thank for the information.
Originally posted by Seveth
*looks at the title of this thread*
...
It seems interesting how there are more and more posts nowadays with titles that seem like they're trying to provoke posters on purpose.
I know it wasn't really that you were trying to make anyone angry, but you can instill some aggravation in people when you post things like "Vanguard is the best out there.." especially when it's just your opinion.
*shrugs*
and then there are people like yourself who most likely do not play the game and so have ni idea what you are talking about and shouldn't have bothered to post here at all. You added nothing to the thread at all.
The game is the best out there period.
A MMO is like life. It is something to cherish and enjoy upon in it journey. So why race to the end of it. In life at the end you die.
Have to agree, I have played EQ1, Horizons, Guild wars, LOTR, FFXI, EVE, EQ2, WoW and at the moment, VG is leaps and bounds ahead of all of them.
Why?
Most are either to simple or easy (I dont mean grind, I mean easy) or just not "realistic" enough (another subject entirely but basically feels like a game not a virtual world) or too old or over too quick.
Whilst the game isn't perfect, lag, bugs, some missing content, I still find myself loggin in every day and playing every hour I have, something I haven't done since the days of EQ1.
So I completely agree.
Now playing: VG (after a long break from MMORPGS)
Played for more than a month: Darkfall online, Vanguard SOH, Everquest, Horizons, WoW, SWG, Everquest II, Eve
Now, on topic, I'm not sure if I think VG could be considered the "best" as it stands to date, but I think given time and some TLC the game will be able to stand up to some of the major contenders.
First and foremost they need to add helm and mask graphics, and more hair and face choices. They then need to put in the character model changes they've mentioned as well as the new Khal, and other city graphics. While they do that they just need to keep raising performance (which is definitely already getting better) and add end game stuff.
I currently play, and love VG, but I'd still list it below the #1 spot right now.