You gave the aesthetics 6/10, with the only negative note to be seen that the music was nonexistent in some places and "buggy with combat effects" - the latter of which I've never experienced since about three months after launch. How exactly does that take four points off of a score?
Gameplay - you call combat lacking excitement and unimpressive, but you don't elaborate on why you feel that way. Personally I find the combat to be quite fun, particularly in groups where you can coordinate properly to use weaknesses and increase damage on the whole. You call diplomacy a bore, skipping over the entire concept, and your only praise is crafting... yet you (somehow?) give this category a 7 out of 10. That doesn't even make sense, given what you wrote.
Innovation - you marked this down, seemingly, because features are complex. That doesn't detract from innovation. A low innovation score would mean that the game is a boring rehash of everything else out there.
I see the fanboy crowd wasted no time breaking out the torches and pitchforks.
Honestly, the reviewer has a different viewpoint than you do, that is all there is to it. It doesn't matter when he started playing MMORPGs, whether hes a fan of themeparks or sandboxes, etc...
The review does not make your own opinions any less valid, and the reviewers opinion is not any more valid than your own. They are equally valid and nobody is wrong or right.
It's a difference of opinions and nothing more, if you can't accept that then the internet might not be the place for you.
The vangaurd comunity always goes after anybody who has negative thigns to say about their game. However I think the writer actually give Vanguard a good score 6.5?? I was like that is 2 points too high. So a lot ofwhat I read can be just chucked out as they are flaming and trolling.
Diplomacy was strange when I was in beta, and I admit you either loved it or you really hated it, I hated it and ignored it. Crafting on the other hand was down right great, it was the one thing that kept me in game for 3 months at launch wile the rest of the folks were leaving.
I got to say I tried free to play, but the game still has massive amounts of lag, It had some great ideas, but it is old and tired, and will only appeal to a certain type of player. The ones who want instant gratification might as well go back to wow or something, as there is nothing instant about vanguard, and that is where I think they made a misjudgement of the type of player they were shoot at with free to play.
Me I deinstalled vangaurd last week end to make room for something more interesting.
Originally posted by mymmo you can play the game without payinga dime, and still there is some nagging about the f2p model...sigh
Agreed, people are just never satisfied
That's not it. There are a number of MMO's that use the Ftp model, so you judge an mmo that claims to be ftp by its competition.
In other words, value for your time. Vanguard isn't free to play, since it cost you time. Therefor you want to spend your time wisely and get the most bang for your buck.
I like the game but thought it was a bit cheesy that 4 out of 6 free races were essentially just regular humans with neglible variances depending on what climate/terrain they were born. The other 2 are halflings (small humans) or half-elves (half-human). I think they could have had at least one "beast" race available. Whichever seems the lamest even. This doesnt turn out to be too much of an annoyance since you can try all races/classes until level 20 then only buy the ones you'd like to continue on. That's actually brilliant imo.
SOE can suck my stump after bailing on it's EU customers. That said they have easily one of the crappiest F2P "models" in existence that essentially leave you in a "sub or gtfo" situation mostly.
I liked VG a lot when I tried it, it does have its downsides though & these can grate after a while but if you can overlook them there is a uniquely old-school charm to this title, a pity it wasn't purchased by a studio willing to fully polish & flesh it out earlier in its life-cycle as this could have been one of the big guns.
lol everything about the review was wrong beside the F2P restrictions but to be honest this game should have never went F2P. They did it just to grab the freeloaders that like to complain when others pay money to get benefits in the game that is not free to them.
Vanguard's model isnt that bad. Another SOE f2p game that is not too objectionable is DCUO.The money limit was a pain but I could play most the content I was genuinely interested with no cost if I chose.. Bought the light power set and thats all. Their bulletrun model is ridiculous . Hopefully planetside 2 will be a little more forgiving as I've already pre-purchased the game. It was $39.99 but came with $40.00 worth of station cash so I figured I'd go ahead and purchase. I think most ..if not all F2P could get by very well with mostly cosmetic items.Customization is high on my list and probably the thing I've most spent cash on in the F2p games I've played. I know this is true for many others with whom I've spoken. Maybe a few slot unlocks for various things..auction..characters..bank..etc. would be fine but mostly cosmetic.
Originally posted by xDayx The review is based on someone with a "new normal" opinion of how the themeparks should be in there opinion. What they fail to see is that the mass-appeal market is saturated with rifts, gw2's, swtors, etc. We don't need another one of those. I will agree on the F2P being restrictive, that's the only thing they said right... But then again it's done typical Sony style.
how's vanguards model different than those theme park games that you listed?
I asume you are not actually referring to the revenue model, since the three games have a different model right now. So I ll guess you are talking about the game itself.
It's different in so many ways... however, the main difference is depth and scope. VG was not created as a quick grab, but as a very long journey with an insane amount of options. It focuses on community and encourages grouping. Even when farming crafting materials it is more profitable if you do it in a group. And is way way deeper and more inmersive than any of those themeparks. Sumarizing, it's way deeper and wider than your average MMO, and is aiming for a more demanding kind of player.
This is why, despite all the rampant bugs and horrendous release, it is still surviving. Agonizing but surviving. I doubt any of these modern games would have managed in a similar situation.
I hope I did not sound like a fanboi, sigh. It's just an honest opinion.
I was talking about gameplay, thanks for answering!
iirc this game was supposed to be a spiritual successor to EQ1? so that would mean soloing is possible, but puts you at a big disadvantage compared with grouping? I know about diplomacy and crafting being their own entities, but can you be more specific on the depth part? compared to other current mmos today
I'm not playing Vanguard now. But I have in the past. In my opinion this was a very bad review. There's no real argumentation, the author's biases are the only reasons I can find for some of the scoring. However, if the review is only based on the F2P implementation (which the text doesn't really suggest it is) then I have no remarks (since I have no real experience).
Oh, and bring back /flush in more games, it's sorely needed. /flush is honest to god a godsend. GW2 memory leaked like hell in some areas, I would have loved a /flush command to just reset my cache, instead of having to restart the whole game (I've had memory leaks in most MMOs at launch, GW2 is just a recent example).
This is probably the worst review I've read on this site to date. Full of crap. Like others have stated he seems to be from a different generation of gamers, for whom this game was not intended. Vanguard is not about instant gratification. I wish more games still followed some of the old school design elements Vanguard employs.
The vangaurd comunity always goes after anybody who has negative thigns to say about their game. However I think the writer actually give Vanguard a good score 6.5?? I was like that is 2 points too high. So a lot ofwhat I read can be just chucked out as they are flaming and trolling.
Diplomacy was strange when I was in beta, and I admit you either loved it or you really hated it, I hated it and ignored it. Crafting on the other hand was down right great, it was the one thing that kept me in game for 3 months at launch wile the rest of the folks were leaving.
I got to say I tried free to play, but the game still has massive amounts of lag, It had some great ideas, but it is old and tired, and will only appeal to a certain type of player. The ones who want instant gratification might as well go back to wow or something, as there is nothing instant about vanguard, and that is where I think they made a misjudgement of the type of player they were shoot at with free to play.
Me I deinstalled vangaurd last week end to make room for something more interesting.
True about the 'community' and I also agree about the score. I thought the review was not only fair but also generous in its score.
As to being 'old school', I think some people confuse sloppy design and buggy implemention with challanging game play.
I still fail to see why the devs of most of the games that lack of population are reluctant to put AI on their side, saying put god damn hierlings!! DDO has proven to be probably one of the most succesful games on history despite the hate, still collects on the top 5 mmos to the date, and this is purely due the synergy between players, but not alone that, it allows the players to play their heart content at their own peace by placing healers, tanks and casters at their dispossal.
Even using the horrid AI that hierlings have DDO has made what others not, the viability of playing on your own or play in group as you please, if this system were to be introduced on Vanguard i assure you the experience would be amazing, the main problem of vanguard is the huge world, is so inmense that you barely see any npc, and aside of Qualia main city you feel totally alone.
Seriously, having another server handling the Hierlings is not expencive if you think there are 2 servers now and one of them is dead, merge them and optimize your resources, and let the devs work on a hierling system that would revive this game.
If you mean like EQ mercs then VG does have it according to a thread on the VG forum.
For the few latency issues people complain about at FTP launch, you try jamming 100+ people on the Isle of Dawn which is relatively small.
If you go there now it is better after server fixes and you don't have to choose to go there at all to start.
The review was spot on IMO. I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn. There is just so much to do. And the occasional lag is very annoying.
SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable. I would not even use the term f2p with this game. It is more like a free trial. If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.
To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.
Hmmm a bit harsh on the review score. I think this game is more in line with the 7.5 user score.
Some good points about the F2P restrictions being limiting (at least give everyone all blue items geeez) and the game engine or lag being annoying. At least you can complete all the quests (unlike Lotro) although you may not be able to use the rewards lol.
However, I think that the reviewer simply doesn't like old school slower paced games in general based on his comments. I almost feel like there were two points off coming into the review due to personal preference.
I think Vanguard stands out from the crowd on several fronts.
- Crafting is not unbelievable but fking unbelievable. If you take time to get involved its hugely addictive and rewarding.
- Housing??? not mentioned in the review. I don't know any other MMO where you can buy a plot of land, craft every item in the house and have it all on show in the open world. No instances.
- Diplomacy is a great concept and sadly not utilised in other MMO's.
- Exploration. The game is huge and there is a real feeling of a massive world to explore.
- What about the epic missions to learn how to make a boat, then building it and then sailing off in it? There are so many side lines in this game its hard to fathom. I would prefer to see a new Vanguard released with the quality and graphics it deserves.
I don't play it anymore but that is due to lack of time and Vanguard is a group intensive MMO.
Originally posted by xDayx The review is based on someone with a "new normal" opinion of how the themeparks should be in there opinion. What they fail to see is that the mass-appeal market is saturated with rifts, gw2's, swtors, etc. We don't need another one of those. I will agree on the F2P being restrictive, that's the only thing they said right... But then again it's done typical Sony style.
how's vanguards model different than those theme park games that you listed?
I asume you are not actually referring to the revenue model, since the three games have a different model right now. So I ll guess you are talking about the game itself.
It's different in so many ways... however, the main difference is depth and scope. VG was not created as a quick grab, but as a very long journey with an insane amount of options. It focuses on community and encourages grouping. Even when farming crafting materials it is more profitable if you do it in a group. And is way way deeper and more inmersive than any of those themeparks. Sumarizing, it's way deeper and wider than your average MMO, and is aiming for a more demanding kind of player.
This is why, despite all the rampant bugs and horrendous release, it is still surviving. Agonizing but surviving. I doubt any of these modern games would have managed in a similar situation.
I hope I did not sound like a fanboi, sigh. It's just an honest opinion.
I was talking about gameplay, thanks for answering!
iirc this game was supposed to be a spiritual successor to EQ1? so that would mean soloing is possible, but puts you at a big disadvantage compared with grouping? I know about diplomacy and crafting being their own entities, but can you be more specific on the depth part? compared to other current mmos today
You can solo all your way to level cap and craft yourself gear as good as anything you can get from outside raids. But it's going to take you long. You are not forced to group unless you want the very fancy raid gear that you don't need anywhere else anyway. However, grouping is way more efficient instead of what happens in most modern games, where soloing is the fastest way to level cap.
The disadvantage has got nothing to do with gear or gold income or anything similar if we exclude raids of the equation. The disadvantage in this case would be that the soloer will have to work harder to get to level cap with gear as good as the guy who groups a lot.
Answering your crafting and diplomacy depth question. I won't get into the details, but just for starters crafting is really versatile. You can suit whatever you craft to your needs since you can add lolzillion different modifiers to most of the stuff you craft. The amount of options is insane. It has also got to do with interaction. I can craft normal armors myself, no problems. Now, if I want to make some relly good piece of armor I am going to need a tailor to do some parts for me. The same way, if a leatherworker wants to do some very fancy armor he needs me to craft him some parts. If you want to build something big like a ship or a house you need lots of different type of crafters working together or at least trading stuff.
Also, crafters need materials. Many people who don't craft gather those materials anyway, and they want good harvesting gear that crafters can make for them.
Crafters can also make stuff for diplomats, the same way diplomats can provide crafters with some local crafting buffs. There's even a raid boss that needs crafters working during the fight.
Diplomats can provide nice buffs to whole cities. You enter the city and you get the buff. There are lots of different buffs that affect diplomacy itself, crafting, and adventuring. And, surprise, if you get several diplomats coordinated, getting those buffs is way easier.
Diplomats are also needed to start certain events that can open new quests, encounters or trade options.
Sorry for the wall of text. As you can see, VG's depth has got to do with interaction a lot and about options. I hope I answered your questions.
The item restriction in Sony's F2P games is completely off-putting; I really wanted to get back to EQ2 and Vanguard when they became F2P (I used to love those games), but when I noticed this "feature" I just did not want to play anymore.
For people that are complaining about F2P please stop. If you left becuase you don't want to play they do not want you back because you will still not pay a dime.
The only reason SoE made the game F2P is to cater to the new public or the people that are friends with people that have been advocate for the game or enjoy the game a lot for a long time. This type of system allowed me to try out games I wouldn't have before and allow me to decide if I would want to pay.
I am now lvl 49 and still enjoying the game on a free vanguard account but because of the fact I want to play a SPECIFIC class that is not free I am probably going to reroll and subscribe after I hit cap.
Please answer me this, if item restrictions/class/race restriction were taken off that would the people that have been paying get that the F2P players don't have?
Pretty cash shop coins for exp boost because not like the veterans aren't capped already.
Pretty mounts/apperance item in a game with crappy character graphics?
The amount of people complaining if EQ2 and Vanguard lift all those restrictions the amount of money they will lose from the current subscribers would probably be 1000x more.
Because if all those things were lifted I would personally not pay a dime for any of those misc things that you can buy.
Comments
This review is... confusing.
You gave the aesthetics 6/10, with the only negative note to be seen that the music was nonexistent in some places and "buggy with combat effects" - the latter of which I've never experienced since about three months after launch. How exactly does that take four points off of a score?
Gameplay - you call combat lacking excitement and unimpressive, but you don't elaborate on why you feel that way. Personally I find the combat to be quite fun, particularly in groups where you can coordinate properly to use weaknesses and increase damage on the whole. You call diplomacy a bore, skipping over the entire concept, and your only praise is crafting... yet you (somehow?) give this category a 7 out of 10. That doesn't even make sense, given what you wrote.
Innovation - you marked this down, seemingly, because features are complex. That doesn't detract from innovation. A low innovation score would mean that the game is a boring rehash of everything else out there.
[mod edit]
I see the fanboy crowd wasted no time breaking out the torches and pitchforks.
Honestly, the reviewer has a different viewpoint than you do, that is all there is to it. It doesn't matter when he started playing MMORPGs, whether hes a fan of themeparks or sandboxes, etc...
The review does not make your own opinions any less valid, and the reviewers opinion is not any more valid than your own. They are equally valid and nobody is wrong or right.
It's a difference of opinions and nothing more, if you can't accept that then the internet might not be the place for you.
The vangaurd comunity always goes after anybody who has negative thigns to say about their game. However I think the writer actually give Vanguard a good score 6.5?? I was like that is 2 points too high. So a lot ofwhat I read can be just chucked out as they are flaming and trolling.
Diplomacy was strange when I was in beta, and I admit you either loved it or you really hated it, I hated it and ignored it. Crafting on the other hand was down right great, it was the one thing that kept me in game for 3 months at launch wile the rest of the folks were leaving.
I got to say I tried free to play, but the game still has massive amounts of lag, It had some great ideas, but it is old and tired, and will only appeal to a certain type of player. The ones who want instant gratification might as well go back to wow or something, as there is nothing instant about vanguard, and that is where I think they made a misjudgement of the type of player they were shoot at with free to play.
Me I deinstalled vangaurd last week end to make room for something more interesting.
Sorry but what was said rings true for many new players trying the game out for the first time.
Agreed, people are just never satisfied
That's not it. There are a number of MMO's that use the Ftp model, so you judge an mmo that claims to be ftp by its competition.
In other words, value for your time. Vanguard isn't free to play, since it cost you time. Therefor you want to spend your time wisely and get the most bang for your buck.
SOE can suck my stump after bailing on it's EU customers. That said they have easily one of the crappiest F2P "models" in existence that essentially leave you in a "sub or gtfo" situation mostly.
I liked VG a lot when I tried it, it does have its downsides though & these can grate after a while but if you can overlook them there is a uniquely old-school charm to this title, a pity it wasn't purchased by a studio willing to fully polish & flesh it out earlier in its life-cycle as this could have been one of the big guns.
Game engine was lacking 5 years ago even more than now.
Now people have much more powerful PC's on average + engine was patched a bit.
Can you imagine how BAD it was? It was like half of people had like 5-15 fps which was kinda unplayabel and drove people away.
I was talking about gameplay, thanks for answering!
iirc this game was supposed to be a spiritual successor to EQ1? so that would mean soloing is possible, but puts you at a big disadvantage compared with grouping? I know about diplomacy and crafting being their own entities, but can you be more specific on the depth part? compared to other current mmos today
I'm not playing Vanguard now. But I have in the past. In my opinion this was a very bad review. There's no real argumentation, the author's biases are the only reasons I can find for some of the scoring. However, if the review is only based on the F2P implementation (which the text doesn't really suggest it is) then I have no remarks (since I have no real experience).
Oh, and bring back /flush in more games, it's sorely needed. /flush is honest to god a godsend. GW2 memory leaked like hell in some areas, I would have loved a /flush command to just reset my cache, instead of having to restart the whole game (I've had memory leaks in most MMOs at launch, GW2 is just a recent example).
True about the 'community' and I also agree about the score. I thought the review was not only fair but also generous in its score.
As to being 'old school', I think some people confuse sloppy design and buggy implemention with challanging game play.
If you mean like EQ mercs then VG does have it according to a thread on the VG forum.
For the few latency issues people complain about at FTP launch, you try jamming 100+ people on the Isle of Dawn which is relatively small.
If you go there now it is better after server fixes and you don't have to choose to go there at all to start.
twitch.tv/itpaladin
@ITPalg
YouTube: ITPalGame
The review was spot on IMO. I know that upsets the games advocates, but this is a game that takes a lot of time to learn. There is just so much to do. And the occasional lag is very annoying.
SOE has made f2p options so restrictive as to make the game almost unplayable. I would not even use the term f2p with this game. It is more like a free trial. If you really want to play this game you are going to have to sub.
To read people above saying you can play this game without paying a dime is really amusing, as while it might be possible, the point of a game is to have fun and that would definitely NOT be fun.
Hmmm a bit harsh on the review score. I think this game is more in line with the 7.5 user score.
Some good points about the F2P restrictions being limiting (at least give everyone all blue items geeez) and the game engine or lag being annoying. At least you can complete all the quests (unlike Lotro) although you may not be able to use the rewards lol.
However, I think that the reviewer simply doesn't like old school slower paced games in general based on his comments. I almost feel like there were two points off coming into the review due to personal preference.
I think Vanguard stands out from the crowd on several fronts.
- Crafting is not unbelievable but fking unbelievable. If you take time to get involved its hugely addictive and rewarding.
- Housing??? not mentioned in the review. I don't know any other MMO where you can buy a plot of land, craft every item in the house and have it all on show in the open world. No instances.
- Diplomacy is a great concept and sadly not utilised in other MMO's.
- Exploration. The game is huge and there is a real feeling of a massive world to explore.
- What about the epic missions to learn how to make a boat, then building it and then sailing off in it? There are so many side lines in this game its hard to fathom. I would prefer to see a new Vanguard released with the quality and graphics it deserves.
I don't play it anymore but that is due to lack of time and Vanguard is a group intensive MMO.
You can solo all your way to level cap and craft yourself gear as good as anything you can get from outside raids. But it's going to take you long. You are not forced to group unless you want the very fancy raid gear that you don't need anywhere else anyway. However, grouping is way more efficient instead of what happens in most modern games, where soloing is the fastest way to level cap.
The disadvantage has got nothing to do with gear or gold income or anything similar if we exclude raids of the equation. The disadvantage in this case would be that the soloer will have to work harder to get to level cap with gear as good as the guy who groups a lot.
Answering your crafting and diplomacy depth question. I won't get into the details, but just for starters crafting is really versatile. You can suit whatever you craft to your needs since you can add lolzillion different modifiers to most of the stuff you craft. The amount of options is insane. It has also got to do with interaction. I can craft normal armors myself, no problems. Now, if I want to make some relly good piece of armor I am going to need a tailor to do some parts for me. The same way, if a leatherworker wants to do some very fancy armor he needs me to craft him some parts. If you want to build something big like a ship or a house you need lots of different type of crafters working together or at least trading stuff.
Also, crafters need materials. Many people who don't craft gather those materials anyway, and they want good harvesting gear that crafters can make for them.
Crafters can also make stuff for diplomats, the same way diplomats can provide crafters with some local crafting buffs. There's even a raid boss that needs crafters working during the fight.
Diplomats can provide nice buffs to whole cities. You enter the city and you get the buff. There are lots of different buffs that affect diplomacy itself, crafting, and adventuring. And, surprise, if you get several diplomats coordinated, getting those buffs is way easier.
Diplomats are also needed to start certain events that can open new quests, encounters or trade options.
Sorry for the wall of text. As you can see, VG's depth has got to do with interaction a lot and about options. I hope I answered your questions.
For people that are complaining about F2P please stop. If you left becuase you don't want to play they do not want you back because you will still not pay a dime.
The only reason SoE made the game F2P is to cater to the new public or the people that are friends with people that have been advocate for the game or enjoy the game a lot for a long time. This type of system allowed me to try out games I wouldn't have before and allow me to decide if I would want to pay.
I am now lvl 49 and still enjoying the game on a free vanguard account but because of the fact I want to play a SPECIFIC class that is not free I am probably going to reroll and subscribe after I hit cap.
Please answer me this, if item restrictions/class/race restriction were taken off that would the people that have been paying get that the F2P players don't have?
Pretty cash shop coins for exp boost because not like the veterans aren't capped already.
Pretty mounts/apperance item in a game with crappy character graphics?
The amount of people complaining if EQ2 and Vanguard lift all those restrictions the amount of money they will lose from the current subscribers would probably be 1000x more.
Because if all those things were lifted I would personally not pay a dime for any of those misc things that you can buy.