...stevemcqueen said:
I"m having a hard time making these two sentences jibe.Aradune Mithara said:
Why all the nerd rage against Vanguard
- Thread starter Shonuff
- Start date
I have a fine ride through life but thanks for the concern.Reggie said:
And if you are an intelligent person you understand hyperbole as well.
In any case I doubt that anyone can argue that Vanguard wasn"t hyped to high heaven and many promises made and broken. Have you noticed that Vanguard seems to have more "rage" and flames directed at it than any other game in a long while? There"s a reason. It"s because many had high hopes that this would be the next great game. The greater the commitment or promise the harder it hits when you are let down.
This is called Venting, and it"s fun
I" ll explain..........he sayssomecasual players..........I meanallof them, or at least 95%.Mithrull said:
If he says that "some" casual won"t like it, he obviously thinks that the majority will, I am just saying the opposite.
I think that the vast majority of casual won"t like Vanguard and a small percentage just might.
Did it help you?
It"s easy. Brad talks out each side of his mouth depending on who he"s trying to convince. He"ll say out one side, to forums and press, that Vanguard has something for everyone. Then out the other side he"ll justify the fact that it appeals to very few by saying "you can"t please everyone all the time" in whatever venacular he decides to use at the time.Mithrull said:
Face it, Vanguard has NOTHING to appeal to the casual or the "uber" player. It"s content sucks. it"s a return to the days of EQ before they got smart and started instancing raid encounters. The difference this time is that there won"t be much competition.
If he wants to see this game recover he needs to wise up and own up to the mistakes he and his team have made. First recognize that it"s not that "this game won"t appeal to every casual player no matter what..." No, it"s that it won"t appeal to ANY casual player no matter what. Anyone with half a brain knows this game is the antithesis of a casual player game.
Then to top it off he"s got to stop hating Blizzard for stealing his cookies and realize that they are successful because they are smart. He can either learn from them (as he learned from D&D and others when he created EQ) and improve the game, or he can continue to feel obligated to justify why his vision is still "good" when everything points to it distinctly being "not good".
I"d like to come back to Vanguard but it"s got to be a new smarter Vanguard than what it is today. I seriously doubt that will occur however, I"m not sure he has it in him to make the required changes.
There are far too many definitions to list. Casual/hardcore is defined at the individual gamer level. You can be hardcore, while only playing 2 hours an evening. You can be casual, while playing 8 hours a day. The variations are nearly endless. It all comes down to "how" you play a game. Its an attitude in my honest opinion.Mkopec1 said:
In that respect, you could brand ANY game either way. Considering this, i"m not quite sure how anyone could consider Vanguard to be one or the other. Or WoW. Or any other game for that matter. The waters are far too muddy to determine anything definitive really.
I remember when I first heard of Vanguard about 4 years ago. From what I read, I thought "wow, this is a game I could really get into." But as time went on, and subsequent development/beta phases ticked by, I came to realise that it wasn"t really for me at all. But that doesn"t mean the game sucks. It simply means that I have certain expectations for what I consider a good game, and Vanguard didn"t meet those expectations. I also acknowledge the fact that it may have exceeded the expectations of others.
So I leave it at that. Its not a game for me. But it is for others. And at the end of the day, its just another choice. The more the better.
So here"s some examples of what might save Vanguard.
Significantly increase the exp given by 2 dot mobs.
Increase the number of quests that only require killing 2 dot mobs.
Decrease the ability of mobs to chase you down when escaping.
Do away with corpse runs OR the exp lost from summoning. Screw the "death has to have meaning" bs and come up with some other way to keep it from being trivial without slowing down player progress.
Lastly, stop using timesinks as a method to hide a lack of content or bugs. If you have something to hide then you are doing something wrong. This was the number 1 complaint (among many) players had with EQ. It"s the same old bullshit tactic that was one big reason people jumped that ship as soon as something came along that was playable.
Significantly increase the exp given by 2 dot mobs.
Increase the number of quests that only require killing 2 dot mobs.
Decrease the ability of mobs to chase you down when escaping.
Do away with corpse runs OR the exp lost from summoning. Screw the "death has to have meaning" bs and come up with some other way to keep it from being trivial without slowing down player progress.
Lastly, stop using timesinks as a method to hide a lack of content or bugs. If you have something to hide then you are doing something wrong. This was the number 1 complaint (among many) players had with EQ. It"s the same old bullshit tactic that was one big reason people jumped that ship as soon as something came along that was playable.
See that to me is not making it casuall friendly its dumbing down the game and making it sologuard.Stevon said:
So is this how every mmorpg needs to be now? Dunbed down gameplay to appeal to the lowest common denominator? What you describing here is WoW 2.0. Why not just play WoW then if this is what your looking for out of a game.
Timesinks? Whaich game on the market today in this genre does not use some timesinks to keep poeple playing?
Camerous
Molten Core Raider
- 331
- 1,056
OMG you are right!! Thanks for posting this and showing us the error of our ways. There is no way anyone can enjoy VG Cause you have said they can"t. Wow that takes a load off my mind. Thanks a lot! Of course we ALL want instanced content cause there is no way any of us could think that instances are not a good thing... cause hey you have to be right! Right?Stevon said:
Well first off, dumb fuck, a lot of people like VG. There is plenty of content there. 2nd not everyone wants a pussyfied world where everything is instanced and all the babies get every thing handed to them on nice little platters cause if they had to actually work for something and earn it they would cry and moan all day long.
That"s damn funny. Also, is your avatar a zombie Ann Coulter? (picture"s a bit too small for me to be sure)
Steve dream on, VG will never pull 1 million. The market for this type of product just is not there. Ten years ago maybe. I understand your point, namely you want to play the game but optimization issues are turning you away. That is separate from Brad implying numbers are down because the wrong message is going out. The game is for a small market. That is it. By it"s nature. But make no mistake, ANY producer wants to reach as many people as possible. I"m sure there are some who want more horse and buggies produced too.stevemcqueen said:
But your last sentence does make a valid point. Brad has made his bed, now if he doesn"t sleep in it and try to satisfy those customers he does have, he might lose it all.
Is this this kind of "message" and "posting" that Brad claims drove away the potential players he wants to subscribe to his game?Camerous said:
This game was never destined for greatness becauase...
It does not have a well known license..
It does not appear in any major store, like Mejers, Wallmart, etc (essentially marketing sux)..
Its only real advertizing has been word of mouth and FoH and most of this has been negative so far...
I thik it beat my expectations of having 100K+ in the first month, really. I was expecting alot less.
It does not have a well known license..
It does not appear in any major store, like Mejers, Wallmart, etc (essentially marketing sux)..
Its only real advertizing has been word of mouth and FoH and most of this has been negative so far...
I thik it beat my expectations of having 100K+ in the first month, really. I was expecting alot less.
No, it was clear sarcasm and a statement claiming that Brad ignored people"s warning on this thread not to launch as scheduled. And if he claims that somehow his hands were tied and he was pressured into the release date, well then I will call him out for the BS he said in this forum how he will never do that and would only release when the game was in a ready state.Mithrull said:
He is the poster child for that type of thing. As soon as one steps down (or is removed by force) another rises to take his place.Slick Willey said:
Personally if there is one thing right now Id like to see changed Id like to see different death penalties for summoning corpses. Especially since I have a gift for finding spots that I fall through in the world and die in random impossible to get to places.Ham n Cheese said:
Ok thats happened 5 times but having to bind all my gear is a pain waiting on a GM to respond let alone retrieve taht corpse and still lose exp is a pain. I just dont get with how acknowledgebely bad some thing in this game are and all the double exp weekends at least if I wait on a GM petition for a corpse clearly I was robbed of I cant get back 100% exp.
Mk of course it is a dumbed down game he is suggesting. THAT is what the market obviously wants. The market wants fast paced, battle.net type games now. You can still make your VG, but just don"t expect the numbers for it. The market is TELLING you they don"t want it. Any stockbroker, for example, will tell you to "never fight the tape." That isn"t to say that a 150k sub game can"t still remain profitable. The games I"m keeping my eye on now are LOTR (simply because I just love the storyline) and Warhammer. I suspect alot of others are too. We shall see come launch date. In the meantime I play WOW because it still entertains me.Mkopec1 said: