i am not a person with money, but upgrading little by little. like i alwys have makes it alot easier then just dumping 1grand on a cpu all at once. I buy a little here and a little there.Nattac said:
Why all the nerd rage against Vanguard
- Thread starter Shonuff
- Start date
Rangoth
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 1,566
- 1,715
I don"t know if you are wrong because I have no numbers, but I believe the xbox360 charges for online play of it"s games with a monthly fee. I think it is per xbox not per game, so for say 14.99 a month you cna play any xbox game you own with others. At least I think that"s the setup....though I have no idea what % of people who own xbox"s subscribe...woqqqa said:
You are right, he made his choice. The point is, it was the wrong one. People knew this 2.5 years ago with EQ2, and they said it would be bad again for 2.5 years until VG made the same mistake, despite the people working on EQ2 admitting it was a mistake. Obviously what"s done is done, but that doesn"t mean that future companies can"t be smart enough to avoid making a mistake that has been made multiple times now. Especially when you compare it to the competition who specifically avoided that mistake.kcxiv said:
So while most of this "bitching" seems directed at Vanguard and Brad, I think everyone here knows it will do no good for that specific person and product, but hopefully serves to highlight a crucial decision that upcoming companies will be facing. If you want to include super bleeding edge tech in your design, then you should at the very least include scalability, or at least have a decent grasp on when your product will release and what products will be available to support it then.
I pretty much agree with that. I think if anything you err on the low side with tech. For me WoW is way too low and VG is a bit too high. But I"m what I would consider an enthusiast so in reality VG is way to high if you want to get a good chunk of people in your demographic. I"m sure it"s really tough to predict what the tech will be when these decision are made though.Twobit Whore said:
I"d hate to see people knee jerk and go really low tech to be "safe" though.
Brad pretty much said it though, in hindsight go lower tech and a little smaller world. Too ambitious is what I"ve always tagged the game as, not to mention inside conflicts leading to lack of focus, but end of the day I"m enjoying it and I do hope it catches up to it"s potential.
Personally, I think it"s a no-win situation for the developers. If they try to future-proof a game and give it high-end graphics, people bitch that they can"t run it. If they give it lower specs, the players will say it looks like ass.
It"s pretty much to the point games need to develop some sort of custom graphics engine that lets people scale down all the way to full animated low poly, all the way up to nasa sim high res space station 3d particle effects.
Then the board can flame each other about whose screenies look the best on a raid and whose PC runs the game better!
Then the board can flame each other about whose screenies look the best on a raid and whose PC runs the game better!
Then don"t play it and STFU about it already.The Bog said:
If you get 3 FPS on your shitty 2004 system with this game and quit after reaching lvl 3 OMG there is no content, they good for you. Did I say STFU already?
When you get a real computer you"ll see how incredible this game is and it"s FULL of content. Killing grasshoppers for 10 hours in a row outdoors was your choice. I did quests, crafting, AWESOME dungeon crawling and I can"t level slow enough to even see ONE continent"s content completely.
If it"s pointless, stop posting shit "oh my 2004 system runs everything, all games must run on 2004 hardware otherwise they are pieces of shit" yadayada STFU.
Yay.. based on media outlets for the w1n! Reviewers who, like the homo b0g, played 30 mins killing snakes outdoors on a laptop with an intel graphic card.Lyenae said:
The same kind of people that review games like Bog?
Site Name / Link Article Date Rating Ratio
Ferrago 3/2/2007 81 out of 100 81.0%
GotNext 3/6/2007 4 out of 5 80.0%
Gamer"s Hell 2/16/2007 8 out of 10 80.0%
GameZone 2/20/2007 7.8 out of 10 78.0%
IGN 2/27/2007 7.7 out of 10 77.0%
Then you have:
Eurogamer 2/22/2007 6 out of 10 60.0%
GameSpy 2/12/2007 3 out of 5 60.0%
PC Zone UK 4/1/2007 45 out of 100 45.0%
1UP 3/2/2007 3 out of 10 30.0%
So how can some review it for 80% and other for 30%? I guess those who PLAYED on a real PC and saw the content gave it 80% while the others like b0g and yourself give it 30% after killing a few snakes...
We all know that apart from WoW most MMO"s get mediocre reviews at best because reviewers don"t have the time to invest to see the whole game, or even the better parts of the game at high level.
Erronius
Macho Ma'am
- 16,478
- 42,396
Well, WoW pulled it off with lower specs amidst cries of "OMG that looks to cartoony!". Even with its lower specs, I"d assume that WoW will still be played long-term. Really the only gamers that WoW lost due to its graphics were the players that just wanted an EQ clone with better graphics. Those players ended up being a numerical minority as well as perpetually dissatisfied with whatever game they happened to be playing at the time.Wolfen said:
IMO the part of the playerbase that wants a "High-Fantasy" MMO is never going to be satisfied. They couldn"t get past WoW"s graphics, went to EQ2 and had various gripes, and after that went to VG. VG was screwed before the game even hit beta; there was no way on earth that Sigil was ever going to be able to satisfy the MMO purist grognards any more than any other MMO has since EQ. On the other hand you have the WoW players that aren"t so anally nitpicky and had fun with WoW; any MMO that ignores that and tries to run counter may have a hard time breaking 500k.
They didn"t just future-proof VG, they dug themselves such a hole that they will never be completely out of it. VG can come back and be twice the game that WoW is, and it"s possible that they won"t ever recover from release. There will be other, newer, shinier games in a year or two for people to check out once VG gets turned around, in much the same way as what happened to EQ2. If I was over at Mythic I"d be somewhat happy...WoW clone, rabid Warhammer fans and a less-than-spectacular first year for VG? The chum might already be in the water.
Preparing your game for the future is fine; biting off so much that it hurts you isn"t. Few mainstream gamers are going to want to dick around optimizing VG the way so many have had to, they are going to want to install the game and play immediately. Few mainstream gamers are going to want to upgrade their computers until they absolutely have to, when there are other MMO"s they can play w/o upgrading - especially when VG still has problems.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,430
- 73,490
Most of reviews are almost always useless for MMOs because the game the reviewers play during their reviewing process is almost always different from what a member of this forum plays.
They can tell us how the display looks, what the sound is like, and what the content is for the first bit of levels, and that"s about it.
They can tell us how the display looks, what the sound is like, and what the content is for the first bit of levels, and that"s about it.
Same as those giving it 30%... proving that smart ass comment about the 69% review is worth shit.Twobit Whore said:
STFU?
The bias and ability of reviewers aside, 1UP is a rather huge network in gaming media.. Ferrago is a fucking nobody. Seriously, you fail.
Even if the only reviews that matter are the 80% ones, 80% games do not make people buy new computers. 80% games are not incredible. They are "good", that"s about it.
As for reviewers not able to really review an MMO, that"s more or less bullshit. Don"t fucking kid yourself.In a few hours you can get a spot on idea as to whether an MMO is worth playing. No amount of secret/special content at higher levels will radically change what a game should be reviewed at
As for reviewers not able to really review an MMO, that"s more or less bullshit. Don"t fucking kid yourself.In a few hours you can get a spot on idea as to whether an MMO is worth playing. No amount of secret/special content at higher levels will radically change what a game should be reviewed at
Which was actually my original point. If the best thing you can say is it got an 81% at best (of which only 3 of 29 are 80-81 out of anaverage of 69%), then it isn"t something you really want to point at as validation.Lyenae said:
For comparisons sake, EQ2 has an average of almost 84%. WoW at 92% and DDO got 76%.
I doubt that a reviewer who played eve for just a couple of hours can get a solid grip of the "end game" evolved around the 0.0 player politicsLyenae said: