Why all the nerd rage against Vanguard
- Thread starter Shonuff
- Start date
Erronius
Macho Ma'am
- 16,480
- 42,416
A "Real" computer? Wait, wait a minute, can"t you see what is wrong with this? Have you even been reading the VG threads or did you just now decide to jump in with some ignorant comment?Morderick said:
The tens of millions of gamers playing other MMOs, MMOs that don"t need a top-end machine, don"t have "real" computers then? What, is everyone playing WoW on 486s?
Can you not understand what is wrong with expecting people to get a "real" computer (at least $1k US lets say),JUST TO PLAY A SINGLE MMO?
And for the love of God and all thats Holy, what the fuck does your system have to do with CONTENT? At BEST, system specs wouldindirectlyaffect the content one would see, and thats arguable. Even if you are lagging and hitching, you should be able to see whether or not the content is crap. If you were arguing that people"s poor systems were adversely affectingperformance, that would be valid. But to say a person"ssystemis so outdated that they cannot remark on content is just ignorant. Especially considering the fact that people have been bitching about game content (or a lack of it, right or wrong) for a long time now. So, Bog tries the game and finds the content lacking like many other people have, and you are going to claim that it is because of his system? What, lag and hitching obscured content like some magical internet fog that hides questgivers and fluff so that all that was left for the Bog to do do was to "kill grasshoppers"? Just STFU, either there is enough content or there isn"t.
Besides, it isn"t Bog"s fault that he lags in VG, especially when (as he said)every other fucking game runs fine.Just because Sigil set the performance standards beyond what 75% of gamers systems can handle with their current systems doesn"t mean that those gamers are responsible for making up that difference. (of course 75% is an estimate) Expecting millions of gamers to rush out and drop $1k just to play a single MMO (one that many would argue isn"t worth playing anyways) is just stupidity of the highest order. I sure as hell hope Sigil understands that the Bog isn"t in the minority here, and that this is going to restrict their sales.
But go ahead and keep thumping your chest about "real systems", especially when everyone else understands that the VG requirements are far and away beyond what was reasonable to expect of anyone but the minority of players with true high-end systems.
They lost the gamble as far as I"m concerned. I"m one of his potential customers that would be playing right now if it didn"t have such high requirements. I realize my computer isn"t great (and might upgrade within the next year or two), but like The Bog, my computer is good enough to play everything else.kohl said:
Brad might draw the comparison between making EQ require tech and Vanguard do the same, but to me, it"s like saying getting new brakes is relatively the same as buying a new car. When EQ came out, I went down to Best Buy and bought pretty much the cheapest videocard they had and put that into a computer that was over 2 years old. It ran everything perfectly until Luclin came around. With Vanguard, I"m looking at several upgrades or a completely new computer (which would probably be better considering the upgrades wouldn"t cost much less than a middle of the road machine).
Sort of sucks that I followed the game since the old days when it was just the Sigil forums, but then they made their intentions clear, and it was really no big surprise. I plan to update my computer soon, like I said, but at this point, if I"m going to upgrade solely for Vanguard, I might as well wait 6 months to a year until the game has a lot of the issues fleshed out and get something that will handle the game even better.
Yeah, not sure where the idea comes from that powergamers automatically have money. Oh, how I wish that was the case.Nattac said:
It is amazing really.
When you get a "real" machine all the bugs are gone, travel times are reduced exponentially, all the content works, nothing is incomplete, there are so many people to group with you have to beat them off with sticks, the raid game is fully implemented and functional, the FPS never drops below 40 and people come to your house with pizza and beer when you get hungry.
But....only if you have a "real" machine.
When you get a "real" machine all the bugs are gone, travel times are reduced exponentially, all the content works, nothing is incomplete, there are so many people to group with you have to beat them off with sticks, the raid game is fully implemented and functional, the FPS never drops below 40 and people come to your house with pizza and beer when you get hungry.
But....only if you have a "real" machine.
I think that"s definitely one of the things that makes console gaming more appealing to people. I can load up my PS2 and play any game made for it. I potentially can"t do that with my PC. Microsoft is spearheading their "Games for Windows" initiative to try to make PC gaming more attractive. Perhaps one of their goals should be to establish a recommended set of requirements every year that developers try to aim for.woqqqa said:
Ya know somethign I just noticed....Brad keeps comparing things to EQ1 and 1999.
The subs are as good or better than EQ1 at the same point.
We made EQ higher tech as well and people came and played.
But....in the last 7 years landscape of gaming has changed. You will never garner even the subs that EQ1 had if you don"t have a good release. With the sheer variety of games out there you have to get people into your game at release in pretty large numbers to allow for growth otherwise you are going to hit the cap on your subs pretty damn quickly. I would love to see him justify similar numbers to EQ1"s release in 1999 with a budget many times larger, tons more experience in the genre, and an exponentially larger player base to pull from.
EQ2 is a pretty damn good game now but it got hit with problems and a decided lack of fun at release. It hasn"t grown noticeably because people have moved on to other things but with the impression I keep getting from Brad it should be growing well because everything has been fixed and its a good game now even if it had issues at release. He seems to be living in a reality where...well...reality doesn"t seem to correspond to what he actually sees.
The tech thing tends to piss me off more than anything else. For EQ you were generally talking about stuffing a 3d card into the puter and DONE!!! For VG your talking ram, vid cards, processors, hard drives and the ability to tweak the settings in not only the game but the OS as well. For some people it might very well be just a vid card, but for most it takes more than that to get the gameplay up to a decent level. Do people honestly think its an apples to apples scenario??
People are starting to sit on puters for a longer period of time now because there isn"t a large portion of what they do with their machines that changes the hardware requirements quickly or at all aside from gaming. And even for gaming you aren"t seeing people dump a lot of money because most current games will run adequately on their existing machine.
For most folks a 1-2k investment is a pretty damn big deal that has to be justified with a bit more than a game that isn"t even working all that great at this point. We would all LOVE to have up to date hardware at all times...but that isn"t the reality for the majority of us.
The subs are as good or better than EQ1 at the same point.
We made EQ higher tech as well and people came and played.
But....in the last 7 years landscape of gaming has changed. You will never garner even the subs that EQ1 had if you don"t have a good release. With the sheer variety of games out there you have to get people into your game at release in pretty large numbers to allow for growth otherwise you are going to hit the cap on your subs pretty damn quickly. I would love to see him justify similar numbers to EQ1"s release in 1999 with a budget many times larger, tons more experience in the genre, and an exponentially larger player base to pull from.
EQ2 is a pretty damn good game now but it got hit with problems and a decided lack of fun at release. It hasn"t grown noticeably because people have moved on to other things but with the impression I keep getting from Brad it should be growing well because everything has been fixed and its a good game now even if it had issues at release. He seems to be living in a reality where...well...reality doesn"t seem to correspond to what he actually sees.
The tech thing tends to piss me off more than anything else. For EQ you were generally talking about stuffing a 3d card into the puter and DONE!!! For VG your talking ram, vid cards, processors, hard drives and the ability to tweak the settings in not only the game but the OS as well. For some people it might very well be just a vid card, but for most it takes more than that to get the gameplay up to a decent level. Do people honestly think its an apples to apples scenario??
People are starting to sit on puters for a longer period of time now because there isn"t a large portion of what they do with their machines that changes the hardware requirements quickly or at all aside from gaming. And even for gaming you aren"t seeing people dump a lot of money because most current games will run adequately on their existing machine.
For most folks a 1-2k investment is a pretty damn big deal that has to be justified with a bit more than a game that isn"t even working all that great at this point. We would all LOVE to have up to date hardware at all times...but that isn"t the reality for the majority of us.
Exactly. Too little too late as has been said a countless number of times here. =x That"s why I have to laugh when the Vanbois start arguing that the game has time and that Sigil will fix this and correct that and add this other thing. Point of the matter is - none of that means dick if you don"t have players there to experience the content.Gaereth said:
There is only so much people are going to pay a monthly fee for. Its a cycle...regardless of the changes you make you"re just going to lose subscribers at this stage in the game, not gain them. I"m not saying that is the way it should be...its unfortunate because EQ2 *is* an incredible game now...its just so lacking in playerbase. I"d hate to see Sigil experience the same thing, but it appears that"s what will happen. =/
Actually, Cuppy...the game does have time. A few weeks or so until LOTRO comes out, then it"s "kiss your ass goodbye, Mister McQuaid" and the SOE buyout clock starts up. (I"m betting 6 months)Cuppycake said:
Honestly I doubt LOTRO will pull many people away from Vanguard. The most it will do is keep people from trying it that may have. I think a lot of the people who are already planning to play are waiting and not wasting money/time in a game they aren"t that interested in in the first place.
Now, WAR and AoC are a different story. Especially AoC if it has good DX10 support and the people running VG at high settings now can actually use those cards to push new graphics features instead of overpowering bloated older features.
Now, WAR and AoC are a different story. Especially AoC if it has good DX10 support and the people running VG at high settings now can actually use those cards to push new graphics features instead of overpowering bloated older features.
Well I know a more than a few people playing VG that are on the fence. Several are considering LOTRO, and others might end up joining me playing CoX (damn fun games). And of course it"s not going to help them bring in new subs either. Anyhow, we"ll see soon enough.Twobit Whore said:
Is that the same tired shit you will tell John Q. Customer who buys the game? Are you going to pop out like a cartoon character when he loses interest 1 hour into the game and say, with a big smile, "give it time! see the whole game!".r.gun said:
I think we"ve been over this ground before. Games should be fun from the beginning; they need a hook to keep people playing both initially and for the long term.
Please. The end game will not radically change the review. If it"s a shitty game at the start, it"s more or less a shitty game at the middle, and the end. Player community/drama is a byproduct of the game, not the game itself.Manticore said:
I love Shadowbane to death with its player community and drama that puts anything on TV, in other MMO"s, or RL to shame... but that doesn"t change it from being a ~70% game.
This is precisely one of the things Microsoft is trying to do with "Games for Windows." From what I understand, developers will have to meet certain uniform specifications in order to be labeled a "Games for Windows" title.Cantatus said:
This is such a terrible, 1st semester computer science student assessment I am having trouble finding words to describe it.cadiz said:
I have to agree. News flash OpenGL is not the saviour. If you look at most games out in todays market, they use Direct X. Dont come and say that but WoW uses OpenGL. You wana know why? 2 simple reasons, 1 its a modified War3 engine which used Opengl, and 2 they wanted to port it to Mac.Witoubo said:
If you look at 90% of the games out in the market right now, you will see a nice little lable that says "DirectX 8.0+ requiered". Im not saying OpenGL is dead, its still alive and well but atm OpenGL hasnt been able to keep up with the Advances Microsoft has made with DirectX. Those advancements are directly influenced by the fact that DirectX is part of Xbox and well they need to get there shit as good as they can.
Small edit. Were in the world do you get the idea that it is EZMode to drop in models on an Unreal Engine. Sure its a freaking vast engine with a plethora of tools, but they still had to tweak the shit out of it, For example since Unreal engine was Zone based and Vanguard wanted a seemless world.
Why dont you go get the Torque engine, and try to get a half assed game running and then come and tell me its as easy as just droping some models in and vuala.
The solution to the Graphics problem is not write a new engine. You have an engine you just have to continue to tweak it, change processes, change the rendering sequence, ect ect.
They were trully extremly ambitious on what they wanted to display on the screen, however I still think there is LARGE room to improve the code to increase performance.
While OpenGL may or may not be the answer, it is pretty much a certainty that the Unreal engine was not designed to do what they are trying to do. It has been tweaked and gutted and twisted so much that they really could have done better by writing their own.