Slashdot Mirror
The MMOGs of Tomorrow
SirBruce, of MMOGChart, took a good hard look at what the massive games of tomorrow will look like at E3. He has impressions of every game due to be released in the next year or so, with commentary on most. From the article, about Vanguard: "This title is highly anticipated by some of the MMOG hardcore, as it comes from ex-EverQuest developers Brad McQuaid and Jeff Butler, but aside from the graphics and the promise of in-game voice chat it does not seem to be very innovative over the original EQ1 design. The game is designed to be group-focused and highly challenging, which may mean it's too much of a time investment for the more casual MMOG player. If the game were coming out this year, I would have higher hopes for it, but I feel it may get lost behind the mass of other fantasy-themed MMORPG titles."
There were aspects of EQ's original design that, however nifty they seemed in theory, just didn't work out in practice (melees not binding themselves, for example). McQuaid was the major block to those aspects of the game being fixed and stood in the way of important gameplay improvements for years, until he left (or was forced to leave) Verant. Given the total failure on his part to acknowledge the failures and limitations of EQ's original design and his vocal committment to making Vanguard in the same spirit, I can only imagine the degree to which Vanguard will blow screaming past the border of user-unfriendly and make a beeline for user-malevolent.
The article lists about 20 MMORPG. The Vanguard isn't even first but in the middle. Some much more interesting stuff about Turbine's new projects could be referenced. Is this going out of the way to hate on MS? Not saying it is, just speculating.
Text. Typing. It's a very RPG-ish thing. Voicechat is not. I don't want to know that the beefy warrior I'm partying with through the mountains is actually some dinky thirteen year old kid with a retainer. I don't want to know that the really hot night elf with the long legs and the quiver full of hard, stiff arrows is really a 45 year old guy with a speech impedement.
What's next? In-game video-chat? That's about the only thing I can imagine that would ruin the experience much more. MMORPGs devolve into too much of a "chat room" thing as it is, without adding in video/audio chatting.
I'd much rather have NPCs that speak, instead. Especially in games like War Craft. Save my poor eyes the extra reading and include some damned voice dialogue!
That's sort of a nitpicky example. The real trouble with EQ was that it wasn't any fun to play; it was tedious work. I haven't played a fun MMOG since the good old days of UO.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
It was funny that the only game developer to interview me and fly me to E3 in the late 90s was also the company that Verant split to make Everquest. I didn't know this at the time, and when they asked me about the future... I said,"MMOGS are the future!" Basically I shot myself in the foot. I was right, but they didn't want to hire me because they just lost half their development team to Verant.
God spoke to me.
As usual noone will want to play the monotonous roles of healers
I loved playing a straight-up healer in EQ. I hardly played any other class.
In fact, for a while, I was playing on a computer which didn't quite meet the specs to handle some of the new zones, but got by just fine because of my quirky enjoyment of playing clerics. When we got into big combat and the graphics started to majorly lag, I just stared at the ground, and everything ran smoothly.
All I had to do was keep people from getting killed, communicate with hybrid healers so we wouldn't overlap, call for tanks to scrape MOBs off me whenever I was attacked, and direct the action based on the flow of how things were going. I was shockingly effective for somebody who wasn't even watching the fight directly.
Later, when I got a beefier PC with a fast graphics card, the only thing that really changed was that I got to see what was going on while monitoring health bars and relaxing on the perimeter of the combat.
Best of all, being one of the three rare-yet-in-demand commodities (along with the warrior and enchanter), I never had to put up with any bullshit. "Don't like the way I'm running the party? Okay see ya later. I'll just recruit one of the six other rangers and shamen who have been begging me for the chance to join the group. Good luck finding another cleric forming a party in the zone. The only other one on the map is four levels lower, and is already working as my back-up healer."
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Just a couple things to add:
1. There games are order by company in no particular order, but I did put the bigger companies towards the front of the list. Dungeons & Dragons Online gets my "Best in Show" award, as it impressed me the most, but I was also intrigued by SUN and both Tabula Rasa and Imperator.
2. I focused primarily on upcoming MMOGs, not existing ones or expansions (CoV being arguable). I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive review of each game; just a quick idea of what the game's about and what struck me the most about it.
3. The list is far from comprehensive -- there were a few MMOGs that I missed, plus dozens more that weren't there, and a slew of Asian ones as well. Any of these could be a sleeper hit!
Bruce
http://www.mmogchart.com/
Hidden stats and formulas -- Not knowing precisely what everything does keeps players hypothesizing and experimenting to try to figure things out. It kept people from truly "mastering" the game because they could not be 100% sure they were correct. It also helped maintain a decent level of suspense and curiosity.
Original EQ-style models -- I don't know why they felt the need to change them, but it was definitely for the worse. The original EQ models were the best I've seen in a fantasy-based MMORPG because they had personality. City of Heroes and AO character models also had personality, for example.
Kill stealing -- I want to be able to kill steal and I want others to kill steal from me. I want the rush of "who's going to be the winner" when some total jackass comes along. The contention of spawns was a huge part of EQ drama.
Death penalty in original EQ/beta EQ (prior to the 2 halvings of the exp loss -- it went down to 25% loss) was SPOT ON! It *should* take me 3 months to reach level 25. You SHOULD lose levels! The set of people who are MAX_LEVEL should *not* only increase. Absolutely superb job on that. Later on with cleric resurrections, it got a little out of hand, but it still maintained a degree of fear and sense of danger! Fear of losing a corpse (even though it almost never happened beyond the newbie levels) is another MUST. Even if it there is just 0.001% chance of losing a corpse, it is on the back of your mind as a motivation to play well and avoid death!
Runs through desolation -- While everyone likes areas with remarkable, and awesome features and attractions, we also enjoy wilderness such as the Karanas or Burning Wood in EQ. Running for 15-20 min through a forest or a plain that seemingly never ends *IS* part of the adventure and fun on its own. What I don't want to see is one point-of-interest after the other, like a George Lucas movie. You need great untouched outdoor areas to contrast with the occasional castle or dungeon entrance!
Looting an item in PvP -- This added a tremendous amount of fear and intensity to the PvP servers/Priest of Discord players. When it was reduced to coin, or less than that, it pretty much killed the desire to entertain the idea of PvP at all. I never played on the PvP servers, but I did go PvP via a Priest of Discord during EQ Beta, and I can tell you that the immersion-factor jumped through the roof when I could suddenly risk LOSING an item to another player. Give PvP meaning again, not just some pansy points system or ladder the MMORPG-of-the-week implemented.
Don't test every single possible scenario with new areas/spells/items. Test enough to know there is nothing totally unbalanced on the surface. This allows you to pump out content without getting hung up. Little unintended sideffects/randomity added a *lot* to my enjoyment of EQ, because it made me feel like *I* was thinking of a particular use. If I could name just one bad trend that started after EQ, it was the insane pre-testing of content that began with DAOC -- a tradition that has passed on to WoW. INCREDIBLY boring.
Instancing does not belong in a MMORPG trying to maintain consistency within its own context. Don't even go anywhere near it. It's the king of all immersion-killers. If you want to lock VERY rare mobs with encounter-routes, that is at least almost *tolerable*, but in no way shape or form will I play another game with instancing or a weak death penalty. And no, context doesn't start at the login, it starts at the server level. Even so, UO painstakingly referred to servers in-game as magical "shards" just to cover their bases. We have devol
This was appended to the EULA about 6 months down the road, but you bring up another interesting point: It is unfortunate when a rule must be explained in a rulebook in a video game. Most of us grew up playing our single-player NES games, doing whatever it took to win, even if the game were glitchy. Many times, "Do Nots" are listed in a EULA as a way to save programming, putting the burdern on the players to know their limitations based on an external rule. Fortunately, many companies who are serious about kill-stealing have gone on to code the rule into the game itself. Unfortunately, the rule exists primarily to minimize the tremendous burden kill-stealing complaints generate for the GM's, not to enhance the game experience. It is not the best way to handle competing parties attacking the same mob. When people complain to GM's about other people, they're not complaining about the game itself. If players had mechanisms (more freedom is a good thing) to handle kill-stealers, there would be nobody to blame but themselves. And realistically, everyone has at least some ability to handle kill-stealers, namely by doing more damage, training it away, calling on friends, etc. In addition, people who kill-steal lose reputation. In a longterm game, this is the most important item a player can earn.
Fortunately, many companies who are serious about kill-stealing have gone on to code the rule into the game itself
Should be easy enough.
-Give the first player that touches the mob a significant preference when it comes to deciding who gets the kill. Weight his damage
-When said player leaves the mob alone for a minute or so, strike his bonus and give it to the next one who attacks that mob.
I see really no excuse for relying on EULAS in such things.
C - the footgun of programming languages
-Give the first player that touches the mob a significant preference when it comes to deciding who gets the kill. Weight his damage stronger than that of others
C - the footgun of programming languages
Maybe that is where the market is today, but I think they are missing out a lot on a lot of the more long-term type players in favor of the fast buck.
Also, just by reading that article I get the impression that Mr. Woodcock is simply an eye-candy nut. In both of his top two choices he described the graphics as much as the gameplay. C'mon, graphics are nice, but I'll take 8-bit sprites if the game is compelling.
What I want is an MMORPG that comes along and actually requires some degree of coordination/twitch skill. I know a lot of hardcore gamers don't like that, but theres a lot of us FPS players who like MMORPGs as well, and I think there is a ripe market for a well made hybrid.
But as soon as it comes down to the level grind, or when you realize that everybody's powers are all pretty much affecting the same thing, it gets boring.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
As anyone whos played the game will tell you, the death penalty is PAINFUL. XP loss can range from 200 to 2400 per death, so two or three deaths and you can lose 1/5 of your level's exp. Throw in the whole "I don't wanna/can't find a XP party" issue and deleveling is a common thing (you can begin delevel starting at level 4 so the training wheels come off early).
As long as you avoid the popular XPing spots, you spend hours or even days in certain areas without seeing another person. Hell if you hid yourself in a really empty corner you could go unnoticed for weeks.
Theres no instancing either. The closest thing to an instanced area is a special ultra-high level players only area which requires no less than 18 people, comes with a 1 million gil (FFXI money) fee just to enter, a TIME LIMIT (3 hours maximum assuming you get all the time extenders) and a 3 day waiting period before you can do it again. Oh and only one group can go in at a time. Most players die there between 3~7 times each, with many players joking about the area being Square's solution to all the xp maxed out players. Is that hardcore enough for you?
Oh and FFXI has a cute little munchkin like race which has a tendency to teased on by everyone (including npcs).
As with you, I like playing clerics and always have. My other favorite is some type of mage (or when allowed, a combination of the two). Call me weird, but I'm a support person at heart.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
I agree, I would not want voicechat for RPGs because of the reason you mention (player does not match character). Another poster brings up the fine point that typing is too slow to communicate, especially during combat (and I hate when I accidentally open a chat command line during combat, and am effectively a mannequin until I hit 'esc' and can start attacking again). A third poster mentions text to speech, which would be cool, and keep the characters in character... but it is problematic, especially with the typical misspellings, typos, and 1337 5p33K that goes on.
I add another major problem with voicechat, that I simply cannot abide: that mouth breathing jackass who spams the voice channel with huffing and wheezing, and munching on fucking doritos... I ban you from my ventrilo server!
I propose instead a speech to text system, which would eliminate awkward typing, misspellings (except for synonym substitution) and leet speak clutter. It could even substitute more acceptable language for common insults... ("learn how to tank u fucking n00b!!1!" --> 'learn how to tank, o valiant warrior!')If one wants to get even cooler, translate the player's speech to a synthesized voice that would be appropriate for the character (although I think that would be harder to implement).
I wonder if I can write a plug in for the WoW interface s.t. I can implement speech to text locally...(prolly not though, I'm a poor to middling coder)
More music, fewer hits
There is no doubt that small portion of the population enjoys healing. Some enjoy the gameplay, some enjoy being important, some enjoy being needed, etc. But healers in every one of these games are the hardest to find, so by definition it's the least-liked job.
I think there is a business-case that says catering to the needs of the few is not worth the effect on the many.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
I don't like that SirBruce openly admitted he didn't get a good look at Vanguard yet hazarded an opinion anyway which seems to have gotten some notice. For people who have actually been paying attention to alot of the highly innovative systems being put into this game, his review is almost laughable. Most people's concern with this game is that it won't cater to the casual gamer. That is correct. The casual gamer is not the only kind of gamer out there, yet they've been getting the most attention lately with WoW and EQ 2, two games which many gamers are already BURNED OUT on. Brad McQuaid's decision to hit up the "core gamer" crowd comes to alot of relief to us. Most of us are core gamers; people who like a challenge, but we also have a life. Don't expect this to be a power gamer's game. The reason I'm looking forward to Vanguard are many and widespread. They're going back to handcrafted content, something that developers are losing sight of lately. They're going back to group play, another thing developers seem to be losing sight of. If I want to play a game alone, I will. They're introducing alot of new fun-factored systems like their encounter-like harvesting system and crafting skill-up system. New spheres of play; diplomacy. New methods of encounter control; encounter routes. And by far the most exciting thing I've heard come from a game to date; the perception system, which will affect everything from grouping, to travel, to skills. So frankly, Sir Bruce needs to actually gain an informed look at a game before he starts spouting his opinions on them, or he's going to lose credibility.
I'm not convinced that attacking personalities provides any useful insight into a game. It is difficult, in my mind, to make a persuasive case that a game with the length and breadth of loyalty EQ1 enjoyed was built on anything less than a solid foundation. Instant travel, conveniences such as 'binding', rapid advancement, etc. that constitute so much of the modern crop of MMORPG illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the human spirit. True accomplishment is a feeling one gets only from prevailing over the challenging. Yes, there will always be those who prefer 'God Mode', cheat codes, and very simple and convenient games. But there is a large and neglected demographic seeking the sort of challenge that no longer exists in the trivial MMORPG offerings post EQ1. I have every confidence that Vanguard will find great success therefore, and may very well lure away many from the current crop who seek a meatier dish for their gaming appetite.
Wrong. As many of us have found out, McQuaids "cockblocks" added the challenge needed to keep our interest in these games. While the casual gamer is probably more happy, the crowd originally drawn into EQ and played for years and years eventually left from boredom and lack of challenge.
One can look at initial sales as an indicator of success (and it is one), and one can look at longevity (certainly another). The point is, there are two distinct elements that need to be considered in evaluating the success of an MMOG: acquisition of subscribers and retention of subscribers. Players may be drawn in droves into worlds that are easily conquered, but there's an open question of how long this will sustain them and their recurring revenues.
If you look at the history of what Sigil's principals accomplished with EverQuest, it's pretty clear that what they built endured the test of time and distinguished itself both on an acquisition and retention basis. Some would argue that they did this *despite* a reputation for brutally challenging content, but I'd argue that it was in large part *because* of the challenge presented. EverQuests subs actually peaked during the period generally regarded as the high point of the challenge curve (toughest xp loss, difficult corpse retrievals, hell levels, etc). It wasn't until SOE took the reigns and started the "dumbification" that led to PoP that subs actually started falling. The point is still actively debated everywhere and it's no surprise because there will never be a shortage of people who want easy, but value hard.
This isn't anything new. The world is full of examples that illustrate the basic point that the things most valued are the things hardest to acquire, otherwise everyone would have them and they'd cease to have value.
I watch all of these new MMOGs with a skeptical eye, and this one is no exception. But before all of you write this off as "more of the same", and having only a "niche" market, I'd counsel you to keep an open mind and remember that Sigil's pedigree includes a group that actually accomplished success on both the acquisition and retention fronts in the past, and now they come armed with new technology, a wealth of new experience, and the market resources of Microsoft.
But more to the point, what I'm reading about this game resonates LOUDLY to me of something that's been missing from my experiences with any of the other MMOGs of late, the imbalance of challenge and reward. Like an immutable law of physics, you can't change the formula that puts equal value on either side of the equation. Less challenge = less value. I've tried most all of the other MMOGs and, frankly, I'm tired of getting to the end-game easily; instancing that insulates me from the social experience that brought me to the genre in the first place; teleporting that demolishes any sense of wonderment or world size; handholding that robs me of my freedom and my sense of accomplishment; and the utter lack of skilled play that results when there is no meaningful penalty for death. Grouping with players who realize that they can play as carelessly as they want, knowing full well that no consequences await them, and that they'll still hit the final goal, is a miserable, unsatisfying experience. Give me an epic adventure with the real world tension of knowing that a bad play will cost me something dear, and my victories will mean that much more to me and my peers. Take away my challenge, and you take away the value of the experience.
Keep an eye on this game. You might be surprised.
Like you I am a healer strait to my bones, but I love what Vanguard is doing for healers. For instance, a group without good healing has to take a defensive combat approach which drastically increases the time to kill anything....so now when adding a good healer, groups DPS actually goes *up* just because a good healer is there to let the group do what they do best. Also something that probably not a lot of folks have paid much attention to yet is locational damage. If a mob slashes at a group members arm, that arm specifically needs attention...during or after the battle, at some point that specific injury needs patched up. Talk about adding a whole new dynamic to healing! Healing won't be just a press-and-forget game like it has been in some cases....there will definitely be skill involved and those players who really care about their healing will stand head and shoulders above the rest once again...Folks will get to know who the really good healers are. Personally, I think that rocks.
"In other words..n00b infested, unfun, timesinking, endless grinding, unfun piece of shit."
Have you actually researched this title, or are you just basing your thin opinion on what Bruce said (which could hardly be called a glimpse on any game mentioned)? There will be soloable content in Vanguard, but the best results will be from group experiences. Some games tend to focus (intentional or not) on solo experiences (such as WoW where grouping for experience yields little better results than solo) and some focus more on group experiences such as FFXI or EQII (where solo can be done, but it is far more efficient time wise to group).
They are two different styles of gameplay. You can't say that the game is "a piece of shit" based on this fact, because what you are trully doing is basing it on your personal preference. And I doubt the game will be "noob infested" as this game will tend to draw a more mature and veteran crowd while the younger audiences will continue playing games like WoW or play new fast pickup titles like Auto Assault etc. I don't mind people making arguments against Vanguard (I have a handful myself), but please do it in a constructive, organized, and analytical manner instead of just making hasty generalizations...
If you are actually interested in knowing about the game and what they showed at E3 I would suggest you look at any or all of the websites listed here:
:)
http://www.vanguardsoh.com/news.php
The things posted here show a remarkable lack of actual knowledge of what the game is going to be as well as a lack of understand of why EQ was as successful as it was/is
I think that the orginal snippet of an article here is sadly lacking in information. Maybe with the pressure to hit all the attractions that person didn't have the time to really get a feel for the potential that I see in this game. What I see in Vanguard is a game that is keeping the depth I want while fixing a lot of the issues that EQ had and adding some funky twists: seabattles, diplomacy, perception system, a different crafting system to name just a few. There is so much more to Vanguard than that article conveys! For anyone who wants to read for themselves here is a link to a list of links for information about Vanguard. I recommend the E3 write ups on the fansite forums for lots of really specific descriptive goodness. There is also a good crafting link there if crafting floats your boat. http://twitchme.blogspot.com/ On the subject of casuals not liking Vanguard: The really weird thing about all this is that for 3 of the years I played EQ everyone I knew in raiding guilds called me a "casual" player. I didn't play every day and when I did play sometimes I never got any experience at all. I dabbled in crafting, learned all the languages, explored all the zones. It took me a year total to reach the level caps. When I did it was the beginning of the end of the game for me. As a casual player found I enjoyed the journey more than the end and I loved Everquest because of the difficulty. The difficulty is what gave me a longer journey to enjoy. The other mmorpg's out there right now are just too easy. The leveling is too fast and there is too much "guidance". I want to be able to make mistakes. I want to be able to deal with people in all their glory, good and bad. I want more interaction, down with instances! I want depth. I want diffculty. I want something that when I finally hit that cap I can look back and say "wow, I can't believe I finally made it!!" I want Vanguard to be that game and I think that's the direction they're going.
"Originally written by Sir Bruce - Also demoed at the ATI booth, V:SoH looks intriguing, but unfortunately their servers were down when I went to take a look at the title, so all they could show was a tour through some of the game world and dungeons to show off the artwork and level design. This title is highly anticipated by some of the MMOG hardcore, as it comes from ex-EverQuest developers Brad McQuaid and Jeff Butler, but aside from the graphics and the promise of in-game voice chat it does not seem to be very innovative over the original EQ1 design. The game is designed to be group-focused and highly challenging, which may mean it's too much of a time investment for the more casual MMOG player. If the game were coming out this year, I would have higher hopes for it, but I feel it may get lost behind the mass of other fantasy-themed MMORPG titles."
I wonder that Sir Bruce got any kind of an accurate representation of this game when the servers were down and he was unable to see many of the amazing qualities of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. There are other videos that show a spectacular panorama of the game, as well as a visual look at the races starting on the three opening continents. Go here to see them and form your own opinions. (I can't post the direct URL, so be sure to click on SV's E3 coverage at the top to take you to the video links.)
Although I am a fan, I am first and foremost a reporter and feel my first loyalty in my news coverage is to the subscribing public. Having said that, I also have to say that this hardcore MMO group referred to in Sir Bruce's report has been following the game religiously since it was first a twinkle in Brad McQuaid's eyes. They have extracted as much as they could from the zealously guarded "sekret sauce" (an in-term for game developments).
In addition to videos, there is a seamless world, with little to no zoning, and it is HUGE. The crafting in this game is amazing, much more detailed and relevant than any other game I have heard of (with the possible exception of ATITD), and players can advance through crafting skills. The art of diplomacy, in addition to adventuring and crafting, rounds out the triumvirate of themes whereby a player can move ahead in levels.
All the characters are customizable with such lifelike appearance and movements that it is genuinely heart-stopping. Player-built homes will be a part of the game. PvP will be part of it as well, from the start, on special PvP servers, and although Sir Bruce is right about grouping being a major focus of Vanguard, there will be ample opportunity as well for the more casual player to solo. Instancing will be all but done away with in Vanguard and replaced by a mechanism that provides maps that drop from mobs and allow groups to move through exclusive pathways to treasured items and quests. Environment, NPC attitudes, skills acquired--these all impact on how the game plays for the individual. Grinding to level has been replaced by skill and knowledge.
Without writing an entire article myself, it is hard to tell you all the things I have observed and written about in the last year. I urge readers to check it out for themselves. And I respectfully invite Sir Bruce to take another look at what is available.
Raya News Manager and Sigil Liaison Vanguard Ten Ton Hammer
Those who are following the development of Vanguard:Saga Of Heroes know that in fact there is a great deal of refinement, particularly in the combat mechanics and archetype interelationships, compared to EQ1. One can only suspect that SirBruce's commentary regards things such as instancing which have become popular in the post EQ1 world of MMORPG. Not all things innovative pan out in the long run (see New Coke). Many things in life represent a classic design, and with those things you don't innovate, you refine. Innovation remains for those who did not invent the classic, but against which they are inevitably and eternally judged. While I will not fault SirBruce for his estimate, or his prediction, I will submit that he's missing the point. And the boat.
No offense to slashdot, but the reviewer seems more like a console player reviewing MMOGs rather than an actual player of MMOGs. Having said that, anyone who grades MMOGs on their graphics first, is obviously in the wrong line .... X-Box fans to the left please.
I never said that there weren't people for whom McQuaid's style of game design worked. There clearly are, as evidenced by the multiple people on this thread who are quite clear that exactly the elements of EQ that I and many others despise (or despised, for onces that have since been changed in EQ) are what you're looking for in Vanguard.
However, I am not 'wrong'. You won't find a lot of gamers more hardcore than I am, and I'll tell you right now that my idea of what constitutes a 'challenge' involves more than harsh death penalties (that really just reinforce players taking the safest and least risky play options rather than exploring), boring run times through empty game areas, and group-dependance not just for optimal play, but any play at all. Those aren't 'challenges' to me, they're just obstacles to me playing the game at all. Any time a trained chimp could overcome the obstacles merely by not caring that their time was being wasted, you need to think about what kind of 'challenge' it is that you're relishing.
I know there are people that really, truly want what Vanguard will be. Not everybody that distrusts McQuaid's idea of 'challenge' is a casual gamer.
Secondarily, the statement 'the crowd originally drawn into EQ and played for years and years eventually left from boredom and lack of challenge' causes me endless amusement. You played for years and years and then got bored and left? You're not looking for a challenge, you're looking for a purer Skinner box reinforcement mechanism.
Seriously, what does SirBruce's article have to offer that a quick trip to a site like MMORPG.com couldn't? All his summaries are over simplified generalizations. It would have been nice if for each summary, he maintained a form with sections such as graphics, style of gameplay, etc. It's lame that some summaries are overglorified hype, and others simply bash the game with comments like "not being very innovative." The article looks like something that belongs in a teen magazine "hot-not" list rather than providing fair impressions of some games. I fail to see how this article was newsworthy...
"SirBruce, of MMOGChart, took a good hard look at what the massive games of tomorrow will look like at E3."
Someone spare me.
Well, maybe a more appropriate statement we got fed up from being bored and then left. I think you are wrong about death penalties causing players to take the more easier route. I know in WoW, I do content with as little of a raid force as possible to maximize danger and thus my enjoyment. Yes, running through [i]empty[/i] game areas is boring. Who's to say those areas will be empty though? Also, like it or not, player dependance creates the community that is really the point in having an RPG (or any game for that matter) Massivley-[i]Multiplayer[/i]. Unable to find someon to do content with out of the 1k+ players online? Maybe you need to play another game. As a side note, I appreciate your thought out replies.
PS - I'm a /. noob. PHP boards spoil me =(
Someone let out all the Vanguard fanbois, and their ire is all directed at me now. :P Must have been a post on the vsoh boards?
Anyway, it's important to stress that these are all just quick impressions, not in-depth reviews. I don't think my thoughts about Vanguard were particularly harsh. I admitted that I didn't get a chance to see the whole thing; just that what I saw pretty graphics and not much else. From what they've said otherwise, the game doesn't sound very innovative. Sorry, but that's just the way it is; everyone who has read Brad's manifesto knows that he is planning on an old-style, hardcore, group-centric game like EQ1. I'm sure the games other features are important to some people, but do you really think the primary marketing for the game is going to be "Innovative Crafting!" or "Seamless World With No Zones!"? No, those will take a back seat to the real theme of the game. And while you may not like the more casual friendly, heavy instancing, etc. style of gameplay many newer MMOGs are moving to, I believe you are not the majority of the market.
Vanguard will be very appealing to SOME people. Hell, some people still play WWII Online and Horizons. What my job is to discern is what sort of impact the game will have on the market. Brad says he wants 500K subscribers -- it ain't gonna happen, unless Koreans embrace the game. He says he'd be happy with 250K, and he might get that, but it's hardly guaranteed. He'll get at least 100K though.
Might there be a really great game hiding in Vanguard? It's possible, but I didn't see it, and if the guys at Sigil were interested in my opinion, they should have made a better effort to convince me and other E3 goers. Not having their own booth means a lot of people at E3 never even saw the game. This may seem superficial to you, but the issue is not the game is objectively a good one but how the game is going to be perceived by the gaming public. Sometimes the best games in the world can languish in unpopularity due to poor marketing.
Bruce
MMOG Analyst
http://www.mmogchart.com/
That won't happen unless the game is never released. Here are some good reasons:
- Word of mouth. Much of the hardcore MMOG community is watching this game, including many community leaders. In the past two years, V:SoH has seen lengthy writeups from sites like
/gu comics, other game developers, many prominent guild leaders, and other outspoken members of the MMOG world. The people who help make MMOG news are talking about it. Whether the consensus ends up being positive or negative, people will hear about it.
- It has sparked healthy debate (including right here at slashdot). People don't debate about what they don't care about. Scour your favorite MMOG forums-- the ones that people are flaming each other over are the ones whose releases will not be ignored.
- It has the Microsoft juggernaut at its back. Like it or hate it, MS has an investment in this game, and some speculate (including myself) that promotion of Vanguard may tie in with promotion of the next Xbox; there is good evidence that it will be released for Xbox:360 as well as the PC. There have also been hints that it may tie in with other MS products like Messenger, allowing players to communicate with people outside of the game through text messenging and email.
- It just got slashdotted.
So, say what you will about the game itself, but it will not go quietly into the night.By promoting this game, MS will be promoting other MS products, and that makes their investment more than just monetary. But even if none of those things are true, MS is still a powerful ally to have when promoting your software.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
cept instancing, which does help with certain server-wide bottlenecks (see all of eq epics, and it really is unfair when other guilds hold them for months [ragefire])
eq was beaten by its own success. from the hardcore, start from nothing and fight hard for another ding, we're moving to the mario bros "100 lives from jumping on a turtle shell". original eq (and even kunark) was the best game i've ever played because it was hard, you were on-guard all the time, and you really didn't know what was going on. for hardcore gamers, it's the safety that is boring.
getting to L60 in wow was less fun than getting to L5 in fgaydark, mostly because of the atmosphere, and challenge.
hope vanguard does it again, wow is for 12-yr olds.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
The best solution I've seen to this so far is to convert the voice to text, send the text to the target computer, and then convert the text back into the voice you want. As far as I know, there are plenty of voice-to-text solutions that could work but no really good text-to-voice...
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
"this game will tend to draw a more mature and veteran crowd while the younger audiences will continue playing games like WoW or play new fast pickup titles like Auto Assault etc." Very well said.
Personally, I think a dynamic environment is where a lot of these games miss the boat. In the real world, if a particular tactic is extremely effective, features evolve to counter it. Heck, I suspect an automated system would even work a good bit of the time. If electricity is particularly effective against most monsters (which, oddly enough, is almost always the case in RPGs), it makes sense that the shockproof monsters would have a higher survival rate and start crowding out the others. If your character has the Lejendary Sword of Duality (+5 vs Idealists), word is bound to spread, and the player will find that he actually has adventuring parties sortying against him, seeking his mythic phat l00t. Fallout was interesting in this respect, as high level characters attracted more attention and stronger opponents, bounty hunters and the like.
For that matter, I think it would be interesting if the balance of power shifted over the course of a game. Maybe the magic is fading or the effects are changing. This would encourage players to generalize some and would reduce the this-race-and-class-is-best paradigm that often plagues these games. Now I doubt they'd go that far, as it would piss off the hardcore players who've done their best to min-max their character and would feel the hundreds of gaming hours they put into single-mindedly studying Flaming Fingers until it did uber-damage were wasted if fire-spells are becoming less powerful. *shrug* I do think it would be a cool idea, though. Heck, a single-player game would also be nice for that. It would reduce the boredom level of the higher levels where the games start lacking a challenge and it would inject a bit of realism into it.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.