Slashdot Mirror


Vanguard - Saga of Heroes Previewed

Labyrrinth writes "The media blitz for the upcoming release of the new MMOG, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes has begun with 2 independent previews at IGN and Gamespot . From the article at Gamespot 'In days of old when knights were bold, elves with pointy sticks would totally beat up on a bunch of skeletons. You may have seen online games that take place in high-fantasy worlds, but recently, these games have become much more lenient on players, so that exploring, fighting, and even falling in battle has relatively minor consequences. Not since EverQuest of 1999 (a game that was infamously punishing back then and was clearly one of the main reasons why newer games got easier) has a new massively multiplayer game tried to offer a well-thought-out, but purposely steep, challenge.'" Normally I don't think previews are noteworthy, but Vanguard has been practically a black hole of information since development began.

14 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. blah by MuNansen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, those previews killed all interest I had in the game whatsoever. Sounds like a re-hash of the same old junk, just with a new engine and the same old "Poser-built" artistry. Blech.

  2. All the annoyances of Everquest, but more so by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me get this straight- long travel times, corpse runs, heavy death penalties, money and xp grinds. I'm supposed to want to play this?

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    1. Re:All the annoyances of Everquest, but more so by 1001011010110101 · · Score: 2, Funny

      There happens to be a big group of masochistic players that enjoy griefing, corpse runs and time sinks :). Good for them, I woudn't touch this game with a 10 feet pole.

    2. Re:All the annoyances of Everquest, but more so by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let me get this straight- long travel times,

      Short travel times = no locality. Does it matter where you are if you can be on the other side of the world in 10 minutes? This also concentrates the market furthur into the big trade hubs since it is so easy to get to them. I actually prefer the long travel times, so long as the game is set up in a way which supports it (don't force people to the ends of the earth every 5 minutes). Makes the world feel bigger.

      corpse runs, heavy death penalties

      Some people find this play dynamic much more interesting, especially if there is PVP involved. For instance, I'm currently heavy into EVE Online. In that game, when you get blown up, you lose the ship and anything it was equipped with or carrying (which is mitigated partially by insurance). This is quite interesting, especially considering that 2/3rds of the map is lawless PVP space. The entire game revolves around risk and risk management. Feel like making a ton of money in PVP space doing trade runs? Well, you better not die with a cargo hold full of a billion isk worth of Protein Delicacies unless you have the money to cover it. I have felt more fear and adrenaline playing that game than in any other MMO.

      money and xp grinds

      Welcome to every MMO EVER. The treadmill is always there, but only feels like one when you are not having fun. I ground from about 52 to 60 on my NE rogue at the 4th cauldron in WPL over the course of a week and barely even felt it because I loved the combat and hairyness of the spawn so much.

      I'm supposed to want to play this?

      Yes, if you were/are an EQ player. There are quite a few of those out there.

  3. Yayyyyyy!!!!!! by Shaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yet another run-around-and-kill-stuff "RPG" minus the role-playing!

    The world will never be the same.

    --
    ...Steve
  4. Difficult != Bad by MMaestro · · Score: 2, Informative
    If done properly Vanguard might steal away WoW's long term thunder. Simply put, MMOs are designed for the hardcore. Theres no exception about it. If its too 'casual' geared, hardcore gamers will simply blow through the content too quickly (hitting level 60 in two weeks in WoW anyone?) Any new 'casual' content will simply be scoffed off by players who don't want to start a new character to get 'the full experience' or will be blown through by people who are loaded up with enough uber-gear that then can solo most of it. (Wheres the new mid-level content in WoW?)

    The only problem with current 'hardcore' geared MMOs is the fact that most developers design their systems with the 'ship now, add content later' mentality. This leads to gamers blowing through the early levels so quickly, developers are forced to focus on end-game content and ignore 'mid-game' content. A MMO that can be challenging yet not end-game focused (organizing and planning a 40-man raid is simply frustrating and time consuming) would be an excellent for gamers. Face it, as much as people talk about WoW as 'the best MMO evar!', they generally end their statements with 'I just wish there was more mid-game content.'

  5. Market Saturation by ClamIAm · · Score: 2, Insightful
    While the game looks interesting, I can't help but think that this doesn't really look like "progress" in the MMO genre. Sure, we have what these developers think is an "ideal" MMORPG, but it looks like it's not much different from what already exists.

    I remember reading something by the guy who does the MMOG charts and him saying how the market for this type of game is somewhat saturated already. Sure, WoW has five million players now, but a lot of its "hardcore" crowd was cannibalized from EQ and other MMOs. I wish more companies would try and create truly *new* experiences in the massive genre, like what's going on in Korea. And yes, I do know that there are upcoming (and current) games that are "different".

    1. Re:Market Saturation by EvilMagnus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few steps forward, a few steps back.

      The 'radial' content model and large world is good.
      The corpse runs and XP debt are bad.
      The player housing and horse/saddlebags/flying mounts are good.
      The lack of point-to-point transportation is bad.
      The spell/counterspell/aspect-based attacks is good.
      The level-based paradigm is bad (well, not bad, but yet another MMORG that's unable to break free from the old Chainmaelle wargaming system, circa 1977).
      The player-owned properties, including inns and stores, is good.

      It's like there's a set of sliders for current MMORGs, and in order to advance one set of features you need to pull back on another.

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    2. Re:Market Saturation by phlinn · · Score: 2, Funny

      The frogurt is also cursed.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    3. Re:Market Saturation by Psychochild · · Score: 2

      No, what we're seeing is potential market slowdown, not a saturation. It's true that WoW did cannibalize from other games in order to get their figures, but prior to WoW launching most people estimated the number of U.S. online gamers to be less than a million. Now WoW has boasted over 1 million subscribers and the other games are still humming along for the most part, including my own game Meridian 59. But, WoW still grew the market overall in North America.

      As for Vanguard, they've always said they were trying to capture the "hardcore" players from old EQ's time. The developers want to make the game again, taking into consideration all the things they learned from doing it the first time around. There are some people that truly enjoy that sort of challenge, and if you can make enough money it makes sense to service that particular niche. It's a question of if they can make enough money from the people that will be interested.

      And, some of the "bad" ideas do have some merit. The best times in a game are when you are first playing the game and seeing everything "for the first time". I've been making online games professionally for over 8 years now, and have been a game player for as long as I can remember; but even someone as jaded as I am got sucked into WoW and enjoyed just wandering around. Now, of course, I don't get that same sense of wonder while wandering around. But, if there were longer travel times, as Vanguard is proposing, then there might still be parts of the game I had not seen yet. I might still be interested in exploring new areas to see the sights instead of canceling my account a while ago.

      I wish more companies would try and create truly *new* experiences in the massive genre, like what's going on in Korea.

      The problem is that the market doesn't reward the companies that do this. Just look at how people are reacting to this article. Yes, admittedly, the team is looking to recapture the feel of a previous way of doing things, but the message here is still, "This isn't how my favorite game does everything, so it must suck!" People aren't willing to try (and pay for) "new experiences" so developers get a bit skittish about trying to develop them. If you take a look at some of the games in Korea, you'll see that there are a lot of really unusual games. For a while the largest games in Asia had 2D isometric art like the Diablo games. Frankly, most U.S. players would ignore those games based on the screenshots alone.

      As soon as the market shows they're interested and willing to pay for "new experiences", you will likely see more of them. But, as long as any game that isn't cutting-edge graphics wise is completely ignored, you'll see developers take the "safe" path and focus on graphical presentation. It takes a lot of money to make a competitive online game, and it makes no sense to risk $50 million or more on a "new experience" that people are most likely ignore or criticize when the Slashdot article comes out.

      Some thoughts from an experienced online developer,

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
  6. A Long Time EQ Player by Puhase · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those of you WoWer's who never went through the Everquest days let me give you some situations where a "harder" game may have consequences:

    Imagine having to spend 10+ hours of grinding to get level 29.

    Imagine doing a 5+ endgame raid where you finally get the boss and you lose the roll on the loot. And so you leave your computer having lost almost a complete level of experience with wipes and not much to show for it. (And you though get groups together was hard)
    Now imagine trying to keep a guild together or just general group tension down when wiping with any party can cost you the exp equivalent of 3-4 hours of mob grinding. Plus a ton of extra time and money in regents from having to summon all your corpses from under the feet of "Baron VonAssbeater".
    I had alot of fun with EQ and a pretty successful guild. But I was also a teenager and this was the best that was available at the time. There is No Way in Hell I would put up with that stuff now.

    --
    I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
  7. Another look. by Xabora · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has anyone thought about this. Vanguard is aiming at a diffrent group of MMO gamers. Heck look at EVE, they broke 100k accounts recently and average around 23 - 25k people on their server at one time. http://www.eve-online.com/ - 100k accounts front page news. They are not aiming to overtake the entire MMO market... just what some people have been wanting for awhile. A MMO thats not too easy but offers a real challenge.

    --
    "16bit Gaming Goodness!"
  8. EQ vs. WoW by william_w_bush · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people here seem to be missing the point.

    EQ/Vanguard are not for people who enjoy playing mmorpgs, like they enjoy playing other games, or for people who play them like glorified IM clients. These games are for the people who actually enjoy the challenge, enjoy the fact that it might take hours to get a reward, and instead of hating the process, count it as an effort towards building a character they see value in.

    This is like saying MGS 2 was too hard because you couldn't play it like Tetris or Solitaire, they are totally different types of games. In WoW, the actual work done by the player is minimal, with low risk, and even unskilled/casual players (which is a huge, HUGE market) can compete evenly with the hardcore players. They are actually different games, and the problem until now has been trying to expand the market with new unskilled players, while still keeping the hardcore tier-1 dragon-slayers with server-uniques which are critical to the game, like the old FoH and LoS guilds were to EQ, setting an inspiring ideal for the rest of the players to follow, part hero-worship, part social-hierarchy.

    My point is they are different audiences completely. Trying to put them in the same game is difficult without either pissing off the casual players, or letting the hardcore players reach the "End". WoW tried, and got an assload of casual players, but most of the hardcore players I know have left, doing cameos whenever a new dragon comes out, and otherwise actually getting on with their lives. The only hardcore players in WoW now are the compulsive "Ok now I want armor X and horse Y so I look cooler" until the next patch comes out with new armor X and horse Y.

    Basically, I miss EQ :(

    --
    The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
  9. Lots of whining, oh wait, it's /. by Lonin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love these comments calling people masochists for wanting more challenging gameplay. What about the olympic athletes? Are they masochists for dedicating their lives to a sport, often times taking up far more time/money than any MMO, and for some sports (curling anyone?) which have less worldwide appeal than online gaming does? I'm not trying to equate playing an MMO to an Olympic event, but come on, this lame argument holds no water. Believe it or not, some people actually do enjoy playing difficult, time consuming games. If you aren't one of them, fine, but don't bash the game for choosing a market or the players for doing what they enjoy. You should be glad that Vanguard is advertising itself for what it is, a game that is aimed at those who enjoyed the old experience of EQ or whose who aren't happy with today's current crop of easy MMORPG's. Most other developers don't even give the courtesy of talking truely about their game. Instead they try and make it seem like it will fit all players of all types, which is virtually impossible. In the end, they make lots of money from people who dropped $50 on a game that they find out really doesn't fit their play style. Personally, I'm looking forward to playing this game. I''m just glad to see that truthful advertising is cutting the "fat" players now instead of having to put up with them when the game goes live.

    --
    -Woad