If you do one thing after reading these previews, i beg you to at least go to http://www.silkyvenom.com/ and read the FAQ and Wiki to find out what the game is actually about. You cannot preview Vanguard in 2 pages and give it justice. There is more to this game than what these "previews" explain, and the things that people are complaining about are there for a reason. You might not agree with the reason, but there generally is one and these previews don't go into that much at all.
This game won't be for everyone, and that's fine. World of Warcraft has 5 Million players, and guess what. It aint for everyone. If you look at Vanguard and can't see that it in many ways it is advancing the genre then you haven't looked hard enough.
* Advanced Encounter System with Encounter Routes. * A more random spawn system. * 3 sphere's of gameplay. Adventure, Crafting, Diplomacy. * Cities and Towns as content rather than nice scenery while you pawn off your loot. * Meaningful travel. It may take longer, but you aren't doing it often. Look if travel took ages in WoW it would suck, due mainly cause you were going from point A to point B repeatedly (i.e. Ironforge to Dungeon/Zone then back). In Vanguard, when you go somewhere you stay there. Travelling somewhere else in the world is a gameplay decision as big as deciding who/what you want to kill, with adventure encounters designed to make travel interesting. * Job system to help alleviate perfect group whilst still making classes unique and fun. Unlike EQ II. * tons more innovative stuff.
I may sound like i'm selling the game here, but i have no idea if these featueres will be fun to me or not, i don't know if they'll pull it off. I'm willing to give them a shot though, and not just pass them off as oldskool EQ crap. Read about the game and you'll see that there is more to it than that, and it's your loss if you don't.
Tabletop RPG properties are a different style of franchise. What make them popular is the quality and creativity of the fantasy world and the combat/game mechanics that they use. Whilst they do have their heroes (Drizzt), they are already focused around you and your part to play within the world, something that if done right shall suit MMOs quite nicely.
There is still the danger however, of using a property that has already extended itself. Forgotten Realms being a primary example, as it has distinguished itself with many famous characters and their adventures. Any game based upon it would have to deal with these characters in a similar way to how World of Warcraft must deal with its own lore. (Side note - If Illidan becomes just another loot farm i think i'll cry, i care more about him in the terms of Warcraft than i did any of MY characters.)
In comes down to this, MMOs are their own type game, and systems must be in place to support the gamestyle. Sometimes, those systems conflict with the ones found in pen and paper. Why? Cause those RPGs have the benefit of a DM guiding the adventure and tailoring it to suit the group that is involved, MMO's don't have that luxury.
However, if the day should come when MMOs can tailor adventures dynamically to groups of adventurers in a massively multiplayer environment and allow each adventure to effect the gameworld in some form or another, then i'll be happy happy boy!
The mmorpg genre has great potential for creativity in story and exciting gameplay, and any restrictions are obviously a bad thing. Money, Time & Technology are already restrictions on the development of these games, franchises just add another level of creative restriction that shouldn't be needed. Marketing is an obvious boon from franchises, and the established base is enticing, but all that gives you is initial sales and doesn't indicate in the slightest if the game will prosper long term.
Warcraft is a slightly different style of franchise, as Blizzard is not producing someone else's IP, and instead have had and will always have complete control over it. If they wish to change things, rewrite history, then they can and have done in the past. It is a little (only a little though) more flexible than franchises based on movies and books.
In my opinion, increasing game tech should allow companies to increasingly cast the player as PART of a virtual world, not just a player of it. When we have a world that reacts more dynamically to player choices and actions, then i think we will see less of a need to be CAST as a hero and instead be allowed to forge our own hero story amongst those we care most about anyway, other players.
Story is another element that suffers under franchises, as generally it has already been told before we even load into the game. It is much more exciting to see a story unfold around you, and hopefully be effected by you, then to have characters thrown in for novelty. [insert character from franchise] "See Kids, it really is [franchise] cause [character] is in it. See!" So Lame, So Very Lame.
Why not have an hourly rate that caps out at the standard monthly fee, so that if you go away or can't play much you don't have to go through the process of cancelling and re-subscribing your account. The hourly rate would probably be higher than the average usage hours of a standard player, but would end up costing no more than monthly models.
Slashdot Mirror
If you do one thing after reading these previews, i beg you to at least go to http://www.silkyvenom.com/ and read the FAQ and Wiki to find out what the game is actually about. You cannot preview Vanguard in 2 pages and give it justice. There is more to this game than what these "previews" explain, and the things that people are complaining about are there for a reason. You might not agree with the reason, but there generally is one and these previews don't go into that much at all.
This game won't be for everyone, and that's fine. World of Warcraft has 5 Million players, and guess what. It aint for everyone. If you look at Vanguard and can't see that it in many ways it is advancing the genre then you haven't looked hard enough.
* Advanced Encounter System with Encounter Routes.
* A more random spawn system.
* 3 sphere's of gameplay. Adventure, Crafting, Diplomacy.
* Cities and Towns as content rather than nice scenery while you pawn off your loot.
* Meaningful travel. It may take longer, but you aren't doing it often. Look if travel took ages in WoW it would suck, due mainly cause you were going from point A to point B repeatedly (i.e. Ironforge to Dungeon/Zone then back). In Vanguard, when you go somewhere you stay there. Travelling somewhere else in the world is a gameplay decision as big as deciding who/what you want to kill, with adventure encounters designed to make travel interesting.
* Job system to help alleviate perfect group whilst still making classes unique and fun. Unlike EQ II.
* tons more innovative stuff.
I may sound like i'm selling the game here, but i have no idea if these featueres will be fun to me or not, i don't know if they'll pull it off. I'm willing to give them a shot though, and not just pass them off as oldskool EQ crap. Read about the game and you'll see that there is more to it than that, and it's your loss if you don't.
Nod.
Tabletop RPG properties are a different style of franchise. What make them popular is the quality and creativity of the fantasy world and the combat/game mechanics that they use. Whilst they do have their heroes (Drizzt), they are already focused around you and your part to play within the world, something that if done right shall suit MMOs quite nicely.
There is still the danger however, of using a property that has already extended itself. Forgotten Realms being a primary example, as it has distinguished itself with many famous characters and their adventures. Any game based upon it would have to deal with these characters in a similar way to how World of Warcraft must deal with its own lore. (Side note - If Illidan becomes just another loot farm i think i'll cry, i care more about him in the terms of Warcraft than i did any of MY characters.)
In comes down to this, MMOs are their own type game, and systems must be in place to support the gamestyle. Sometimes, those systems conflict with the ones found in pen and paper. Why? Cause those RPGs have the benefit of a DM guiding the adventure and tailoring it to suit the group that is involved, MMO's don't have that luxury.
However, if the day should come when MMOs can tailor adventures dynamically to groups of adventurers in a massively multiplayer environment and allow each adventure to effect the gameworld in some form or another, then i'll be happy happy boy!
The mmorpg genre has great potential for creativity in story and exciting gameplay, and any restrictions are obviously a bad thing. Money, Time & Technology are already restrictions on the development of these games, franchises just add another level of creative restriction that shouldn't be needed. Marketing is an obvious boon from franchises, and the established base is enticing, but all that gives you is initial sales and doesn't indicate in the slightest if the game will prosper long term. Warcraft is a slightly different style of franchise, as Blizzard is not producing someone else's IP, and instead have had and will always have complete control over it. If they wish to change things, rewrite history, then they can and have done in the past. It is a little (only a little though) more flexible than franchises based on movies and books. In my opinion, increasing game tech should allow companies to increasingly cast the player as PART of a virtual world, not just a player of it. When we have a world that reacts more dynamically to player choices and actions, then i think we will see less of a need to be CAST as a hero and instead be allowed to forge our own hero story amongst those we care most about anyway, other players. Story is another element that suffers under franchises, as generally it has already been told before we even load into the game. It is much more exciting to see a story unfold around you, and hopefully be effected by you, then to have characters thrown in for novelty. [insert character from franchise] "See Kids, it really is [franchise] cause [character] is in it. See!" So Lame, So Very Lame.
Why not have an hourly rate that caps out at the standard monthly fee, so that if you go away or can't play much you don't have to go through the process of cancelling and re-subscribing your account. The hourly rate would probably be higher than the average usage hours of a standard player, but would end up costing no more than monthly models.
What? So you can save your progress? :)