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.
How does it show a remarkable lack of knowledge of what the game is going to be? It would be nice to tell us directly instead of posting like someone who can't muster an intelligent post with hard evidence and not mere speculation. And why would the articles be centered on what made EQ a success? They are about Vanguard, not EQ.
"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...
Slashdot Mirror
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.
How does it show a remarkable lack of knowledge of what the game is going to be? It would be nice to tell us directly instead of posting like someone who can't muster an intelligent post with hard evidence and not mere speculation. And why would the articles be centered on what made EQ a success? They are about Vanguard, not EQ.
"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...