Vanguard Saga Of Heroes - Player made screenshots released

[Harovan]

Vanguard is published by Sigil Games Online, not Sony Online Entertainment. SOE merely does the server hosting, technical support (not customer support!) and billing. They do not (by words of both Brad McQuaid and John Smedley) have any influence on gameplay, world size, theme and frequency of expansions etc. etc., what a normal publisher undoubtly would have.

I certainly do have a lot against SOE. However I never had a problem with their server hosting (which is actually quite good) and billing, and I never even needed any support. So while I may not like to see SOE in the boat, it is certainly not a reason for me to boycott the game.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I also think history contains lessons. EQ fulfils the bulk of Ralph's criteria for a good game. It was always about slow levelling, and challenging. In the end it became about the raiding endgame, because that's just the most efficient way of spending developer time offering new content that keeps hardcore gamers playing.

You mark my words.

EQ1 still is a very good game and has a lot of supporters even over six years after launch. A big part of the people, who wait for Vanguard, actually come from EQ. Brad himself stated numerous times (e.g. in the VG FAQ), that he wants Vanguard to be similar to EQ with its first two expansions (Kunark and Velious). That were the glorious times of Verant, before they became SOE and started to screw up and mudflate the game in a galloping pace as part of teh big evil company.

In this state of EQ you'll find a lot of the design decisions for VG. Slow and challenging travel (in EQ travel was made completely meaningless with Planes of Power). Naked corpse runs. VG will tone it down somewhat by allowing you to bring a second set of equipment in the saddlebags of your horse - but in EQ you also could keep a spare equipment in the bank and a bank was literally everywhere (and all of them were linked). Slow levelling, but not painfully slow. Experience loss (including level loss), but this feature is disputed today, a lot of people prefer experience debt (I would be fine with either, slightly leaning to loss).

And yes, EQ had (and still does have) a rich and challenging raiding endgame, but thankfully the game is not all about it. EQ2 raiding is just a caricature of it with at most 4 groups (24 people) together, it's more like raiding light, while in EQ it was 2-3 times that. What's it in WoW by the way? I heard of something like 40, that would be between EQ and EQ2, is that correct?

But EQ is getting old. The graphics aren't up to date by a long shot and the game is so hopelessly mudflated, that a newcomer is severely handicapped in that big world of twinks. If Vanguard on release will live up to its promises to have the early-EQ spirit, but with nifty graphics, it probably will be the death blow for EQ. Which is likely the reason, why SOE wants it in their Station Access program, which is a good thing by the way. They'll have EQ2 as a game for casuals and cheapos (shut up Spike, you know how I mean it), they'll have SWG for science fiction wackos and they'll have a game for group and community oriented players. Now it is EQ, but when VG comes out and be as announced by Sigil, EQ1 may be slowly put to death.

So no, VG does not compete with (let alone threaten) games like WoW or EQ2 - it's competing with EQ1.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DrSpike
However, my optimal solution would be even faster levelling and make the game solely about endgame raiding.

That would be the death blow for casuals, wouldn't it? I still have severe doubts that raiders are the majority even of WoW players. They may be a majority on the forums (where the bulk of posts comes from core gamers, not casuals), but that is not a representative sample by any means.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


EQ1 still is a very good game and has a lot of supporters even over six years after launch. A big part of the people, who wait for Vanguard, actually come from EQ. Brad himself stated numerous times (e.g. in the VG FAQ), that he wants Vanguard to be similar to EQ with its first two expansions (Kunark and Velious). That were the glorious times of Verant, before they became SOE and started to screw up and mudflate the game in a galloping pace as part of teh big evil company.

In this state of EQ you'll find a lot of the design decisions for VG. Slow and challenging travel (in EQ travel was made completely meaningless with Planes of Power). Naked corpse runs. VG will tone it down somewhat by allowing you to bring a second set of equipment in the saddlebags of your horse - but in EQ you also could keep a spare equipment in the bank and a bank was literally everywhere (and all of them were linked). Slow levelling, but not painfully slow. Experience loss (including level loss), but this feature is disputed today, a lot of people prefer experience debt (I would be fine with either, slightly leaning to loss).

And yes, EQ had (and still does have) a rich and challenging raiding endgame, but thankfully the game is not all about it. EQ2 raiding is just a caricature of it with at most 4 groups (24 people) together, it's more like raiding light, while in EQ it was 2-3 times that. What's it in WoW by the way? I heard of something like 40, that would be between EQ and EQ2, is that correct?

But EQ is getting old. The graphics aren't up to date by a long shot and the game is so hopelessly mudflated, that a newcomer is severely handicapped in that big world of twinks. If Vanguard on release will live up to its promises to have the early-EQ spirit, but with nifty graphics, it probably will be the death blow for EQ. Which is likely the reason, why SOE wants it in their Station Access program, which is a good thing by the way. They'll have EQ2 as a game for casuals and cheapos (shut up Spike, you know how I mean it), they'll have SWG for science fiction wackos and they'll have a game for group and community oriented players. Now it is EQ, but when VG comes out and be as announced by Sigil, EQ1 may be slowly put to death.

So no, VG does not compete with (let alone threaten) games like WoW or EQ2 - it's competing with EQ1.

WoW is 40 yes. And btw I wasn't suggesting that EQ was a competitor to VG, I was pointing out that VG would probably end up all about the raiding endgame.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


That would be the death blow for casuals, wouldn't it? I still have severe doubts that raiders are the majority even of WoW players. They may be a majority on the forums (where the bulk of posts comes from core gamers, not casuals), but that is not a representative sample by any means.

Of course, the game I am talking about would not be the commercial success WoW is. Like VG it would be aimed at serious players and have a smaller playerbase.

[Qilue]

Much of the discussion in this thread seem to point to the fact that only 'core players' need to be catered to in MMOGs and the rest of us should just go back to playing The Sims or something equally vapid.

[DrSpike]

Not really, just for VG. This seems justified, since the game is expressly aimed at serious players from what Ralphie says.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Qilue
Much of the discussion in this thread seem to point to the fact that only 'core players' need to be catered to in MMOGs and the rest of us should just go back to playing The Sims or something equally vapid.

With World of Warcraft, Everquest II and (at least concerning play time needed) Guild Wars there are enough shiny new MMOGs for casual players out right now, while new games for "core players", or call them "serious players" like Spikie, are missing, at least of the Tolkienesque typus (not everyone can stomach a SF environment, including me). It was about time that a new game comes out catering to us, we waited a long time. I had high hopes for Everquest II, but after a promising start SOE made a U-turn.

So yes, there are games out, that do not cater primarily to players with a tight time contingent. That does not make them good nor bad, it makes them different. If you are a casual player, you'd better not try Vanguard. I would never dare to send you to "The Sims or something equally vapid", but I think WoW or EQ2 are both excellent games for you.

[Skanky Burns]

Besides, who said that hardcore players don't also play The Sims?

[Qilue]

I think a small profile might offer some clarity.

When on WoW, I generally play around 7-8 hours per day which technically places me in the "core players" group. But the outline of VG doesn't appeal to me for one major reason, I prefer to play solo.

Primary reasons is that most people are either stupid and incompetant or so totally obscessed with the game that anything less than perfection earns insults and abuse.

[Harovan]

Switch to EQ2 and make an account on Lucan D'Lere (my old server). A very mature community (inhabitants call it Lucky D'Lere) and you can solo all your way up.

[Skanky Burns]

It seems strange to pay a monthly fee to play a MMO away from other people.

Although I am doing exactly that in Eve even as I type this post

[Unspeakable Horror]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
It seems strange to pay a monthly fee to play a MMO away from other people.

Although I am doing exactly that in Eve even as I type this post

Wasn´t you account terminated by them?

[Skanky Burns]

They made a significant error, but unbanned me when they realised (at my prompting).

[Qilue]

When I played EQ2 for a month, I tried two characters.

Dark elf monk (24)
Dark elf templar (22)

The game system is really quite good in some areas, yet very amaturish in other areas. Unfortunately, the parts with poor design ruined the game as a whole for me.

One example is a quest in the 10-20 area outside freeport. You have to kill these 3 lvl 10 guys (normals), but you must first fight through linked groups of 4 x lvl 12^^ heroic skeletons to reach them.