Profile: safwd
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • How is Vanguard today ?

  • Originally posted by laresloci
    

    Originally posted by safwd
    

    I am thinking of giving it a shot also. I cant play EQ anymore and i think all the "NEW" style of games are not good.

    How would a Dual Core 1.8GHZ, 2G Ram, 8500GT 512 computer play it you think?

     

    Barely...and the game is still "rough". However, the concept it good.

    
     

    I have to question how true this is. I could play the game barely when i tried it right after release on a much lower system. I have to have a better chance now after the fixes and a system upgrade (though still not great).

    I hope laresloci is wrong.

  • Posted: 6/25/08 6:49 PM
    Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
• • How is Vanguard today ?

  • And here is a question for you.

    Why when SOE is giving out all this free play time on EQ and EQ2 they didnt also do it with Vanguard.

    EQ probably wont hold the people who come back to play for free, EQ2 could hold some but probably not alot.

    Vanguard could get a big influx of players with some free time and since it is a newer game it might actually keep a fair amount of them.

  • Posted: 6/25/08 6:48 PM
    Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
• • How is Vanguard today ?

  • I am thinking of giving it a shot also. I cant play EQ anymore and i think all the "NEW" style of games are not good.

    How would a Dual Core 1.8GHZ, 2G Ram, 8500GT 512 computer play it you think?

  • Posted: 6/25/08 6:43 PM
    Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
• • Not even worth playing for free

  • Originally posted by Yeebo
    

    Originally posted by safwd
    

    You guys dont get me wrong. I am not saying that an EQ style game would pull 1 million subs, or even 500K, but i do think that it could hold onto a steady base of around 200-300K. And that is plenty of subscriptions to keep a game profitable.

    And yes, you are right. There were alot of complaints about the "timesinks" (which are those things that i call "playing a game" in Vanguard during beta. But beta was a hell of alot more people then 300K, and many of those were players who started with games like EQ2 and WoW, of course they didnt like the timesinks.
    If Vanguard would have launched as a completed game, as least as far as what we expect when we think of completed game, it would have kept a player base of pretty good size. People still play the game and the reason more arent is because of the launch that it had and the trust issues. It lost its shot to impress. You rarely get a second shot to impress, there are too many games out there.

    The problem is people go into a game like Vanguard knowing about the travel time and slower leveling before hand and then still whine and complain about the travel and slower leveling.

    A game does not have to come out that is exactly like EQ was, times have changed and some of what EQ had is not really viable anymore. But more grouping then solo is not one of them. As long as you offer solo play as an option, even though a lesser one, you are fine. Slower leveling is not a problem as long as you have the content to support it. Im tired of playing games and reaching max level in less then 2 months. Especially when most of those games have very little replayability (see WoW). And i dont need the game to hold my hand telling me exactly where to go to kill stuff, i can figure that out myself.

    Anyway im done for now.

    Actually I completely agree with you, not sure if that came through in my post.  VG would have held on to a lot more of their customers if it had been a better product at launch. 

    I also agree that there also is likely a solid 200-300K market for something along the lines that you describe.  Wouldn't be my cup of tea, but for those that would enjoy it, more power to them if something does come out. 

    

    Ya, i knew you were agreeing with me on the Vanguard thing. I meant to say something about but i was rushed. What you said above is right on target as far as Vanguard went.
     

    I understand that the community interested in a niche game along the lines of EQ is small compared to the numbers that play MMOs today but it is certainly there. Like the full PVP crowd is there and probably big enough to support a game.

    All MMOs dont have to be modeled the same way. It was fine back in 2000 when UO, EQ and AC were all at their peeks and were all a bit different. Then came DAOC and it was a bit different. We dont need all games coming out like WoW now because it is so popular. We just need the devs to figure that out. Eve proved that there is room for other types of games. The idea just has to catch on.

  • Posted: 6/19/08 7:57 PM
    Everquest
• • Not even worth playing for free

  • You guys dont get me wrong. I am not saying that an EQ style game would pull 1 million subs, or even 500K, but i do think that it could hold onto a steady base of around 200-300K. And that is plenty of subscriptions to keep a game profitable.

    And yes, you are right. There were alot of complaints about the "timesinks" (which are those things that i call "playing a game" in Vanguard during beta. But beta was a hell of alot more people then 300K, and many of those were players who started with games like EQ2 and WoW, of course they didnt like the timesinks.
    If Vanguard would have launched as a completed game, as least as far as what we expect when we think of completed game, it would have kept a player base of pretty good size. People still play the game and the reason more arent is because of the launch that it had and the trust issues. It lost its shot to impress. You rarely get a second shot to impress, there are too many games out there.

    The problem is people go into a game like Vanguard knowing about the travel time and slower leveling before hand and then still whine and complain about the travel and slower leveling.

    A game does not have to come out that is exactly like EQ was, times have changed and some of what EQ had is not really viable anymore. But more grouping then solo is not one of them. As long as you offer solo play as an option, even though a lesser one, you are fine. Slower leveling is not a problem as long as you have the content to support it. Im tired of playing games and reaching max level in less then 2 months. Especially when most of those games have very little replayability (see WoW). And i dont need the game to hold my hand telling me exactly where to go to kill stuff, i can figure that out myself.

    Anyway im done for now.

  • Posted: 6/19/08 6:10 PM
    Everquest