Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

Vanguard Dev Talks About the Game's Future 86

Posted by Soulskill
from the give-the-people-what-they-want dept.
Massively sat down with Thom Terrazas, producer for Vanguard: Saga of Heroes about what the future holds now that the game has had time to stabilize after a rocky start. Terrazas talks about some of the upcoming content, and explains why they chose to develop in the direction they did. "A lot of the requests are a mix of high-end content requests. You know, keep delivering higher end content so that progress doesn't stop for our players. In addition there are many requests to fix current content. Those are the two things that the players have requested the most." He also provides some general information on their ideas for alternate advancement. "... the idea is you can build your character out so it's a bit more specialized in things like damage, or mitigation, or spell damage. So you can specialize any way you want. We're working on that now, and it's something we're looking to launch in the raiding portion of Pantheon. So if you really love your character and want to specialize in something more, be a little different then the rest of your class, then AAs will be coming with the second part of Pantheon so you can customize your character further in the higher level."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vanguard Dev Talks About the Game's Future

Comments Filter:
  • Aw man (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @06:50AM (#26781353)

    Aw man, I thought this was going to be about the Atari 2600 Vanguard. I was wondering whatever happened to those guys.

  • by rob1980 (941751) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:01AM (#26782547)
    That must have been a short conversation.
  • by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:55AM (#26783219)

    I don't think that WoW grew a userbase that wasn't already there. While it is true that a large number of players came to a genre that they wouldn't have 2 years before, I think that WoW caught a lucky break in a number of factors, the first that comes to mind is this:

    Network/computing potential. Prior to WoW, broadband wasn't as widely available, and it is now doing nothing but expanding. Computers also struggled to play games unless they were specifically built for such a purpose. As WoW arrived, it was designed, and took advantage of the introduction of newer, cheaper game-capable machines. It no longer took $1500+ to build a machine that could play WoW.

    In short, they capitalized on a market that existed but just didn't have anyone trying to sell to it.

    • by lymond01 (314120)

      This is all true, but I think the biggest win for WoW was that they had the world's most popular gaming franchise (Warcraft/Starcraft) and turned it into an accessible MMO. You already have millions of gamers familiar with your product, your quality, your characters. This is unlike Star Wars which has a larger fanbase but decidedly fewer fans who know it already as a computer game.

      Basically, WoW moved all its Warcraft RTS gamers into its MMO. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings had to move all the movie-watch

      • This is all true, but I think the biggest win for WoW was that they had the world's most popular gaming franchise (Warcraft/Starcraft) and turned it into an accessible MMO. You already have millions of gamers familiar with your product, your quality, your characters.

        Now explain The Sims Online please. The Sims had sold more copies than all warcraft games combined. TSO flopped quickly anyway.

        This is unlike Star Wars which has a larger fanbase but decidedly fewer fans who know it already as a computer game.

        We

        • by lymond01 (314120)

          Point taken. Rebuttal:

          Sims Online: coming, like WoW, from The Sims, an all-computer gaming audience. Except TSO didn't translate well into an online game. It doesn't matter if your fan base is huge, if the next game you put out sucks, you get initial sales, followed by poor reviews, and nothing else.

          Star Wars: Yes, there were a mishmash of Star Wars games of varying quality. Two things here: 1) Star Wars was a bigger movie than any of its games. 2) SWG was a mediocre game at best. You're taking the gr

          • Well, I see you make basically my point: a license will only get you so far either way. In the end, if people like your game they'll play it and provide word of mouth advertisment to their friends. If not, not.

            Everquest is probably the best illustration of it: it was based on no franchise whatsoever, and for a while it was king of the hill. It overtook both UO (which had the very strong Ultima name) and wasn't surpassed by SWG (which had a huge following in computer games, though as you correctly note an ev

      • by drsquare (530038)

        This is all true, but I think the biggest win for WoW was that they had the world's most popular gaming franchise (Warcraft/Starcraft)

        Really? I'd never heard of Warcraft before WoW. Was it an MMO or an RPG? I'd have thought the most popular gaming franchises would be Mario, the Sims, Halo etc.

    • by Canazza (1428553)
      They also built upon an established Franchise, I mean, Warcraft was one of the main RTS Series at the time (and way back when only it and C&C were the main players) - it was a very recognisable brand to most gamers, made by a company they knew had a reputation for making good multiplayer games (Diablo, Warcraft, and ofcourse, Starcraft)
      Everquest was just one of those 'sad MMORPG games' that people wasted their time on, drained their life and ruined marriages, whereas WoW was the next chapter in the Warc
  • I tried Vanguard for a few months shortly after it came out. It seemed like it could be really fun, lots of potential there, but it crashed more than any game I've ever played. More than Morrowind, even. And there was no protection so that your character wouldn't get slaughtered if your game crashed, so it was frustrating. Also, I think I picked the worst race possible - it was the ones that look like cat people (so I could be a necro). They were 'kill on sight' to the people in all the major cities of
    • I played since beta, lasted until a little while after they merged some servers, took a break for about 9 months, then came back to it. It is much improved from the original launch. There is finally some high-end content that is rather enjoyable and complex -- not all encounters are pure "burn" fights and require instead a lot of strategy, timing and cooperation by 18 to 24 players. And as mentioned above, expanding the level cap by introducing AA's will make the grind much more worthwhile than killing an e
  • I was really hoping to hear they'd implement something new and cool, but AA's are just a rehash of old EQ.
  • Or lack of there of... Can I end that with a preposition?

    Looking at this thing [mmogchart.com] you can really tell when the game was launched, and when the free month ran out. And there is no reliable data since. Not a promising sight for a WoW-killer.

  • Seriously. I dove into Vanguard for a year before I quit. The game had amazing graphics, worked extremely well even on my mid- to low-level graphics card, it didn't seem to have any feature missing, from swimming to flying mounts to a plethora of different races, it had a unique crafting system, it introduced the extremely interesting diplomacy content, there were quests around every corner. I could go on.

    But they forgot to make the game fun.

    They spent a ton of time focusing on features and graphics and
    • by drsquare (530038)

      Seriously. I dove into Vanguard for a year before I quit. The game had amazing graphics, worked extremely well even on my mid- to low-level graphics card

      Really? I played the demo the other week, I got maybe 3fps on default settings, and the graphics were abysmal. No detail whatsoever, the blandest game I've ever seen, and buildings popping up yards in front of me. What exactly was taking up so much processing power to make it so slow, when the game looked no better than Everquest 1?

      • by Kepesk (1093871)

        Really? I played the demo the other week, I got maybe 3fps on default settings, and the graphics were abysmal. No detail whatsoever, the blandest game I've ever seen, and buildings popping up yards in front of me. What exactly was taking up so much processing power to make it so slow, when the game looked no better than Everquest 1?

        Well, out of fairness, I think I got a bit lucky with the graphics situation. They looked incredible on my machine whereas others were having problems.

  • "Vanguard - Saga of Heroes" is not fun. Vanguard doesn't even have 50k players let alone 500k.
  • To date no MMO has designed a world that is as large or vivid as what Blizzard has done. Most MMOs utilize zoning while moving from one zone to another where as WoW incorporates seamless transition not to mention the amount of quests, npcs, instances is truly remarkable. I hope Blizzard will work in true successor to WoW or something new rather than more xpacs.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...