Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Role Playing (Games)

The MMOGs of Tomorrow 95

Posted by Zonk from the next-gen's-starting-lineup dept.
SirBruce, of MMOGChart, took a good hard look at what the massive games of tomorrow will look like at E3. He has impressions of every game due to be released in the next year or so, with commentary on most. From the article, about Vanguard: "This title is highly anticipated by some of the MMOG hardcore, as it comes from ex-EverQuest developers Brad McQuaid and Jeff Butler, but aside from the graphics and the promise of in-game voice chat it does not seem to be very innovative over the original EQ1 design. The game is designed to be group-focused and highly challenging, which may mean it's too much of a time investment for the more casual MMOG player. If the game were coming out this year, I would have higher hopes for it, but I feel it may get lost behind the mass of other fantasy-themed MMORPG titles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The MMOGs of Tomorrow More

The MMOGs of Tomorrow

Comments Filter:

  • McQuaid Part of the Problem, Not Part of the Cure (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NBarnes ( 586109 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @02:30AM (#12674532)
    There were aspects of EQ's original design that, however nifty they seemed in theory, just didn't work out in practice (melees not binding themselves, for example). McQuaid was the major block to those aspects of the game being fixed and stood in the way of important gameplay improvements for years, until he left (or was forced to leave) Verant. Given the total failure on his part to acknowledge the failures and limitations of EQ's original design and his vocal committment to making Vanguard in the same spirit, I can only imagine the degree to which Vanguard will blow screaming past the border of user-unfriendly and make a beeline for user-malevolent.
    • There were aspects of EQ's original design that, however nifty they seemed in theory, just didn't work out in practice (melees not binding themselves, for example).

      That's sort of a nitpicky example. The real trouble with EQ was that it wasn't any fun to play; it was tedious work. I haven't played a fun MMOG since the good old days of UO.

      • I think that the orginal snippet of an article here is sadly lacking in information. Maybe with the pressure to hit all the attractions that person didn't have the time to really get a feel for the potential that I see in this game. What I see in Vanguard is a game that is keeping the depth I want while fixing a lot of the issues that EQ had and adding some funky twists: seabattles, diplomacy, perception system, a different crafting system to name just a few. There is so much more to Vanguard than that
    • I'm not convinced that attacking personalities provides any useful insight into a game. It is difficult, in my mind, to make a persuasive case that a game with the length and breadth of loyalty EQ1 enjoyed was built on anything less than a solid foundation. Instant travel, conveniences such as 'binding', rapid advancement, etc. that constitute so much of the modern crop of MMORPG illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the human spirit. True accomplishment is a feeling one gets only from prevailing
    • Wrong. As many of us have found out, McQuaids "cockblocks" added the challenge needed to keep our interest in these games. While the casual gamer is probably more happy, the crowd originally drawn into EQ and played for years and years eventually left from boredom and lack of challenge.
      • I never said that there weren't people for whom McQuaid's style of game design worked. There clearly are, as evidenced by the multiple people on this thread who are quite clear that exactly the elements of EQ that I and many others despise (or despised, for onces that have since been changed in EQ) are what you're looking for in Vanguard.

        However, I am not 'wrong'. You won't find a lot of gamers more hardcore than I am, and I'll tell you right now that my idea of what constitutes a 'challenge' involves mo
  • The article lists about 20 MMORPG. The Vanguard isn't even first but in the middle. Some much more interesting stuff about Turbine's new projects could be referenced. Is this going out of the way to hate on MS? Not saying it is, just speculating.

  • No voicechat. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Seumas ( 6865 )
    Text. Typing. It's a very RPG-ish thing. Voicechat is not. I don't want to know that the beefy warrior I'm partying with through the mountains is actually some dinky thirteen year old kid with a retainer. I don't want to know that the really hot night elf with the long legs and the quiver full of hard, stiff arrows is really a 45 year old guy with a speech impedement.

    What's next? In-game video-chat? That's about the only thing I can imagine that would ruin the experience much more. MMORPGs devolve into too
    • You got a point there. Perhaps it is the time to wish for sufficiently fast computers that can render the voice chat into a timbre or even a style of speech that is more in character. I mean, I lost the confidence in any of my co-players being able to actually role-play. If it takes an AI to at least make them seem to be role-playing - bring it on!
    • Yep, and that's why voice chat makes no sense for Fantasy RPGs. On the other hand, it is absolutely stupid not to have voice chat built into a game like The Matrix Online. I'd actually like to play a MMORPG that supplies no alternative to voice chat. You either use voice chat or you don't freakin' talk.
    • I don't want to know that the really hot night elf with the long legs and the quiver full of hard, stiff arrows is really a 45 year old guy with a speech impedement.

      So is this night elf you're talking about male or female? 'Cause I don't know any female night elves that have a hard, stiff arrow.

    • Re:No voicechat. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You've never played a modern MMO, have you? For example, in Planetside:

      Me (typing): look out incoming enemies
      You (typing): i don't see them
      Me (typing): to your left
      You (typing): kay, thawwwwwwwwwddwaaa(dies)
      Me (typing): oh shis222666666(dies)

      Because the next level of immersiveness is being interactive. You can't have interactive "twitch" games with typing as the sole method of communicating when tight combat coordination between players is important. Sure, text chat is useful, but when you need mouse an

      • You're talking about something completely different. PlanetSide is not exactly an "RPG". it's certainly massive, multiplayer and online. And it is persistant. But I don't see that it has much RPG in it. There isn't much difference between voice in that and voice in Halo 2 over Xbox Live. It's the same thing - except your stats continue to remain after you logout.

        In a game like World of Warcraft, however, it would completely disrupt the suspension of disbelief and the whole RPG aspect.
    • Well, voicechat would reduce your options in choosing a char somewhat. I like playing a girl now and then myself, which would obviously not work well with a male voice.
      On the other hand, faster communication per voice might be a big plus for fast-paced, FPS-ish MMORPGs. And a few of these are in development. Lets try it when a MMORPG with voicechat goes open beta - then we will know more.

    • Re:No voicechat. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SirBruce ( 679714 )
      It is interesting to note that of the four games I know of with integrated voice chat - PlanetSide, There, Tabula Rasa, and Auto Assault - three are FPS/shooter/sci-fi type of play. But I don't think voice chat is somehow how at odds with fantasy play. You do have fantasy races, sure, but they are no different from alien races (or the lack thereof).

      Personally I don't think there will be a big problem with voice chat breaking immersitivity. Those who want it will use it and those who don't, won't. Will
    • Text. Typing. It's a very RPG-ish thing. Voicechat is not. I don't want to know that the beefy warrior I'm partying with through the mountains is actually some dinky thirteen year old kid with a retainer. I don't want to know that the really hot night elf with the long legs and the quiver full of hard, stiff arrows is really a 45 year old guy with a speech impedement.

      You may enjoy this, on the subject of voice chat in RPGS: "Not Yet, You Fools" [gamegirladvance.com], by Richard A Bartle. This is an extablished part of the li

    • I agree, I would not want voicechat for RPGs because of the reason you mention (player does not match character). Another poster brings up the fine point that typing is too slow to communicate, especially during combat (and I hate when I accidentally open a chat command line during combat, and am effectively a mannequin until I hit 'esc' and can start attacking again). A third poster mentions text to speech, which would be cool, and keep the characters in character... but it is problematic, especially wit
      • (except for synonym substitution)

        *Homonym* substitution! D'oh! Speech to text can never eliminate stupidity on the part of the speaker
      • I wonder if I can write a plug in for the WoW interface s.t. I can implement speech to text locally...(prolly not though, I'm a poor to middling coder)

        It's middling hard to send information from WoW to the outside world, and almost impossible to send it the other way, with the exception of pictures, iirc. I tried to put 'current playlist' into wTunes when I started writing it, and it was a trail of tears.

        -- YLFI
    • Go read the Vanguard forums instead of here to find out about this game. No, voice chat is not integrated!!
      • Really? It's in the FAQ: http://www.vanguardsoh.com/faq.php?eid=1&faqid=1& p text=General [vanguardsoh.com]

        1.8 What is this XNA I keep hearing about from Microsoft and how will it affect Vanguard?

        XNA is a growing group of software tools that allow developers to more rapidly develop their games. Additionally, Microsoft wants to share tools and technology between its different platforms (e.g. Win32, Xbox, future platforms).

        Vanguard is one of the chief early adopters of this ever-growing group of software. F

        • Oh, and this too: http://www.vanguardsoh.com/faq.php?eid=4&faqid=4& p text=Features [vanguardsoh.com]

          4.8 Will Vanguard: Saga of Heroes support voice communication?

          Yes, through XNA and other technologies we hope to support voice communication natively (e.g. without the need for third party software).

          Voice communication will be there to enhance group communication and will be totally optional. Current thinking is to design gameplay around both ways such that neither method of communication becomes an distinct

    • The best solution I've seen to this so far is to convert the voice to text, send the text to the target computer, and then convert the text back into the voice you want. As far as I know, there are plenty of voice-to-text solutions that could work but no really good text-to-voice...
  • It was funny that the only game developer to interview me and fly me to E3 in the late 90s was also the company that Verant split to make Everquest. I didn't know this at the time, and when they asked me about the future... I said,"MMOGS are the future!" Basically I shot myself in the foot. I was right, but they didn't want to hire me because they just lost half their development team to Verant.
  • Just a couple things to add:

    1. There games are order by company in no particular order, but I did put the bigger companies towards the front of the list. Dungeons & Dragons Online gets my "Best in Show" award, as it impressed me the most, but I was also intrigued by SUN and both Tabula Rasa and Imperator.

    2. I focused primarily on upcoming MMOGs, not existing ones or expansions (CoV being arguable). I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive review of each game; just a quick idea of what the game's a
    • Bruce, I can't believe how irresponsibly you reported on VanguardSOH. If you didn't get a chance to build an appropriate opinion then you should have given the best you could without slandering. You did slander the game, just admit it, make a reprisal and publicly apologize for your ignorance. Just go visit the FaQ... but my point here isn't to change an opinion on a game that is PRE BETA.. but mainly to scold you ona horrible job of reporting

  • Dear Sigil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gamelore ( 570005 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @04:48AM (#12675072)
    Despite the widespread, casual, watering-down of the industry, there are *many* people who I know personally who want a long, lasting, hardcore MMORPG again. Everquest got a lot of things right, many of which have been lost in translation to later games. Please consider this list of design items for Vanguard:

    Hidden stats and formulas -- Not knowing precisely what everything does keeps players hypothesizing and experimenting to try to figure things out. It kept people from truly "mastering" the game because they could not be 100% sure they were correct. It also helped maintain a decent level of suspense and curiosity.

    Original EQ-style models -- I don't know why they felt the need to change them, but it was definitely for the worse. The original EQ models were the best I've seen in a fantasy-based MMORPG because they had personality. City of Heroes and AO character models also had personality, for example.

    Kill stealing -- I want to be able to kill steal and I want others to kill steal from me. I want the rush of "who's going to be the winner" when some total jackass comes along. The contention of spawns was a huge part of EQ drama.

    Death penalty in original EQ/beta EQ (prior to the 2 halvings of the exp loss -- it went down to 25% loss) was SPOT ON! It *should* take me 3 months to reach level 25. You SHOULD lose levels! The set of people who are MAX_LEVEL should *not* only increase. Absolutely superb job on that. Later on with cleric resurrections, it got a little out of hand, but it still maintained a degree of fear and sense of danger! Fear of losing a corpse (even though it almost never happened beyond the newbie levels) is another MUST. Even if it there is just 0.001% chance of losing a corpse, it is on the back of your mind as a motivation to play well and avoid death!

    Runs through desolation -- While everyone likes areas with remarkable, and awesome features and attractions, we also enjoy wilderness such as the Karanas or Burning Wood in EQ. Running for 15-20 min through a forest or a plain that seemingly never ends *IS* part of the adventure and fun on its own. What I don't want to see is one point-of-interest after the other, like a George Lucas movie. You need great untouched outdoor areas to contrast with the occasional castle or dungeon entrance!

    Looting an item in PvP -- This added a tremendous amount of fear and intensity to the PvP servers/Priest of Discord players. When it was reduced to coin, or less than that, it pretty much killed the desire to entertain the idea of PvP at all. I never played on the PvP servers, but I did go PvP via a Priest of Discord during EQ Beta, and I can tell you that the immersion-factor jumped through the roof when I could suddenly risk LOSING an item to another player. Give PvP meaning again, not just some pansy points system or ladder the MMORPG-of-the-week implemented.

    Don't test every single possible scenario with new areas/spells/items. Test enough to know there is nothing totally unbalanced on the surface. This allows you to pump out content without getting hung up. Little unintended sideffects/randomity added a *lot* to my enjoyment of EQ, because it made me feel like *I* was thinking of a particular use. If I could name just one bad trend that started after EQ, it was the insane pre-testing of content that began with DAOC -- a tradition that has passed on to WoW. INCREDIBLY boring.

    Instancing does not belong in a MMORPG trying to maintain consistency within its own context. Don't even go anywhere near it. It's the king of all immersion-killers. If you want to lock VERY rare mobs with encounter-routes, that is at least almost *tolerable*, but in no way shape or form will I play another game with instancing or a weak death penalty. And no, context doesn't start at the login, it starts at the server level. Even so, UO painstakingly referred to servers in-game as magical "shards" just to cover their bases. We have devol

    • Re:Dear Sigil (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 1001011010110101 ( 305349 )
      Well, I dont know if this post is actually joking (hell, it was moderated as Funny) but I dont agree with most of what you say (except the buttscratching part :).
      It comes down to the Usual Ganker vs Carebear approach (PvP vs PvE approach if you prefer).
      I'm a hardcore player (as in, I invest a shitload of time leveling my char and aquiring gear). Still, I'm not interested in:

      1. Having to camp a spawn of a rare mob I need. Its retarded to have someone waste hours on end waiting for a spawn. I'm not intereste

    • Re:Dear Sigil (Score:1, Troll)

      by truffle ( 37924 )
      Thanks for a great formula to make a highly niche mmo that will not enjoy a large market success.
      • What, highly niche like Everquest?








        You're not actually saying that there has been precedent to determine that these points will fail, are you? If so, what was it? This is what pisses me off -- people coming around and assuming it will fail because the game is not a fucking watered down piece of shit.

        The reason many recent MMORPGs have failed is for presuming there is something wrong with these and *not* implementing them. I know, because that's why I usually quit them along with my friends --

        • I'm not quite sure what you're talking about regarding "failure" City of Heroes and WoW are doing just great, and they eliminate much of the unpleasantness that you're calling for.

          I mean for christ's sake. you miss Kill Stealing?

          Don't worry, someone will create GrieferQuest soon enough. Problem is, only you and a couple dozen hard core players will buy it.

          Everquest only included the elements on your list that it did when it was the only game in town, when people basically had no other choice.

          Once seriou
    • In the same vein, the backflagging changes since December have turned the game into the old sports "free agent" system. These days, too many people will sell out their friends who are working through the lesser gods to go loot an item in PoTime and instantly, they're flagged for time. Similarly, there are backflags in place for elemental planes, Qvic, and even the current end zone (Anguish).

      Nobody needs to earn progression anymore, it's a matter of being the right class with the right level and you can ski

    • FFXI doesn't have all the things you're asking for (such as kill stealing) but it is pretty hardcore compared to WoW. There are tons of hidden stats and figures within the combat system (theres +accurate equipment but no +acc stats listed..), the crafting system (there are players who believe you get better results depending on which way your character is facing...) and the chance of certain items to drop (moon phase, time of day, day of week, how long you've been in the zone, etc).

      As anyone whos played th

    • One can look at initial sales as an indicator of success (and it is one), and one can look at longevity(certainly another). The point is, there are two distinct elements that need to be considered in evaluating the success of an MMOG: acquisition of subscribers and retention of subscribers. Players may be drawn in droves into worlds that are easily conquered, but there's an open question of how long this will sustain them and their recurring revenues.

      If you look at the history of what Sigil's principals
    • Hidden stats and formulas - It also meant that you didn't know your race/class combo was non-viable until you had been playing it for 2 months. It also means that the developers will change the values every patch just to see what happens, i.e. they are experimenting on you.

      Original EQ-style models - I agree. The later models were generic.

      Kill stealing - Watch out what you wish for, you just might get it.

      Death penalty - True. But it also motivates you to avoid everywhere but the place with the highe

      • Hidden stats and formulas - It also meant that you didn't know your race/class combo was non-viable until you had been playing it for 2 months. It also means that the developers will change the values every patch just to see what happens, i.e. they are experimenting on you.
        Personally, I think a dynamic environment is where a lot of these games miss the boat. In the real world, if a particular tactic is extremely effective, features evolve to counter it. Heck, I suspect an automated system would even work
    • It sounds like you want to play Lineage II except the character models are a lot less than original
    • cept instancing, which does help with certain server-wide bottlenecks (see all of eq epics, and it really is unfair when other guilds hold them for months [ragefire])

      eq was beaten by its own success. from the hardcore, start from nothing and fight hard for another ding, we're moving to the mario bros "100 lives from jumping on a turtle shell". original eq (and even kunark) was the best game i've ever played because it was hard, you were on-guard all the time, and you really didn't know what was going on. f
  • As far as I can tell, the first M in MMORPG is disappearing from the scene in most of these titles. Instancing and a focus on the casual gamer whittling away at the big group experience which kept people playing games like Everquest well past the time they figured out it wasn't a fun game. Instead companies are going for faster action games like FPS style fighting.

    Maybe that is where the market is today, but I think they are missing out a lot on a lot of the more long-term type players in favor of the fas

    • I'm not an eye-candy nut, but the market *is*. I'm not reviewing the games based upon my personal preferences, but I am giving first impressions and judging how the game might be received by OTHERS in the gaming community. And the inescapable truth of the North American market is that graphics are important. Great gameplay might be able to trump mediocre graphics, but poor gameplay can't. And great graphics can sometimes sustain even a mediocre game.

      Great graphics are also an indicator of how much mone
      • But doesn't that make game reviews just part of the problem?

        Here is the reasoning.

        -The biggest thing that sells a game is Hype.
        -One very important way Hype is generated by reviews that say this game is better than that game.
        -If the reviews can't judge games very well based on gameplay, they review them based on graphics.
        -Hype then is generated for the shiniest games out there and others fall by the wayside.
        -Game makers realize this situation and start making graphical shows with gameplay tacked on

    • I have to agree. The greatest sign of his taste is in his review of DDO which is more akin to Diablo than a MASSIVELY multiplayer online game. I think DDO will be cool, but I don't think it'll be deep and captivate me for long if I try it. Vanguard may not have every feature they want to by launch, but what they're trying to do is a step in the right direction. They deserve every ounce of support they can get to implement their ideas properly.
  • I personally hate games that are becoming more EQish. I also am finding that I don't like games that simply come back to the Skinner model of MMORPGs, like CoH. I mean, as much fun as that game is, its basically EQ stripped down to its purest form.

    What I want is an MMORPG that comes along and actually requires some degree of coordination/twitch skill. I know a lot of hardcore gamers don't like that, but theres a lot of us FPS players who like MMORPGs as well, and I think there is a ripe market for a well

    • Newer games are diluting the traditional MMO model with easier progression, instanced content, increasing soloability, and a determination to please the casual player. Almost all of the new MMOs announced at E3 follow this EQ-lite model. Vanguard distinguishes itself from the pack by focusing on socialization (putting the MM back in MMORPG), a massive immersive world, and a long-term challenge. Vanguard won't be for everybody, but it stands alone offering a deep, complex, long-term game, while the compet
      • Very well spoken Havlock I would also recommend this as it was very informative. All of these threads I think 5 in total make for a good form of information. Any interested in the traditional style mmo and the challenges associated with such should read both and visit the forums if they have any questions the community is always happy to answer. http://www.thesafehouse.org/viewtopic.php?t=20087 [thesafehouse.org]
  • I don't like that SirBruce openly admitted he didn't get a good look at Vanguard yet hazarded an opinion anyway which seems to have gotten some notice. For people who have actually been paying attention to alot of the highly innovative systems being put into this game, his review is almost laughable. Most people's concern with this game is that it won't cater to the casual gamer. That is correct. The casual gamer is not the only kind of gamer out there, yet they've been getting the most attention lately wi
    • Amen to that. I almost choked on my lunch after reading that post.
    • I could not agree more with what you have said there Phainein. Just as far as adventuring alone goes, Vanguard is adding whole new dynamics to combat and how classes are structured that is clearly so far head and shoulders above the competition it isn't funny. Healers do more than just heal, Tanks do more than just absorb damage and the list goes on....the ability to approach encounters with completely different combat styles alone which completely affects the course and outcome of an encounter is worthy
    • Sir Bruce can't honestly make a call on a game he really didn't even see. He did not even mention any of its features. So allow me. Combat- A more detailed system. You will target body parts as well as make decisions on the fly. Lets say you are a warrior. You have the perception skill which is new in Vanguard. You are in combat and your perception skill allows you to perceive the enemy is going to attack your caster. You muct make a decision to either deal damage or intercept the attack. Thats just one ex
  • One can look at initial sales as an indicator of success (and it is one), and one can look at longevity (certainly another). The point is, there are two distinct elements that need to be considered in evaluating the success of an MMOG: acquisition of subscribers and retention of subscribers. Players may be drawn in droves into worlds that are easily conquered, but there's an open question of how long this will sustain them and their recurring revenues.

    If you look at the history of what Sigil's principals
    • Precisly. Challenge is the key element to keep people coming back. You may find people complaining about this over and over again, but chances are if they are playing the game and complaining soon as they are done they will be logging on again. EQ1 was a prime example. Many people screamed the penalties were to harsh and the game to hard yet they kept coming back for more, and when they did conquer that challenge it hooked them that much more. That was the lure love it or hate it that was it. I got my b
    • honestly, is getting to L60 in WoW anything more than proof you have too much time?

      getting 50+ in eq (pre-pop) meant you either a) knew what you were doing, or b) had a good paypal account, and you could tell the difference by sight.

      it was nice when the people that had the best gear deserved it, and you needed skills and brains instead of just time.

      All my old eq friends are on wow right now, but i just think they don't get it. eq was hard, but unless you weren't skilled enough for your level you rarely g
  • If you are actually interested in knowing about the game and what they showed at E3 I would suggest you look at any or all of the websites listed here:

    http://www.vanguardsoh.com/news.php [vanguardsoh.com]

    The things posted here show a remarkable lack of actual knowledge of what the game is going to be as well as a lack of understand of why EQ was as successful as it was/is :)
    • 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.
  • "Originally written by Sir Bruce - Also demoed at the ATI booth, V:SoH looks intriguing, but unfortunately their servers were down when I went to take a look at the title, so all they could show was a tour through some of the game world and dungeons to show off the artwork and level design. This title is highly anticipated by some of the MMOG hardcore, as it comes from ex-EverQuest developers Brad McQuaid and Jeff Butler, but aside from the graphics and the promise of in-game voice chat it does not seem to
  • Those who are following the development of Vanguard:Saga Of Heroes know that in fact there is a great deal of refinement, particularly in the combat mechanics and archetype interelationships, compared to EQ1. One can only suspect that SirBruce's commentary regards things such as instancing which have become popular in the post EQ1 world of MMORPG. Not all things innovative pan out in the long run (see New Coke). Many things in life represent a classic design, and with those things you don't innovate, you
  • No offense to slashdot, but the reviewer seems more like a console player reviewing MMOGs rather than an actual player of MMOGs. Having said that, anyone who grades MMOGs on their graphics first, is obviously in the wrong line .... X-Box fans to the left please.
  • 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 th
  • Someone let out all the Vanguard fanbois, and their ire is all directed at me now. :P Must have been a post on the vsoh boards?

    Anyway, it's important to stress that these are all just quick impressions, not in-depth reviews. I don't think my thoughts about Vanguard were particularly harsh. I admitted that I didn't get a chance to see the whole thing; just that what I saw pretty graphics and not much else. From what they've said otherwise, the game doesn't sound very innovative. Sorry, but that's just t
    • I have an interest in Vanguard and I post occasionally on their forums (as the typical geek is bound to do), but I agree. This is kind of ridiculous, funny at the very least. Just look at all the fanbois that happened to register with /. just to post a response. Here's the thread [vanguardsoh.com] where all the fanbois spawned from.

      Heck, I wonder how this article even got posted, or why it was picked out of the list of 20. I don't think most slashdotters care about some game that's not even in beta. That's just plain
    • Tossing out an insult like "fanbois" in your opening sentence because some folks voiced their opinion (gasp), doesn't present a very flattering image of MMOGchart.com, but that's your choice.

      I believe you're correct that those of us currently following Vanguard with interest don't represent the majority of the market. Most of us have been through all the other MMOGs and found them lacking in ways that really aren't being addressed elsewhere. We are encouraged by what we've seen and heard, by Sigil's demo
    • Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, Bruce, but I think what bothered some people is that your opinion was based off completely incorrect assumptions. If anything, Vanguard is striving for innovation, but unafraid to take a step back from the current directions of MMO's and try a different path. Now that takes some balls and some vision, especially when current MMO's are doing so remarkably well.

      I really suggest that you take a closer look again in a month or so after the FAQ has been recompiled bas

    • MMOG Analyst? LOL Sorry just to damn funny. Teleri_mm
    • "Sometimes the best games in the world can languish in unpopularity due to poor marketing." The original EQ was brought to you by mostly word of mouth from hard core gamers, brad has established his reputation as a solid visionary in the graphical mud games, that being establish I am not just a "fanboi" but a very experienced gamer wich in turn happen to make a lot of research before I commit to an MMOG simply because of the time consumption. SirBruce I hope you at least read the forums and posts at the ve
  • Since everyone else has covered the details of the game well enough, I'd like to contest the article's last assumption about Vanguard: "If the game were coming out this year, I would have higher hopes for it, but I feel it may get lost behind the mass of other fantasy-themed MMORPG titles."

    That won't happen unless the game is never released. Here are some good reasons:

    1. Word of mouth. Much of the hardcore MMOG community is watching this game, including many community leaders. In the past two years, V:SoH
    • Very well said friend. More than any other Genre MMO's work by word of mouth. WoW has the advantage of bringing in the battle.net babies, which is good because it brought in massive amounts of new players to the MMO market, but it was bad for Blizzard in the sense that the mentality of the babbtle.net babies isn't typically the same as your dedicated MMO player, in terms of expectation and attention span. EQ1 built and maintained its fanbase through word of mouth and a lack of hype, and it doesn't surpri

Slashdot Top Deals

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Close