PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact

Wolfing wrote:
> What started as 'the true EQ sequel', i.e. the MMORPG for hardcores,
> slowly seemed to change towards the 'easy play' of WoW. Things like
> death penalty, combat system, etc were changed for the
> easier-casual-less challenge style, but fanboys in the official forums
> kept saying it was not because of WoW or that things weren't really
> going to be changed.
> Well, according to the same devs in the recent PCGamer article... they
> are forcing their developers and designers to play WoW in their free
> time and no other game. I'm dismayed by these news really. I wanted a
> challenging game for a change. WoW was too 'light', fun for a couple
> of months but that's it. And now they're forcing their devs. to play
> it? sheesh.
> Incidentally, one of the things that I liked about WoW, the instanced
> dungeons, is not going to happen in Vanguard. Welcome to "CAMP CHECK!'
> world. Of course this is all my personal opinion, but seems like the
> things I didn't like from EQ were carried over, and the things I liked
> about WoW are being removed for Vanguard.
> I guess I'll have to wait even longer for my MMORPG fix, since seems
> like Vanguard will not be it.

Maybe they came to their senses and realized that gamers won't bend
over and take it in the rear anymore by sadistic game developers now
that there is a CHOICE about what game to play.

Knight37
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

On 18 Jul 2006 06:06:16 -0700, "Wolfing" <wolfing1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>What started as 'the true EQ sequel', i.e. the MMORPG for hardcores,
>slowly seemed to change towards the 'easy play' of WoW. Things like
>death penalty, combat system, etc were changed for the
>easier-casual-less challenge style

That might actually get me to check out Vanguard. I haven't kept up
with the development but given who's in charge I expected it to be
pretty hard-core. Tempering that with a nod towards playability and
fun is a good idea imo. This is, after all, the designer who thought
that staring at your spell book for half the game was a good idea.

We'll see how well it works but I don't think this is a necessarily a
negative.

Rgds, Frank
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

Frank E wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2006 06:06:16 -0700, "Wolfing" <wolfing1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What started as 'the true EQ sequel', i.e. the MMORPG for hardcores,
> >slowly seemed to change towards the 'easy play' of WoW. Things like
> >death penalty, combat system, etc were changed for the
> >easier-casual-less challenge style
>
> That might actually get me to check out Vanguard. I haven't kept up
> with the development but given who's in charge I expected it to be
> pretty hard-core. Tempering that with a nod towards playability and
> fun is a good idea imo. This is, after all, the designer who thought
> that staring at your spell book for half the game was a good idea.
That's the problem I have. I actually *liked* that idea. But it's one
of those things that you have to 'get' I guess, and either like it or
hate it. To me it made perfect sense. You are meditating, oblivious to
the outside world in a deep state of concentration, just concerned
about memorizing a new spell or recovering your mental strength. So
when I heard there was a game coming from the devs that made EQ and had
the balls to put things like meditation in their game with 'immersion
vs. gameplay wins immersion' kind of thinking, I was very excited. I
followed the game since almost its inceptions (registered to their
official forums about 3+ years ago and checked and posted at least once
a week for most of these 3 years). That's why I'm saddened to see that
the game I thought was going to be my new MMORPG home slowly but surely
turned into another WoW (if you check the 'leaked' monthly beta notes
for the last year or so you'll see what I mean).
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

Frank E wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2006 09:41:31 -0700, "Wolfing" <wolfing1 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That's the problem I have. I actually *liked* that idea. But it's one
> >of those things that you have to 'get' I guess, and either like it or
> >hate it. To me it made perfect sense. You are meditating, oblivious to
> >the outside world in a deep state of concentration, just concerned
> >about memorizing a new spell or recovering your mental strength.
>
> I didn't play an offensive caster back then but as a Cleric any
> thoughts of immersion were spoiled by the fact that I was constantly
> staring at the party's hitpoints. Staring at 5 bars going down didn't
> exactly give me the feeling of quiet mediation. ... I will admit it
> was good training though. <g>
>
> >So
> >when I heard there was a game coming from the devs that made EQ and had
> >the balls to put things like meditation in their game with 'immersion
> >vs. gameplay wins immersion' kind of thinking, I was very excited.
>
> I always thought of meditation as gameplay versus 'the vision', it was
> never immersive for me. Gameplay vs. immersion would be something like
> travel times, death penalties, etc. and there I think it's more of a
> tradeoff between solo and group play. If I'm going solo, I love the
> thought of exploring, a relatively harsh death penalty, etc. If I'm
> with a group of friends, spending half the evening traveling to meet
> up or doing a corpse run is wasting my time.
>
> > I
> >followed the game since almost its inceptions (registered to their
> >official forums about 3+ years ago and checked and posted at least once
> >a week for most of these 3 years). That's why I'm saddened to see that
> >the game I thought was going to be my new MMORPG home slowly but surely
> >turned into another WoW (if you check the 'leaked' monthly beta notes
> >for the last year or so you'll see what I mean).
>
> Have you tried EVE?
>
Nah I'm not into futuristic space-based games. I did enjoy City of
Heroes/Villains a lot though
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

On 18 Jul 2006 09:41:31 -0700, "Wolfing" <wolfing1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>That's the problem I have. I actually *liked* that idea. But it's one
>of those things that you have to 'get' I guess, and either like it or
>hate it. To me it made perfect sense. You are meditating, oblivious to
>the outside world in a deep state of concentration, just concerned
>about memorizing a new spell or recovering your mental strength.

I didn't play an offensive caster back then but as a Cleric any
thoughts of immersion were spoiled by the fact that I was constantly
staring at the party's hitpoints. Staring at 5 bars going down didn't
exactly give me the feeling of quiet mediation. ... I will admit it
was good training though. <g>

>So
>when I heard there was a game coming from the devs that made EQ and had
>the balls to put things like meditation in their game with 'immersion
>vs. gameplay wins immersion' kind of thinking, I was very excited.

I always thought of meditation as gameplay versus 'the vision', it was
never immersive for me. Gameplay vs. immersion would be something like
travel times, death penalties, etc. and there I think it's more of a
tradeoff between solo and group play. If I'm going solo, I love the
thought of exploring, a relatively harsh death penalty, etc. If I'm
with a group of friends, spending half the evening traveling to meet
up or doing a corpse run is wasting my time.

> I
>followed the game since almost its inceptions (registered to their
>official forums about 3+ years ago and checked and posted at least once
>a week for most of these 3 years). That's why I'm saddened to see that
>the game I thought was going to be my new MMORPG home slowly but surely
>turned into another WoW (if you check the 'leaked' monthly beta notes
>for the last year or so you'll see what I mean).

Have you tried EVE?

Rgds, Frank
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:32:29 -0700, "Adam Russell"
<adamrussell.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Wolfing" <wolfing1.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1153227976.662998.90030@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> Well, according to the same devs in the recent PCGamer article... they
>> are forcing their developers and designers to play WoW in their free
>> time and no other game.
>
>That doesnt necessarily mean that it will be like wow. Theyve already
>stated there will be no instancing, and while I may disagree with that
>decision I think it goes a long way to saying it will not be a wow clone.
>Maybe they are playing wow to see what are the things to avoid. WOW
>certainly is the game to beat. And obviously, they wont take wow's lunch by
>making a copy of wow.
>


Vanguard will have no instancing? They do realize it's 2006 and not
1996 right?


Silt
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

Thus spake "Wolfing" <wolfing1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>, 18 Jul 2006 11:28:06 -0700, Anno
Domini:

>> Have you tried EVE?
>>
>Nah I'm not into futuristic space-based games. I did enjoy City of
>Heroes/Villains a lot though

That's a shame Wolf. EVE is about as hardcore as it gets to be honest, with
none of the grind of the EQs/CoXs/etc. Well, it's a different sort of grind
<grin>. And it's a bloody complex game.

--
Nostromo
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

"Silt" <Stevewsanson RemoveThis @cs.com> wrote in message
> Vanguard will have no instancing? They do realize it's 2006 and not
> 1996 right?

They will when they get 1996 subscriber numbers.

olaf
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

Frank E wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:45:22 -0400, Briarroot <woodsyl.DeleteThis@iwon.com>
> wrote:
> >That never bothered me a bit because I was *listening* to what was
> >going on around me. I found meditation while staring at my spell book
> >to be exciting, different and essential. I was never bored.
>
> Yeah, but you're strange. :p
Make it two strange people now
It's not like I was burning my mana just so I could have fun
meditating, but it was something that added to the immersion in the
world. Just like many people complained about money having weight, and
that it was not 'fun' to have to stop fighting to do a 'bank run'.
Guess what, I liked that too. Or in SWG, the wound system that forced
you to go to a cantina to rest every once in a while, I liked that too.
Basically, I like things that make me think about the game as a
different world instead of just a battle simulator.

> >I've viewed with dismay the continuing efforts on the part of
> >Vanguard's team to dumb down their game, apparently in hopes of
> >attracting a subscriber base as large as WoW's.
>
> I wonder how much of that dumbing down has to do with WoW, and how
> much is them cutting things out due to lack of time/money. It's easier
> to implement something like an instant-teleport than a boat and that
> probably hold true for most aspects of the game. The simpler the
> implementation the easier it is to program.
I think it's more a problem of them losing Micro$oft's backing, and now
they're under SOE, and since EQ2 failed to dethrone WoW, they want
Vanguard to be the one doing it, thus forcing many changes.

> You also don't get many of the time wasting bugs that tend to piss of
> customers. Boats in EQ were fine, 3 hour boat trips because you kept
> crashing when you zoned into a port wasn't. Corpse runs usually
> weren't a big problem, 10 hour corpse runs because Plane of Fear was
> bugged and nobody could break in to do a corpse recovery was a
> problem....
Well but that's not a problem of a game's design, more of the
implementation.

> >That this reflects
> >the general trend in PC gaming is clear, but I wish they would just
> >let Blizzard have those players and concentrate on finding another
> >audience altogether.
>
> I'd question how much of WoW's success is due to the 'dumbing down'
> aspect. I'm sure that's part of it but there are other things that WoW
> got right.
> - They made a game that wasn't a hardware hog, that alone does a lot
> to increase your potential customer base.
Not sure this really mattered. Most MMORPGs can be played in old
computers.

> - They had a big and interesting world to explore, moreso than any
> other game I'm familiar with, with the possible exception of the
> original EQ.
Yes indeed.

> - They had PvP from the start.
I hate PvP but yeah, this helped a lot to attract the 12-15 year old
kids.

> - They did dungeon crawls right. 50 people in Sebilis had it's own
> appeal but from an immersion standpoint it just doesn't work for me.
> Instancing lets you do a lot of things with dungeon design that you
> just can't do otherwise. I don't get why this is one thing that
> Vanguard isn't borrowing from WoW.
I agree and also don't see why Vanguard people are so against it.

You forgot to mention one thing about WoW's success: art. The world is
just beautiful, full of colorful environments, very different from the
'all the leaves are brown' syndrome I felt in EQ2. Races and character
models were also beautiful or just cool. Just like in EQ1, each race
had a starting place with a different style than the others, different
quests, different stories. Similar to the original EQ, this alone
helps a lot to grab audience attention and helps them identify
themselves with their characters (I hate it when people call their
characters 'toons', so degrading!)
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

Frank E wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:45:22 -0400, Briarroot <woodsyl RemoveThis @iwon.com>
> wrote:
> >That never bothered me a bit because I was *listening* to what was
> >going on around me. I found meditation while staring at my spell book
> >to be exciting, different and essential. I was never bored.
>
> Yeah, but you're strange. :p
Make it two strange people now
It's not like I was burning my mana just so I could have fun
meditating, but it was something that added to the immersion in the
world. Just like many people complained about money having weight, and
that it was not 'fun' to have to stop fighting to do a 'bank run'.
Guess what, I liked that too. Or in SWG, the wound system that forced
you to go to a cantina to rest every once in a while, I liked that too.
Basically, I like things that make me think about the game as a
different world instead of just a battle simulator.

> >I've viewed with dismay the continuing efforts on the part of
> >Vanguard's team to dumb down their game, apparently in hopes of
> >attracting a subscriber base as large as WoW's.
>
> I wonder how much of that dumbing down has to do with WoW, and how
> much is them cutting things out due to lack of time/money. It's easier
> to implement something like an instant-teleport than a boat and that
> probably hold true for most aspects of the game. The simpler the
> implementation the easier it is to program.
I think it's more a problem of them losing Micro$oft's backing, and now
they're under SOE, and since EQ2 failed to dethrone WoW, they want
Vanguard to be the one doing it, thus forcing many changes.

> You also don't get many of the time wasting bugs that tend to piss of
> customers. Boats in EQ were fine, 3 hour boat trips because you kept
> crashing when you zoned into a port wasn't. Corpse runs usually
> weren't a big problem, 10 hour corpse runs because Plane of Fear was
> bugged and nobody could break in to do a corpse recovery was a
> problem....
Well but that's not a problem of a game's design, more of the
implementation.

> >That this reflects
> >the general trend in PC gaming is clear, but I wish they would just
> >let Blizzard have those players and concentrate on finding another
> >audience altogether.
>
> I'd question how much of WoW's success is due to the 'dumbing down'
> aspect. I'm sure that's part of it but there are other things that WoW
> got right.
> - They made a game that wasn't a hardware hog, that alone does a lot
> to increase your potential customer base.
Not sure this really mattered. Most MMORPGs can be played in old
computers.

> - They had a big and interesting world to explore, moreso than any
> other game I'm familiar with, with the possible exception of the
> original EQ.
Yes indeed.

> - They had PvP from the start.
I hate PvP but yeah, this helped a lot to attract the 12-15 year old
kids.

> - They did dungeon crawls right. 50 people in Sebilis had it's own
> appeal but from an immersion standpoint it just doesn't work for me.
> Instancing lets you do a lot of things with dungeon design that you
> just can't do otherwise. I don't get why this is one thing that
> Vanguard isn't borrowing from WoW.
I agree and also don't see why Vanguard people are so against it.

You forgot to mention one thing about WoW's success: art. The world is
just beautiful, full of colorful environments, very different from the
'all the leaves are brown' syndrome I felt in EQ2. Races and character
models were also beautiful or just cool. Just like in EQ1, each race
had a starting place with a different style than the others, different
quests, different stories. Similar to the original EQ, this alone
helps a lot to grab audience attention and helps them identify
themselves with their characters (I hate it when people call their
characters 'toons', so degrading!)
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

Olaf wrote:
> "Silt" <Stevewsanson.RemoveThis@cs.com> wrote in message
> > Vanguard will have no instancing? They do realize it's 2006 and not
> > 1996 right?
>
> They will when they get 1996 subscriber numbers.
>
> olaf

They won't even get that if by that you mean EQ 1996 subscriber
numbers. They'll be lucky if they do as well as Auto Assault.
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

Olaf wrote:
> "Silt" <Stevewsanson.TakeThisOut@cs.com> wrote in message
> > Vanguard will have no instancing? They do realize it's 2006 and not
> > 1996 right?
>
> They will when they get 1996 subscriber numbers.
>
> olaf
Sadly, they will see the numbers but will fail to realize it's because
of the instancing. They'll probably attach it to people's hatred of
Sony products or something.
They are adamant on their point that it's better to have open dungeons
that feel less like a dark, dangerous and unexplored place and more
like an open market with people yelling every turn of a corner, they
think it's more social and leads to people bonding together. Bleh.
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact 

In article <1153257904.791892.191410.RemoveThis@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wolfing1.RemoveThis@gmail.com says...

> In fact, I hate Blizzard now. First they destroyed the RPG genre by
> making Diablo and calling it a RPG when it was just an action game. It
> was successful, and thus, most companies that would have otherwise made
> normal RPGs decided to copy Diablo and its success.

I don't see a huge wave of Diablo clones - most people seem to think
that Titan Quest is the first really good one.

Oblivion isn't a Diablo-clone.

> The same thing
> that happened with WoW and MMORPGs in general. Now everything is just
> too easy, solo-friendly, you-can-play-if-you-only-have-5-minutes.

There's more of a case here - Blizzard found out what folks wanted (or
at least would get hooked on) and gave it to them - and most of the
competitors have realised that they must be doing something right. But
there are other games out there. D&D Online is supposed to be very
non-solo friendly, for example.

- Gerry Quinn
 >> Stay informed about: PCGamer article: Vanguard's WoWization is a fact