So much for Vanguard

On Tue, 09 May 2006 17:42:19 +0100, Tony <tony@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>> I for one wont be touching it now.
>> RIP Vanguard.
>
>I love these posts. These and the 'omg it's Brad I'm playing it
>whatever it looks like' posts are two extremes of the same string.
>
>Why don't people just let it get published, take a look at the reviews
>and possibly the demo and then decide.

This has got to be the most rational post I've seen in a gaming
newsgroup (or maybe any newgroup) in a long time... which is making me
rub my eyes and pinch myself to be sure I'm actually seeing it.
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

"Dromiz" <nobody DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:JbU8g.31779$mh.6837@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Yea I am one of the 600,000 players

Dont make me laugh.
EQ2 newsgroup hasnt had a post to it in over a month.
WOW newsgroup gets about 10 a day.

WOW has several million subscribers.
You do the math.

eh. im probably wasting my time. You are obviously die hard SOE fanboi, or
probably have shares in SOE.
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

KDragon wrote:
> LOL, I knew that after beta! In the last 3 weeks of beta, every
> change made it worse than it had been prior to that. Lag in Antonica
> went from reasonable, to often being unable to cast a spell.
>
> Plus, all classes I tried seemed to have the same "feel". I had
> wanted to try the Betrayal quest, but never got around to it. No
> matter, as my wiz was in his 20's at the end so he was to high a
> level to do the Quest in any event.

Well, as I've said elsewhere, a game that starts you out on a beach
collecting seashells pretty much tells you everything you need to know about
the game's "vision", all in about the first minute or two you see it, if you
just take the time to realize it, and I guess I was a bit of a dunce for not
realizing it the first time.

At least this go-round I was smart enough to finally realize it before
actually paying anything for the privilege.

--
chainbreaker
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

In article <qcSdnS--idHMXODZRVn-vg.RemoveThis@comcast.com>, chainbreaker wrote:
> I just spent about 10 hours with EQ2 courtesy of a 10-day free trial after
> being gone from it about a year. I never played EQ, but if you want to
> see something that's really effed up, you should see EQ2. After a year or
> more of "improvement" (I guess, since I never kept up), it's now worse
> than ever from what I could tell--and that's really saying something,
> since it wasn't all that in the first place.

Can you do things with people without being grouped with them yet? That was
my biggest beef with EQ2. As a Druid, I couldn't just give SOW to random
people, or heal someone who was having trouble in a fight (unless they asked
for it, and gave up all XP from the fight).

It felt to me more like a single player/single group game where you just
happened to be able to see and talk to other single players/single groups,
as opposed to feeling like an MMORPG.

--
--Tim Smith
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
news:1286flklin6fvac@news.supernews.com:

> In article <qcSdnS--idHMXODZRVn-vg.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, chainbreaker wrote:
>> I just spent about 10 hours with EQ2 courtesy of a 10-day free trial
>> after being gone from it about a year. I never played EQ, but if you
>> want to see something that's really effed up, you should see EQ2.
>> After a year or more of "improvement" (I guess, since I never kept
>> up), it's now worse than ever from what I could tell--and that's
>> really saying something, since it wasn't all that in the first place.
>
> Can you do things with people without being grouped with them yet?
> That was my biggest beef with EQ2. As a Druid, I couldn't just give
> SOW to random people, or heal someone who was having trouble in a
> fight (unless they asked for it, and gave up all XP from the fight).
>
> It felt to me more like a single player/single group game where you
> just happened to be able to see and talk to other single
> players/single groups, as opposed to feeling like an MMORPG.
>

I thought I heard they had changed that, but not sure, I gave up in EQ2
quite some time back myself.

--
Graeme Faelban, 70 Shaman <Reviction> Erollisi Marr
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

Tim Smith <reply_in_group RemoveThis @mouse-potato.com> wrote in
news:1286flklin6fvac@news.supernews.com:

> In article <qcSdnS--idHMXODZRVn-vg RemoveThis @comcast.com>, chainbreaker wrote:
>> I just spent about 10 hours with EQ2 courtesy of a 10-day free trial
>> after being gone from it about a year. I never played EQ, but if you
>> want to see something that's really effed up, you should see EQ2.
>> After a year or more of "improvement" (I guess, since I never kept
>> up), it's now worse than ever from what I could tell--and that's
>> really saying something, since it wasn't all that in the first place.
>
> Can you do things with people without being grouped with them yet?
> That was my biggest beef with EQ2. As a Druid, I couldn't just give
> SOW to random people, or heal someone who was having trouble in a
> fight (unless they asked for it, and gave up all XP from the fight).
>
> It felt to me more like a single player/single group game where you
> just happened to be able to see and talk to other single
> players/single groups, as opposed to feeling like an MMORPG.
>

Seems like I read that you can heal non-group members now, but buffs are
still group-only and drop from the recipient when either they or the caster
disband.

--
Richard Carpenter
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:08:21 -0500, Sean Kennedy
<therealorang RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

>SOE didn't have anything to do with EQ's content or gameplay when
>it was still Verant calling the shots - I have no faith in any such
>relationship staying that way.

Funny thing is I was told (Vanguard forums maybe) that Verant was a
part of Soe when EQ came out. Gotta love these rumors.
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

Dude Rawr <nospam.TakeThisOut@private.org> wrote in
news:57rr82l9is87c3mdeuj4p5fha2gf9gm1fd@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:08:21 -0500, Sean Kennedy
> <therealorang.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>SOE didn't have anything to do with EQ's content or gameplay when
>>it was still Verant calling the shots - I have no faith in any such
>>relationship staying that way.
>
> Funny thing is I was told (Vanguard forums maybe) that Verant was a
> part of Soe when EQ came out. Gotta love these rumors.
>

Not a part of, but largely financed by as I understand it.

--
Graeme Faelban, 70 Shaman <Reviction> Erollisi Marr
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:24:25 -0000, Richard
<richardrapier.RemoveThis@netscape.net> wrote:

>Dude Rawr <nospam.RemoveThis@private.org> wrote in
>news:57rr82l9is87c3mdeuj4p5fha2gf9gm1fd@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:08:21 -0500, Sean Kennedy
>> <therealorang.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>SOE didn't have anything to do with EQ's content or gameplay when
>>>it was still Verant calling the shots - I have no faith in any such
>>>relationship staying that way.
>>
>> Funny thing is I was told (Vanguard forums maybe) that Verant was a
>> part of Soe when EQ came out. Gotta love these rumors.
>>
>
>Not a part of, but largely financed by as I understand it.


Just to set the record straight....

Verant was a completely seperate company that consisted of the core
dev/art team that worked on EQ while at 989 Studios. The team broke
away and formed Verant but the game was still owned by Sony (989) so
Verant was doing the same work, for the same people, but with the
possibility of the next game being all theirs. Well, money being what
it is....

Now this is where my knowledge gets a bit fuzzy. Somehow SOE took
over 989 or just took the MMORPG aspect, not sure which or how. The
result was that SOE offered to buy Verant and all it's talent, so that
it was once again completely controlled by Sony. Such was the extent
of Verant's involvement; essentially a gambit for a bigger slice of
the pie.

One may argue that it failed, or that it was successfull. Both have
supporting cases. But here's one simple fact; Sigil owns (or will own
once the papers are signed with Microsoft) Vanguard. Something that
was not the case when they formed Verant.

~F
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

Faeandar <mr_castalot DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
news:h8ur82t1tkr1ht15vnvilv3bp1ughkm4er@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:24:25 -0000, Richard
> <richardrapier DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Dude Rawr <nospam DeleteThis @private.org> wrote in
>>news:57rr82l9is87c3mdeuj4p5fha2gf9gm1fd@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:08:21 -0500, Sean Kennedy
>>> <therealorang DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>SOE didn't have anything to do with EQ's content or gameplay when
>>>>it was still Verant calling the shots - I have no faith in any such
>>>>relationship staying that way.
>>>
>>> Funny thing is I was told (Vanguard forums maybe) that Verant was a
>>> part of Soe when EQ came out. Gotta love these rumors.
>>>
>>
>>Not a part of, but largely financed by as I understand it.
>
>
> Just to set the record straight....
>
> Verant was a completely seperate company that consisted of the core
> dev/art team that worked on EQ while at 989 Studios. The team broke
> away and formed Verant but the game was still owned by Sony (989) so
> Verant was doing the same work, for the same people, but with the
> possibility of the next game being all theirs. Well, money being what
> it is....
>
> Now this is where my knowledge gets a bit fuzzy. Somehow SOE took
> over 989 or just took the MMORPG aspect, not sure which or how. The
> result was that SOE offered to buy Verant and all it's talent, so that
> it was once again completely controlled by Sony. Such was the extent
> of Verant's involvement; essentially a gambit for a bigger slice of
> the pie.
>
> One may argue that it failed, or that it was successfull. Both have
> supporting cases. But here's one simple fact; Sigil owns (or will own
> once the papers are signed with Microsoft) Vanguard. Something that
> was not the case when they formed Verant.
>

Let's just hope it stays that way, and Brad doesn't (again) get a wild hair
to go off and work on his "next big thing". If that happens, it'll be deja
vu all over again.

--
Richard Carpenter
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

>>
>> Just to set the record straight....
>>
>> Verant was a completely seperate company that consisted of the core
>> dev/art team that worked on EQ while at 989 Studios. The team broke
>> away and formed Verant but the game was still owned by Sony (989) so
>> Verant was doing the same work, for the same people, but with the
>> possibility of the next game being all theirs. Well, money being what
>> it is....
>>
>> Now this is where my knowledge gets a bit fuzzy. Somehow SOE took
>> over 989 or just took the MMORPG aspect, not sure which or how. The
>> result was that SOE offered to buy Verant and all it's talent, so that
>> it was once again completely controlled by Sony. Such was the extent
>> of Verant's involvement; essentially a gambit for a bigger slice of
>> the pie.
>>
>> One may argue that it failed, or that it was successfull. Both have
>> supporting cases. But here's one simple fact; Sigil owns (or will own
>> once the papers are signed with Microsoft) Vanguard. Something that
>> was not the case when they formed Verant.
>>
>
>Let's just hope it stays that way, and Brad doesn't (again) get a wild hair
>to go off and work on his "next big thing". If that happens, it'll be deja
>vu all over again.


Not to belabor the point (though that seems to be what I'm doing), but
the move to Verant was about establishing a dev company with a
blockbuster on their resume. The idea was to get EQ published with
their name on it, then be able to do what they wanted on the next
game.

The team didn't get a wild hair or move on to the next big thing, they
finished EQ and even went back into the fold to work on expansions and
EQ2. Not that either one went the way they expected but the point is
they didn't just jump ship, they had a plan. Not all plans work I
guess.

With Sigil though, things look a might different. I expect only time
will tell though.

~F
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard 

Faeandar <mr_castalot.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:55du82l3ecde7rfnofod4rfn71pggt5pt2@4ax.com:

>
>>>
>>> Just to set the record straight....
>>>
>>> Verant was a completely seperate company that consisted of the core
>>> dev/art team that worked on EQ while at 989 Studios. The team broke
>>> away and formed Verant but the game was still owned by Sony (989) so
>>> Verant was doing the same work, for the same people, but with the
>>> possibility of the next game being all theirs. Well, money being
>>> what it is....
>>>
>>> Now this is where my knowledge gets a bit fuzzy. Somehow SOE took
>>> over 989 or just took the MMORPG aspect, not sure which or how. The
>>> result was that SOE offered to buy Verant and all it's talent, so
>>> that it was once again completely controlled by Sony. Such was the
>>> extent of Verant's involvement; essentially a gambit for a bigger
>>> slice of the pie.
>>>
>>> One may argue that it failed, or that it was successfull. Both have
>>> supporting cases. But here's one simple fact; Sigil owns (or will
>>> own once the papers are signed with Microsoft) Vanguard. Something
>>> that was not the case when they formed Verant.
>>>
>>
>>Let's just hope it stays that way, and Brad doesn't (again) get a wild
>>hair to go off and work on his "next big thing". If that happens,
>>it'll be deja vu all over again.
>
>
> Not to belabor the point (though that seems to be what I'm doing), but
> the move to Verant was about establishing a dev company with a
> blockbuster on their resume. The idea was to get EQ published with
> their name on it, then be able to do what they wanted on the next
> game.
>
> The team didn't get a wild hair or move on to the next big thing, they
> finished EQ and even went back into the fold to work on expansions and
> EQ2. Not that either one went the way they expected but the point is
> they didn't just jump ship, they had a plan. Not all plans work I
> guess.
>
> With Sigil though, things look a might different. I expect only time
> will tell though.
>

Well, to belabor it just a bit more, EQ was never really "done". There
did come a point when Brad and others merely decided to go "do something
else".

The only difference is that before, EQ was already owned by SoE, so their
departure was clean and simple. With Vanguard, Sigil would have a
property at stake. Their decision would simply be to either sell it and
move on or continue development on Vanguard and use it to fund their next
project. The amount of sense selling would make would then be directly
proportionate to the amount of money SoE would be willing to offer - if
they wanted it, of course.

--
Richard Carpenter
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 >> Stay informed about: So much for Vanguard