Vanguard

"murdocj" <temp.TakeThisOut@mirque.delete.this.com> wrote in message
news:rho9s2tn2ru53v7d6bela20d6ggebcjroh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:37:37 GMT, "Rob Pollard"
> <robertapollard.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have to say the one thing that has disappointed me about Vanguard
>>are the
>>bugs. There are lots of them. None of them are show stoppers, but when
>>Sigil's CEO says this is a matter of course for MMORPG's I could
>>retort
>>'What about Warcraft?'.
>>
>>Warcraft came out with extremely few bugs - I personally didn't notice
>>any
>>on day 1. Most of their initial patches were game-play tweaks rather
>>than
>>bug fixes. It was the initial polish of WoW that I think hooked
>>people.
>>
>>Vanguard has me hooked because it is unique, but I wonder how many
>>people
>>have turned away from it because they cannot see through the bugs?
>>Releasing
>>games early is in my book a poor excuse.
>
> I agree... Vanguard sounds like it has really interesting and cool
> ideas, but the level of bugs that my wife was seeing in beta was
> unacceptable. WoW certainly has bugs, but they are few enough that
> you are actually surprised when you run into one. There isn't
> anything of the level of the EQ "wait forever for the boat that might
> not show up" bugs.
>
> When the CEO says "bugs are just a matter of course" that's a bad sign
> that Sigil is more interested in pushing out content than making sure
> it works.


I played Vanguard all through beta and it did one thing faster than any
other MMORPG has been able to do. It bored me to tears. In just 6
weeks time I found that anything was preferable to logging in and
playing VG. I forced myself to login and test because that was what I
applied to beta for.

I already own games similar to VG that are not only better but well
established also.

I am happy for those that like it. I wish I was one, but I am not.
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

murdocj <temp RemoveThis @mirque.delete.this.com> wrote in
news:rho9s2tn2ru53v7d6bela20d6ggebcjroh@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:37:37 GMT, "Rob Pollard"
> <robertapollard RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have to say the one thing that has disappointed me about Vanguard
>>are the bugs. There are lots of them. None of them are show stoppers,
>>but when Sigil's CEO says this is a matter of course for MMORPG's I
>>could retort 'What about Warcraft?'.
>>
>>Warcraft came out with extremely few bugs - I personally didn't notice
>>any on day 1. Most of their initial patches were game-play tweaks
>>rather than bug fixes. It was the initial polish of WoW that I think
>>hooked people.
>>
>>Vanguard has me hooked because it is unique, but I wonder how many
>>people have turned away from it because they cannot see through the
>>bugs? Releasing games early is in my book a poor excuse.
>
> I agree... Vanguard sounds like it has really interesting and cool
> ideas, but the level of bugs that my wife was seeing in beta was
> unacceptable. WoW certainly has bugs, but they are few enough that
> you are actually surprised when you run into one. There isn't
> anything of the level of the EQ "wait forever for the boat that might
> not show up" bugs.
>
> When the CEO says "bugs are just a matter of course" that's a bad sign
> that Sigil is more interested in pushing out content than making sure
> it works.

/shrug

Blizzard had enormous resources where development was concerned. Add to
that a graphical direction that, while incredible in its own right,
provided a much lower hurdle for the dev team to clear. Less time spent
making the graphics engine work = more time spent on gameplay mechanics.

Sigil came right out and stated that the game was not finished, but they
had no choice but to release it in its current state. The money had just
run out. SoE, in their infinite wisdom, had effectively cut them off.

If you can't accept it as is now, come back later, I guess. It will get
better. In the meantime, there are a great many of us who are more than
happy to pay to play it in its current state.

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

In article <RBZwh.206300$QY6.84307@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Rob Pollard" <robertapollard DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say the one thing that has disappointed me about Vanguard are the
> bugs. There are lots of them. None of them are show stoppers, but when
> Sigil's CEO says this is a matter of course for MMORPG's I could retort
> 'What about Warcraft?'.
>
> Warcraft came out with extremely few bugs - I personally didn't notice any
> on day 1. Most of their initial patches were game-play tweaks rather than
> bug fixes. It was the initial polish of WoW that I think hooked people.

I believe City of Heroes was similar, although I didn't start that until
after someone posted here about how interesting it was, so wouldn't have
seen any launch bugs that were quickly fixed.

I was in DAoC from launch, and that too had very few bugs.

I think some MMORPG developers just get lazy. They know they can patch,
so they get sloppy in testing.

--
--Tim Smith
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:35:53 -0600, Richard Carpenter
<rumbledor RemoveThis @hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:

>murdocj <temp RemoveThis @mirque.delete.this.com> wrote in
>news:rho9s2tn2ru53v7d6bela20d6ggebcjroh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:37:37 GMT, "Rob Pollard"
>> <robertapollard RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have to say the one thing that has disappointed me about Vanguard
>>>are the bugs. There are lots of them. None of them are show stoppers,
>>>but when Sigil's CEO says this is a matter of course for MMORPG's I
>>>could retort 'What about Warcraft?'.
>>>
>>>Warcraft came out with extremely few bugs - I personally didn't notice
>>>any on day 1. Most of their initial patches were game-play tweaks
>>>rather than bug fixes. It was the initial polish of WoW that I think
>>>hooked people.
>>>
>>>Vanguard has me hooked because it is unique, but I wonder how many
>>>people have turned away from it because they cannot see through the
>>>bugs? Releasing games early is in my book a poor excuse.
>>
>> I agree... Vanguard sounds like it has really interesting and cool
>> ideas, but the level of bugs that my wife was seeing in beta was
>> unacceptable. WoW certainly has bugs, but they are few enough that
>> you are actually surprised when you run into one. There isn't
>> anything of the level of the EQ "wait forever for the boat that might
>> not show up" bugs.
>>
>> When the CEO says "bugs are just a matter of course" that's a bad sign
>> that Sigil is more interested in pushing out content than making sure
>> it works.
>
>/shrug
>
>Blizzard had enormous resources where development was concerned. Add to
>that a graphical direction that, while incredible in its own right,
>provided a much lower hurdle for the dev team to clear. Less time spent
>making the graphics engine work = more time spent on gameplay mechanics.
>
>Sigil came right out and stated that the game was not finished, but they
>had no choice but to release it in its current state. The money had just
>run out. SoE, in their infinite wisdom, had effectively cut them off.
>
>If you can't accept it as is now, come back later, I guess. It will get
>better. In the meantime, there are a great many of us who are more than
>happy to pay to play it in its current state

It will work for some people and not for others. Whenever you buy
software you balance utility against bugs. Only thing I want to point
out is the fallacy of the "it's an MMO, of course it has bugs"
statement.

Whether Sigil was wise to push the content at the expense of bugs...
we'll see.
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:35:53 -0600, Richard Carpenter
<rumbledor.DeleteThis@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:

>Blizzard had enormous resources where development was concerned. Add to
>that a graphical direction that, while incredible in its own right,
>provided a much lower hurdle for the dev team to clear. Less time spent
>making the graphics engine work = more time spent on gameplay mechanics.

And why does Bilzzard have these enormous resources? Because they
have a great reputation for producing high quality products with good
gameplay mechanics. Emphasizing gameplay over graphics has worked for
them (and it sure works for me).
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:35:53 -0600, Richard Carpenter
<rumbledor.DeleteThis@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:


>
>Blizzard had enormous resources where development was concerned. Add to
>that a graphical direction that, while incredible in its own right,
>provided a much lower hurdle for the dev team to clear. Less time spent
>making the graphics engine work = more time spent on gameplay mechanics.
>
>Sigil came right out and stated that the game was not finished, but they
>had no choice but to release it in its current state. The money had just
>run out. SoE, in their infinite wisdom, had effectively cut them off.

Not that I'm a fan of SOE but I have to be fair. I believe it was
Microsoft that cut them off. Sigil then had to find someone else to
back it, SoE did some but my guess is they were only willing to go so
far since they're bleeing in the MMO space.

~F
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

In article <Xns98CCF06D1DCEBrumbledorhotmailcom DeleteThis @216.196.97.142>,
Richard Carpenter <rumbledor DeleteThis @hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
> Blizzard had enormous resources where development was concerned. Add to
> that a graphical direction that, while incredible in its own right,
> provided a much lower hurdle for the dev team to clear. Less time spent
> making the graphics engine work = more time spent on gameplay mechanics.

You don't have to develop a graphics engine to do a 3D MMORPG. You can
license the engine for about $50k. For example:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RenderWare>

--
--Tim Smith
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:59:54 GMT, bizbee <tuberoo.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:09:09 +0100 in
><d612s2p53l5rtqq71f3299gb7qt1u3ug2j.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, Ulandx.RemoveThis@hotmail.com
>graced the world with this thought:
>
>>Too bad its a SOE game,after seeing major bugs staying unfixed for
>>years in EQ while they keep adding new bugs,err expannsions,at the
>>same time I wont buy any other SOE game.
>
>And yet, here you are in an Everquest newsgroup, talking about
>Vanguard...

Well,the usual thing,over the years one makes a lot of friends
who make one stay in the game.
And I didnt say I do not play EQ anymore,but I didnt buy TSS
for the above mentioned reason,hopefully I can convince some
EQ friends in summer when my account runs out to follow me
to UO(yes,I know it has issues also,cheating,scripting,pking,
but at least it doesnt crash all the time or forces player to buy
another buggy and dull expansion every half year).
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

Faeandar <mr_castalot DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
news:j34cs29hjmaeo0emkun669gct3nhv48krj@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:35:53 -0600, Richard Carpenter
> <rumbledor DeleteThis @hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Blizzard had enormous resources where development was concerned. Add to
>>that a graphical direction that, while incredible in its own right,
>>provided a much lower hurdle for the dev team to clear. Less time spent
>>making the graphics engine work = more time spent on gameplay mechanics.
>>
>>Sigil came right out and stated that the game was not finished, but they
>>had no choice but to release it in its current state. The money had just
>>run out. SoE, in their infinite wisdom, had effectively cut them off.
>
> Not that I'm a fan of SOE but I have to be fair. I believe it was
> Microsoft that cut them off. Sigil then had to find someone else to
> back it, SoE did some but my guess is they were only willing to go so
> far since they're bleeing in the MMO space.
>

I don't think they ever stated the reasons for the breakup with MS, beyond
the vague "we did what we felt was best for the game" routine. They *did*,
however, tell us straight up that with SoE there at the end it was all
about the funding running out.

If the MS breakup was also all about the money, it wouldn't shock me. I
wouldn't put it past either MS or SoE to try and publish a game like
Vanguard on the cheap, rather than ensuring that it's finished before
release.

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

Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote in news:reply_in_group-
475262.16372904022007.DeleteThis@news.supernews.com:

> In article <Xns98CCF06D1DCEBrumbledorhotmailcom.DeleteThis@216.196.97.142>,
> Richard Carpenter <rumbledor.DeleteThis@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>> Blizzard had enormous resources where development was concerned. Add to
>> that a graphical direction that, while incredible in its own right,
>> provided a much lower hurdle for the dev team to clear. Less time spent
>> making the graphics engine work = more time spent on gameplay mechanics.
>
> You don't have to develop a graphics engine to do a 3D MMORPG. You can
> license the engine for about $50k. For example:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo>
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RenderWare>
>

I'm not even talking about developing the engine, itself. If I'm not
mistaken, Vanguard uses a modified version of the Unreal engine. Beyond
that, there is a lot more to it than just dropping in the engine and using
it to move objects around. Heck, *I* could probably create a character
model and simply animate it with the Unreal engine. The difficulty is in
managing the processing and network communications required in a game where
hundreds of "remote controlled" character models are in play in a given
area at any given time, not to mention all the server-manipulated MOB's.

Add to that the fact that single-player games will typically have a more
restrictive gameplay area. MMORPG's tend to be more open and explorable. As
such, there are more scenarios for which to account in the areas of
collision detection, location accessibility, etc.

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

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:01:19 -0600, Richard Carpenter
<rumbledor RemoveThis @hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:

>I don't think they ever stated the reasons for the breakup with MS, beyond
>the vague "we did what we felt was best for the game" routine. They *did*,
>however, tell us straight up that with SoE there at the end it was all
>about the funding running out.

I recall an article that said there were "creative differences" and I
also saw others that rumoured M$ were happy to produce the game, BUT
it was only destined to run on Vista, and not XP. If you Google
'Vanguard' and 'Vista' something should come up.


Palindrome
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard 

Palindrome <damon-AAA-nomad.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:snpes258tv1lm5118rnmm58qe8jll29c1u@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:01:19 -0600, Richard Carpenter
> <rumbledor.RemoveThis@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't think they ever stated the reasons for the breakup with MS,
>>beyond the vague "we did what we felt was best for the game" routine.
>>They *did*, however, tell us straight up that with SoE there at the
>>end it was all about the funding running out.
>
> I recall an article that said there were "creative differences" and I
> also saw others that rumoured M$ were happy to produce the game, BUT
> it was only destined to run on Vista, and not XP. If you Google
> 'Vanguard' and 'Vista' something should come up.
>

Now that you mention it, that does sound consistent with the stories that
floated around the official forums at the time.

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

On 7 Feb, 04:55, Richard Carpenter <rumble....DeleteThis@hotspamsuxmail.com>
wrote:
> Palindrome <damon-AAA-no....DeleteThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote innews:snpes258tv1lm5118rnmm58qe8jll29c1u@4ax.com:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:01:19 -0600, Richard Carpenter
> > <rumble....DeleteThis@hotspamsuxmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I don't think they ever stated the reasons for the breakup with MS,
> >>beyond the vague "we did what we felt was best for the game" routine.
> >>They *did*, however, tell us straight up that with SoE there at the
> >>end it was all about the funding running out.
>
> > I recall an article that said there were "creative differences" and I
> > also saw others that rumoured M$ were happy to produce the game, BUT
> > it was only destined to run on Vista, and not XP. If you Google
> > 'Vanguard' and 'Vista' something should come up.
>
> Now that you mention it, that does sound consistent with the stories that
> floated around the official forums at the time.

Add to that Age of Conan was warming up to the whole Vista, DirectX10,
360 thing. I think they decided they didn't need two mmog and got rid
of the one they like the look of least and/or with the execs they got
on with least.
 >> Stay informed about: Vanguard