Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Vanguard - Saga of Heroes Previewed 116

Labyrrinth writes "The media blitz for the upcoming release of the new MMOG, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes has begun with 2 independent previews at IGN and Gamespot . From the article at Gamespot 'In days of old when knights were bold, elves with pointy sticks would totally beat up on a bunch of skeletons. You may have seen online games that take place in high-fantasy worlds, but recently, these games have become much more lenient on players, so that exploring, fighting, and even falling in battle has relatively minor consequences. Not since EverQuest of 1999 (a game that was infamously punishing back then and was clearly one of the main reasons why newer games got easier) has a new massively multiplayer game tried to offer a well-thought-out, but purposely steep, challenge.'" Normally I don't think previews are noteworthy, but Vanguard has been practically a black hole of information since development began.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vanguard - Saga of Heroes Previewed

Comments Filter:
  • I was hoping it'd be either a remake or sequel to the old school Vanguard (the side-scrolling shooter where you could shoot in 4 directions).
  • blah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MuNansen ( 833037 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @04:16PM (#14726705)
    Well, those previews killed all interest I had in the game whatsoever. Sounds like a re-hash of the same old junk, just with a new engine and the same old "Poser-built" artistry. Blech.
    • I think the reason it reads like a re-hash is that the previewers kept writing in things that were in old EQ like they were new ideas. I don't know why, maybe they never played EQ.

      The *new things* Vanguard is doing are truly ground breaking. The combat system is exciting and new, crafting will be far more varied, valued and protected from mudflation, and there's an entirely new sphere called Diplomacy, which will operate something like a first person MMO RTS - you will influence and even control NPC's.

  • by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @04:26PM (#14726809)
    Let me get this straight- long travel times, corpse runs, heavy death penalties, money and xp grinds. I'm supposed to want to play this?
    • There happens to be a big group of masochistic players that enjoy griefing, corpse runs and time sinks :). Good for them, I woudn't touch this game with a 10 feet pole.
    • "long travel times, corpse runs, heavy death penalties, money and xp grinds"

      I know!?!

      There is a game called Darkfall which (hopefully) will be more challenging not because of the 4 annoyances mentioned above, but because it will require skill and teamwork.
      (And when you die, people can loot you).

    • Let me get this straight- long travel times,

      Short travel times = no locality. Does it matter where you are if you can be on the other side of the world in 10 minutes? This also concentrates the market furthur into the big trade hubs since it is so easy to get to them. I actually prefer the long travel times, so long as the game is set up in a way which supports it (don't force people to the ends of the earth every 5 minutes). Makes the world feel bigger.

      corpse runs, heavy death penalties

      Some people find thi
      • The heavy death penalty only flew with EQ because there was no other game available at the time that offered a similar experience without the pain.
        Once other games came out without the severe penalties that corpse runs imposed, SoE was forced to change their tune.

        There are players that enjoy suffering, on the theory that it makes their "acheivements" feel more important.

        The vast majority of the MMO market, however, prefers to ENJOY their playtime.

        I will never again play a game that makes me not want to tak
        • I will never again play a game that makes me not want to take risks after about an hour before I plan to log out, because a mistake could mean I either stay up an hour or two later and retrieve my corpse, or let it evaporate and cripple my character by destroying (possibly irreplacable) items.

          EQ's corpse run system is particularly irritating. This does not mean that all risk is bad; it means that EQ's corpse run system is badly designed.
          • > EQ's corpse run system is particularly irritating. This does
            > not mean that all risk is bad; it means that EQ's corpse run system is badly designed.

            The worst part was that the corpse evaporated after a week, even with all your stuff on it, whether you logged on or not. I have no idea if that's still the case as I haven't played in several years, but damn was that annoying.

            Worse, a corpse without anything on it decayed in like half an hour, so if you died going to get your corpse, you had to make a
        • because a mistake could mean I either stay up an hour or two later and retrieve my corpse, or let it evaporate and cripple my character by destroying (possibly irreplacable) items.

          I especially would never play a game where another PLAYER could put me in that position without my consent.

          From TFA: Unlike EQ, you will be able to carry multiple sets of gear in your horse's saddlebags (different horses can hold more stuff or move faster than their counterparts) and your body won't decay as long as it ha
      • > Short travel times = no locality. Does it matter where you are if
        > you can be on the other side of the world in 10 minutes? This also
        > concentrates the market furthur into the big trade hubs since it is
        > so easy to get to them. I actually prefer the long travel times, so
        > long as the game is set up in a way which supports it (don't force
        > people to the ends of the earth every 5 minutes). Makes the world feel bigger.

        City of Heroes has a nice balance of this -- you get good, fairly high-sp
    • I'm supposed to want to play this?

      Well, it doesn't look like aimed for Guild Wars fans (game synopsis [guildwars.com]) for sure. ;-) Sounds like a sort of anti-GW.
    • I was particularly frightened by the "...make level 50 playing 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for four months..." part.

      1300+ hours?! Thanks, but no thanks, I already have a full time job that pays *me*.
    • *slowly raises hand*

      I know, I'm a freak. And I don't play more than maybe 10 hours a week due to my other interests like fixing up my Jeep, rock climbing, and of course my wife and kids.

      However, EVERY STINKING MMOG has been SO dumbed down that I feel like I'm a monkey banging on a keyboard and watching the game play for me. I feel like I'm in Progress Quest.

      PLEASE give me the long travel times, the lack of point-to-point transportation, the heavy death penalties, etc. In fact, when I die at or n
      • You seem to have confused tedium with challenge.

        Long travel times, level loss, death penalites, xp penalites- these are tedium. It does not take skill to reach cap even with these, it just takes time. A trained monkey will still eventually hit 60. Have the tank taunt, the healer heal, the nuker nuke. Rinse and repeat until capped.

        Real skill requires either your reflexes or your brain to matter at all times when playing. Where correct use of your and your groupmates skills is needed, or you'll die. It
    • Part of the rationale behind long travel times is to make your travel meaningful. Picture World of Warcraft: you're grinding in Silithus, and you get a message from a guildie who wants to run Strat. These two areas are about as far apart as you can get in the game. You hearthstone back to Ironforge, immediately traversing an ocean and half a continent. You fly for ten minutes to cross the other half continent. Ten seconds to hearth and ten minutes to fly and you're at the complete opposite corner of the wor
    • The game's not designed for dunces. A good game will be one that rewards better play, not make a loser feel like a winner every time.
  • I knew Louis Savain [slashdot.org] was wrong: time travel is possible!

    At last, those who claim World of Warcraft & it's brethren are "too easy" or "too fun" have a way to recapture those heady Everquest I days, where games were work & fun was a dirty word!

  • That seems like a pretty big stretch to go from side-scrolling shooter to an MMOG...

    Oh, wait... Nevermind.

  • by Shaman ( 1148 )
    Yet another run-around-and-kill-stuff "RPG" minus the role-playing!

    The world will never be the same.
  • Difficult != Bad (Score:3, Informative)

    by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @05:05PM (#14727130)
    If done properly Vanguard might steal away WoW's long term thunder. Simply put, MMOs are designed for the hardcore. Theres no exception about it. If its too 'casual' geared, hardcore gamers will simply blow through the content too quickly (hitting level 60 in two weeks in WoW anyone?) Any new 'casual' content will simply be scoffed off by players who don't want to start a new character to get 'the full experience' or will be blown through by people who are loaded up with enough uber-gear that then can solo most of it. (Wheres the new mid-level content in WoW?)

    The only problem with current 'hardcore' geared MMOs is the fact that most developers design their systems with the 'ship now, add content later' mentality. This leads to gamers blowing through the early levels so quickly, developers are forced to focus on end-game content and ignore 'mid-game' content. A MMO that can be challenging yet not end-game focused (organizing and planning a 40-man raid is simply frustrating and time consuming) would be an excellent for gamers. Face it, as much as people talk about WoW as 'the best MMO evar!', they generally end their statements with 'I just wish there was more mid-game content.'

    • I disagree. WoW's 5 million users aren't all hardcore. Sure, the hardcore players blow through casual games quickly, then get bored. But WoW's success runs counter to your premise. If MMO's were designed for the hardcore, WoW would have died long ago.

      For me, the appeal of harder, harsher MMO's is that I'm much less likely to be playing with impatient teenagers. WoW is custom made for them, and from the talk you hear, they make up the majority.

      I'll put up with a more difficult game any day, if the playe
      • If MMO's were designed for the hardcore, WoW would have died long ago.

        Except WoW is little over a year old. AC2, which shut down recently, was little over three years old. (AC2 is just the most recent example, other MMOs have gone longer and still shutdown) Give WoW a few more years then we can talk about 'WoW isn't dying' again. Arguably, WoW is simply riding the 'launch hype' that accompanies any major game. If WoW keeps around 5 million users after its second year (or grows even larger), then yes WoW is

        • How do you figure the naysayers will have been proven right? Even if WoW drops a million subscribers it will have around 4 million subscribers, enough to be considered a wild success by pretty much everyone.
          • Because MMOs that -lose- subscribers is considered to be a failure since it means theres no long term staying power. Once players reach X point, players quit causing subscribers to fall. How you reach X point varies (players get tired/frustrated/bored/etc) but a 'successful' MMO either A) makes X point very hard to reach (see: Everquest or Ultima Online) or B) simply replaces players as fast as they are lost (see: Eve Online or FFXI).

            And thats not counting the upcoming competition. The new FFXI expansion,

            • Using that logic nearly every MMO ever made is a failure. The only ones I can think of where they may currently be at their highest subscriber base ever are games like Eve Online, and the only reason for that is because they have always had fairly low subscriber bases but are slowly gaining ground.

              Of course eventually they are going to have a declining subscriber base. That's sort of an inevitability. Does that mean that when it finally happens they will be a failure?

    • I don't mind difficult games. What I mind is what people will do to advance...everything from hiring someone to level their character, to purchasing in-game money on the net, to out-and-out cheating. If it were all a level playing field, and everyone had no choice BUT to play by the rules, I think it would be a lot more enjoyable.
  • Market Saturation (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
    While the game looks interesting, I can't help but think that this doesn't really look like "progress" in the MMO genre. Sure, we have what these developers think is an "ideal" MMORPG, but it looks like it's not much different from what already exists.

    I remember reading something by the guy who does the MMOG charts and him saying how the market for this type of game is somewhat saturated already. Sure, WoW has five million players now, but a lot of its "hardcore" crowd was cannibalized from EQ and other

    • A few steps forward, a few steps back.

      The 'radial' content model and large world is good.
      The corpse runs and XP debt are bad.
      The player housing and horse/saddlebags/flying mounts are good.
      The lack of point-to-point transportation is bad.
      The spell/counterspell/aspect-based attacks is good.
      The level-based paradigm is bad (well, not bad, but yet another MMORG that's unable to break free from the old Chainmaelle wargaming system, circa 1977).
      The player-owned properties, including inns and stores, is good.

      It's l
    • You haven't actually read through what Vanguard is supposed to be in much detail [silkyvenom.com], then, have you.

      It seems cookie cutter at first, but as I was reading through the developers responses to the questions posed, it seems like they wanted to do what has been done before, but *correctly* and with game longevity in mind.

      (And by longevity I don't mean six hour long raids, though they may exist, the devs have stated that they want their game to be primarily group focused. Not so lonely that you're soloing, not

      • Doesn't every single developer interview say that? How many interviews say "We're hoping to repeat all the mistakes of the past, along with a few new ones!"
        • Do they then continue to explain how they're approaching past problems, and continue to go into detail as to how they'll fix them?
        • Except these devs are the keepers of The Vision(tm). These are the developers who basically blew this whole genre wide open. When Brad and Co. left SOE, EQ1 went downhill. Some may say it was their millitance about The Vision(tm) that made all the other games learn what not to do, but I really think most of them miss the point. It is not that corpse runs and death penalties and basically needing a group to do anything were bad design ideas; it was the soft effects of those things that made EQ pre-SoL so
          • I wonder whether death penalty would be less complained about if death meant losing all super rare items and nothing else. That way harsh death penalties only apply to those players who wish to be exceptionally powerful (through ultra rare gear) and they have to fight hard to maintain their superiority. That'd also help to keep the number of players with super gear in check...
    • No, what we're seeing is potential market slowdown, not a saturation. It's true that WoW did cannibalize from other games in order to get their figures, but prior to WoW launching most people estimated the number of U.S. online gamers to be less than a million. Now WoW has boasted over 1 million subscribers and the other games are still humming along for the most part, including my own game Meridian 59 [meridian59.com]. But, WoW still grew the market overall in North America.

      As for Vanguard, they've always said they were
      • No, what we're seeing is potential market slowdown, not a saturation.

        I think this contrasts nicely with:

        It's true that WoW did cannibalize from other games in order to get their figures,

        Wow, nice contradiction.

        The problem is that the market doesn't reward the companies that [make "new" experiences]

        As soon as the market shows they're interested and willing to pay for "new experiences", you will likely see more of them.

        That's some beautiful circular reasoning. Also, claiming that graphics somehow

        • Wow, nice contradiction.

          It's not a contradiction. Your reading comprehension obviously failed where I explained that WoW did, in fact, grow the market. But, there's a difference between if they had grown the market without cannibalizing other games, and the fact that they did cannibalize other games in order to grow the market.

          That's some beautiful circular reasoning.

          Perhaps you'd like a working definition of circular reasoning? There is a catch-22 here, in that nobody really makes new experiences becaus
          • Anything else you'd care to be terribly wrong about?

            Once again, I'm so sorry I dared to try and hit you over the head with some reality, Mr. professional game designer. I, a lowly peon, could never understand these complex issues as well as you. Now why don't you just go back to stoking overinflated ego, your 10-year old game engine, and your three thousand subscribers?

    • It's a fallacy to state that WoW has 5 million players. WoW has 5 million subscriptions - at least half of which are involved in the various facets of the secondary market. It's also important to note that Blizzard's last press release regarding subscription totals came shortly after a downloadable two-week trial was made available and it's likely that a significant number of trial accounts that never gave Blizzard a time were included in the total. I'd also guess that many of the users they picked up throu
  • I never played EQ(didn't have the money) but I am playing WoW and I just would not time for this(I split WoW time with my wife as it is). If I am going to play a new MMO I think this would be interesting, going away from the medieval genre Tabula Rasa [playtr.com]I checked out Eve Online but it was too involved. But maybe by the time Tabula Rasa comes out I will be WoW to Death.
    • Marriage and MMORGs don't mix. The fact that EQ comes across as too expensive isn't a good sign either - women tend to eschew fellows lacking $*K/year in free cash flows. Just curious...how did Valentine's Day go for you?
      • Absolutely wonderful, a nice homemade meal(chicken cordon bleu, green beans and fresh bread). EQ has been out for quite a while I was referring to not having money before I was married(i.e. could not afford a broadband connection.) Right now my wife plays WoW more than I do, She is 55 and I am 43. I married a great woman she loves video games(and sports for that matter) and has start playing RPGs(Kingdom Hearts and Dark Cloud, now WoW). The only problem is that I am lower than her but I can deal.
  • After playing WoW, how many MMO fans are going to want their game to be harder? One of the greatest things about WoW is the relative ease of the game. You DIDN'T have to do corpse runs, there wasn't any notion of experience loss or debt, and there were many ways for instant travel around the world. I look back to my days playing the original EQ and while it was fun, much of it was because it was new. It's not something I'd want to play again, since I'd miss a lot of the things that WoW had. I'm not saying e
    • The problem with this is that making content too easy means the longevity of the game is decreased. Your game can't survive on newbies forever.
      • Hmm, WoW doesn't seem to have that problem. Then again, the game is so enjoyable that most folks don't mind creating a plethora of "alts" (trying out a different character race or class). Then there's also a separate treadmill grind of sorts when you hit the level cap ... for example, raiding to get elite gear, reputation grinding, PvP honor grinding, etc. Those aren't that interesting to me personally, but I'll be one of those who just create multiple alts instead.
        • Hmm, WoW doesn't seem to have that problem. Then again, the game is so enjoyable

          Says you. WoW was my first MMORPG and I was bored stupid at level 35 because of the lack of interaction with other players. Vanguard looks like it will be a breath of fresh air and a step back in the right direction.

          • Says you. WoW was my first MMORPG and I was bored stupid at level 35 because of the lack of interaction with other players. Vanguard looks like it will be a breath of fresh air and a step back in the right direction.

            WoW is certainly not my first MMORPG. If you think Vanguard is a step back in the right direction, go play it and let us know afterwards what you think. :)

            As for player interaction, a lot of it has to come the player him/herself. WoW is very solo-able, so yeah, there can and will be a lot of peo
          • Go give EQ2 a try, they have a downloadable free access.
            I was originally in WoW then switch to EQ2 and found it alot better. Soloing is extermly possible and there are also alot of quests that require groups.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Well gee, Everquest was a challenge. There were consequences if you failed. I don't see the problems you pointed out as actual problems. I left everquest as they made it easier and miss how it used to be.
      • There will always be those who prefer the challenge that came with Everquest, that I won't deny. But I'd say the overwhelming popularity of WoW over previous MMOs goes to show that the vast majority of players like the easier path.

        MMOs are already one huge treadmill grind. Why make it even longer? I'm of the opinion that games should be fun to play. Make it too frustrating, and I'll find something else to spend my time on. I realize that not everyone shares my playstyle, nor does everyone share yours though
    • Not to sure about the actual flying mounts, as being so high off the ground that you can bypass areas. One of the recent interviews mentioned that to travel to areas would require a boat, player made or wait for the scheduled one. If you could actually fly then that would not be required.
      They also talked about how much of an adventure it will be for everyone as they will long travels between spots, if you could fly and bypass all that how much of an adventure would it be?
  • by Puhase ( 911920 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @05:25PM (#14727351)
    For those of you WoWer's who never went through the Everquest days let me give you some situations where a "harder" game may have consequences:

    Imagine having to spend 10+ hours of grinding to get level 29.

    Imagine doing a 5+ endgame raid where you finally get the boss and you lose the roll on the loot. And so you leave your computer having lost almost a complete level of experience with wipes and not much to show for it. (And you though get groups together was hard)
    Now imagine trying to keep a guild together or just general group tension down when wiping with any party can cost you the exp equivalent of 3-4 hours of mob grinding. Plus a ton of extra time and money in regents from having to summon all your corpses from under the feet of "Baron VonAssbeater".
    I had alot of fun with EQ and a pretty successful guild. But I was also a teenager and this was the best that was available at the time. There is No Way in Hell I would put up with that stuff now.
    • > Imagine having to spend 10+ hours of grinding to get level 29.

      And he means from level 28.5, not from level 1 there boys and girls.
    • I hate to be negative, but you obviously haven't played "old EQ" lately. You have to WORK at it to lose a level, especially with the super-easy CR methods available today, and widespread 96% rezes via a Clicky Stick (Cleric Epic 1.0. . .which these days, can generally be single-grouped).

      Yes, I still play EQ. Have played it, on and off for 8 years: my first toon was created back when it was still 989 Studios, 3 weeks after EQ shipped. I have a 70 toon in Time now, and am working GoD flags. . .still fun,

  • Give it up losers. You're not going to beat WoW, EvE, and Guild Wars by introducing an annoying, tedious grind-fest. Besides, SOE already tried that with Star Wars Galaxies.


  • Another look. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Xabora ( 758413 )
    Has anyone thought about this. Vanguard is aiming at a diffrent group of MMO gamers. Heck look at EVE, they broke 100k accounts recently and average around 23 - 25k people on their server at one time. http://www.eve-online.com/ [eve-online.com] - 100k accounts front page news. They are not aiming to overtake the entire MMO market... just what some people have been wanting for awhile. A MMO thats not too easy but offers a real challenge.
  • EQ vs. WoW (Score:4, Insightful)

    by william_w_bush ( 817571 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2006 @06:41PM (#14728041)
    Most people here seem to be missing the point.

    EQ/Vanguard are not for people who enjoy playing mmorpgs, like they enjoy playing other games, or for people who play them like glorified IM clients. These games are for the people who actually enjoy the challenge, enjoy the fact that it might take hours to get a reward, and instead of hating the process, count it as an effort towards building a character they see value in.

    This is like saying MGS 2 was too hard because you couldn't play it like Tetris or Solitaire, they are totally different types of games. In WoW, the actual work done by the player is minimal, with low risk, and even unskilled/casual players (which is a huge, HUGE market) can compete evenly with the hardcore players. They are actually different games, and the problem until now has been trying to expand the market with new unskilled players, while still keeping the hardcore tier-1 dragon-slayers with server-uniques which are critical to the game, like the old FoH and LoS guilds were to EQ, setting an inspiring ideal for the rest of the players to follow, part hero-worship, part social-hierarchy.

    My point is they are different audiences completely. Trying to put them in the same game is difficult without either pissing off the casual players, or letting the hardcore players reach the "End". WoW tried, and got an assload of casual players, but most of the hardcore players I know have left, doing cameos whenever a new dragon comes out, and otherwise actually getting on with their lives. The only hardcore players in WoW now are the compulsive "Ok now I want armor X and horse Y so I look cooler" until the next patch comes out with new armor X and horse Y.

    Basically, I miss EQ :(
    • Final Point (Score:1, Flamebait)

      Rules make games. Bitching about rules that go against you when you play a game is like buying a car then bitching to everyone how you have to buy gas for it to work. People who complain that games are too hard, shouldn't play them, they aren't all meant to be chinese checkers or yahtzee.

      EQ was too hard? Then you plain sucked at it. Accept it, go home, pull out one of the millions of 3D FPS's, and use a god cheat. Or better yet, pay a prostitute to tell you how large your dick is, because things in life hav
    • I think Vanguard could theoretically be successful at a niche level -- a hardcore game, by hardcore gamers, for hardcore gamers. Look at any of the PR or the FAQ questions for this game: in response to any concerns about difficulty, Brad McQuaid says "Cry more n00b". Casuals need not apply. This means if I so much as navigate to their website my head might well explode, and I know the process of entering in my credit card information on signup would be much too hardcore for me to handle. But maybe there
  • While there are quite a few gamers out there that long for the sheer daunting task that the orignal EQ was, I am not going to be one of them. I won't be alone, either.

    I really don't mind a challenging game. I enjoy playing games like Half-Life/HL2 without using god mode, for the sheer challenge of succeeding. But MMOs tend to take up a lot more time, and you are dependent on others for the most part. You can't just save and walk away because the kid is throwing up, or the cat is climbing the curtains.
    • As someone who played EQ for 5 years, I know what you're saying. When I started cancelling dates or brushing my gf off until another day, I knew this was a problem. There was a lot of social pressure in game that causes people, including myself, to make commitments they really have no need to keep. While I have no regrets playing as much as a did, I am certainly glad I have moved away from EQ. I played EQ2 and WoW for a month each and I can finally say I'm done with MMO's. They are simply too time cons
    • If you thought EQ2 was hard then you much be a RPG lamer. I gave up EQ2 for the opposite, as it was too easyand simple and also too politically correct.
    • No offence, but man it sounds like you have one of those partner that when something goes wrong (even if it's at her feet) she will tell you to come and fix it, just because your on the computer. These types of marriages are scaring men off as no one wants to be harped into being a security blanket for the misses. Like constant phone calls to work, or where are you requests, or get off the computer... or be in visual sight sitting there to make her happy situations.. etc.. A partner should respect you nee
  • And let's not forget the "real" vanguard for you old schoolers out there:

    http://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?Softwar eID=1424/ [atariage.com]


    http://coinop.org/g.aspx/100208/Vanguard.html [coinop.org]

  • Visually, this game has nothing to distinguish itself from a multidude of similar titles. Where is the style? All the characters are the same body with a unique head sewn on top, with no chance for visual distinction. I don't care for WoW's really low-poly approach, but when you see a screenshot from their game, at least you know what game it came from.

    As far as gameplay...ugh. Sounds like it's back to the grindstone. No thanks.
    • Actually the character generation system is one of the most detailed, if not the most detailed [silkyvenom.com], ever written. Character visuals are extremely customisable. The graphics are excellent, check out the offical screenshots [vanguardsoh.com]. If they look bland to you, it's because they're realistic and more immersive, not cartoony :P

      Furthermore, the gameplay is looking far more varied than anything else. New, more complicated AI. *Entirely* new and interesting combat system. Sailing on player-made ships to new continents! Int

  • If you do one thing after reading these previews, i beg you to at least go to http://www.silkyvenom.com/ [silkyvenom.com] and read the FAQ and Wiki to find out what the game is actually about. You cannot preview Vanguard in 2 pages and give it justice. There is more to this game than what these "previews" explain, and the things that people are complaining about are there for a reason. You might not agree with the reason, but there generally is one and these previews don't go into that much at all.

    This game won't be for e
    • Your post got me thinking down a path that I hadn't considered: it would be nice to see Vanguard:SoH succeed with many of its innovations. Not because I plan on playing it, but rather because well thought out, popular innovations will then be adopted by other future MMORPGs, MMORPGs that appeal to time-limited gamers.

      I already know Vanguard is not for me - it has a lot of nice sounding features, but is wrapped in a, for lack of a better word, hardcore-package. As a time-limited gamer, I really can't ju
      • You will be able to achieve meaningful character advancement in 30-60 minute sessions, especially in areas with more casual mobs, as well as when playing in the other spheres of gameplay (crafting, harvesting, diplomacy). We think the majority of our players are the type who can and want to play an MMOG 2-3 hours a night, or every other night, with the occasional Saturday spending a bit longer to do a raid. So if 60 minutes is the maximum you can allocate to playing the game, you should be able to have a
  • I love these comments calling people masochists for wanting more challenging gameplay. What about the olympic athletes? Are they masochists for dedicating their lives to a sport, often times taking up far more time/money than any MMO, and for some sports (curling anyone?) which have less worldwide appeal than online gaming does? I'm not trying to equate playing an MMO to an Olympic event, but come on, this lame argument holds no water. Believe it or not, some people actually do enjoy playing difficult, tim
  • Heartless Gamer Comments.

    Lets start with the stand out comment of the article; "The actual game mechanics should be familiar to anyone who's dabbled in MMOs in the past few years."

    - Holy fizzle... Vanguard really is Everquest 2.0 (not to be mistaken with Everquest 2 from SOE). Read that quote again. Translated to human speak the previewers impression was "This is Everquest with better graphics."

    Something about housing that caught my eye; "Once you start racking up a lot of dough, you'll eventually
    • That it would take the average player, the 'core' gamer as we have described our target audience on our message boards (e.g. the group of players that sit between truly casual and truly hard core) 6-12 months to hit max level doesn't seem unreasonable. The players who have hit 40+ in beta have gone through various tweaks of the exp curve, levled up to varying degrees in the other spheres (crafting, diplomacy), etc. And for the record, we play the game on all sorts of systems, as well as test on different
      • Well Brad I "will" play your game at "some" point because that is the fair approach? No? I can hate all I want, but you never know I may be terribly mistaken about Vanguard. In all honesty there is even parts (housing, crafting, and mounts with bags) that intrigues me about V:SoH. Maybe it was IGN and Gamespots lackluster previews that set me off? I mean both articles are written obviously fanboi centric with nothing more than "This game is Everquest with better graphics".

        I understand the media blit

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling