Yeah, i kinda thought thats what the point of a game is. To have fun.Daelos said:How the fuck is that not the only valid argument when discussing a game?
Yeah, i kinda thought thats what the point of a game is. To have fun.Daelos said:How the fuck is that not the only valid argument when discussing a game?
Some people on these forums take games VERY seriously. Particularly those who are in the game dev field or want to be. Its not about fun, its about how the particular game up for discussion directly impacts their lives, other games, the industry, and the FUTURE OF MMO SALVATION!! Its not all about fun, its all about GLORY and PERSEVERANCE!kcxiv said:Yeah, i kinda thought thats what the point of a game is. To have fun.
Yeah, i can tell some folks take it a bit to seriously.Cuppycake said:Some people on these forums take games VERY seriously. Particularly those who are in the game dev field or want to be. Its not about fun, its about how the particular game up for discussion directly impacts their lives, other games, the industry, and the FUTURE OF MMO SALVATION!! Its not all about fun, its all about GLORY and PERSEVERANCE!
Ah.kcxiv said:I know VG has problems and that shit needs to be fixed. I am NOT blind to that shit. I am far from a Vanboi, but i do really enjoy the game. I think it has a solid foundation andwheneverything "finally" gets fixed. Its going to be a kick ass game. I am just happy, that i have not ran into problems that others have.
Yes i played EQ, still have a 75 necro with 1350 aa"s thats active. I have killed up until Deathknell, then i finally quit.Itzena said:Ah.
I"ve spotted our major disagreement. You say "when", I say "if". Did you actually play Everquest, by the way?
Also: That LOTRO pic of the rolling hills looks like the countryside to the north of my town...which is a good thing, as The Shires (etc) were pretty much supposed to be the Home Counties of England.
What game is that? Is that LOTRO?Twobit Whore said:Compared to something like this, at maximum settings with all the bells and whistles on with AA + AF enabled, shadows, etc. etc. etc. I just don"t see how the graphics justify the demands.
Oh and this is on a machine identical to Bog"s. A "4 year old heap" or whatever it was called by someone. AMD 3500+ 6800GT 1GB ram.
They really cannot be compared. And even if they could, Vanguard would be at a serious disadvantage. Mainly because LoTRo is based on a high profile, extremely well known IP, and set in a familiar world of characters and locations true to Tolkiens works. Vanguard can make no such claim.Nairbog said:How about we start comparing things like the amount of unique dungeons/cities/environments in each? Classes? How about comparing the size and scale of each game? As far as I know, none of LoTRO"s cities come close to comparing to New Targonor/Pankhor Zhi/Aghram/Caial Brael/Mekalia etc. I would also be surprised if LoTRO"s dungeons were more impressive than Vanguard"s in terms of scope/mob variety/nameds etc. Since I"m not one to obsess over the artwork like many of you do, I value variety and "epicness" more.
You mean like SWG?Rayne said:Mainly because LoTRo is based on a high profile, extremely well known IP, and set in a familiar world of characters and locations .
Yeah, like playing EQ1 for a few hours kiling bats around freeport gave you a good idea of what it was like later on?Lyenae said:As for reviewers not able to really review an MMO, that"s more or less bullshit. Don"t fucking kid yourself.In a few hours you can get a spot on idea as to whether an MMO is worth playing. No amount of secret/special content at higher levels will radically change what a game should be reviewed at
The Bog said:People just lovedthis review.
This review just proves my point further and tells me how you played the game.. just like the reviewer.. running around with a level 3 char killing snakes and bats outdoors and saying: this game has no content.From the tiny review linked above:
Soon enough you realise that Vanguard"s "exploration" actually means a succession of 15-minute jaunts across endless vistas of angry flora and fauna.
A game review isn"t supposed to give you a complete dissection of the entire game; it"s supposed to give you an idea of what to expect if you buy the game. If I was to write a review about WoW, would it make sense to talk on and on about BWL and Naxx, or talk about my experience for the first ten levels of the game?Morderick said:Yeah, like playing EQ1 for a few hours kiling bats around freeport gave you a good idea of what it was like later on?
So playing VG for a few hours gives you how awesome the dungeons are?
You"re kidding yourselves if you think that such reviews mean any shit.
And Turbine instead... hah.Rayne said:Yeah, but "without" SOE and LucasArts
One thing that Turbine have always been good at is the graphics (yes, I"m including Asheron"s Call 1, where the visuals were limited because they designed the graphics engine before 3d hardware went mainstream. Considering all the 3d stuff was done in software they did a good job).Lonin said:If Vanguard were in prison, it would be the bitch and LOTRO would be a big black guy named Bubba.
That was pretty much my throughts up to a couple of months ago, but most of the complaints about LOTRO seem to be more along the lines of "It doesn"t bring much innovation to the table" and "We"ve seen this design before" instead of "This is fucking buggy incomplete shit".r.gun said:And Turbine instead... hah.
I think SWG did a stellar job of proving that a solid IP does nothing but give you a foot in the door. From that point you have to actually deliver. If SOE/LA had put together a really solid team of devs that produced a fun game, they would easily have millions of subscribers. Its nothing short of amazing how colossal of a flop it became.r.gun said:And Turbine instead... hah.
I am sorry but if the same reviewer were to rate all such games EQ1, etc. He would have ran outdoors and saw the exact same thing. Grass and snakes for 15 mins. He wouldn"t have seen the dungeons and the good part.kohl said:A game review isn"t supposed to give you a complete dissection of the entire game; it"s supposed to give you an idea of what to expect if you buy the game.
Well.. I actually ENJOYED VG and killed bats, did some questing, grouped in a low level dungeon and got eaten by a Named gnoll wandering around my area with 2 guards. What"s the difference? Oh yeah, better graphics, better sound, better UI for starters if the gameplay is at least the same.kohl said:The people who ENJOYED EQ had no problem killing bats for a few hours. I actually enjoyed the first levels of EQ with the exception of being a blind human at night in Commonlands and being eaten by a griffon. If that part of the game had sucked balls, I probably would have uninstalled the game and never bothered with it.
A shitty opening experience.. ok let"s compare a bit.kohl said:If you honestly believe a game can be successful by having a shitty opening experience for new players, I hope you never find yourself in the dev seat.
Scientifically inaccurate. The *best* human eyes top out at about 40fps.Miele said:In conclusion, 20 fps is not fine, not for everyone at least. The human eye on average stops noticing differences in values that range from 80 up to 120 fps depending on the person.
And lets not forget the bland classes, the bland, and from wheat I heard, clunky gameplay 1/16 of the Tolkien world....Itzena said:That was pretty much my throughts up to a couple of months ago, but most of the complaints about LOTRO seem to be more along the lines of "It doesn"t bring much innovation to the table" and "We"ve seen this design before" instead of "This is fucking buggy incomplete shit".
So...unoriginal-but-solid DikuMUD design + low(er) system specs + brand name = ???