Oh look, a bitter QQing VG Fanboi with a WoW axe to grind - who would have thought ???Morderick said:A shitty opening experience.. ok let"s compare a bit.
WOW: You are #2148 in the queue, please come back in 2 hours.
VG: Nice.. the servers are really good for a launch of this magnitude.
WOW: OK, I"m a level 1 char with 2 skills. I see this tower and an NPC with a thingy on its head. I talk to him, ok, kill 10 wolves. This game looks like barney/teletubbies, wtf.
VG: OK, I"m a level 1 char with 2 skills. I see this village I"m in and an NPC with a thingy on its head. I talk to him, ok, kill 10 cats. The graphics are awesome, I can see for miles.
I knew within an hour or 2 that I"d be playing EQ for a long fucking time. I was playing my monk, hunting puma"s in EC, nervously watching chat for griffin/HG spottings, praying for rain not to come, at 5am in the morning pulling an all nighter. The dungeons could have sucked, I didn"t care. My first few characters almost completely avoided all dungeons and I still ahd the time of my life.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?
Anyone who bases their opinion on reviews (movies, music, games, etc) is a moron.
Thats funny because I specifically remember a 300+ queue on my server just before VG launched....kohl said:Oh look, a bitter QQing VG Fanboi with a WoW axe to grind - who would have thought ???
First off, I wouldn"t even go down the road of WoW vs. VG - its just not even applicable at this point. Even if you do want to go throwing gas on that fire, I would get your facts straight. Toss out the old outdated talking points that Sigil sent to you starting with the queue bullshit.
And we see how well "success" of the past translate into success of the future.. AMIRITE? nudge nudge wink wink Brad/EQ.Mkopec1 said:Lets not forget the falures of Turbine past, because they have more falures under their belts than any other mmo maker except maybe NC soft. Plenty of opportunity, 2 well known IP and still no good game...
Isn"t that Brad"s line?Mkopec1 said:But...but the GRAPHICS ARE AWESOME!!!!1
I"ve not heard anyone complain about queue issues since TBC. I"ve not seen a queue once on Moonrunner since then, and yes - we did have queues leading up to the expansion, at which point they either physically upgraded for the expansion or upped the queue limit.. /shrug.Mkopec1 said:Thats funny because I specifically remember a 300+ queue on my server just before VG launched....
Incidentally, VG got mediocre to shitty scores on just about every review site out there. Are you willing to throw all of those out the window and say that the entire collection of reviewing sites just mysteriously missed the mark on VG?Morderick said: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.
So... you don"t have any queues since the expansion. So 2 years later. Woot, you win!kohl said:I"ve not heard anyone complain about queue issues since TBC. I"ve not seen a queue once on Moonrunner since then, and yes - we did have queues leading up to the expansion, at which point they either physically upgraded for the expansion or upped the queue limit.. /shrug.
Graphics? Best graphics in a MMO by far (unless you are Bog and run it with a 3+ year old PC and complain). Check.What can you learn from 12 hours from an MMO (Most reviewers spend at least 12 hours on a game)?
- The graphics
- The sound
- The general gameplay
- Framerates
- The bugs
- The detail of the world
- Grouping/Community functionality
- Basic Class functionality
- Quests
Check out the list, there is a ton of 80% scores by big sites, not just 30%...kohl said:Incidentally, VG got mediocre to shitty scores on just about every review site out there. Are you willing to throw all of those out the window and say that the entire collection of reviewing sites just mysteriously missed the mark on VG?
Would you feel the same if they gave the game glowing reviews?
If you are telling me the majority of reviews were positive, please by all means provide the list. I didn"t say the reviews were all 30%... I said the bulk of the reviews were mediocre.. in the 60-70% range, and that is pretty shitty for a team with as much MMO experience and funding as Sigil has.Morderick said:Check out the list, there is a ton of 80% scores by big sites, not just 30%...
Oh look! I"m a vanguard mob! I"m covered in plastic! lalala. Fear my shitty animations and 10fps glory.And yes I would feel the same because WoW supposedly has good reviews (heck AC2 had some good reviews by some sites) and it feels like kiddy land on pre-chewed candy ~lalala look I am pink now and I"m uber in 2 weeks time.
Thanks for your 1 review.Morderick said:Your arguments really suck. Just play the game and do the quests, go in dungeons, group, and you"ll see it really rocks. I"m sure you won"t, but there you go.
nah your wrongKaffis said:Scientifically inaccurate. The *best* human eyes top out at about 40fps.
What you"re describing is the subconscious awareness that there"s a lack of motion blur, or the blur is inadequately generated. Increasing the number of frames displayed during one "exposure" of the eye (so that each frame the eye sends to your brain is composed of two or three video frames) simulates blur, in the same way as using a slow shutter speed to photograph fast movement will result in blurred photographs.
You"re also wrong -- motion blur could be simulated, tech-wise. However, shader code is at a premium, and being devoted to other things at this time in game programming. As DX10 dictates more powerful shader pipelines and longer instruction lengths, and PCI Express delivers greater CPU->GPU bandwidth this will be more feasible to program in real-time game rendering.
Right, as I said it"s a quite complex explanation, for all practical matters, the subconscious awareness does matter in practical applications, but I wasn"t going to argue semantics here. Your definition is correct anyway, but I think, my point still stands: different people have different perception of what a "fine" framerate is and the range of values is quite high from person to person.Kaffis said:Scientifically inaccurate. The *best* human eyes top out at about 40fps.
What you"re describing is the subconscious awareness that there"s a lack of motion blur, or the blur is inadequately generated. Increasing the number of frames displayed during one "exposure" of the eye (so that each frame the eye sends to your brain is composed of two or three video frames) simulates blur, in the same way as using a slow shutter speed to photograph fast movement will result in blurred photographs.
I said "not doable in games", which is another incorrect definition, should have said "not done yet in games", you"re once again right, technology would allow this from a theorical point of view.You"re also wrong -- motion blur could be simulated, tech-wise. However, shader code is at a premium, and being devoted to other things at this time in game programming. As DX10 dictates more powerful shader pipelines and longer instruction lengths, and PCI Express delivers greater CPU->GPU bandwidth this will be more feasible to program in real-time game rendering.
Re-read the posts and you"ll find it, there"s even a link to it.kohl said:If you are telling me the majority of reviews were positive, please by all means provide the list.
Vanguard mobs aren"t covered in plastic and it doesn"t run at 10FPS. It might look like this on your 3+ year old system loaded with l33t games such as tetris, but it has by far the best graphics in games of this type.kohl said:Oh look! I"m a vanguard mob! I"m covered in plastic! lalala. Fear my shitty animations and 10fps glory.
Please - we can go on and on. You don"t like WoW"s art style but at least the game HAS a style.
And thank you for your review. And please, continue to base your "educated decisions" on the opinions of others, like you obviously do all the time.Thanks for your 1 review.
I"ll average it out with the game review websites, and other forum posters to make an educated decision.
Oh, you mean the ones which litter these threads which have not played it since beta 3?Lyenae said:Thanks for your 1 review.
I"ll average it out with the game review websites, and other forum posters to make an educated decision.
60-70% are some of the better scores that VG got. Many of the reviews are substantially lower. However, as preschoolers like Morderick will point out - if the reviews don"t gush over Brad"s spawn, they must all be wrong! Obviously if you haven"t played the game for 200 hours to find that one nugget of enjoyment, you haven"t played it enough!!Mkopec1 said:Oh, you mean the ones which litter these threads which have not played it since beta 3?
I think on a scale of 1-100 a 60-70 is fair for this game and by no means does it mean that the game sucks.
Kohl, you keep pushing the notion that there is no content in the game and that you need to search, and search for any kind of enjoyment. But yourself, and others who have been criticizing Vanguard don"t respond to something like Nairbog"s post here...kohl said:60-70% are some of the better scores that VG got. Many of the reviews are substantially lower. However, as preschoolers like Morderick will point out - if the reviews don"t gush over Brad"s spawn, they must all be wrong! Obviously if you haven"t played the game for 200 hours to find that one nugget of enjoyment, you haven"t played it enough!!
That quote about sums up why I am playing the game right now (well, I would be if I didn"t have so many damn final assignments due... QQ) and having fun while doing so.It really irks me when I see posts like this that try to tell people VG has little content, because it"s incredibly misleading. As far as I know, Vanguard released with more *quality* content than any other MMO before it. Yes it was lacking good endgame content, but the sheer number of "Premiere" dungeons is astounding. At any given level I could probably be leveling in 5+ different premiere dungeons. The premiere dungeons are very cool too: gigantic and varied, with boatloads of nameds and loots. (though they weren"t spawning enough until a recent patch that increased spawn rates for many of the premiere dungeons) As others have said, most of these places are a blast to explore. I"d be happy to go more in depth if anyone still questions this.
Alot of the outdoor content is very high quality as well: Ruins of Trengal Keep, Ra"Jin Stronghold, Elven Magic School are places I have seen personally that blow away any outdoor dungeons I"ve seen in other MMO"s by far with their sheer size, and they all have events/quests tied to them which are often very creative. For example, in Ra"Jin stronghold, you have to enter a secret room from the rooftops for a quest, where the gravity is lower and you can float from rooftop to rooftop crouching tiger hidden dragon style. I thought it was very cool, though frustrating to those with bad machines.
Then there"s the cities, which definitely count as content in my book. Vanguard"s cities are spectacular imo, some of my best experiences in VG have just been exploring a city for the first time. Caial Brael, Tanvu, New Targonor, Mekalia, and Pankhor Zhi blow away any cities I"ve seen in other MMO"s artistically and they"re all fleshed out with lore and diplomatic content. Some people hate diplomacy, but for those who love to explore cities and talk to NPC"s to find out lore anyway, it"s awesome. I love the fact that you can enter every building in most cities, and that they actually have working doors. A small detail for some, but most recent MMO"s are missing this in their cities which was one of my pet peeves. Sorry to be so longwinded, but I wanted to give specifics for the doubters. One problem Vanguard does NOT have is a shortage of content (up until 45+ apparently, though I"m confident the team will be pumping this stuff out shortly, possibly as soon as tommorow).
I just picked up the game a few days ago (I played in beta and knew I would eventually, but I wanted to wait a month to lessen the impact of bugs/server issues) and am a level 12 disciple at the moment. I have so many options right now for dungeons: it"s ridiculous. I think the main problem actually is server population, I"d love to explore magi hold but there"s usually not enough people in the area wanting to explore it to get a solid group, atleast on Tharridon (FFA server). Today I explored Riftseeker"s Torrent near Tursh and was very impressed. The atmosphere is great from the start, you have to enter a secret password to portal in, which you hear by standing back and watching a student utter the password. There are quests that send you to every part of the dungeon and the way these are executed is interesting and fun. (you communicate with the questgivers through magic candles so the quest is dynamic, offering different objectives as you progress). There were plenty of nameds along the way unrelated to quests as well which kept things interesting. The place was absolutely humongous for a low level dungeon with lots of quality artwork and tons of different types of mobs. My favorite were the gigantic mutant plants that camoflouge themselves as a small rock. I"m going to go more off topic here and say the equipment expertise system is awesome and very innovative, I love the fact that I"m wielding level 18 weapons at level 12. I play fairly casually these days, and am very excited about the future of VG. By the time I hit the end game I"m sure there will be tons of options. My main complaint right now is with performance and invis in low level pvp (ugh) ...
Morderick said:Check out the list, there is a ton of 80% scores by big sites, not just 30%...
3 sites gave it 80%. The only one of which I have heard is Gamer"s Hell.Site Name / Link Article Date Rating Ratio
Ferrago 3/2/2007 81 out of 100 81.0%
GotNext 3/6/2007 4 out of 5 80.0%
Gamer"s Hell 2/16/2007 8 out of 10 80.0%
A whole shitload of people gave it 70"s, including IGN, Yahoo!, and Gamespot. Here is a hint, 70"s.. are not good.GameZone 2/20/2007 7.8 out of 10 78.0%
IGN 2/27/2007 7.7 out of 10 77.0%
GamerNode 2/20/2007 7.6 out of 10 76.0%
Game Informer 4/1/2007 7.5 out of 10 75.0%
Worth Playing 3/17/2007 7.5 out of 10 75.0%
GameShark 2/26/2007 B- 75.0%
GameSpot 2/16/2007 7.5 out of 10 75.0%
UnderGroundOnline 2/7/2007 B- 75.0%
Jolt Online Gaming UK 2/28/2007 7.4 out of 10 74.0%
Cheat Code Central 2/10/2007 3.7 out of 5 74.0%
AtomicGamer 2/13/2007 72 out of 100 72.0%
Ace Gamez 3/9/2007 7 out of 10 70.0%
Games Asylum 3/4/2007 7 out of 10 70.0%
DarkZero 2/27/2007 7 out of 10 70.0%
Game Revolution 2/20/2007 C+ 70.0%
Yahoo! Games 2/2/2007 3.5 out of 5 70.0%
And then the dregs, from sources such as 1UP, G4, Gamespy, PC Zone. Another hint, these are worse than 70"s.PC Gamer UK 4/1/2007 68 out of 100 68.0%
PALGN AU 3/2/2007 6.5 out of 10 65.0%
Strategy Informer 3/1/2007 6.3 out of 10 63.0%
G4 3/13/2007 3 out of 5 60.0%
Eurogamer 2/22/2007 6 out of 10 60.0%
GameSpy 2/12/2007 3 out of 5 60.0%
PC Zone UK 4/1/2007 45 out of 100 45.0%
1UP 3/2/2007 3 out of 10 30.0%
Or EQ, or EQ2, or DDO, or CoV/CoH or Star Wars Galaxies, because those all have higher average rankings.If your looking for a 80-90% reviewed game, good luck, better go back to playing WoW for a while. Or LOTR LOL.... I hear thats a great game....
I am one that didn"t like Wow, but it wasnt for it being kiddy. For me i just thought it was to much of a solo game until your max level. Obviously, you can group if you find people, but most just go on their merry way when a quest was done. I gave WoW a shot, i had a level 60 Character on Blackhand. I even got exalted in Alteric Valley. That was the only place i had fun in.Gaereth said:I personally feel that most people make the decision on what they think about these games in the first 1-4 hours of these games. It doesn"t matter whats down the road, that things get better, more fun, prettier, or that the dungeons rock etc, etc, because folks have already decided. The hook has to happen in those first few hours...if it doesn"t you may keep a sub for a while but you will loose that customer before long.
As far as quick, opinionated reviews you see it time and time again with these folks saying they didn"t play WOW because it was cartoony, linear, on rails, kiddie, etc, etc, etc. Many of those folks haven"t really played it anymore than the reviewers bashing VG but for some odd reason its ok for them to have that opinion after very little play time yet its wrong and horrible and completely inane to have that review of VG after a similar amount of time.
Its either valid to feel a certain way about a game after a set amount of time or its not. You can"t have it both ways guys simply because one game is the one you play and the other one isn"t.
I also find it funny that if you look at the WOW is cartoony contingent you will generally find folks that, in every game, brush off graphics as less important than gameplay. If someone bashes VG"s graphics then they swing out the trump card of gameplay being more important than graphics yet with WOW the first talking point is generally the graphics.
-shrug- I don"t really care what you like and don"t like...I just want a little consistancy with peoples idiocy. If its valid for one game then it has to be valid for another.