[MUD-Dev2] [OFF-TOPIC] A rant for Vanguard

[Sean Howard]

"DANIEL Harman" <danharman at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> - Distance is meaningful.

I argue that it is not meaningful. It merely exists. There's plenty of
empty area with little purpose other than to extend the poles a little
further. If distance is meaningful at all, it's because it makes
alternative forms of transportation (boats, mounts, flying mounts) more
necessary.

> - Entertainment.

This is, of course, a matter of taste and largely dependant on your love
of the genre.

> - Vistas.

Maybe I'm nuts, but vistas don't do anything for me. I don't like the draw
distance to be too close, but once it reaches a certain level, it doesn't
matter. I should get a better monitor, I guess.

> - Depth of class design.

There is certainly breadth, and I like that, but I wouldn't go so far as
to describe it as depth.

> - Complexity.

Again, I'm going to argue in favor of breadth than depth. There is a lot
to see and do in the game, but no one system that is particularly engaging
or deep, and many of these systems are mutually exclusive or do not
interact in particularly meaningful ways. It's a world of mini-games.
Again, I like breadth (perhaps more so than depth), but I think if you
describe Vanguard as complex, you will be easily shot down.

> - Grouping.

I HATE forced grouping. I HATE pick up groups. If Vanguard ever introduces
something like Guild Wars' heroes, I'll go back in a heartbeat, but as it
is, this is a game killing problem for me.

> - The players. This game has attracted a more hardcore demographic, it
> must be said. However this means you aren't dealing with the type of
> players that make low level WoW (at least at launch) such a depressing
> experience. They may have the most players, but as a proportion, the
> number you'd want to have a conversation with is alarmingly small.
> Generally in Vanguard, there is a level of competency and sociability
> that I've not really seen elsewhere. You can be doing a bit of a quest
> and someone else in the area will inevitably ask if you'd like to hook
> up to complete it. This works perfectly because the quests are generally
> bitesize and if you click with the person there are invariably a few
> more in the area to do together, or build a group for. My conclusion so
> far, is that grouping works better in this game than any other that I've
> played, and I've played most of them.

I don't think I could disagree with you more in this regard. Sure, WoW has
absolutely the dumbest playerbase ever (I still have nightmares about the
night elf starting area), but that's like comparing MySpace to a forum
dedicated to a specific type of conversation. Vanguard is a directed
forum, so it attract a better playerbase simply by being more focused.

However, I've had a variety of experiences in the game which have ranged
from helpful to flat out rude. For instance, one of the quests in the game
was bugged and uncompletable unless you stood on the pedestal you were
supposed to click, logged out and back in, and searched for a 3 pixel wide
hot spot in first person view only. When I asked in a public channel if
anybody else had that issue, I was treated like an idiot for not knowing
that solution - which by the way, took some effort to convince someone to
actually take time out of their busy schedule of complaining about how
stupid noobs were to explain how to do it.

At other times, people have just shouted random things, like one guy
shouted in all caps that Anna Nicole Smith was "ded" - after which
proceeded a rather lengthy in insulting discussion about why that guy was
a moron. In the dwarven starting area, there was a discussion about
football going on while another person shouted how he had Wiis for sale,
$1000 ea, pst.

I have had good experiences, and for every numb nut I found, I also met
someone else who was respectful and considerate. I think it's cool to go
through a dungeon, ungrouped, with a complete stranger without every
saying a word to each other. So, I don't want to say Vanguard has a
terrible playerbase. It's simply on par with all the other games I've
played - though there was a time in Guild Wars where someone kept shouting
that he'd pay a plat to the "hottest chick who dances naked for him".
That's going to be a tough one to beat, though when he ended up surrounded
by naked men dancing and spamming "gimme plat, im hot", I did laugh.

> - Developer player interaction. The devs actually talk to the players on
> their own forums without the need to channel everything through a
> corporate mouthpiece unable to countenance that there may be issues.

This is something I don't like. Give me an official forum any day. Same
issue with Guild Wars. I know why they wouldn't want to run their own, but
it's a nightmare trying to track down all the dev posts collected at
literally a dozen different sites. In my bookmarks, I've got five
different Vanguard webpages I visit with almost identical forums with
almost identical questions being asked. All they've done is taken one big
problem and turned it into five big problems that is somebody else's
problem.

> There are plenty of systems that aren't in place yet, but regardless it
> is a good game.

I agree. I hate forced group and thus will likely never be able to enjoy
Vanguard on any level, but I think that it has a lot of potential. If we
look at what it is today as the start, I can definitely see it going
places. Hopefully, it will be one of the MMORPGs that expands by actually
expanding mechanics and game systems rather than one that just releases a
new land mass every few months.

I've now spent some time defending Vanguard, as well as some time
attacking it. The fact that I can do both puts me in a strange position of
not exactly loving the game, but not exactly hating it either. Usually I'm
indifferent, but with Vanguard, I both like and dislike it - not just
parts, but the whole thing. I like Vanguard completely and I dislike
Vanguard completely, which is a strange mix of loyalties not dependant on
one feature or another.

-- 
Sean Howard