[MUD-Dev2] [OFF-TOPIC] A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants

[Mike Rozak]

Sean Howard write:
> When I write a review of Harry Potter, I would do so by talking about the
> narrative structure, the characterization, the world cohesiveness, the
> inventiveness of new ideas, the fluff, and so on. I would not attack the
> book because it has wizards and I don't like wizards. I would not attack
> the book because it is written for young adults and takes place at a
> school. I COULD attack those things, but I wouldn't be making a fair or
> accurate critique of the work. I'd just be bitching because I got some
> sand in my underwear rather than actually contributing to understanding or
> progress.
>
> I'm saying he didn't "review" Vanguard so much as he just "bitched" about
> it. If there isn't a difference between "review" and "bitch", then you can
> bet your sweet ass I'm going to review all about it.

My problem with Vanguard is that it's not Harry Potter. It's a like CLONE of 
Harry Potter that is poorly written, starts to offer something new (in 
diplomacy), but doesn't seem to integrate/develop the concept well.

One of the aspects of Harry Potter that makes it really good is that it's 
genre breaking/bending! It's NOT a clone. Each novel is a essentially a 
mystery novel. The setting is semi-fantasy, but is also treated as Asimov 
science-fiction because it asks the question, "What would the culture of 
modern-day wizards look like? How would the hide from the modern world? How 
would they view technology? Etc."

The only cliche wizard in the books are dumbledore and voldemort, and 
Dumbledore turns out not to be very cliche. The school is new too, because I 
haven't read about a magic school with moving staircases, talking paintings, 
rooms-of-requirement, quiddich, etc. before.

And, after you read through the first couple of chapters of Harry Potter, 
you'd have a pretty good idea what the entire series is about. It's about a 
kid, who is special (using a fantasy trope), experiencing a new world 
(another fantasy or sci-fi thing), and being threatened by lord voldemort 
(more fantasy) who is working with an accomplice (mystery novel) to steal 
something (mystery novel).

Vanguard's "first chapter" is about killing foozles. The game may have other 
elements, like diplomacy, flying, sailing, etc., but they're not revealed 
right away, even in a sneak peak. (My issue #3 about vanguard)

Your POV seems to be, "I know vanguard is intended to be a clone of EQ1, so 
I'll review it with those assumptions/limitations in mind." My point is that 
being a clone and not being significantly better that what you're trying to 
clone is a fundamental flaw. (Issues 1 and 2 about Vanguard.)

And, as you quipped in another post, my issues are NOT akin to complaining 
that a book has pages that produce paper cuts. If I had such issues, I'd 
have written that I didn't like using mice or that my video screen was too 
small.

Issue #4 that I had was about NPC problems, which using the Harry Potter 
analogy, is like saying the characters in the Harry Potter clone aren't well 
written, and don't "leap out of the page". The harry potter character is 
designed so that the reader will like and sympathize with him early on. The 
same goes with Ron. Hermoine starts out as an unlikable cliche know-it-all 
but changes around book 2 or 3. The Dursleys are intentionally designed to 
be disliked. The stuff in Vangaurd that I've seen doesn't even give me the 
slightest emotional attachment to the land or NPCs.

Issue #5 was about the niche market and downloads... Which doesn't seem to 
have much bearing in the comparisons, although it could be stretched by 
saying that Vanguard only offers an expensive hard-cover edition even though 
it would be better suited as low-cost paperback that doesn't take up as much 
valuable shelf space.

If I had mentioned issue #6, it would be about some of the forced grouping 
issues and meeting other players.

All the other issues, the ones that you seem to think ARE review material 
(as well as my issue #6), I'd consider so minor compared to issues 1-5 that 
they weren't worth mentioning. However, I understand your POV, that if 
Vanguard was supposed to be a clone of EQ1 (aka: sticking to the MMORPG 
genre) and is being a clone were acceptable to the review readers, then 
issues 1-5 are a "Duh! Of course it's like that," and aren't review-worthy.