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

[Sean Howard]

"Mike Rozak" <Mike at mxac.com.au> wrote:
> 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.

Your problem is that Vanguard is that it is, in your opinion, a generic
clone. That's an acceptable stance and one I'd be up for devil's
advocating either side. But your complaints weren't about Vanguard being
generic. It was about the cliches and patterns it adopted being overdone.
Since some people actively like these patterns and seek them out, they are
not alone marks against the game.

A majority of your complaints about Vanguard are shallow, if they are even
about Vangaurd in the first place, and I'd say that a good portion of them
are so subjective that others may consider your cons to be pros. So, at
the end of the day, all you've done is share an opinion that isn't going
to help anybody understand Vanguard or decide whether or not to try it
out. Diatribes like that are just complaining through your own frustration
rather than sharing or studying.

Ultimately, I do not like Vanguard. With the recently announce price
increase of Station Access, I won't be doing it and Vanguard is probably
not strong enough to entice me back without a new interesting feature or
expansion pack (curiosity has always been my greatest weakness). So don't
think that my defending Vanguard out of loyalty or fanboyness is the
reason I'm attacking your "review". I just expect the people on this list
to be more progressive and intelligent in their critiques.

> 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)

I have no idea how long you've played the game, but several of those
features are revealed in great detail within the first few hours of
playing. Diplomacy shows up real fast (and potentially faster if you look
for it) and while you may not actually own a boat, boat rides between
continents is usually about a 5 minute safe walk from your starting area.
Again, your complaints seem more like you want to complain than you
actively seeking out what Vanguard is really like.

> 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.)

Vanguard is intended to be in the same genre as EQ1, not a clone of it.
More like a philosophical sequel. With MMORPGs being more and more
streamlined and, dare I say it, minimal these days, having a game in that
particular genre is not exactly common anymore. Vanguard seems like a
completely different beast to something like EQ2 or WoW, and up until
Vanguard, those were the EQ1 successors in the curr/prev MMORPG
generation. So, I know WHY Vanguard is the way it is. You see it as a step
backwards, and it is, but back there is where some very interesting and
cool things were left and forgotten.

You seem to be judging it based on Oblivion or World of Warcraft - games
with a very different direction and philosophy than Vanguard has. I don't
think we should judge how well Vanguard stands up to Oblivion's philosophy
any more than I think we should judge how well Oblivion stands up to
Vanguards (not very well, it would seem). For games designed around a
specific philosophical goal, you cannot ignore intent.

As for whether or not it is superior to EQ1 or not is actually an
interesting question - but I don't think the discussion will involve
whether elves are in trees or whether or not shopkeepers still stand
around.

> 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.

No, I guess it's more like complaining that Forgotten Realms: Legacy of
the Dragon King has dragons in it.

> 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".

Not at all. The NPCs in the game are not intended to be anything more than
shopkeepers and quest givers. They aren't the main characters at all,
though perhaps the quests themselves are - but you admitted that you
didn't even bother reading the quest descriptions. I'd say it's more like
writing a book report on Harry Potter's characters based on an outline
rather than actually reading the book.

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

You will never hear me say a positive word about forced grouping, ever.
I'll devil's advocate issues I don't agree with, but in this case, it is a
fundamental issue that I wish to abolish from the tiny little minds of
every wannabe mmorpg designer in existence, and I would gladly kick
anybody suggesting forced grouping in the balls until they cried.

Forced grouping is a blight (and that includes equally retarded forced
grouping like oldschool SWG where you had to find doctors/entertainers to
cure you, or crafters to outfit you). It's nothing but ugly bigotry
against a subsect of gamers.

-- 
Sean Howard