 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / December 2007Vanguard
I have been given Vanguard as a present and was wondering if it is worth playing. I have been playing everquest for a number of years and have been enjoying it but lately have felt like i need a rest from it. so i was wondering if i should give Vanguard a go and if anyone could tell me something about it. >I have been given Vanguard as a present and was wondering if it is worth >playing. I have been playing everquest for a number of years and have been >enjoying it but lately have felt like i need a rest from it. so i was >wondering if i should give Vanguard a go and if anyone could tell me >something about it. It depends on what you like. If you like killing bozos then nothing beats EQ still. If you think you may be interested in crafting, VG beats EQ hands down. it also has things like harvesting (my personal second favorite after killing bozos) and diplomacy. harvesting is akin to bone chip collecting for necros but on a much grander scale. All crafters need raw materials, which are supplied by harvesters. Wood, metal, stone, skins, and plants. You get to pick a primary and secondary, not all of them. Actually you don't get to pick all of crafting either. One area of focus, thats it. For example, I'm an artificer and cannot be a blacksmith. But as an artificer I can do carpentry and stonework as sub-skills. VG promotes alot of cooperation, partiulcaly in crafting. For instance, to make a boat you need the skills of a carpenter, blacksmith, and tailor for the boat and mast(s), rigging and fasteners, and the sails. It's quite a production in some cases but in the end it's a sense of accomplishment. The performance still leaves alot to be desired unless you have a high end machine. At 2.8GHz HT, 1GB RAM, and an 8x AGP ATI card (old I realize but the top end AGP I could get) it drops to 3-4 FPS in some places. Usually high particle effect and multiple mob areas but still brutal. Supposedly there is a fix on some broken spells that recapture about 15 FPS in those instances so we'll see. The world is huge and very cool to look at, but high end content is supposedly lacking. Personally it's not an issue as my highest toon is 31 Adventuring so I've not had an issue finding fun places with bozos in them. I would not have left EQ for VG if not for my guild, all RL friends. Now that I'm there I like it and have adapted to new aspects of play. I still like EQ and will always feel that it was the greatest computer game ever made, but that's how I am. ~F > >I have been given Vanguard as a present and was wondering if it is worth > >playing. I have been playing everquest for a number of years and have been > >enjoying it but lately have felt like i need a rest from it. so i was > >wondering if i should give Vanguard a go and if anyone could tell me > >something about it. I tried Vanguard briefly and found that most of the innovations set to distinguish it from EQ were just ... not impressive. So i returned to EQ. But then i tried EQ2, and i think all sony really did was remove all the things people complained about from EQ1 (corpse runs, looking for a group, and anything "serious" or "tedious," depending on your perspective). And it looks fantastic. I also think it's nice to be around the familiar - lore of Al'Kabor, the music in kelethin, and the idea of twists on original EQ (which i resisted at first). I'd recommend trading in vanguard for EQ2 (both are $39.99 at most retailers), assuming you haven't opened it. For a long time (7yr) EQ player, EQ2 seems to be new-enough to work. Sorry i i'm gushing. >> >I have been given Vanguard as a present and was wondering if it is worth >> >playing. I have been playing everquest for a number of years and have been [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >retailers), assuming you haven't opened it. For a long time (7yr) EQ >player, EQ2 seems to be new-enough to work. Sorry i i'm gushing. I've played EQ for many years and tried EQ2, far too much of a knock-off imo. If you want something new, get something new. EQ2 is not new. I think you underestimate the differences between VG and EQ, they are pretty vast. Crafting? Hands down VG has it over EQ and EQ2. Diplomacy? The EQ's do not have this concept, and it's quite entertaining. Adventuring? EQ still owns this imo. EQ2 kinda sucked comparitively, I like VG better than EQ2. ~F > >I tried Vanguard briefly and found that most of the innovations set to > >distinguish it from EQ were just ... not impressive. So i returned to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > knock-off imo. If you want something new, get something new. EQ2 is > not new. Well ... i was saying the fact that it's a knock-off is good. I mean, it's EQ-*two* for a reason. It's a knock-off of EQ. My point was that i think it's new enough to be entertaining. I'm happy you disagree; i would hate to think i could persuade you or anyone with a mere 6 sentences. > I think you underestimate the differences between VG and EQ, they are > pretty vast. > Crafting? Hands down VG has it over EQ and EQ2. I plead ignorance. I haven't played either enough to know my a.s from my elbow, and if i were uber i would still not craft unless my real life depended on it. Except fletching, i like the idea of a ranger getting by on his own...but haven't done it. > Diplomacy? The EQ's do not have this concept, and it's quite > entertaining. Well...if you think it's entertaining, great. I think it's a card game. And now both EQ1 and EQ2 have a card game. I think it's cash-cow orientated bullshit. When i think, "boy, i sure would like to pretend i'm part of a fellowship that defeats a dragon" i am never thinking, "i want to emulate highschool nerds who play magic: the gathering." I realize there's a distinction between the EQs' tacking-on of the card game mechanism and Vanguard's contextual integration of it, but it's still a !#*(&'ing card game. Why not just make the entire experience minigames? Yes, in a way it already is, but i argue they fit an aesthetic of role-playing and card games absolutely do not. Magic: the gathering can be fun - but it's not a card game. And by "can" i mean ... i believe some people that have played it actually enjoyed it. Boy, i must sound like someone pissed in my wheaties. > Adventuring? EQ still owns this imo. EQ2 kinda sucked comparitively, > I like VG better than EQ2. > > ~F That's what you think? Great. I think if you have a good group of people you can have just as much fun anywhere. If your good group went to VG, then you should be there - that's what's most fun. Ditto any other universe. If that's not a factor, i think EQ2 is great for people tired of EQ1. > EQ. But then i tried EQ2, and i think all sony really did was remove > all the things people complained about from EQ1 (corpse runs, looking > for a group, and anything "serious" or "tedious," depending on your > perspective). And it looks fantastic. I also think it's nice to be > around the familiar - lore of Al'Kabor, the music in kelethin, and the > idea of twists on original EQ (which i resisted at first). I'd How's the scale of the environment? When I played EQ2, a long time ago, things seemed off. That is, buildings seemed too large in cities, and outdoor zones seemed bigger than they had been in EQ1. It's set later than EQ1, so I'd expect some changes, but these didn't feel like those kind of changes.  Signature--Tim Smith > How's the scale of the environment? When I played EQ2, a long time ago, > things seemed off. That is, buildings seemed too large in cities, and > outdoor zones seemed bigger than they had been in EQ1. Err...i dunno, doesn't bother me. Do you mean "scale" in relation to EQ1, or relative to itself? The zones are *huuuuge* but i never got the feeling there was a scale issue. Maybe you're thinking qeynos? There are a lot of buildings there, it can be sort of overwhelming. Kelethin is spread out a lot more, it's less dense. Freeport is ginormous, split into several zones. But they feel fine to me. However, if you mean relative to EQ1, then yes the commonlands became monstrous. 500 years is *not* enough time, geologically, for any of the stuff that's happened to the world to happen. Look at all the pangea~ Not perfect by any means. Sort of silly at times. Hell, mobs are grouped by level, clustered together, almost in a set path you could follow to non-stop play through all the levels of content offered by the zone (this is true for most big, outdoor zones). EQ2 is just *simple* EQ1, but it's fresh and that's where most ex-EQ1 people ended up (the ones that went to WoW are dead to me...). > It's set later than EQ1, so I'd expect some changes, but these didn't > feel like those kind of changes. I hear you. Again, silly stuff they did, and i'm not loving it the way i loved EQ1. I'll probably get tired of the easy, value-less feel of accomplishments, but for now it's actually something i look forward to playing with my crew. > -- > --Tim Smith c ]Kelethin is spread out a lot more, it's less dense. Freeport is ]ginormous, split into several zones. But they feel fine to me. Freeport is now 2 zones, revamp some months ago. I played Vanguard and WoW. I prefer EQ 1. JimP. Signaturehttp://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/blog/ Oct 1, 2007 1E AD&D blog http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Oct 2, 2007: Drive-In movie theatres http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog July 9, 2007 > > How's the scale of the environment? When I played EQ2, a long time ago, > > things seemed off. That is, buildings seemed too large in cities, and > > outdoor zones seemed bigger than they had been in EQ1. > > Err...i dunno, doesn't bother me. Do you mean "scale" in relation to > EQ1, or relative to itself? The zones are *huuuuge* but i never got Relative to itself. Compared to the size of characters, the buildings in Qeynos seemed too tall, and the streets too wide. Old cities should actually feel cramped by our standards. Look at small towns in Europe, for example. They were built to accommodate foot traffic and horses, with the occasional cart, and so when you fill them with cars and buses, it is cramped. Qeynos felt like it was designed for cars and buses, but in EQ, transportation for most citizens is foot and horseback. (And no, I was not playing a short race! :-)). Signature--Tim Smith it's massive, 17gigs worth of massive p > >I have been given Vanguard as a present and was wondering if it is worth > >playing. I have been playing everquest for a number of years and have been [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > ~F I have levelled to 70 in EQ2 and 49.3 in VG. I enjoyed both but I prefer VG over EQ2 even with the issues it has. I like the non-instanced stuff. I like being able to buff people out of group. I love our guildhall ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9xsIZRJ2b4#GU5U2spHI_4 (gratuitous plug) Alot of people say there isn't any content at the end as raiding is not in yet (within the next month). There is still plenty to do, I think the majority of the claims are from those who powered through the content and didn't enjoy it. Crafting is fun, different from EQ2 in that you can get up to get a coffee and come back to where you were. You're given complications which hamper your progress and can be downright annoying sometimes. I really enjoy diplomacy too, the bunch of people in channel are really helpful and you learn alot of lore from doing the quests and parleys. I think to get the most out of the game you need to find a good bunch of people to hang with or guild with. It's worth reading the forums to make sure you pick a server you'll be happy on and take it from there. Don't forget the system requirements are minimum, and there are known issues with some of the 8800gts cards I think it was, as well as Vista. Still, a free month is a free month, give it a whirl! - Floriana / Foxglove Serandon :) >> >I have been given Vanguard as a present and was wondering if it is worth >> >playing. I have been playing everquest for a number of years and have [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > - Floriana / Foxglove Serandon :) I wanted to like it. I wanted to love it really but I just couldn't play it due to the system requirements. This same machine can run most any other game with settings turned up at least somewhat but with VG I had to run with them all down so much it looked awful and still lagged so badly as to be unplayable. I have nothing against creating scalable graphics but either that is some very badly optimized code or it is just overly ambitious for the average PC gamer's hardware right now, today. They needed to ship something that could run decent right then, when it shipped. Not when people bought new systems, etc. The greatest problem they had at launch was so many people willing to play it found it ran so badly for them they could not begin to enjoy it and that killed the launch numbers and the game still suffers for that bad decision. As a software development project, VG was very poorly managed and that is no secret today. It's too bad because I am inclined to think that as a game itself it is probably very good and more akin to the original EverQuest than EQ2 ever was other than pirated lore. That said, SOE did a remarkable job in fixing many issues in EQ2 to a point where many regard it as a very good game today and I hope they can manage this with Vanguard which as a game deserved better software development than it got at least up to its ill fated launch. For what it is worth, this is my gaming PC which I readily acknowlege is midrange at best by today's standards but again, this computer runs EverQuest, ran WoW, and all shooters preceding DX10 just fine with settings up. It ran EQ2 pretty well also on balanced settings. Vanguard often crawled in single digits fps regardless of how I fiddled with settings. Intel 3.2 HT (dual core) ASUS Motherboard 2 Gigs RAM BFG Nvidia 7600 OC with 256 MB ram (yes I know this is lame for VG) Soundblaster Audigy 2 into a stereo system with Bose Speakers Windows XP SP2 with all current patches applied. DirectX 9.0c * NOTHING else in memory I might add, no utilities, nothing when I am gaming. I am approaching time to upgrade but for now, the games I play run great. I could not see buying a new computer for a game I haven't played long enough to know I love enough to justify that expense. There would be no other reason for me to spend the money today as all else I use/play works great. >I wanted to like it. I wanted to love it really but I just couldn't play it >due to the system requirements. This same machine can run most any other [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >to know I love enough to justify that expense. There would be no other >reason for me to spend the money today as all else I use/play works great. First, they have updated the game quite a bit, and alot of optimization code went in. As of a month ago I've been running it at ~40% of uber and it runs well enough. Second, your PC should have run it from day one. I have a 2.8 Intel, single core, HT. 1GB RAM, and an ATI AGP card. Ran crappy on day one, but by the first patch it was playable at maybe 15% of uber. The game mechanics are impressive as is the vastness. Content has been steadily improving but since I'm not hardcore it was plenty for me from the beginning. Like I said though, EQ is still my ultimate game and I play VG simply because our guild is solely RL friends and they all seem to like it better, so I sheep up and follow. But when not playing EQ, VG is it for me. ~F >>I wanted to like it. I wanted to love it really but I just couldn't play >>it [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > ~F I'd agree with you that it should have run for me on day 1 but I can tell you it didn't, not acceptably to me at least. Of course that's a subjective call unless you would agree falling into single digit fps when turning in the world is not acceptable. I don't think single digit fps is ever acceptable myself. I read they had optimized it a lot and I did a trial recently only to find performance was still an issue more than I was willing to invest time fooling with. In other words, an out of the box default install did not cut the mustard so I uninstalled again. Maybe next PC I will revisit this again. For now having multiple EQ characters to play is plenty to keep me entertained. As a point of reference, default settings installs of the new Crysis and Call of Duty 4 shooters looked good and played smoothly for me. Therefore, it's fair to assume Vanguard needs work as it should minimally do the same thing in my opinion. EverQuest 2 is a very nice looking game that will also do a default install that looks decent and plays smoothly. Vanguard does not do this even now after "optimizations" which are noticable but I give them no cigar for. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.