Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Review

You are not prepared.

Version tested: PC

Massively multiplayer games, from a writer's perspective, are a peculiar and often troublesome beast. On one hand, when they're truly at their best, they offer us a chance to write about a living, breathing game-world whose human inhabitants make it more unpredictable and fascinating than any single-player experience could hope to be. On the other hand, though, they defy the conventional tools of our trade. We are used to writing about monolithic products, chunks of code and content which are etched onto a disc, sold in a box, and form a single, locked down product - something you can play for a certain number of hours, form an opinion on, and even stick a number on the end of the review which represents, in theory, what you thought of the game on some abstract level.

You can't do that with an MMOG - not in the same way. We first encounter MMOGs when they're at the alpha or beta stage, clumsy and accident-prone toddlers just learning how to walk, and we are challenged to try and talk intelligently about how they'll look when they're past the age of majority and out there for anyone to play with. Even at that stage, however, an MMOG's life is merely beginning - with the content of the game changing on a monthly, weekly, and sometimes even daily basis. The best we can hope for at any point is to take a snapshot of how the game looks at one point in time, and to return months down the line for another snapshot, and another.

That lengthy caveat is simply a long-winded way of saying something quite simple: this review is merely a snapshot. We have played Vanguard throughout the beta, and given our impressions of that experience; now, having played since the launch of the game at the end of last month, we can talk about how the experience is at this moment in time - reviewing not the game as a whole, as such, but rather the game as it stands in February 2007. A snapshot.

'Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' Screenshot 1

Vanguard's spiders and shinier and nastier than any other MMOGs. Just as well I'm not massively arachnophob... Oh. Wait. Damn.

Unfortunately, in this snapshot, it looks like Vanguard blinked as the flash went off.

Be On Guard

When we previewed Vanguard back at the beginning of January, we praised the game for its genuinely impressive ambition - for being a game which was willing to strike out and try to do genuinely new things in a genre where simply aping World of Warcraft is currently the order of the day. With the game now on shelves, the places where that ambition has been realised are the best things about Vanguard. These are the places where the team has had a creative vision of what can be done with the suddenly market-leading MMOG genre which will take it past the gameplay of Blizzard's all-conquering behemoth.

Take, for example, the diplomacy system. This is a unique new way of approaching dialogue in an MMOG which turns every key conversation into a clever and well-implemented card game. You play off various different cards, and they represent various kinds of flattery, threats and logic in order to help drive the conversation your way. If you can keep the balance of power on your side, you can "win" the conversation, and this allows you to move forward in the most beneficial way possible from this point in the story. It's a great idea, and it's been implemented well; it brings new life to the dialogue of the game, whereas in other MMOGs there's a tendency to ignore what NPCs are actually saying in favour of clicking through to the quest screen and finding out how many badgers you have to kill this time.

Then there's the crafting system. It's something that was in flux somewhat throughout the betas of the game, but has made it through a tricky development period to emerge as well-balanced, fascinating and extremely rewarding. It's not like standard RPG crafting systems; these call for you to have a certain set of materials, a recipe and a skill level, and not a lot else. But Vanguard turns the crafting of objects into a multi-stage process which requires just the right tools, materials, environment and skillset. Progressing through the pre-requisite tree to build a final object is altogether more interesting than just clicking a recipe, pressing Create All and going off to grab a drink. And in recognition of how much more complex the system is, the rewards are also correspondingly greater.

'Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' Screenshot 2

Unlike many games, you get a mount early on - they get cooler, meaner looking and faster as you progress through the levels.

Both of these systems are largely unique to Vanguard, and each one of them gives a glimpse of some truly excellent design behind the game. Other elements, too, show rough corners being knocked off the MMOG genre in an impressive manner. Take the introductory quests, for example. Placing your character in the middle of a major event rather than just dumping you in a field surrounded by rats and telling you to kill 20 of them with a broken twig, is an extremely welcome piece of design. Starting off the game by storming through a village as part of a massive invasion force (the first introductory quest we played, for a Kojan human) is a great way to feel like you're right at the heart of the action, and serves as a cool prologue that gives your character some real background. The inclusion of crafting quests is another great idea; they guarantee an NPC buyer for your goods at the end of the quest and thus avoid flooding the player economy with worthless low-level items. Neat.

Changing the Guard

Unfortunately, these innovations are let down badly by some seriously retrograde steps which Vanguard takes - betraying, perhaps, a certain arrogance on the part of its creators, who were widely considered as the founding fathers of the MMOG genre thanks to their involvement with EverQuest. It may seem cheap to bring up WOW constantly when talking about other MMOGs, but we all know how successful WOW has been. And let's face it, that success isn't because WOW was in the right place at the right time, or because of the strength of the Warcraft brand. It's because Blizzard made an incredibly good game which changed the MMOG genre in ways which make it fun; but, in places, Vanguard chooses to ignore the example set by its enormous competitor in a manner which simply seems sulky and churlish.

In Vanguard, the storylines of the various races, continents and factions are spread over the world more thinly than a condom over a blue whale. The "lore" of the game (the fantasy world which you uncover) feels like an amateur Sunday effort; it's patchy, hackneyed and badly written. And while the diplomacy system makes the delivery of the whole thing vastly more interesting, there's a constant feeling that diplomacy gameplay is just filling in the cracks for a pretty awful back-story. Comparisons with WOW - or indeed with many other RPGs - are inevitable, and unkind; and while many players probably won't care, there are a great many who want the worlds they explore to be more than just a lot of pretty pixels. The lack of rich lore in Vanguard is a black mark, and feels like a throwback to the Bad Old Days.

'Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' Screenshot 3

It's really quite gorgeous in places. Unfortunately, unless your PC is powered by Stephen Hawking's brain, you'll probably get about 3 FPS in this bit.

Another black mark comes in the form of another throwback - corpse running. Vanguard is cruel to its players; death often comes at an extraordinarily hefty XP penalty, and the only way to claw back that penalty is by running to your corpse. This isn't like WoW's easy runs through the spirit realm, which penalise you without actually ever leaving you completely stuck; rather, it's a case of running through dangerous zones (which killed you last time, remember) to find your original body, all the while in danger of dying again.

Or how about a black mark for this one; enforced grouping. Vanguard takes the "multiplayer" part of "massively multiplayer" very seriously. Even relatively early on in the game, you'll find that a huge number of quests can't be completed without playing in a party. Annoyingly, the game doesn't warn you of this, leaving you to get splatted a couple of times before working out for yourself that you're going to need help.

Perhaps stemming from a similar philosophy is the decision not to include instanced dungeons (dungeons which, once your party enters them, are for you and you alone - any other party entering the same dungeon gets their own version), which means that other parties can interfere with your quests, forcing you to camp out and wait for quest monsters to respawn, and so on.

For each of these things, and plenty of others like them, there are a few vocal defenders. But, frankly, these are the tedious random battles of the MMOG genre. They're a relic of the past, or should have been. Vanguard's designers should have looked harder at the WOW phenomenon and realised why the damn game is so popular; it's because Blizzard looked at long-time MMOG traditions like these and decided they were officially Not Fun. Corpse running is Not Fun. Forcing people to stand around looking for a group rather than giving them the option of playing solo for a while when they're not in the mood or can't find a decent one is Not Fun. Standing around waiting for a quest monster to respawn because someone else just killed it is Not Bloody Fun. If anyone ever writes a rule-book for videogame design, rule numero uno should be "If It's Not Fun, Don't Put It In Your God Damned Game".

Heroes of Right and Left Click

'Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' Screenshot 4

The ability to buy (or build) and sail around in your own boat is a particularly awesome addition. As is the funky looking water.

The thing about Vanguard is that for every piece of wrong-brained badthink you uncover in the design, there's another great idea, another lovely piece of innovation, shining out at you. It's like the game is simultaneously tugging back towards a past when only 300,000 people in the world played MMOGs, and reaching towards a bright future when tens of millions will be enticed by fascinating, rewarding and addictive systems to play, and beautiful, intricate worlds to adventure in.

Take the character customisation options. These allow you to fiddle with every element of the face and body individually; or the fantastic decision to run with having four character class groups (representing the four core MMOG professions: tank, damage-dealer, healer and nuker) which encompass 15 different classes, each with a unique style of play, but each of which fits into a core role in a given party.

How about the battle system in the game? This is one area where Sigil's cup truly overfloweth with innovation and a clear determination to make something better and more exciting than any MMOG combat system which came before. There's a wonderful system which is based on reactions to what happens in combat. Certain actions taken by allies and enemies can open up new abilities of your own, such as counter-attacks or defensive moves, which may in turn lead into powerful chain attacks. These battle options flash up on screen as they're available, and utilising them makes for dynamic, hugely involving battles which are quite unlike the auto-attack combat seen in many MMOGs. It's a welcome change, and one which makes even the eternal level grind feel a lot less arduous, because you're playing a game with some actual skill and dynamism to it.

'Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' Screenshot 5

If you die and get resurrected, all you want to do is hit things - proving that that stupid Patrick Swayze film was factually incorrect. In reality, he'd totally have decked her.

Then there's the decision to give players a mount at level 11, and upgrade it progressively to more and more impressive steeds as you progress through the game, culminating in flying warbeasts which soar over the expansive terrain of the game. There's the promise of being able to own property, build houses in the cities, open shops which have specific opening hours and make money for you while you're not even logged in, not to mention being able to build and sail boats, and, if you're in a guild, enormous ships of war. The basics of these systems are there for you to walk around and gawp at from the outset. Few games offer quite so much incentive to get to the high levels and really start playing around with astonishingly cool stuff.

Speaking of things to gawp at, the graphics of the game largely fall into this category, with Vanguard standing head and shoulders above most other titles in the genre in terms of what it tries to accomplish with its graphics engine. At its best, it's a truly stunning looking game, with beautiful atmospheric effects, incredibly long draw distances and hugely impressive environments and architecture. The world's flora and fauna is also gloriously rendered, and the game does an excellent job in the early stages of putting more and more striking vistas in front of players, to entice them to explore ever further into the world of Telon.

Now, if this were a conventional review of a standalone game, this would pretty much end the commentary. We'd now sum up the good points and the bad, and award a score. However, this is not a standalone game. and as such, there's something else to consider. This, as previously mentioned, is a snapshot of Vanguard as it stands right now; and right now, there are other aspects to the game which are not pretty in the slightest, and which warrant discussion in any review.

Unfinished Symphony

It comes down to this: Vanguard is not a finished game. It's certainly a game which has come on in vast leaps since the last beta, but one that's also nearly indistinguishable from the shoddy, creaky beta code of six to twelve months ago. You know, the one which generated such bad word of mouth for the title. The graphics engine is perhaps the biggest culprit; it's buggy, prone to glitches ranging from tiny peculiarities up to the entire environment being incorrectly lit or just plain disappearing. The game may be beautiful, but even on a top notch system it runs like a dog; it's a beauty which comes at the cost of framerate. [For the record, our test system was an Athlon X2 4800+ with an ATI Radeon X1950 Pro. Not cutting edge, but certainly powerful enough to play any other game we've thrown at it so far, and even with plenty of options tuned down, the game still struggled to maintain a playable framerate.]

It's not just graphics which are at fault, however. In our time in the game we've uncovered all manner of other bugs. We've been teleported into bizarre locations, lost items randomly from our inventory, found quests which we couldn't complete and god knows what else. Certain areas, visually as much as anything else, just don't seem to be remotely as finished as others. Overall, there's a strong and somewhat embittered feeling that those playing the game now are still beta testers - they just happen to be paying for the privilege. While the phrase "When It's Done" may be the most infuriating ever to be trotted out by a game developer, the sad fact is that Vanguard could have done with being released when it was done, because right now it feels pretty far from that.

'Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' Screenshot 6

Say cheese! Great customisation lets you create tons of unique looking types - including, astonishingly, my dad. Far left. No, I'm not half-dwarf.

The advantage of an MMOG in this situation, of course, is that it's got a chance to make good. Telon has evolved even in the short month we've been there. Sure, many issues still persist, but many others have been fixed. Patches emerge with incredible regularity, and almost every time you log in the team has shored up another problem with the game, all of which is driving Vanguard towards being a far more playable, interesting and fun game. Right now, though, the main caveat about the game isn't the occasional unwelcome blasts from the past in the design; it's the fact that buying Vanguard now is essentially paying for beta software.

In the final analysis, giving a score to this game pains us, because we have to award a score which represents Vanguard as it stands now, warts and all. This isn't a preview, and we can't make optimistic assumptions about things that will be fixed down the line. This is a review of a product which you, the consumer, are expected to pay for, and right now that product has problems. We're harsh on MMOGs at Eurogamer, because we understand the vast investment of time and money which they represent for players, and under any kind of harsh light, Vanguard comes up wanting right now.

We sincerely hope that when we return to the world of Telon in a few months time, it will truly be an experience that lives up to the promise of the game, and which is worthy of re-review and altogether more praise. For now, Vanguard is a game which has plenty to offer a brave adventurer with a stunning PC. Aside from any design or content problems we've identified with the game, potential buyers need to be aware that they're entering a world which, as a prominent WOW character would have it, is not prepared.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (68) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • JediMasterMalik #1 5 years ago

    Shame really, still looking forward to playing later on. It has oodles of, currently unfulfilled, potential. I hope they change it enough to warrant a re-review, I did enjoy the beta, and have high hopes for it in the future.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/07 @ 14:08
  • Rayn #2 5 years ago

    Giving a MMO a review score is like rating clubbing in general after one night out.
  • AcidSnake #3 5 years ago

    Can I plz have keeyz?
  • dbeamish #4 5 years ago

    from the last picture I can see Zangief found further work then..
  • UncleLou #5 5 years ago

    Giving a MMO a review score is like rating clubbing in general after one night out.

    Well, you obivously can't rate the exerience you can have in a great group/guild, but you can rate the core game mechanics and their potential against similar games.
  • magicpanda #6 5 years ago

    Fair play for getting "wrong-brained badthink" in a review.
  • Shinji #7 5 years ago

    yellowtruck - That would be the silliest conspiracy theory I've heard all day, if it wasn't for the fact that someone told me about the Gay Plot to take over the world in secret alliance with the Jews earlier. :)
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/07 @ 14:20
  • login_name #8 5 years ago

    It probably deserves a low score just for the bugs and high PC requirements, however, the core game is good. Lots of polishing needed but it's the most fun I've had in an MMO since SWG (pre-rape of course), excluding Guild Wars since it's not really the same thing.

    Never liked WoW, so I guess if you're a fan of that you'll hate this. Those that are after something a little deeper and a little more mature should at least give it a go...so long as your machine is up to the task.
  • frod. #9 5 years ago

    "That would be the silliest conspiracy theory I've heard all day, if it wasn't for the fact that someone told me about the Gay Plot to take over the world in secret alliance with the Jews earlier."

    Have you been watching Working Lunch again?
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/07 @ 14:26
  • darshannon #10 5 years ago

    Yay for TBC reference in the strapline! :)
  • Darren #11 5 years ago

    *sigh*

    I saw the review was three pages and quickly skipped to the end to see if it was worth reading the whole thing as I'd like another PC game like this and it only got 6/10!!! Why devote 3 pages to a 6/10 review (or is that explained in the actual review?). I suppose I'd better read it to find out...
  • Pike #12 5 years ago

    Well, seems like there is no immediate reason to leave WoW for this then. Seems like the developers were a bit too stuck in the "WoW-is for n00b carebearslol" mindframe that some of the MMO hardcore likes to adopt.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/07 @ 14:33
  • [DVDF]Gooner #13 5 years ago

    Actually that review was balanced, well thought out and just about bang on.

    There was a distinct lack of naked females, which i have noticed is a growing trend in EG reviews and needs urgent attention, but, you cant have everything.
  • Darren #14 5 years ago

    By the way there is no such thing as an "Athlon X2 4500+", it's either a 4400+ or a 4600+. /wink
  • warlockuk #15 5 years ago

    After seeing what a state the open beta was in, I'm surprised this can get anything above a 3 or 4 until it's actually playable... 'cos that's what we do with games. Play 'em :)
  • mkreku #16 5 years ago

    When I played the beta I ended up creating a character from the most awful looking place in the universe. I have seen screenshots that look pretty good from this game, but seriously, the place I ended up in was lika a brown valley with a few ugly trees standing here and there. None of those impressive vistas to be seen anywhere. It was horrible!!

    I lasted up until level 7 or so.. before I got a quest that seemed simple but eventually killed me over and over. I guess that was one of those quests where you were forced to group with the Legg0laz's and I_pwnz0rz_j00's of the Vanguard world. No thanks.
  • Shinji #17 5 years ago

    Darren - I think reading the whole article is probably worthwhile on that front, yes. It's not a conventional 6/10 - there's a brilliant game under there, but it's really buried under a lot of problems, and I thought it was important to explain that in some detail.

    You're quite right though on the CPU front. I've actually done my system a great disservice, it's a 4800+ processor! I'll get the article amended :)

    warlockuk - The game is in a far, far better state now than it was in the open beta. But it's still by no means polished, certainly.
  • justsomeone #18 5 years ago

    didn't the dev say, at some point, that solo players were catered for, and that it was a particular feature of the game (over others) that solo was a viable way to enjoy much of the content. or did i dream that?

    seems to me that every mmo dev claims that its game is going to get the solo vs group balance right, but then ends up enforcing grouping for 9 out of 10 quests and 99% of the content at about level 3 onwards. why do they do this?

    The bottle-pissers (eurogamer's phrase, but i like it) have their own games already, we really didn't need another.
  • deepmenace #19 5 years ago

    "Athlon X2 4800(edited)+ with an ATI Radeon X1950 Pro" struggles to "maintain a playable framerate"

    that is thoroughly appalling.

    go to the back of the class.
  • mkreku #20 5 years ago

    Oh yeah, I might have to mention that my Core 2 Duo E6600 (@3.2 GHZ), 2 GB Corsair XMS (@850MHz) and ATI Radeon X1950XTX 512MB GDDR4 also struggled with this game. Of course, I might have had the visual setting quite high, I don't remember exactly.
  • Laserbream #21 5 years ago

    If it wasn't for the forced grouping, I'd give this a whirl.
  • Dizzy #22 5 years ago

    Agree 100%. Game has some great ideas but sadly they launched early in the hopes of getting enough money to pay their bills and fund the last few months of development time that this game needs.
  • warlockuk #23 5 years ago

    Shinji - It might be in a far better state than the beta but as you say, it's still unplayable on a pretty decent PC... So no matter how good it looks and how many good ideas are in there if it's impossible to play because it plays like crap then generally speaking it _is_ crap.

    Still, hopefully they'll sort the engine out and it'll become playable before WAR is released.
  • Tyedyed #24 5 years ago

    Cant say I agree with some of the points in the review.

    Leaving a corpse behind when you die is a good idea imo, it forces you to plan ahead and think about what your doing when you go into a fight. You also dont have to go and get your corpse if you dont want to - when you die you appear near an altar where you can summon your corpse (and take an exp hit).

    You also dont have to group either, the game is so huge that theres tons of solo content and quests. Ive mostly soloed to level 22. The rewards for group play are better of course, as they should be in a mmorpg.

    I think the overall score is fair as there are plenty of bugs in the game (but no show stoppers for me yet), it also runs fine on my 6600gt 1.5 gig ram athlon 3400. All in all its one of the best mmorpgs ive ever played, it really invokes the sense of exploration and wonder that EQ1 provided and im having a whale of a time.
  • magicpanda #25 5 years ago

    Theres only one reason im not playing this over wow and thats the fact that it runs like a dead dog.
  • SentientNr6 #26 5 years ago

    Good review although a little harsh.
    I see corpse running as subqueests.
    Besides if you die you will be more carefull next time.

    I like wow but I prefer more open MMORPG's that forces (allows) you to think.
    Maybe I'll check out vanguard again in a month or 6.
  • PearOfAnguish #27 5 years ago

    Didn't they admit that they were releasing it before it was finished? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
  • Quine #28 5 years ago

    +agree with the 'fun' comment.

    It feels as though MMOs and fun parted company a long time ago. Now we just map out the grind/reward curve and decide if we can be arsed to play...
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/07 @ 15:59
  • PortJourno #29 5 years ago

  • quantumsheep #30 5 years ago

    Great review Rob.

    I hate corpse running too. In fact, when it happened the first time I went into a tirade at my work colleague which essentially you summed up in that paragraph on it on the second page!

    The character customisation options 'look' advanced, but really those sliders usually just give you one of four variations. Granted, that's still a lot of work for the amount of characters you can choose from, but it still felt limited to me.

    There *is* a good game in here for sure. And I can see its potential. But I really can't be arsed and I want my 17gigs worth of disk space back please!
  • Shrub #31 5 years ago

    Why does this game have a forum section all to itself here at EG ?
  • JediMasterMalik #32 5 years ago

    It was for when hundreds of people were trying to get beta keys from EG. God knows why it's not been taken down yet.
  • spaceman #33 5 years ago

  • shamblemonkee #34 5 years ago

    "it also runs fine on my 6600gt 1.5 gig ram athlon 3400"

    do you define 'runs fine' as 10fps?
  • Tyedyed #35 5 years ago

    Shamble> nope, it can dip occassionaly to 10 or less FPS when first entering cities, but its usually 20-40fps out in the open or in a dungeon. This is on balanced settings btw, with shadows/grass off and a few minor adjustments.
  • CaptainSpank #36 5 years ago

    'It's really quite gorgeous in places. Unfortunately, unless your PC is powered by Stephen Hawking's brain, you'll probably get about 3 FPS in this bit.'

    awesome quote. my hat's off to you sir
  • urban #37 5 years ago

    a 3 page review hey? to be honest i never made it into the beta seeing as it stood at 17gb tall, it was a bugger to install.

    it sounds poorly designed and another brilliant example of a publisher chucking it out the door.
  • Suzail #38 5 years ago

    Yes its buggy, Yes its unfinished. It is damn playable on a mediocre setup just dont expect to run with anything on max like you can with WoW on a 286. Corpse runs so what, you dont have to if you dont want to you can summon your corpse at an alter for a durability hit just like WoW. Also this is a Massive MULTIPLAYER online RPG that means you are supposed to group. (you dont have to but soloing is going to be slower) O and please dont leave WoW to play this stick with WoW please thank you. The reviewer it seems dislikes the game because it isnt like WoW. Im glad its not like WoW and im glad its difficult thats what makes it challenging and fun. Also this statement is rubbish

    " It may seem cheap to bring up WOW constantly when talking about other MMOGs, but we all know how successful WOW has been. And let's face it, that success isn't because WOW was in the right place at the right time, or because of the strength of the Warcraft brand. It's because Blizzard made an incredibly good game which changed the MMOG genre in ways which make it fun"

    Wow is successful because its an easy game to grasp and play, and it will play on PC's 4-5 years old, on max settings thus making it open to a wider and younger audience period.
    Edited by 3 at 22/02/07 @ 18:50
  • gnarl #39 5 years ago

    I want either permanent death or no penalty. In fact server options for both please. Anything else irritates as an annoyance in games that take too long for progression anyway.
  • AlpTighen #40 5 years ago

    Amazing new innovations like complex crafting, reactive combat abilities, and player-controlled boats? Wow!

    Oh wait, DAoC already did those. Nevermind.
  • JoeBlade #41 5 years ago

    Great review there Rob.
    Sad to see designers still desperately clinging to dated mechanics that are, as you very adequately put, Not Fun. Precisely what keeps me away from the MMO(RP)G genre for the time being, despite various innovations (and some do appear quite appealing indeed)...
  • George-Roper #42 5 years ago

    Corpse runs = half recovered XP penalty, from death.

    Corpse summons = no recovered XP penalty from death but no corpse run.

    To me, this hits the nail on the head. I *love* the fact that there's a penalty from death, which can equate to hours of gaming lost. The way death is dealt with, in WoW, makes it a minor inconvenience at best. Sadly, in WoW, this also means that every encounter/possibility of dying doesn't get a second look. Jump in, die, run back to corpe, self-rez, /yawn. Absolutely NO fear of going into the unknown and you know what? It ruins the immersion. Completely.

    In Vanguard, the other night, I had to stop myself jumping off a cliff which would have resulted in death, thus XP loss, just because it was a quicker way to get where I wanted to go. In WoW, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

    There was also a Vanguard quest, where I had to get into a outpost of mobs and rescue some soliders. Initially, I thought 'Run in, get the quest update, run out'. Tried it, got absolutely fucking leathered, did a corpse run, got half my XP penalty back and you know what? I then took it steady, picking mobs off one at a time, until I could get to where I needed. I continued played the game knowing that stupid, mindless, WoW tactics simply don't work and have the dangerous gamble of actually costing you something tangible. A step or two back from that tantalizing 'ding' of the next level.

    WoW has softened up the gaming populace of MMO's. It's been too easy, too convenient and too fast. Rested XP only served to power the rollercoaster ride along. Vanguard has come in, at a fantastic time, and reminded us how *great* EQ1 had it. How much you valued the level attained, measured over months, not days. How much you enjoyed passing used items, armour and weapons on to friends and family, after you'd outgrown them. How much exploring new areas was exciting and generated a distinct sense of apprehension, rather than the /yawn WoW corpse run.

    It's absolutely tragic that I had 6 60th WoW characters on that game, before binning it in utter boredom. That was after just 12 months. I felt no sense of achievement or progression at all, it was just a blur of levelling, although it would be an injustice to say that I didn't have a good time, because I did. The 'lure' of convenient, fast, levelling was an absolute buzz, until you realise that it cheapens the concept of the genre. Level to 60, throw away, start again, level to 60, throw away, start again. In EQ1 and Vanguard, you just can't do that. Extended investment is required to achieve anything, which works providing there's good content along the way, which Vanguard seems to have in bagloads.

    Yep, its buggy. Yep, it looks gorgeous but can chug. Yep, it promises a hell of a lot, with genuine 360 degree flying mounts, EVERYWHERE in the gameworld, not just limited to some bullshit expansion.

    At the moment, im having a fucking blast. Combat is incredibly involving. Classes are genuinely singular and play in very different ways. Starting areas are amazingly well crafted (Khal is utterly breathtaking, with the views). The graphics in general are amazing, although I do believe some character models are way too stiff.

    Theres still some work to be done and I'll be giving Sigil 3 months to get everything ironed out. Although, speaking personally, ive not encountered anything which has even remotely prevented me from playing the game.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/07 @ 20:20
  • yagisencho #43 5 years ago

    I played this when it was called EQ (same lead designer). It was a complete joy-suck then, too.

    The masochists among us with time to burn can have it.
  • Tyedyed #44 5 years ago

    Spot on george!

    This game will never achieve the popularity of WOW, but its appealing to those of us who miss the less forgiving mmorpgs of the past.
  • dudefella #45 5 years ago

    The most off-putting thing an MMO could possibly have to me is steep penalties for dying. Way to discourage exploration and effort! Final Fantasy XI made me level DOWN. I think I quit the game not long after. What a piece of shit. Punishing players harshly for dying is, excuse my French, fucking retarded.

    Honestly that is the most off-putting aspect of this game to me.
  • mkreku #46 5 years ago

    I wish they would have instances at least. That might lessen the bore factor a bit. I mean, last time I was waiting for respawn with a group of people was in the mid-nineties, in a text based online role playing game ([link url=http://www.medievia.com< br /> ]www.medievia.com[/link]) !

    Amazing that they didn't implement that feature, the best thing to ever happen to the MMORPG genre. Personally I'm not so bothered with the corpse run. Dying should sting a bit.
    Edited by 2 at 22/02/07 @ 21:29
  • vane101 #47 5 years ago

    I play - 'tis good!
  • George-Roper #48 5 years ago

    @dudefella

    Wow, way to really go to the extreme. So having two choices, after death, on how you want to deal with it is 'too harsh'?

    Stick with WoW, it's what all the kids are playing.

    @mkreku

    Sigil have tried to create a whole, connected, gameworld. Instances remove players from any gameworld. If Sigil can successfully find a way to make the current methods work, without creating problems between players and spawns, this method will be the best. Again, though, i've yet to come across any problems running quests which end with named, and that named not being available. I think people see this aspect and jump off the deep end without bothering to actually experience it. I personally find it invigorating to see other players milling around, not in my group, doing their own thing. It adds a lot to the feeling of being involved with thousands of other players, rather than having the playerbase 'sectioned' off within personal instances. If you want to be away from the rest of the players, why not just play Oblivion offline?
  • xandoodle #49 5 years ago

    I could tell this was a 6 without reading the review, just the general buzz around the forums. Not MMO intrested so I probably won't read it.

    But i'm just hoping there wont be another '6/10' phase...
  • Smugglarn #50 5 years ago

    Is the article's sometime lack of proper grammar and spelling a reflection on the incomplete nature of the MMO genre?
  • Pike #51 5 years ago

    Batbat wrote:
    well said George, very well said, Vanguard is a 6 for wowtards like the reviewer, its an 8 (9without the bugs) for anyone who wants a challenge
    I think what you meant to say that Vanguard is a an 8 or a 9 for bottle pissers without jobs and social lives, while those of us who have both of those prefer the more polished and less archaic experience that WoW delivers.
  • George-Roper #52 5 years ago

    @Pike

    Well, if by 'job' you mean community service and by 'social life' you mean hanging around in supermarket carparks drinking cheap cider and 'avin it large, yeah I guess you have a point.

    Stick with WoW, it's what all the chavs with short attention spans are playing. Innit bruv?
  • Pike #53 5 years ago

    Oooh, stinging criticism George. Chav? That's a british thing right?

    Look there is nothing wrong with liking a flawed game such as Vanguard, but please try and remember that doing so doesn't make you in any way superior to those of us who prefer a bit of polish and the removal of pointless frustrating elements only implemented to artificially prolong playing time.

  • George-Roper #54 5 years ago

    @Pike

    Quote...

    "Look there is nothing wrong with liking a flawed game such as Vanguard, but please try and remember that doing so doesn't make you in any way superior to those of us who prefer a bit of polish and the removal of pointless frustrating elements only implemented to artificially prolong playing time."

    ROLFMAO!

    MMOGs are designed, from the ground up, to 'artifically prolong the playing time'. WoW level 1-60 used to be training for PvP or Raids, nothing more nothing less. End-game is where WoW sits, which is why much attention has gone into PvP and Raids. I'd imagine 60-70 is the same, but have no desire to take a look and see for myself.
    Make absolutely no mistake, these companies are here to make money NOT to pander to gamers whims.

    Give me a smaller development team, who listen to players and introduce fantastic concepts into their game, over a large development team who frankly don't give a flying fuck about the gamers, any day.

    Vanguard may never reach even a 10th of the success that WoW has had but you know what? If I can enjoy that game, with a smaller playerbase of more mature, dedicated, players who appreciate what Sigil are trying to do, then game on for me.

  • fozzie22 #55 5 years ago

    Got to say while some parts of the review are spot on thier are way to many inaccuracies to take it seriously tbh

    Its buggy yes so was WOW i recall but of course that matters not when a blizz press trip is near...
  • DX #56 5 years ago

    Review matches what I´ve heard from people playing it in both beta and release.
    Outstanding potential, sadly released a bit too early (still don´t get the idea behind releasing it so close to the launch date of TBC).

    As for people feeling the need to slag off others in a rather immature way because they prefer game x over game y (for whatever reasons), it´s not really needed.
    Play the game of your choice, enjoy.
  • Pike #57 5 years ago

    Oh, please George, don't be an idiot. Of course MMORPGs are designed to keep playing, hence why content is added continously. What I meant by artificial padding is, obviously such things as XP-penalties on death that force players to re-play sections of the game and force them to kill the same mobs over and over again or not having instances which forces players sit on their asses waiting for some quest mob to re-spawn.

    Now you might be one of those exceptions that find pleasure in extreme repetition, but don't try and claim that this makes you in any way better than those of us who like to have a shorter routee to the enjoyable parts of a game. Most of us don't have 16 hours a day to grind mobs. You might find this hard to grasp but the fact that you enjoy something most of us think is flawed and dull doesn't make you superior, it only makes you a bit of an eccentric.
  • mkreku #58 5 years ago

    George Roper: Again, though, i've yet to come across any problems running quests which end with named, and that named not being available.

    Then just play more. As soon as a powerful guild finds out the specifics about a named, the kind of loot it potentially drops, the tactics required to defeat it, stuff like that, they can spend an entire WEEK just killing the same named over and over again until everyone in the guild has the latest über item. Some people actually DO piss in bottles to be able to abuse the game. Trust me, it gets plenty worse when everyone has to fight over the same named mobs.
  • George-Roper #59 5 years ago

    @Pike

    Quote..."Oh, please George, don't be an idiot. Of course MMORPGs are designed to keep playing, hence why content is added continously. What I meant by artificial padding is, obviously such things as XP-penalties on death that force players to re-play sections of the game and force them to kill the same mobs over and over again or not having instances which forces players sit on their asses waiting for some quest mob to re-spawn.

    Now you might be one of those exceptions that find pleasure in extreme repetition, but don't try and claim that this makes you in any way better than those of us who like to have a shorter routee to the enjoyable parts of a game. Most of us don't have 16 hours a day to grind mobs. You might find this hard to grasp but the fact that you enjoy something most of us think is flawed and dull doesn't make you superior, it only makes you a bit of an eccentric"

    You infer repetition a fair amount here but I fail to see the reason.

    In WoW, if you die, you either get rezzed or you have to run back to your corpse, with no fear of being attacked, to rez yourself. At which point you're back at the same area and need to start killing mobs again, if they've respawned.

    In Vanguard, if you die, you either get rezzed or you have to run back to your corpse, WITH fear of being attacked (thus you need to *think* rather than mindlessly *try* to win an encounter), to rez yourself. At which point you're back at the same area and need to start killing mobs again, if they've respawned.

    The *only* difference is making your way back to the corpse. Aside from the fear of attack which...*GASP*...means you have to actually WATCH the gameworld whilst running through it rather than hitting auto-run and making a cuppa, there's no difference.

    So because Vanguard takes a more mature requirement on players actually playing the game, having to watch their backs for roaming mobs whilst on a corpse run (if they choose not to summon their corpse) you think its repetitive?

    Bottom line here is that Vanguard appeals to the gamer who's actually interested in the gameworld and likes interacting with other players. WoW took way too much away from the gamer. Instances, initially, seemed like a good idea until you realise youre sectioned away from the playerbase. Bound items, meaning no trade to other players or friends, after they've been outgrown, just locked down the interaction even more.

    Vanguard takes many areas of the MMOG genre and spits out options at the players, not absolutes.

    For example. loot an item, use it, outgrow it, trade it on or give it to a friend.
    Or, loot an item, bind it, die, respawn and have the item still on you but then dont have any ability to sell it on or give it away.

    Options are good. Absolute fuck-you-its-our-way-or-no-way are just incredibly binding and restrictive and also kill immersion. WoW straddled the Diablo-style of gameplay and the Everquest-style of gameplay, and spat out a quick-fire, mindless, carebear, nannyculture within the genre. Which is why it's so popular, because its easily accessible, runs on lower systems and gives players rapid advancement.

    Clearly, thats your kind of gameplay. Personally, I like more interaction with players, more options within the game, more detail within the tradeskills, more variety in combat, a vastly superior game engine, distinctly different classes, the swing towards group play along with a good variety of solo quests and finally not being hand-held through levels 1-60, with the incredibly obvious goal of actually playing WoW as it was intended. Max level.
    Edited by 1 at 23/02/07 @ 14:24
  • Ludwig #60 5 years ago

    There there, time for a hug?

    You would think the fate of entire cultures were held in the balance...or maybe the world has moved into a nuclear winter where nobody is able to play videogames any more and such discussions help pass the time on those long evenings...

    But wait a sec, neither situation has in fact occurred. There is now a greater choice of mmpog than ever before, the genre is opening up and diversifying. No need to be bitter about it.
  • Turrican #61 5 years ago

    Best way to review an MMO I've seen on any review site or magazine. This is how all MMO's should be reviewed.

    And yes, coming back to it in a few months time and upping the score if it deserves it is very fair.
  • medomali #62 5 years ago

    Good review, keep the good jobs guys!!!
  • Fwing #63 5 years ago

    @Mr Roper

    "Clearly, thats your kind of gameplay. Personally, I like more interaction with players"

    This is as optinal in WoW as it is in VG.

    "more options within the game"

    The only extra choices I see are lots (arguably too many) of classes and races, and some huge landmasses with potential content. But not actual content as yet.

    "more detail within the tradeskills"

    Good for you. I, like a lot of people, prefer WoW-style tradeskills. I have a real job so I don't need a virtual one as well. But both opinions are valid.

    "more variety in combat"

    This is a gross exaggeration. I found myself pressing the same kind of buttons to do the same kind of things in VG as I do in WoW.

    "a vastly superior game engine"

    What? The VG engine is the Unreal engine - a POOR choice for an MMO. So far the engine fails to deliver decent performance for the majority of users and is being patched approximately daily. It doesn't matter how many zillion polys you claim you can draw, how many shaders you run or ant of that rubbish.

    "distinctly different classes"

    Like all other MMOs then

    "the swing towards group play along with a good variety of solo quests and finally not being hand-held through levels 1-60, with the incredibly obvious goal of actually playing WoW as it was intended. Max level."

    Your vanboi prejudice is showing. I enjoyed the process of levelling in WoW because I chose to seek the challenges and avoid soloing where possible. Don't pretend there isn't challenge available in WoW for those that want it.

    VG interests the EQ1 veteran in me but until they fix the performance issues (aiming for the PC-of-tomorrow as your base spec is mindbogglingly stupid) and do something about the horrible art direction, I'll stay with WoW. TBC is amusing me aplenty and ya know, I like smooth performance and a coherent visual style.

    And please stop pretending choosing one MMO over another somehow endows you with great insight or maturity.
  • Ari #64 5 years ago

    Sorry, but the first page of the review seems like a justification for why you're giving a potentially good advertiser a bad score.

    I think the score is fair, if a little harsher than what I would have given it though. I thought the rest of the review was balanced and considered as well. In future though, don't apologise for having a strong opinion, it smacks of being pussy-whipped by your advertisers and it's the kind of thing that gets on my wick.
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/07 @ 19:47
  • George-Roper #65 5 years ago

    @Fwing

    "Clearly, thats your kind of gameplay. Personally, I like more interaction with players

    This is as optinal in WoW as it is in VG"

    Erm, no, its *not* optional and thats the point. You go into an instance, you leave the playerbase behind aside from your group. You equip an item, you lose the ability to pass it on to friends or sell it.


    "more options within the game

    The only extra choices I see are lots (arguably too many) of classes and races, and some huge landmasses with potential content. But not actual content as yet"

    *sigh*. Player made housing, player made boats, MASSIVE sea-areas with encounters, including islands to be discovered that can be used for player housing. Ability to sell or trade items that you've used, after they've been outgrown. Interactive combat, with extra Finishing, Rescue and other 'moves' granted after successful skill checks. One hour buffs, granted to players outside your group (again, INTERACTION with the playerbase).
    An in-depth Tradeskilling/Harvesting and Diplomacy system, all of which include a well developed equipment system.

    Tradeskilling includes the, *gasp*, creation of useful items. I saw some mid 30's weapons being auctioned the other day and they were utterly fantastic. I don't recall anything, in WoW, on a tradeskill level, that players opted for in place of regular looted/quest items. Aside from max level crafting, which took weeks and weeks of endgame instance grinding. *sigh*

    Harvesting, basic harvesting, has even had attention given to it. Form harvesting 'groups' and head out, enjoying increased productivity from the mining/quarrying/lumberjacking, etc. Also, the concept of 'nodes' of harvest items has even had thought. Actual trees, stood swaying in the wind, require chopping down. It's not just a small pile of logs on the floor that need to be clicked on. Yes, its just a different graphical representation but the way its been implemented is detailed. It's great to see a group of lumberjacks, hacking away at trees, and seeing them fall over.

    The Diplomacy system is great, unique, and adds yet another layer of detail to the game. Level in Adventuring, Tradeskilling/Harvesting or Diplomacy and enjoy a variety of equipment that reinforces your chosen path, such as Tradeskill backpacks which are equipped separate to normal bags and hold lots of Tradeskill equipment. Same for Harvesting equipment, like hammers and picks.

    Mounts, the basic which is available at 10th level, where the level requirement extends to all three methods of advancement within the game. Want to level as a Diplomat, go ahead. Hit 10th level Diplomat and you can still buy/use a horse. This method of advancement, chosen by the player, leaves WoW and other games well and truly in its dust.
    Hell, even the mounts have levels of detail applied to them. Add items to your 'Mount' gear, to have the mount move faster, make it harder for you to be knocked off and even add an extra bag slot to your character via the 'saddlebag' slot. Flying mounts. TRUE flying mounts, which can be used everywhere in the game world, are available.

    Diverse starting areas, based on race, most (if not all) beautifully rendered and created. HUGE game world, screw content for the time being (even given that you nor I know what's in the game level 40+), the feeling that im actually a tiny individual on a massive set of continents is there and its very, very immersive. I saw a Goblin player for the first time, last night. In over 3 weeks of playing, I saw a race from another continent for the first time and there's still about 80% of the rest of the races i've yet to interact with. This blows the 'single city' style of WoW, for Alliance and Horde, away and its something I sorely missed from EQ1. Diversity.


    "more variety in combat

    This is a gross exaggeration. I found myself pressing the same kind of buttons to do the same kind of things in VG as I do in WoW"

    So 'More' equates to 'Gross exaggeration'? LOL. How about the fact that, depending on what moves your enemy makes, you can perform, depending on class, Counter, Finish, Rescue other players or any one of another assortment of special abilities that are triggered. No, WoW has nothing of the kind. All the moves in WoW are used by the player without being triggered in such a way. Like it or not, Vanguard combat is much more involved and actually requires you to *look* at whats going on, rather then continually press the same set of buttons.

    Take Paladins. In Vanguard, you need to carefully balance the use of Endurance and Energy, as different abilities use different amounts. However, you also have 'Virtue' points. These are a separate set of points, used to perform special moves, that increase in total as you level but also regenerate at a different, slower rate to Energy and Endurance.
    Additional to this, Virtue points can be created by using powers which put the Paladin at risk. For example, theres a combat Rescue ability which forces creatures to turn their attention on the Paladin. If this is used whilst the Paladin is on less than 20% health, indicating that the Paladin is putting the life of others above their own, they're awarded a Virtue point. However, use Lay On Hands upon yourself or another Paladin, and it costs 3 Virtue points instead of being a free cast. Other Virtue powered abilities include Undead AoE nukes and a single target nuke (at least to the level ive got, 16th).
    To imply that combat is 'just the same' as WoW, given this is plain stupid and ignorant and clearly indicates just how much research you've performed on it. This example, the Paladin, is just one of many. Blood Mages also have a unique combat ability. I've no doubt there are others which ive yet to experience.


    "distinctly different classes

    Like all other MMOs then"

    No, not like 'all' other MMOs. EQ2, for example, used class templates to cover a number of different 'classes', when it first launched. WoW may not suffer from this particular issue but that doesn't mean it doesn't occur within the genre.


    "the swing towards group play along with a good variety of solo quests and finally not being hand-held through levels 1-60, with the incredibly obvious goal of actually playing WoW as it was intended. Max level."

    Your vanboi prejudice is showing. I enjoyed the process of levelling in WoW because I chose to seek the challenges and avoid soloing where possible. Don't pretend there isn't challenge available in WoW for those that want it."

    Vanboi? Scan back, you'll see that I admit I had fun in WoW for a while but i'm sorry, please don't try to explain away the quick, handheld, levelling system in place there. ALL the developer attention has been endgame. There's absolutely no point in you trying to argue otherwise. The players are hitting level 60/70 so quickly that Blizzard had no option whatsoever in the fact. They took the 'casual' gamer tag and absolutely fucked it up. Royally. 'Casual' does not mean 'Must level at least once per evening'. 'Casual' means 'Enjoyable experience, whilst playing'.

    Yes, there's challenge in WoW. If you think that 'challenge' means locking your character at the x9th level, kitted to the max, and pwning everyone in the BG. Or if you like running the same instance, over and over and over and over and over *yawn* and over and over and over and over and over, pressing the SAME series of buttons (without any triggered interaction with the encounter), again and again, and again. Sorry, but anyone who wants to slag Vanguard off for being repetitive should really take a look at WoW and have a good think about it.
    Oh and the 'challenge' of tradeskilling. Umm, yeah, the 'challenge'. So, buy 1000 x *stack of generic items here*, click 'combine'. No wait, sorry, it gets more 'in-depth' when the recipes require weeks of instance grinding, doesn't it. See, again, im sure someones going to come along and cite the 'single-click' tradeskill is casual-player friendly. *sigh*. Again, we're confusing 'easy' with 'casual'.


    "VG interests the EQ1 veteran in me but until they fix the performance issues (aiming for the PC-of-tomorrow as your base spec is mindbogglingly stupid) and do something about the horrible art direction, I'll stay with WoW. TBC is amusing me aplenty and ya know, I like smooth performance and a coherent visual style.

    And please stop pretending choosing one MMO over another somehow endows you with great insight or maturity"

    I'm very glad to hear it. I'm sure that if you like EQ1 you will *adore* Vanguard. I'll admit, the character models aren't quite 'right' yet and the anims still need sorting (which are coming in via patches) but 6/10 is off. 8/10 is more like it, as others posting have said.

    WoW graphics were stylish. They are not, however, anything approaching the vistas and environments of Vanguard. I would never have thought that clouds...yes clouds..would make such a huge difference to the outdoors in a game, yet Vanguards sky is utterly amazing. Immersion. Its there, in Vanguard. In spades.
    The full 360 degree gameworld also adds immersion. In the lower starting areas, near the city Khal, a level 16 Manticore mob, not just a placeholder for effect, flaps around high above the players heads. It's an indication that theres 'something' dangerous nearby, but its not on the ground, its right above your heads...


    Players like what they like and arguing otherwise does seem a bit pointless but I feel its important to bring to light the finer aspects of Vanguard. 6/10 is rough. Its buggy but its absolutely NOT unplayable. The review cites many issues with the game but I get the feeling that they've just read the forums and copy/pasted a list, rather than speaking from personal, first-hand, experience with the issues. I've yet to come across a game breaker that's prevented me from logging in and playing the game.

    I've crashed a few times, thats for sure, but hey. Crash once every few hours or spend a few hours in a queue waiting to play? I made the logical choice.

    Apologies for all the edits, but the more I dwell on the features of Vanguard, the more come to light. There are just *so* many.
    Edited by 8 at 25/02/07 @ 02:09
  • DocTep #66 5 years ago

    Wow. [Pun unintended.]

    Talk about a burning crusade... [Pun intended.]
  • Mooks #67 5 years ago

    The truth is the game code is still beta and SOE are making you pay for a beta quality product which is wrong.
  • jamespo #68 5 years ago

    George is right, it is tragic that he had 6 60th WoW characters