link: www.tentonhammer.com/node/76193

I haven't seen much of Brad McQuaid, although I know he's been posting blogs on his website, or he was a while back. Just struck me that this is probably his first real interview since Vanguard launched and tanked. Vanguard was supposed to be my MMO messiah, so I'm not sure I've forgiven Brad for fooking it up so badly.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how I feel about this. The guy doesn't talk much about Vanguard in the interview, but it still sort of gets me that he's proclaiming to be any sort of "expert" when he screwed up Vanguard. Then again, maybe it's not fair to say that he single-handedly screwed it up, either, because I'm sure he had help. heh

Do you guys think he's going to try getting involved in another MMO? Part of me wants him to make the REAL EQ 2, or something EQ-like, which is what Vanguard was supposed to be. Part of me wishes he'd never show his face around a MMOG again.

In retrospect he offers this advice to developers: “I think it’s very important to hype only features that you are positive will make it into the game. As development progresses one becomes surer of what will and will not make it into the released game. So, over time, you can reveal more and more about the game with confidence.

Well, I'm not a top flight video game developer but that's something that I would have thought to be common sense.

I'm somewhat amused by the amount of misinformation in that TTH article to begin with.  They say that SOE acquired Sigil and Vanguard before it launched; Vanguard launched in January 2007, the parking lot incident after SOE bought out Sigil was in May 2007.  

Originally posted by Sovrath

In retrospect he offers this advice to developers: “I think it’s very important to hype only features that you are positive will make it into the game. As development progresses one becomes surer of what will and will not make it into the released game. So, over time, you can reveal more and more about the game with confidence.

 

Well, I'm not a top flight video game developer but that's something that I would have thought to be common sense.

Im not so sure. Peter Molyneux continues to struggle with it.

Originally posted by Sovrath

In retrospect he offers this advice to developers: “I think it’s very important to hype only features that you are positive will make it into the game. As development progresses one becomes surer of what will and will not make it into the released game. So, over time, you can reveal more and more about the game with confidence.

 

Well, I'm not a top flight video game developer but that's something that I would have thought to be common sense.

Yeah, you'd think. But they don't do it. Look at Warhammer, for example. I didn't play WAR, but didn't that game launch without a whole promised race and starting city? If you promise something, you'd better deliver.

Vanguard didn't deliver features it promised, either. I remember there was supposed to be some sort of xp sharing system (can't recall the name of it) that didn't get put in at launch, and for all the time I played Vanguard, which was actually a while because it WAS a good game if you could get around all the performance glitches, I don't think it ever made it into the game. For all I know, it's still not in the game.

So maybe Brad McQuaid is talking about lessons learned, rather than what he actually did with Vanguard, because...he didn't deliver what he promised with that game. Not by a long shot. It was going to be the next generation MMO.

Originally posted by punkbrad7

I'm somewhat amused by the amount of misinformation in that TTH article to begin with.  They say that SOE acquired Sigil and Vanguard before it launched; Vanguard launched in January 2007, the parking lot incident after SOE bought out Sigil was in May 2007.  

Not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. It says the Sigil firings happened in mid-May 2007. Says that Sigil signed on with SOE in May 2006, but I know that was with them as publisher, because yeah...they were in the SOE booth at E3 that year.

How about we discontinue the game then you lot would find something else to complain about.

When Vanguard was in beta I fell in love with it and continued to play it for a little over a year past it's release date.   Game was awesome.   The problem was SOE just didn't do anything constructive with it and make it better.  It took them over 2 years to finally fix one of the many epic dungeons in the game.   I waited and waited and they just didn't fix it.   So after a year of waiting I just gave up and never looked back.  

Vanguard was a terribad game look like dookie

Originally posted by Davryn

Originally posted by Sovrath

In retrospect he offers this advice to developers: “I think it’s very important to hype only features that you are positive will make it into the game. As development progresses one becomes surer of what will and will not make it into the released game. So, over time, you can reveal more and more about the game with confidence.

 

Well, I'm not a top flight video game developer but that's something that I would have thought to be common sense.

 

Yeah, you'd think. But they don't do it. Look at Warhammer, for example. I didn't play WAR, but didn't that game launch without a whole promised race and starting city? If you promise something, you'd better deliver.

Vanguard didn't deliver features it promised, either. I remember there was supposed to be some sort of xp sharing system (can't recall the name of it) that didn't get put in at launch, and for all the time I played Vanguard, which was actually a while because it WAS a good game if you could get around all the performance glitches, I don't think it ever made it into the game. For all I know, it's still not in the game.

So maybe Brad McQuaid is talking about lessons learned, rather than what he actually did with Vanguard, because...he didn't deliver what he promised with that game. Not by a long shot. It was going to be the next generation MMO.

WAR wasnt missing a race, but they were missing 2 classes (which were added like 3-4 months later) and 4 of the 6 capital cities (which over a year later still have not been added, and they dont even talk about it, pretty sure they just scrapped the whole idea). Along with the missing things there were also several features which didnt even work properly, though they were technically in the game.
 

Originally posted by Davryn

link: www.tentonhammer.com/node/76193

I haven't seen much of Brad McQuaid, although I know he's been posting blogs on his website, or he was a while back. Just struck me that this is probably his first real interview since Vanguard launched and tanked. Vanguard was supposed to be my MMO messiah, so I'm not sure I've forgiven Brad for fooking it up so badly.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how I feel about this. The guy doesn't talk much about Vanguard in the interview, but it still sort of gets me that he's proclaiming to be any sort of "expert" when he screwed up Vanguard. Then again, maybe it's not fair to say that he single-handedly screwed it up, either, because I'm sure he had help. heh

Do you guys think he's going to try getting involved in another MMO? Part of me wants him to make the REAL EQ 2, or something EQ-like, which is what Vanguard was supposed to be. Part of me wishes he'd never show his face around a MMOG again.

 

I do not think it is fair to say anyone screwed up VG,the well known fact is they lacked the funds to make the game what could have been easily the best game ever released.The vision was definitely a very good one and you can see a lot of effort went into an even unfinished product.

We have seen all the developers release games unfinished,it really is sad,they have a budget and when times comes,they release their games no matter what.I think most players are totally blind to notice in the games where there has been an obvious omission of content.Or you just have to notice a developer has rushed their game out with the bare bones material,example Aion only 2 races,no water physics,you can clearly see several areas of the game were unpolished,unfinished.This and players still have the audacity to say the game is the most polished they have ever seen,i think players walk around blind in games.

What Vanguard "could " have done is tone down the view distance and graphics,the same as all the other cheap design developers do and no one would have known any different,they again could have omitted anything that was bugged and again who would have known?.My point is that do not go off blaming VG for trying to advance gaming,make it better and praise developers that do things in the cheapest possible fashion,by delivering shallow content and having very little of it.

In other words i would ALWAYS prefer a bugged Lamborghini over a nicely polished Honda Civic.The reason is because the bugs can be fixed, a cheap Honda Civic cannot be improved unless you completely rebuild the car or game to use the same analogy.In reality bugs WILL be fixed ,a game over haul will NEVER happen,so this shows why POLISH means VERY little.

No i don't think Brad will have much impact on anything in SOE ever.I think their main guy is the former UO guy,i forget his name off hand.SOE is all about money ,they do not rationalize or care,you either make money or you don't.IMO the best minds in SOE are in their console divisions,so maybe expecting another great Everquest type of game is long lost.

Originally posted by kaiser3282

Originally posted by Davryn

Originally posted by Sovrath

In retrospect he offers this advice to developers: “I think it’s very important to hype only features that you are positive will make it into the game. As development progresses one becomes surer of what will and will not make it into the released game. So, over time, you can reveal more and more about the game with confidence.

 

Well, I'm not a top flight video game developer but that's something that I would have thought to be common sense.

 

Yeah, you'd think. But they don't do it. Look at Warhammer, for example. I didn't play WAR, but didn't that game launch without a whole promised race and starting city? If you promise something, you'd better deliver.

Vanguard didn't deliver features it promised, either. I remember there was supposed to be some sort of xp sharing system (can't recall the name of it) that didn't get put in at launch, and for all the time I played Vanguard, which was actually a while because it WAS a good game if you could get around all the performance glitches, I don't think it ever made it into the game. For all I know, it's still not in the game.

So maybe Brad McQuaid is talking about lessons learned, rather than what he actually did with Vanguard, because...he didn't deliver what he promised with that game. Not by a long shot. It was going to be the next generation MMO.

WAR wasnt missing a race, but they were missing 2 classes (which were added like 3-4 months later) and 4 of the 6 capital cities (which over a year later still have not been added, and they dont even talk about it, pretty sure they just scrapped the whole idea). Along with the missing things there were also several features which didnt even work properly, though they were technically in the game.
 

I dont think the last cities will ever appear in WAR, not it matter anyway.

Originally posted by Wizardry

Originally posted by Davryn

link: www.tentonhammer.com/node/76193

I haven't seen much of Brad McQuaid, although I know he's been posting blogs on his website, or he was a while back. Just struck me that this is probably his first real interview since Vanguard launched and tanked. Vanguard was supposed to be my MMO messiah, so I'm not sure I've forgiven Brad for fooking it up so badly.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how I feel about this. The guy doesn't talk much about Vanguard in the interview, but it still sort of gets me that he's proclaiming to be any sort of "expert" when he screwed up Vanguard. Then again, maybe it's not fair to say that he single-handedly screwed it up, either, because I'm sure he had help. heh

Do you guys think he's going to try getting involved in another MMO? Part of me wants him to make the REAL EQ 2, or something EQ-like, which is what Vanguard was supposed to be. Part of me wishes he'd never show his face around a MMOG again.

 

I do not think it is fair to say anyone screwed up VG,the well known fact is they lacked the funds to make the game what could have been easily the best game ever released.The vision was definitely a very good one and you can see a lot of effort went into an even unfinished product.

Yeah, I agree. Brad McQuaid gets a lot of shit for screwing up Vanguard, and honestly I think it was just a whole snowball effect. I have to give McQuaid credit for saying, in essence, "the buck stops here," but I don't think he deserves to be blasted like he often is.

I am guessing Butler and McQuaid did not manage within parameters (i.e., 5 years and the $30 million dollars they were floated by Microsoft).  Then they rushed at the end to get something out.

So this is a management, not a design, failure.  McQuaid is still a great designer, maybe just not an effective manager.

If I were Sony, I'd have him "lead" a design team, maybe for "Everquest Next", or whatever they are working on.  But I'd keep Smedley in charge of the purse strings and deadlines.

Originally posted by Davryn

Originally posted by Sovrath

In retrospect he offers this advice to developers: “I think it’s very important to hype only features that you are positive will make it into the game. As development progresses one becomes surer of what will and will not make it into the released game. So, over time, you can reveal more and more about the game with confidence.

 

Well, I'm not a top flight video game developer but that's something that I would have thought to be common sense.

 

Yeah, you'd think. But they don't do it. Look at Warhammer, for example. I didn't play WAR, but didn't that game launch without a whole promised race and starting city? If you promise something, you'd better deliver.

Vanguard didn't deliver features it promised, either. I remember there was supposed to be some sort of xp sharing system (can't recall the name of it) that didn't get put in at launch, and for all the time I played Vanguard, which was actually a while because it WAS a good game if you could get around all the performance glitches, I don't think it ever made it into the game. For all I know, it's still not in the game.

You know wrong unfortunately. It is in game, and it was in game a few months after the release. It's called broterhood system. If you join a brotherhood with someone, you share all experience even if some of you are offline. So you never outlevel each other.

Originally posted by Wizardry

What Vanguard "could " have done is tone down the view distance and graphics,the same as all the other cheap design developers do and no one would have known any different,they again could have omitted anything that was bugged and again who would have known?.My point is that do not go off blaming VG for trying to advance gaming,make it better and praise developers that do things in the cheapest possible fashion,by delivering shallow content and having very little of it.

 

This part from your post is very much true and I'd fully agree with it.

Originally posted by pencilrick

I am guessing Butler and McQuaid did not manage within parameters (i.e., 5 years and the $30 million dollars they were floated by Microsoft).  Then they rushed at the end to get something out.

So this is a management, not a design, failure.  McQuaid is still a great designer, maybe just not an effective manager.

If I were Sony, I'd have him "lead" a design team, maybe for "Everquest Next", or whatever they are working on.  But I'd keep Smedley in charge of the purse strings and deadlines.

I would let McQuaid come up with ideas and the like for my game were I ever in a position to make one. As far as letting him run the hands-on development, I am not so sure. He certainly comes up with great ideas for games, the management and implementation on the other hand seem to leave a lot lacking.

EverQuest and Vanguard are two of my all time favorite games. What they have become, not so much...

Originally posted by Sovrath

In retrospect he offers this advice to developers: “I think it’s very important to hype only features that you are positive will make it into the game. As development progresses one becomes surer of what will and will not make it into the released game. So, over time, you can reveal more and more about the game with confidence.

 

Well, I'm not a top flight video game developer but that's something that I would have thought to be common sense.

As you've probably noticed, common sense is really uncommon. 

What the game would have been without technical issues and if it was released completed .. would have been amazing. Unfortunately these two things killed Vanguard.
 

Originally posted by qombi

What the game would have been without technical issues and if it was released completed .. would have been amazing. Unfortunately these two things killed Vanguard.
 

I was in Beta 2 in Vanguard, and while there were loads of technical issues then, tech issues were not my concern.  Basically, the game felt like it did not have a "sense of geography." 

Let me explain that last point, because it is an ethereal concept in a sense.  Remember how in EQ, or WOW, or DAOC, or any number of games, you sort of knew what zone or area you were in?  Those areas were somewhat distinct or very much so, but each area had its own sort of character and identity.  

Vanguard had none of that.  In Vanguard, I always felt like one place was the same as any other place, none of which seemed to warrant names even.

The game world is very important in an MMO, and Vanguard's gets a fail (from me).  The music was sort of strange too; like random notes from various instruments going off without any cohesion or recognizable composition.  (Go listen to it if you doubt me.  Listen to it and try to see if anything memorable sticks in your mind.)

BTW, in early beta I told them of my concerns and got ignored by the devs and flamed by the fanbois.  Now the game is like a patient sitting in a hospice with no visitors.

Artistic and design issues killed Vanguard, not technical glitches.  If a design is good, players will stick around through the time it takes to fix the technical stuff.