Originally posted by Orphes

Eh?

What was the problems behind that lead up to the symptons here?

No I am not refering to Vanguards success or not as the problem, its a problem behind the sympton the downfall of Sigil. But, Vanguards condition at release is a sympton aswell in this matter.

What problems was there leading to this?

There is alot of talk about the symptons here without really knowing or specyfying the problem behind it.
 

Maybe it was a real good design descicion to change alot in the code for an engine that didn't fit for the work, meaning the business chioce of buying the engine was bad. Or maybe it was a real good descicion to buy a finished engine that didn't need so much work, meaning it was a bad idea to redesign (in that extenct) a working engine.

Is the reworking, in the amount that it sounds like, of the engine sympton of a problem? And if so, what problem?
 

 

But the engine was worked to do exactly what they wanted. The negative impacts were embraced deemed acceptable. There's no maybes about it because there's no cloud of hypothesis. We know exactly what happened and why.

Since when has buying an Unreal Engine license been a bad business move? Having a design that called for butchering it though, that'd be a bad design move.

Bottom line is, at the end of the day, Vanguard as a game was a failure, and Sigil as a company was a failure.  You can place the blame on anything you want, design, management, or a combination of both.  But you can't dispute the fact that all this happened while Brad McQuaid was the CEO, the head of the company.

Arguing over semantics only distracts from the core issues, which is really, Vanguard and Sigil were failures.  I'll just say that I can guarantee you investors who have given Brad money to make this product don't view this as a design failure, they most definitely see this as a business failure.  To them, they only care about the bottom line, and whether they get to make their money back & more or not.  And without investors, Brad isn't going anywhere.  He was lucky to have gotten that much from Microsoft, since M$ sucks at making MMO's and they kinda just threw $30 mil at Brad thinking he could rediscover EQ1's magic.  I doubt in today's age he'll be able to get that lucky again.

Originally posted by declaredemer

Originally posted by sepher

Released with 30 million dollars and five years spent? Yes, a business success.

 

It surprises me that you consider SIGIL INC. a business success because you seem like a very reasonable, thoughtful, and intelligent person.  Your ideas are interesting albeit incorrect, respectfully, regarding the narrow issue over whether Brad McQuaid was a successful businessman/manager concerning SIGIL INC.

 

 

SIGIL INC. would probably make an excellent case study for Business School on business failure:  bad marketing; extremely idealistic (and most-likely egotistical) leadership;  lack of hands-on management(based on what I know); horrid communication with everybody; mis-allocation of resources (not enough coders); and I could continue. 

 

 

EDIT:  By no means am I pointing my finger at Mr. McQuaid or Sigil and saying, "you suck!"  I started my first company while a sophmore in college.  I have dissolved two companies of mine, and I had plenty of other failures and the wounds to show it.  Believe me by no means am I trying to sound insensitive to the realities of the business world and its many and varied problems and challenges.

 

Is it ok to put i like this?

Getting alot of money and go bankrupt? -A good businessman... really?

Getting alot of money and succeed? -A good businessman... more likely to me.

Given explicit cuircumstances, getting good invester may be easier before harder. Having a chance of getting it easy, well even a bad speller like me would get it. If Brad was to be said as a good businessman, why didn't he not succeed in raising the funds when it was harder to do so.

Originally posted by Phelcher

 

Why, he single handedly created this genre' ..!

Forget Garriott...

 

 I have a $12mil/month revenue game in my head! (gauranteed)

 

World of Spellcheck

 

Originally posted by sepher 

 

But the engine was worked to do exactly what they wanted. The negative impacts were embraced deemed acceptable. There's no maybes about it because there's no cloud of hypothesis. We know exactly what happened and why.

Since when has buying an Unreal Engine license been a bad business move? Having a design that called for butchering it though, that'd be a bad design move.

Make the game suiting for the engine instead of making the engine suitable for the game? Maybe.

What was their option, to what extinct did they need to rework the enginge, and what good was the engine in the end. That one don't know. Buying a specific engine becomes bad after reaching a certain threshold of modifying it.

Alot, if not all, in this in this thread is based on alot of hypothesis anyway.

Brad did not come up with more investors when needed, does that mean that when it was easy he was given money without much problem so he did not need to show his 'talent for business'.

And there are also some 'known' things, what did they accumulate for in the end. Alot of the complaints like in the f13 thing was about Brads management and what that led to.

Originally posted by sepher 

 

And yep, as CEO Brad made managed to have 5 years of development time. I cite that as a success. He also intentionally released the game as not ready and contigent upon future hardware, engine updates, etc. Those were all DESIGN decisions; bolstered by his success with EQ and the belief that software can push hardware when it has to.

I don't know where you get that crazy idea that he intentionally released a product with so many problems in the hope future hardware would fix things.  There were a few articles when it was obvious the game was doomed, where he HOPED future hardware would catch up to vanguards needs and solve its problems, but that was not the design intention.  That was brad hoping something would come along and save his company. The engine didn't work, because the people working on it didn't get the job done.  No one in their right mind purposefully designs something to run terrible and hope things will get fixed by hardware in a few years.

Soe cut off funding, Sigil ran out of money and was forced to release the game.  Sigil did not have the option to not release the game.  Microsoft and SOE invested money in the game, so the choice was not sigils to make.  Sigil could not take all that money and then decide not to release the game, because they don't like the condition it is in. 

Your ideas are based on completely flawed information. 

I still believe the game designs were solid, but the team making the game lacked experience, structure and professionalism.  That is what caused the collapse of the game.  Lastly, yes even lead designers need oversight.  They are handed deadlines, criteria and a direction to go with a project from the company CEO's etc.  Just because someone is the lead designer doesn't mean they have total control over every aspect of a project, unless you were in brads shoes and owned the company, ran the company and also the cheif designer.  Who was there to tell him no if he was doing something wrong with the company?  Believe it or not it is possible to be a great game designer and suck at running a business.   Just like there are people great at running business and suck at game design.  Neither is a prerequisite for the other and that is why having teams and oversight is important. 

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by ethion

Sepher, what you call bad design I consider to be an effect of bad management.

A good manager/CEO brings in strong independent thinkers to manage the different areas of the company and manages the people as well as the investors.  A good CEO doesn't design the product, I doubt even Brad specifically did that.  A good CEO sets the design direction and has his development team put together the details which he would then review and approve and keep an update on project plan and implementation balanced agains cash and schedule.

A good manager is part of a team and imspires the time and company with transparency and encouraging people to strive to do their best.

This vs your typical entrepreneur who surrounds himself with doers not managers and then tries to be a team of one with a bunch of followers.  He is passionate and sees his vision strongly and can present it and get people to follow it.  He falls down on execution of the vision because it becomes to complex for one person and he still tries to control everything and to run everything.  In Brads case it looks like at some people when MS left Sigil that the preasure was just too much for him and he pretty much checked out, leaving a team of weak leaders to try to pick up the peices and the rest of the company in confusion and dispair.  Toward the end I think he tried to get more involved but the damage was done and the money was running out.

You say the design of vanguard is bad but I say it was the execution of vanguard.  The scope of the design and how the game works is in my opinion amazing and blows away any other game.  Where it falls down is in the detials, bugs, polish.  Vanguard had it had better implementation of the design would have been great.  EVERYONE you talk to who has played vanguard will say the game has amazing potential.  What they are saying is that the design of the game is amazing but it isn't polished/finished/bug free.  I played vanguard at release and the failure is obvious.  The game would kill you with hitching, loot would get stuck so you couldn't get it, running on a hill would frequently kill you and leave your corpse unrecoverable, items in you inventory would vanish, groups would get broken and you couldn't invite people or other issues, chat channels would be borked, gold duping was out of control, about 1/3 of the current game content was missing (above lvl 35-40 there was nothing to do), and there were many more issues.  I've played beta games that were in better shape.  This is execution.  The game world, the dungeons, the combat system, the crafting system, the diplomacy system were all outstanding leaving other games well behind.  Vanguard failed entirely based on execution.  Execution failed due to poor management, money management, bad decisions on development, poor schedule management, lack of operation management.  Read some of the posts by old developers, the company ran like a chicken with it's head cut off.  One manager going in one direction annother in a diff direction, nobody knowing what was going on.  Brad was passionate but when he stepped out it left a void that nobody could fill and people that tried to step up had to fight with everyone else.

Just read the history on this company.  It is a classic tutorial of why MANY companies fail.  They could have been making cerial and it would have died in the same way.

 

See that's wrong. CEO's don't set "design directions" unless they're specifically occupying that role of designer as well; and when they design something bad, you don't cite their capacity as CEO as the reason, you blame them as designers.

And Brad often went on tangents about being fully involved in Vanguard's whole seven-year plan thing. He was very vocal about what the design document had to have looked like and his involvement with it.

And yep, as CEO Brad made managed to have 5 years of development time. I cite that as a success. He also intentionally released the game as not ready and contigent upon future hardware, engine updates, etc. Those were all DESIGN decisions; bolstered by his success with EQ and the belief that software can push hardware when it has to.

As far as "execution", again nothing was incidental. Every problem Vanguard had; we knew about before release and it came out of Brad's mouth. The execution was exact and purposed; Vanguard was released with problems Brad fully expected people to WANT to deal with because again, of that idea that software can push hardware and that all MMOs release unfinished, so its fine. Design decision.

As for bugs and polish; design decisions. Bugs will occur in every piece of software; but they'll occur least in ones that are designed well. The same goes for polish. So nothing incidental about a purposefully designed for and championed 20gig+ game having that much more bugs and lack of polish.

And if Sigil released cereal in a 500oz box that took up 1/4th the free space in the pantry, required new-fangled utensils that'd only began rolling out the last year or so, and what was in the box was three giant hard to deal with flakes, then I'm going to call that product a bad idea.

For it to have garnered enough funds to be the second most expensive cereal ever with no prior successes as a company, begun by Kellogg's and put out by Post, I'm going to cite the guy behind the the business of it a business behemoth to have pulled it off.

I think a lot of this is verbage...  In any event I'll agree to disagree... enough said.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher 

 

But the engine was worked to do exactly what they wanted. The negative impacts were embraced deemed acceptable. There's no maybes about it because there's no cloud of hypothesis. We know exactly what happened and why.

Since when has buying an Unreal Engine license been a bad business move? Having a design that called for butchering it though, that'd be a bad design move.

 

Make the game suiting for the engine instead of making the engine suitable for the game? Maybe.

What was their option, to what extinct did they need to rework the enginge, and what good was the engine in the end. That one don't know. Buying a specific engine becomes bad after reaching a certain threshold of modifying it.

Alot, if not all, in this in this thread is based on alot of hypothesis anyway.

Brad did not come up with more investors when needed, does that mean that when it was easy he was given money without much problem so he did not need to show his 'talent for business'.

And there are also some 'known' things, what did they accumulate for in the end. Alot of the complaints like in the f13 thing was about Brads management and what that led to.

 

Nope, not very much at all is based on hypothesis because the aftermath of Vanguard and how vocal Brad was has left very much transparent.

And yep; I'm not saying he was a perfect business man; not showing up for work for half a year for example is ridiculous. I'm just calling his business successes, his biggest successes when it comes to Sigil and Vanguard. So I define him as a better business man than an idea man; because he has those successes business wise; but what'd he accomplish design wise? A game only a very small amount of people in the MMO market like.

So ultimatley brad mcquaid has two games for comparison here, one a wildly great success (Everquest) which is still releasing expansions.  And one considered a failure but has still outlasted some mmos, tabula rasa comes to mind.  And yet the man is a complete failure as an mmo designer,  the logic in this forum astounds even my open mindedness

Originally posted by SonikFlash

So ultimatley brad mcquaid has two games for comparison here, one a wildly great success (Everquest) which is still releasing expansions.  And one considered a failure but has still outlasted some mmos, tabula rasa comes to mind.  And yet the man is a complete failure as an mmo designer,  the logic in this forum astounds even my open mindedness

QFT.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by sepher 

 

And yep, as CEO Brad made managed to have 5 years of development time. I cite that as a success. He also intentionally released the game as not ready and contigent upon future hardware, engine updates, etc. Those were all DESIGN decisions; bolstered by his success with EQ and the belief that software can push hardware when it has to.

I don't know where you get that crazy idea that he intentionally released a product with so many problems in the hope future hardware would fix things.  There were a few articles when it was obvious the game was doomed, where he HOPED future hardware would catch up to vanguards needs and solve its problems, but that was not the design intention.  That was brad hoping something would come along and save his company. The engine didn't work, because the people working on it didn't get the job done.  No one in their right mind purposefully designs something to run terrible and hope things will get fixed by hardware in a few years.

Soe cut off funding, Sigil ran out of money and was forced to release the game.  Sigil did not have the option to not release the game.  Microsoft and SOE invested money in the game, so the choice was not sigils to make.  Sigil could not take all that money and then decide not to release the game, because they don't like the condition it is in. 

Your ideas are based on completely flawed information. 

I still believe the game designs were solid, but the team making the game lacked experience, structure and professionalism.  That is what caused the collapse of the game.  Lastly, yes even lead designers need oversight.  They are handed deadlines, criteria and a direction to go with a project from the company CEO's etc.  Just because someone is the lead designer doesn't mean they have total control over every aspect of a project, unless you were in brads shoes and owned the company, ran the company and also the cheif designer.  Who was there to tell him no if he was doing something wrong with the company?  Believe it or not it is possible to be a great game designer and suck at running a business.   Just like there are people great at running business and suck at game design.  Neither is a prerequisite for the other and that is why having teams and oversight is important. 

Well, he said it a LOT that hardware would fix Vanguard's performance issues; and constantly cited EQ1's circumstances as rationale of why its ok, all the while admitting that such issues were "downsides" they accepted.

"I agree that MMOGs often launch with more issues and problems than single player games. And it is usually because MMOGs are that much more complex. Vanguard is also a very ambitious game. One could argue we could have made a simpler game and launched it either sooner and/or with less bugs and issues. But our philosophy, which goes back to EQ 1, is to go for it and be ambitious and try some crazy things. Yes, there is a downside to this (for example, performance issues because we used the latest tech and made a seamless world as opposed to going lower tech like WoW). But the upsides we feel outweigh the downsides, especially long term. As I've posted we have probably 5+ years of new game mechanics, lore, areas, dungeons, themes, features, etc. planned out for expansions and to be patched in over time by the live team. To that end we put a lot of hooks in the engine to make this doable without having to re-write as many things in the future. Also by using the latest tech, it will be MUCH easier to take advantage of future tech (new versions of shader languages, taking advantage of tech that is just now becoming available in graphics cards or tech that we know is coming but doesn't exist yet, DX10, physics cards, and much more)."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/27527-vanguard-yet-another-double-exp-weekend-8.html#post683153

"I still think, especially longer term, the decisions we made, for the most part, were the correct ones. What we will be able to do with this game, both feature-wise and in terms of using technology not just for eye-candy but also to enhance gameplay (say, use physics cards) I am confident will have been the right call in the long run, and MMOGs are all about lasting months and years. I don't regret EQ 1 being hardware only, although it was one of the first to do so and people had to run out and buy voodoo cards."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-97.html#post689790

"But yes, every few years people do upgrade their PCs, especially gamers, because they want to play the latest games that use the latest tech. No, the average person doesn't upgrade or buy a new system as frequently, but then Vanguard is a more of a gamer's game and also a game designed to last a long time -- we're in this for the long haul. And as more and more compelling games come out that use or take advantage of higher tech, there will be more and more of a reason for gamers to justify upgrading. Lots of people upgraded for EQ 1, for Doom 3, etc. The precedent is there."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-97.html#post689794

"What's missing are environment shadows -- character shadows are there, although they need some tweaks. We are waiting on a hardware solution for environment shadows which should happen in the next couple of generation of cards. So right now you have character soft shadows unless there are too many chars on the screen, and you have some shadows with the trees. Given the complexity of our world, we wil have to wait for a hardware solution before we add the rest."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-104.html#post690361

"I don't think either the EQ 1 or EQ 2 launch suffered significantly from their hardware specs and the tech level they used. Many people want a more immersive and technically advanced engine, especially when it comes to virtural worlds. Does this mean these games won't achieve WoW numbers as quickly? Most likely. But the idea was to make a certain type of game for a certain group(s) of players. WoW is great and it's different and their lower system spec requirements have allowed them to penetrate Asia and also the very casual player who doesn't keep or care about his system specs."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-105.html#post690374

So yes, the whole hardware deal and performance issues were entirely intentional and designed towards. There's an endless amount of Brad defending Vanguard's requirements while talking about his dual-Xeons and how people will upgrade because its a "gamer's game"; and how the upsides would outweigh the downsides. Bad design decision.

As for SOE forcing Sigil's hand, they EXTENDED the Vanguard beta 2-3 months AND sent developers over to help with the game.

Yes, Brad was complaining at the time about how if he had 3 more months everything would be ok, how if in 6 months hardware would've fixed things; but come on; Sigil had at least 2-3 more months before collapsing and the game still suffered from bad design decisions that had to be amended.

Even after the SOE acquisition it took awhile until the staff was ticked down to what it is now; and even existing now as a fraction of what it once was now, over two years have passed and that's plenty of time.

Vanguard resembles nothing of Brad's claims of what 3 more months or 6 more months of time would've afforded the game. Vanguard was designed poorly and will suffer forever for it; and nothing about the design was an accident, it was deliberate and Brad is accountable for it. That "released too soon" spiel doesn't fly.

And again; show specifically how any of Vanguard's problems are related to bad business decisions and not bad design decisions, and then I'll be inclined to believe it. Not to be argumentive or difficult; its just that no one has linked anything in Brad's capacity as a chairman and CEO; and the reponsibilities that go with it, to Vanguard's problems.

You know what? I'll even buy the "Brad is a good idea man"; because it doesn't mean Brad is a good designer, and that's my whole argument. Designers have to know how to both have ideas and rein them in to something workable. Mona Lisa's smile and all;

That said though, there's no job title for "idea man". No one will ever hire a person to write hundreds of pages in design documents about what their dream MMO is, and then task another person to mull over it and craft it into an actual workable idea. A GOOD idea has to be workable; or else what's the point? 

Every single person on this board can think of their dream MMO that can't possibly be made with 30 million dollars and 5 years of time; actually getting the chance to do it and failing at it though wouldn't make us good "idea people" or designers. We'd have been quite crafty though to convince someone to give us that much money and time.

Originally posted by SonikFlash

So ultimatley brad mcquaid has two games for comparison here, one a wildly great success (Everquest) which is still releasing expansions.  And one considered a failure but has still outlasted some mmos, tabula rasa comes to mind.  And yet the man is a complete failure as an mmo designer,  the logic in this forum astounds even my open mindedness

Not a complete failure, but we do tend to judge people most by their last work, since it's naturally the most accurate representation of their current ability.

If Vanguard would be as polished as LOTR it would be a WoW Killer. If it would be a little bit more populated and they fixed server lag problems I'd come back instantly.

Originally posted by sepher 

So yes, the whole hardware deal and performance issues were entirely intentional and designed towards. There's an endless amount of Brad defending Vanguard's requirements while talking about his dual-Xeons and how people will upgrade because its a "gamer's game"; and how the upsides would outweigh the downsides. Bad design decision.

Bad performance due to hardware and bad performance due to bugs is two different things.Requirements. In retrospective it was not /only/ the reqs that made the game perform as it did.

It is as you say the requirements Brad are defending there.

Originally posted by sepher

 

Nope, not very much at all is based on hypothesis because the aftermath of Vanguard and how vocal Brad was has left very much transparent.

So you know, for a fact, that Brad is /excellent/ CEO but a bad game designer. How come?

How come you now that the state of Vanguard at release was due to him being a bad designer rather than a bad CEO. There is nothing but speculation if there was good leadership maybe they could have gotten to release the game in a better state, same is if it was due to him being a bad game designer.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher 

So yes, the whole hardware deal and performance issues were entirely intentional and designed towards. There's an endless amount of Brad defending Vanguard's requirements while talking about his dual-Xeons and how people will upgrade because its a "gamer's game"; and how the upsides would outweigh the downsides. Bad design decision.

 

Bad performance due to hardware and bad performance due to bugs is two different things.Requirements. In retrospective it was not /only/ the reqs that made the game perform as it did.

It is as you say the requirements Brad are defending there.

He defended both actually; the hardware requirements and bugs as stated above: "One could argue we could have made a simpler game and launched it either sooner and/or with less bugs and issues. But our philosophy, which goes back to EQ 1, is to go for it and be ambitious and try some crazy things."

So what happened? The gamed released later, bigger, with more bugs and issues for the sake of being ambitious and trying some crazy things.

All I'm saying is that nothing was an accident; it was all self-professed intentional. Nothing about it is unfortunate or not Brad's fault; and the reason I don't attribute it to bad business decisions is because he justified all of his decisions with a 5+ year design document that CALLED for the game to be unfinished at launch for the sake of being able to accommodate that 5+ year plan.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher 

So yes, the whole hardware deal and performance issues were entirely intentional and designed towards. There's an endless amount of Brad defending Vanguard's requirements while talking about his dual-Xeons and how people will upgrade because its a "gamer's game"; and how the upsides would outweigh the downsides. Bad design decision.

 

Bad performance due to hardware and bad performance due to bugs is two different things.Requirements. In retrospective it was not /only/ the reqs that made the game perform as it did.

It is as you say the requirements Brad are defending there.

 

He defended both actually; the hardware requirements and bugs as stated above: "One could argue we could have made a simpler game and launched it either sooner and/or with less bugs and issues. But our philosophy, which goes back to EQ 1, is to go for it and be ambitious and try some crazy things."

So what happened? The gamed released later, bigger, with more bugs and issues for the sake of being ambitious and trying some crazy things.

All I'm saying is that nothing was an accident; it was all self-professed intentional. Nothing about it is unfortunate or not Brad's fault; and the reason I don't attribute it to bad business decisions is because he justified all of his decisions with a 5+ year design document that CALLED for the game to be unfinished at launch for the sake of being able to accommodate that 5+ year plan.

* Release a simplier game. That could have been released sooner and hopefully with less bug (due to being simplier).

* Release a simplier game. That could could have been released at the same time and with less bugs (due to being simplier and released later).

He was ambitious and wanted to release a non-simplier game (in reference to above).

It is not the bugs that are to be fixed with hardware that he is defending, he is explaining a reason for bugs being there.

Then one also have to clearify the reason to release it in the state it was in. Did he know he would run out of money so he had to release it in the state it was, did he know that when he wanted to implement his crazy ideas. There was a fact presentated at releasetime that Sigil ran out of money, that was not so?

And now that they released the game later and with more 'crazy ideas' what accomodated the state it was in, the former 5 years of running the company. Was the eventuall mismanagament that made the team not being able to finish or was it the design ideas that made the team not able to finish.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher

 

Nope, not very much at all is based on hypothesis because the aftermath of Vanguard and how vocal Brad was has left very much transparent.

 

So you know, for a fact, that Brad is /excellent/ CEO but a bad game designer. How come?

How come you now that the state of Vanguard at release was due to him being a bad designer rather than a bad CEO. There is nothing but speculation if there was good leadership maybe they could have gotten to release the game in a better state, same is if it was due to him being a bad game designer.

Because business wise, he succeeded far and beyond what was reasonable with the near five year development cycle and thirty million dollars. I know I keep saying those two things; but it isn't exactly accessory information that we could or couldn't do without when it comes to judging Brad in his different capacities.

As he put it:

"But in a sense, I can't really complain. That Sigil, a start-up company, was given the money we were is probably unheard and totally unprecedented."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/retard-rickshaw-hall-shame/27044-why-all-nerd-rage-against-vanguard-57.html#post683280
 

There's also finer points like our discussing the engine before: 

"I agree with you that we need to continue to optimize, and we are. But at the same time, we've made huge strides since beta 2 and have confidence we'll contiue to do so. Also, while the Unreal engine is very fast (one of several reasons we chose it), do keep in mind that we've so heavily modified it to a. make it an MMOG engine and b. to give it per pixel lighting, bump mapping, specularity, environment maps, etc. and c. to make it a seamless world engine as opposed to a zone based engine that it barely resembles the engine any more at all. We do share a lot of ideas with Epic and even some code (for example, we already have some 3.0 code in the game), but they are truly different engines now, as was always the plan."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/25222-lots-new-vanguard-info-released-plus-videos-screenshots-12.html#post575294

So case by case we can go and evaluate the problems and both the business and design behind it; and attribute blame accordingly. The above for example; if Crystal Dynamic's fallout with Epic was a business failure then what do you call Sigil's relationship that afforded them to not only maintain the relationship of their license appropriately; but also get code early?

There's that and then there's the design decisions to butcher the engine. It's all in line with the whole theme of Vanguard's development; great business that allowed for great opportunities, from the big of thirty million dollars to the little of Unreal Engine 3 code,  followed by a mass of bad design decisions that plundered the opportunities.

There's only "speculation" if you discount the readily visible business successes that are there. Like I said, there's no cloud of mystery about anything. issue for issue, we have insight and can judge for ourselves whether there was a business mishap or a design mishap for any single issue. Brad's gone on record about it all.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher 

So yes, the whole hardware deal and performance issues were entirely intentional and designed towards. There's an endless amount of Brad defending Vanguard's requirements while talking about his dual-Xeons and how people will upgrade because its a "gamer's game"; and how the upsides would outweigh the downsides. Bad design decision.

 

Bad performance due to hardware and bad performance due to bugs is two different things.Requirements. In retrospective it was not /only/ the reqs that made the game perform as it did.

It is as you say the requirements Brad are defending there.

 

He defended both actually; the hardware requirements and bugs as stated above: "One could argue we could have made a simpler game and launched it either sooner and/or with less bugs and issues. But our philosophy, which goes back to EQ 1, is to go for it and be ambitious and try some crazy things."

So what happened? The gamed released later, bigger, with more bugs and issues for the sake of being ambitious and trying some crazy things.

All I'm saying is that nothing was an accident; it was all self-professed intentional. Nothing about it is unfortunate or not Brad's fault; and the reason I don't attribute it to bad business decisions is because he justified all of his decisions with a 5+ year design document that CALLED for the game to be unfinished at launch for the sake of being able to accommodate that 5+ year plan.

 

* Release a simplier game. That could have been released sooner and hopefully with less bug (due to being simplier).

* Release a simplier game. That could could have been released at the same time and with less bugs (due to being simplier and released later).

He was ambitious and wanted to release a non-simplier game (in reference to above).

It is not the bugs that are to be fixed with hardware that he is defending, he is explaining a reason for bugs being there.

Then one also have to clearify the reason to release it in the state it was in. Did he know he would run out of money so he had to release it in the state it was, did he know that when he wanted to implement his crazy ideas. There was a fact presentated at releasetime that Sigil ran out of money, that was not so?

And now that they released the game later and with more 'crazy ideas' what accomodated the state it was in, the former 5 years of running the company. Was the eventuall mismanagament that made the team not being able to finish or was it the design ideas that made the team not able to finish.

 

Yes he knew he'd run out of money; all throughout 2006 Vanguard was hyped as a end of year release. Vanguard got an extension if anything; not a rug pulled from under it.

As for "mismanagement", in what capacity? As a designer? Most definitely if there was mismanagement, but again issue for issue, Brad has shown intent behind all of Vanguard's problems and exhibited his beliefs that the ups outweighed the downs of the problems. So there was no mismanagement even in his capacity as a designer when the design was managed exactly how he wanted. Nothing accidental, all intentional.

Let's take travel times, incomplete world and other problems attributed to a "huge world" and the complaints that were there at launch: 

"We planned this game out from the beginnng to last for at minimum 7 years without havine to shoe horn in content, tech, etc. Hence the world size, including the amount of ocean. We have a world map that has continents and islands and other points of interest that will take us around 7 years to complete, and so we built accordingly. And like I said, on the ground we've already succeded in beta -- people do not complain about travel time because we've made it such that they get faster mounts (eventually flying mounts) and other mechanics (how lower level mobs react to you, etc.) and people can get around without a problem."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/25241-will-you-trying-vanguard-7.html#post574827
 

In that example, where would I be erred in then believing that it was entirely intentional that the world was built to be incomplete at launch as a design decision? Why then would I attribute all the problems of an incomplete world to anything other than design? 

Issue for issue, Brad has shown clear intent and rationale from a design capacity. So he has to be blamed thusly is all I'm saying. There's no cloud of mystery that makes it difficult to tell whether there was a business mishap or design mishap; and we default into saying he must be a good idea man. No, we know the reason behind all of Vanguard's biggiest problems; bad design. We know the reason why as badly designed as Vanguard was why it came out of the gate and wasn't cancelled; good business.

Originally posted by roamie

If Vanguard would be as polished as LOTR it would be a WoW Killer. If it would be a little bit more populated and they fixed server lag problems I'd come back instantly.

Come on, there wont be a Wow killer until Blizzard releases the next game, many of Wows players are Blizzard fans, not MMO fans. The played Diablo 1 & 2, Starcraft and the Warcraft games and loved them.

Time will of course kill any computer game but Blizzard got most of it's players because they already had a fanbase and gave them the game they wanted from them. And no one knows better than Blizzard what their fans wants, it is Blizzards greatest strenght.

Brad could have gotten the old EQ players to come to Vanguard and some people from other games but I don't see another company ever killing Wow. It could maybe have gotten 750K players or so but I doubt it would get a million even if it was as polished as Guildwars.

TOR might get the Bioware fans into MMOs but it wont kill Wow either.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by SonikFlash

So ultimatley brad mcquaid has two games for comparison here, one a wildly great success (Everquest) which is still releasing expansions.  And one considered a failure but has still outlasted some mmos, tabula rasa comes to mind.  And yet the man is a complete failure as an mmo designer,  the logic in this forum astounds even my open mindedness

 

Not a complete failure, but we do tend to judge people most by their last work, since it's naturally the most accurate representation of their current ability.

I would agree with you, However, his most recent work was more of a fail on time management than anything else.  The vision for the game was rock solid, that's proven in how the game continues to grow today, albeit not very quickly.

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by sepher 

So yes, the whole hardware deal and performance issues were entirely intentional and designed towards. There's an endless amount of Brad defending Vanguard's requirements while talking about his dual-Xeons and how people will upgrade because its a "gamer's game"; and how the upsides would outweigh the downsides. Bad design decision.

 

Bad performance due to hardware and bad performance due to bugs is two different things.Requirements. In retrospective it was not /only/ the reqs that made the game perform as it did.

It is as you say the requirements Brad are defending there.

 

He defended both actually; the hardware requirements and bugs as stated above: "One could argue we could have made a simpler game and launched it either sooner and/or with less bugs and issues. But our philosophy, which goes back to EQ 1, is to go for it and be ambitious and try some crazy things."

So what happened? The gamed released later, bigger, with more bugs and issues for the sake of being ambitious and trying some crazy things.

All I'm saying is that nothing was an accident; it was all self-professed intentional. Nothing about it is unfortunate or not Brad's fault; and the reason I don't attribute it to bad business decisions is because he justified all of his decisions with a 5+ year design document that CALLED for the game to be unfinished at launch for the sake of being able to accommodate that 5+ year plan.

 

* Release a simplier game. That could have been released sooner and hopefully with less bug (due to being simplier).

* Release a simplier game. That could could have been released at the same time and with less bugs (due to being simplier and released later).

He was ambitious and wanted to release a non-simplier game (in reference to above).

It is not the bugs that are to be fixed with hardware that he is defending, he is explaining a reason for bugs being there.

Then one also have to clearify the reason to release it in the state it was in. Did he know he would run out of money so he had to release it in the state it was, did he know that when he wanted to implement his crazy ideas. There was a fact presentated at releasetime that Sigil ran out of money, that was not so?

And now that they released the game later and with more 'crazy ideas' what accomodated the state it was in, the former 5 years of running the company. Was the eventuall mismanagament that made the team not being able to finish or was it the design ideas that made the team not able to finish.

 

 

Yes he knew he'd run out of money; all throughout 2006 Vanguard was hyped as a end of year release. Vanguard got an extension if anything; not a rug pulled from under it.

As for "mismanagement", in what capacity? As a designer? Most definitely if there was mismanagement, but again issue for issue, Brad has shown intent behind all of Vanguard's problems and exhibited his beliefs that the ups outweighed the downs of the problems. So there was no mismanagement even in his capacity as a designer when the design was managed exactly how he wanted. Nothing accidental, all intentional.

Let's take travel times, incomplete world and other problems attributed to a "huge world" and the complaints that were there at launch: 

"We planned this game out from the beginnng to last for at minimum 7 years without havine to shoe horn in content, tech, etc. Hence the world size, including the amount of ocean. We have a world map that has continents and islands and other points of interest that will take us around 7 years to complete, and so we built accordingly. And like I said, on the ground we've already succeded in beta -- people do not complain about travel time because we've made it such that they get faster mounts (eventually flying mounts) and other mechanics (how lower level mobs react to you, etc.) and people can get around without a problem."
Source: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/25241-will-you-trying-vanguard-7.html#post574827
 

In that example, where would I be erred in then believing that it was entirely intentional that the world was built to be incomplete at launch as a design decision? Why then would I attribute all the problems of an incomplete world to anything other than design? 

Issue for issue, Brad has shown clear intent and rationale from a design capacity. So he has to be blamed thusly is all I'm saying. There's no cloud of mystery that makes it difficult to tell whether there was a business mishap or design mishap; and we default into saying he must be a good idea man. No, we know the reason behind all of Vanguard's biggiest problems; bad design. We know the reason why as badly designed as Vanguard was why it came out of the gate and wasn't cancelled; good business.

Yes you say good business and you say Brad is a good businessman.

Let's get back to where he got th $30M. Was that good or bad. If he would have been good he might have had 55M or if he was bad he might have had gotten 15M. Now we don't know, so there is an assumption made, hey he got 30M he must be a good businessman.

For all we know he could have been the reason to as why they did not get twice that amount, and aswell he might aswell also be the reason that they recieved twice the amount of 15M. We simply don't know. He was responsible(alone?) to design the game and he was responsible(alone?) to get the team and lead that to the goal that he set out.

Now in retrospective he was not able to lead his company to finish it's goals with the set budget. Maybe a good CEO would have been able to pinpoint and lead the teams so they had released Vanguard, regardless of which state it was released in, with 20M and got 10M left for running the company. Or, here, maybe a bad CEO would have not been able to get the team to produce Vanguard to the state it was released.  There is alot of options and possible routes.

So we can make an assumption. Yes he was a good businessman he got 30M, or the opposite of that as I tried to clearify above.

The same as above could be said about his role as a designer.

I think we have to divide problems like bugs and design though I don't think anyone can say "working as intended" regarding bugs, be it visual or performance.

I have been looking for all the blames laid on him from former employees. As I can not recollect anyone saying he was a bad designer, all hints have been about him as a leader. Someone also mention something in the degree that opiate addiction is, but nothing about the designer.

And great idea man, what do that have to do with one also have to be (the) a good or bad designer?

What are we talking about, the ideaman, the designer, the CEO or the businessman?
 

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by roamie

If Vanguard would be as polished as LOTR it would be a WoW Killer. If it would be a little bit more populated and they fixed server lag problems I'd come back instantly.

 

Come on, there wont be a Wow killer until Blizzard releases the next game, many of Wows players are Blizzard fans, not MMO fans. The played Diablo 1 & 2, Starcraft and the Warcraft games and loved them.

Time will of course kill any computer game but Blizzard got most of it's players because they already had a fanbase and gave them the game they wanted from them. And no one knows better than Blizzard what their fans wants, it is Blizzards greatest strenght.

Brad could have gotten the old EQ players to come to Vanguard and some people from other games but I don't see another company ever killing Wow. It could maybe have gotten 750K players or so but I doubt it would get a million even if it was as polished as Guildwars.

TOR might get the Bioware fans into MMOs but it wont kill Wow either.

On a paranthesis can't we simply just stop all nonsense about any game being a wowkiller or not a wowkiller. I mean not even mention it at all.

Originally posted by vesavius

Brad's vision (tm) of game design was always right.

He saw everything that was going wrong with modern anti social solo quest grinders a long time ago, well before the current zeigeist of thinking, and he was shouted down for it because his thinking wasnt in line with the fashion of the time.

A lot of things went wrong with VG's development, Sigil as a company, and Brad's life at the time, there is no denying that at all, and the game obviously needed more then he was capable of giving it as a project leader, but that has nothing to do with his core ideas and philosophy of game design.

Now it has matured VG from a technical PoV it is, imo, the best traditional fantasy co-op mmorpg out there, bar none. That to my mind stands as vindication of what he stood for.

If I ran a dev house I would be glad to have Brad on board as a Creative Director.

Yet despite all of the bug fixes and content updates, Vanguard is still one of the least popular games out there.  What more proof do you need to show that hardcore, old school MMO paradigms are the bomb diggity!   Sigh.....

If i was Blizzard i would hire him. Throw him in as a team leader on the new mmo project . Then watch the magic unfold.

Look BM was and still is the vision behind one of the games that revolutionized this industry as we know it. His publisher backed out on him with vanguard and he basically had no choice but to go with sony. In all fairness to BM , EQ was THE game untill sony bought out verant and took over total control of the game. So it doesnt take much to see what happened with VG. The publisher of a game really holds all the chips. I dont fault the guy for what VG was released as. I fault sony and microsoft.

More and more i hear people saying they miss the feel that EQ and UO gave them. It is going to take an icon in the industry to compete on a real level with what blizzard has produced. At this point in time noone can come close but that doesnt mean blizzard has the best game on the market. That just means blizzard has made the most easily adaptable game  for the widest audience range to date.

"shrug" just my thoughts"