Originally posted by anduz

Originally posted by Vosen

Conan had a better release than WoW? oooook

 

Well yes. I ended up on a popular server in world of warcraft and aside from the 40 minute login queue it was a terrible lag and crash fest. And don't forget that it also took blizzard several months to implement their pvp system and how little endgame content WoW featured at release.

Shit, WoW players are STILL waiting for siege weapons and player housing.

QFT. I guess most people seem to forget the lengthy - as in days-long - server down times in order to finagle and finally upgrade the poor server software they launched with, which caused severe server lag and crashes. But in Bliz's defense, they did credit subscribers those oft down times. It was a good six to eight months later until "most" of the servers were stable. It was nearly 18 months until there were enough servers to get rid of (most) server lines.

The most stable MMO launch I've witnessed was LotR's.

AoC at least played decently on my PoS current system. The many bugs were annoying, but it didn't kill the game for.

Vanguard played like a K-Mart brand slide show.

And to put WAR in this conversation is just ignorant! The game hasn't even launched yet, for crissakes! Jeebus, people just aren't happy unless they're bitching about something/everything.

Originally posted by bverji

Wow, I can't believe how many people have forgotten how bad the vanguard release really was. Really it's sad. AOC was disappointing, but Vanguard was insulting.

Not really. Vanguard got a much worse deal than it actually was. I was a lucky person with my computer, for some reason I could run everything on high without any lag, on a really average system at the time. Magic hardware configuration I guess. And I only ran into 4 bugged quests.

The reason Vanguard got such a bad reputation was because of the hype. The first real "hardcore" game since WoW had started polluting the market. All the EQ people and anyone desiring a challenge were dying for this game, with all its promised features.

The big difference is... SOE forced the game to be released before it was ready. The devs didn't hide that information. Everyone knew it was buggy. Everyone knew SOE was responsible. But, it was still a huge dissapointment to all those who were desperate for a good MMO. AoC... not so much. It looked like crap, it turned out to be crap. Anyone who bought the talk about the "revolutionary" combat system.... eh.

Funcom lied and lied and lied and lied about the state of their game and they ran their forums like a police state to hide how the game was doing.

Sigil, did not.

Wasnt there when Vanguard lauch, but i was there for AOC and it was bad.   Not as bad as Funcom previous MMO, Anarchy Online.  Funcom so far get my number 1 and 2 in term of worst mmo launch ever.

1- AO

2-AOC.

The funny thing about the WoW launch is, that most people seem to forget that it was 4 years ago.

If a firm today releases a major mmorpg into the market, they know what bad things happen if thousand of people try to log into the server. And if today a major mmorpg is not able to handle the expected masses its simply a joke. The world doesnt stop turning.

And about VG and AoC  performance... The system Im using today was created to run VG. Im able to tell you that AoC needs a lot more ressources to run than VG does.

Originally posted by Shoju

Anyone who votes for AoC either didn't play Vanguard at launch, or is a current Vanguard player trying to rewrite history.

QFE , Vanguard by far . It's been a while since then so I don't remember everything that went wrong , But I do remember the hitching , The Graphical glitches and the mass amounts of instability .

Originally posted by Aguitha

Wasnt there when Vanguard lauch, but i was there for AOC and it was bad.   Not as bad as Funcom previous MMO, Anarchy Online.  Funcom so far get my number 1 and 2 in term of worst mmo launch ever.

1- AO

2-AOC.

 

So does that mean you voted for AOC ?

Originally posted by Ascension08

I don't like AoC but I'll defend it here. AoC is very polished and fun for a while, namely about the first half of the game. The bugs are there but Funcom seems to be patching them rather quickly. Though Funcom management, in all areas, is a little lacking, the game itself had a pretty stable launch considering all the false hype. Vanguard...was worse.

Seriously, come on people.  Funcom may be dishonest/poorly managed and AoC may have significant problems.  But Tortage alone makes it a much better release than Vanguard. like 30 or more poeple voting for AoC being worse.  Even if you like Vanguard as a game you gotta give it to AoC.  To be sure that is faint praise, but come on

Vanguard was most definitely a steaming pile of something when it released.  Age of Conan is a small step above but not by much.  Many of the same actions through beta were taken by both companies and many of the lines spewing out of the talking heads are very similar.  Being a step above Vanguard is, by no means, a difficult feat.  Well, given professional and competent dev teams/management.

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by Ascension08

I don't like AoC but I'll defend it here. AoC is very polished and fun for a while, namely about the first half of the game. The bugs are there but Funcom seems to be patching them rather quickly. Though Funcom management, in all areas, is a little lacking, the game itself had a pretty stable launch considering all the false hype. Vanguard...was worse.

 

Seriously, come on people.  Funcom may be dishonest/poorly managed and AoC may have significant problems.  But Tortage alone makes it a much better release than Vanguard. like 30 or more poeple voting for AoC being worse.  Even if you like Vanguard as a game you gotta give it to AoC.  To be sure that is faint praise, but come on

Sounds like an agenda to me.

Originally posted by Elsabolts

I believe because of the Hype by Funcom they new there game was not gonna be what was promised and decided to take advantage of that. Because of this i believe they will pay a bigger price.

I would agree with this, so in that sense they have a worse release.  But all in all VG still had a worse release.

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by Elsabolts

I believe because of the Hype by Funcom they new there game was not gonna be what was promised and decided to take advantage of that. Because of this i believe they will pay a bigger price.

 

I would agree with this, so in that sense they have a worse release.  But all in all VG still had a worse release.

You'd agree why , Unless you didn't know about Brad's 7 year plan ? Brad hyped the hell out of VG maybe even more so than funcom was guilty of .

Originally posted by Malickiebloo

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by Elsabolts

I believe because of the Hype by Funcom they new there game was not gonna be what was promised and decided to take advantage of that. Because of this i believe they will pay a bigger price.

 

I would agree with this, so in that sense they have a worse release.  But all in all VG still had a worse release.

You'd agree why , Unless you didn't know about Brad's 7 year plan ? Brad hyped the hell out of VG maybe even more so than funcom was guilty of .

Yes that is true.  But fortunately for VG all the blame goes on BMQ (well except for crazy people who blame SOE).

I am not trying to say  they both didn't partake of the same poison.  But due to certain details and change of ownership the attachment of blame is different.

And to be clear this sort of stuff this hyping to the point of lying and then not delivering it is poison.  It will eat away at a company's products.  The thing with VG is the non-crazies know that SOE just bought the game and that all the BS was on Sigil.  And many people blame Brad for what went on at Sigil.  So since Brad is gone and Sigil is no more and SOE has made real strides in trying to improve the game.  That poison is in a much lower dosage.