Part 4 is up. - Page 4

Dragon-RD · 10-03-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talithia

You are right, I said that wrong. But my point is still one win one lose, in a lot of peoples eyes. I don't consider Vanguard a fail until I look at the box

So I keep the box put away.

One win one total utter failure. Vanguard is more fail than EQ was win. Saying its 1-1 makes it sound as if hes not doing badly.

Joodah · 10-05-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragon-RD

One win one total utter failure. Vanguard is more fail than EQ was win. Saying its 1-1 makes it sound as if hes not doing badly.

Sorry, but a game that is still being played 2 years after launch is hardly an "utter failure", even if it was that big of a failure to you.

rhagz · 10-05-2009, 03:06 PM

LOL.. how anyone can call VG anything but an utter failure is just laughably hilarious.

Just because you are still playing an utter failure 2 years after launch doesn't make it a success to anyone but you.

From every other conceivable standpoint the game is a massive flop.

Employees fired in the parking lot? Check.
Former CEO becomes a drug addict? Check.
Sold off to the lowest bidder, your biggest rival no less? Check.
Dev team down to a midget and a jackass? Check.

Success? Check! In Joodahland at least.

Dragon-RD · 10-05-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joodah

Sorry, but a game that is still being played 2 years after launch is hardly an "utter failure", even if it was that big of a failure to you.

Read rhagz post.

Sorry, but a game that is still being played 2 years after that launch is a total "utter failure", even if it was that big of a win to you.

Hatto · 10-05-2009, 04:09 PM

Someone call Romans, I think this thread really needs her input NOW, that female ramblings been at least amusing on top of anoying.

Joodah · 10-05-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhagz

LOL.. how anyone can call VG anything but an utter failure is just laughably hilarious.

Just because you are still playing an utter failure 2 years after launch doesn't make it a success to anyone but you.

From every other conceivable standpoint the game is a massive flop.

Employees fired in the parking lot? Check.
Former CEO becomes a drug addict? Check.
Sold off to the lowest bidder, your biggest rival no less? Check.
Dev team down to a midget and a jackass? Check.

Success? Check! In Joodahland at least.

Thanks for sharing cupcake.

Give it up - no amount of denial and throwing tantrums will stop all of the people currently playing and having fun from enjoying the game, boohoo, so sorry! Oh, and be sure to let the SV guild here know they are playing an utter failure, I'm sure they'll give about as much of a sht as everyone else still playing.

You and Dragon are quite welcome to your opinion though, as always. Cheers!

rhagz · 10-05-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joodah

I'm sure they'll give about as much of a sht as everyone else still playing.

All seven of them? Too bad.

I honestly don't care who enjoys the game, but to try and act like the game is anything but the laughing stock of the industry is delusional.

Dragon-RD · 10-05-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joodah

Thanks for sharing cupcake.

Give it up - no amount of denial and throwing tantrums will stop all of the people currently playing and having fun from enjoying the game, boohoo, so sorry! Oh, and be sure to let the SV guild here know they are playing an utter failure, I'm sure they'll give about as much of a sht as everyone else still playing.

You and Dragon are quite welcome to your opinion though, as always. Cheers!

To quote something twice:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joodah Mcabee

It may be the case that Sony has made mistakes, hell, we know that. We all know what happened with Sigil as well. It's all been beaten to death. Thing is, the game is thriving now, lots of folks playing and enjoying the game *shrug* Vanguard is healthy and we are seeing more and more on the servers every day. There's no point in all of this negativity, come on guys lets get behind this thing and f***ing turn it around! AMIRITE?

This lacked Romans "venom". It was you that posted this. Shhh Joodah just shhhhhh!

Joodah · 10-05-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragon-RD

To quote something twice:

This lacked Romans "venom". It was you that posted this. Shhh Joodah just shhhhhh!

lol yeh, that was me allright.

Anyhow, /tissue

VoiceOfReason · 10-05-2009, 06:22 PM

It is not unreasonable to call Vanguard a "failure" if one looks at it from the standpoint of sustained numerical subscriptions and profits. Even so, I personally do not consider it a complete and utter failure. There is much to like about Vanguard - it wasn't all bad news.

The biggest things that were stacked against it were its abortion of a birth and the fact that it was raised by its perverted Uncle. It COULD have been a contender, with a little more luck, some more time and probably a lot more money. Mismanagement was its downfall, early and late.

ikaoma420 · 10-06-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joodah

Sorry, but a game that is still being played 2 years after launch is hardly an "utter failure", even if it was that big of a failure to you.

So I guess AOC is a HUGE win over Vanguard then... They are getting an expansion. I mean if all it takes for a game to not be a Utter Failure is a couple thousand people playing it a few years after release then AOC is a massive win over Vanguard.

dabble · 10-06-2009, 03:57 PM

This...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joodah

Wow I didn't even realize Pirates was still alive... Now THERE's a dead game.

And this...

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm?f...&page=1&bhcp=1

If pirates is considered dead but is getting an expansion, then surely by that reasoning...

MagicNumbers · 10-06-2009, 05:03 PM

Yeah, Vanguard is the red headed step child.

nuandy · 10-06-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicNumbers

Yeah, Vanguard is the red headed step child.

Joodah and Vg are twins then

VoiceOfReason · 10-06-2009, 09:14 PM

In order to make a point here, let me result to a bit of Allegory.

Suppose someone was directing a movie, containing some interesting plot ideas, some excellent acting and some magnificent scenery. Let's further assume that the director was well past the halfway point of shooting all the scenes, but was horribly over-budget and the project was in jeopardy of being discontinued. Let us further assume that the director crumpled under the pressure and crawled into a bottle, exacerbating the production problems in the final phases of the shooting. Finally let us assume that the head of the studio, trying to cut losses and make something of the investment, pieces together a disjointed but plausible story out of what has been shot and releases it. (Stupid as hell, no?

)

So the movie is released, the critics dump all over it, but do note that the movie contains some excellent acting and breath taking scenery. Most of the public turns up their collective noses, although the flick gains a cult following. The movie does receive an acadamy award nomination for best cinematography.

By most measures of success - certainly financially, the movie is a failure. However, calling it an UTTER failure is debatable. This director had previously won a "best picture" academy award. One might be tempted to call him "1 and 1", or if being kind, 1, 0 and 1, even though the film was in reality, a flop.

To me, this little story sort of outlines how a creation can be a failure without being an utter failure. Sure it's allegory and sure, it is easy to challenge and pick at - it isn't intended to stand up in a court of law. It is intended to illustrate a point of view, which I hope it has done.

MagicNumbers · 10-06-2009, 09:29 PM

The bottom line is that it just plain sucks that something with so many good ideas was implemented so poorly.

ikaoma420 · 10-06-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoiceOfReason

In order to make a point here, let me result to a bit of Allegory.

Suppose someone was directing a movie, containing some interesting plot ideas, some excellent acting and some magnificent scenery. Let's further assume that the director was well past the halfway point of shooting all the scenes, but was horribly over-budget and the project was in jeopardy of being discontinued. Let us further assume that the director crumpled under the pressure and crawled into a bottle, exacerbating the production problems in the final phases of the shooting. Finally let us assume that the head of the studio, trying to cut losses and make something of the investment, pieces together a disjointed but plausible story out of what has been shot and releases it. (Stupid as hell, no?

)

So the movie is released, the critics dump all over it, but do note that the movie contains some excellent acting and breath taking scenery. Most of the public turns up their collective noses, although the flick gains a cult following. The movie does receive an acadamy award nomination for best cinematography.

By most measures of success - certainly financially, the movie is a failure. However, calling it an UTTER failure is debatable. This director had previously won a "best picture" academy award. One might be tempted to call him "1 and 1", or if being kind, 1, 0 and 1, even though the film was in reality, a flop.

To me, this little story sort of outlines how a creation can be a failure without being an utter failure. Sure it's allegory and sure, it is easy to challenge and pick at - it isn't intended to stand up in a court of law. It is intended to illustrate a point of view, which I hope it has done.

Vanguard is Waterworld.

MagicNumbers · 10-06-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikaoma420

Vanguard is Waterworld.

Holy shit! It is!

Amsra · 10-06-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikaoma420

Vanguard is Waterworld.

Lol......perfect!

VoiceOfReason · 10-06-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikaoma420

Vanguard is Waterworld.

ROFL. Good one.