If that sounds overly harsh, let me back up for a minute. I love Vanguard
; in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's the second most enjoyable themepark I've ever played (the top dog being EverQuest II
, which we'll get to in a minute). Why does a class-based, loot-drop, bind-on-equip, quest-heavy game like Vanguard
appeal to this particular sandbox fan? Primarily because so much of it flies in the face of what has come to be the standard themepark design after World of Warcraft
The world is absolutely huge; it's free of instancing and relatively seamless (although anyone who has ever stuttered across a "chunk" line may roll their eyes at that assertion). It's got meaningful crafting, a unique diplomacy aspect, and kick-ass classes like the Disciple. The list goes on and on.
And apparently I'm not alone in these sentiments, judging by our comments, which seems strange since Vanguard
was basically abandoned by SOE
due to an abysmally low population.
If an MMO newb were to glance over that thread I linked earlier, he'd likely think that Vanguard
was one of the greatest things to ever happen to the genre. And yet, every time I've logged in over the past five years, that massive open world is mostly empty of players, and finding a group -- in what is unabashedly a group-centric game -- is usually quite time-consuming.
Why is that?
I can't say for sure, but it can't be the sub fee, can it? Surely 15 bucks a month isn't too much to ask for a game that so many people say is incredibly awesome. There must be other reasons that people have avoided the world of Telon in droves.
Why the low pop?
For one thing, there was Vanguard's
launch. Sigil Games
decided to release its opus at the same time that Blizzard
first expansion pack. Going head-to-head with Burning Crusade
basically guaranteed Vanguard
a sort of also-ran status, and that was before people logged in to find a massive list of bugs, incomplete systems, and half-baked features that represented one of the worst MMO launches since Anarchy Online
Gamers have long memories when it comes to that sort of stuff, and despite the fact that SOE
stepped in and eventually righted the ship, "Vanguard
sucks" fan rhetoric persists to this day (as do some of those bugs). There's also the fact that the game initially featured modern-day no-nos like corpse runs, a lack of instant travel, and other old-school elements. Even though these factors have since been updated to reflect the casual sea-change in MMO design, Vanguard
has struggled to shed its 2007-era reputation.
It also didn't help the game when SOE basically reassigned its entire dev team and put the world of Telon on autopilot for years at a time. The fact that a smattering of players continued to support Vanguard
despite the lack of any updates (let alone new content) speaks to both the appeal of the game's basic concepts and the tenacity of certain hardcore fans.
The EverQuest factor
I mentioned EQII
earlier, and it's worth talking about in a discussion centered around Vanguard's
future. When SOE saved Vanguard
from Sigil's ineptitude shortly after launch, some in the fan community voiced concerns that the company did so primarily to prevent Vanguard
from morphing into a direct competitor to its flagship franchise.
This theory had a certain tinfoil hat stench about it, but it's also interesting to think on because of the many similarities between Vanguard
and the EverQuest
was viewed by its pre-release community as the true sequel to the original EverQuest
, primarily because Brad McQuaid
was instrumental in both games and did nothing to dispel comparisons. Vanguard
is also much more of a hardcore MMO experience than EverQuest II
due to the fact that the former features relatively slow progression and requires groups more often than not.
Conceptually, though, the games are very much alike. They're both high-fantasy themeparks that feature a large and varied class roster, deep crafting, plenty of non-combat activities, and an endgame built around raiding. While I don't really buy into the conspiracy theories, I do wonder about SOE's motivation to operate three similar themeparks concurrently. Clearly Vanguard
generates more profit than loss, elsewise it would have gone the way of The Matrix Online
a long time ago.
With EverQuest Next
coming, though, and with both EverQuest
and EverQuest II
receiving substantial and fairly frequent content updates, how many resources is SOE realistically going to commit to Vanguard
over the long haul?
The future is now
Currently the firm is spending some money on Telon. Active developers are returning to both polish existing content and produce new stuff. Engineers, accountants, and PR types are presumably working hard on the new business model and its various monetization options. We haven't seen much of a marketing push yet, but I expect a good amount of Vanguard
-centric gaming press coverage whenever SOE gets around to announcing its F2P matrix and launch date.
And all that said, I still wonder how sustainable it is in light of the company's other efforts and in light of how intolerant of time-consuming mechanics the current crop of MMO consumers has become.
In any event, Vanguard's
immediate future should be interesting to watch, and the bottom line in all of this is that we're witnessing a pretty rare occurrence as a niche game gets a second shot at the big-time. I hope to see a lot of you in Telon both now and in the future. And hey, if you really do love Vanguard
, support it before
it goes free-to-play. Fifteen bucks is a tiny price to pay for such a content-rich game, and it could sure use your help.
Everyone has opinions, and The Soapbox is how we indulge ours. Join the Massively writers every Tuesday as we take turns atop our very own soapbox to deliver unfettered editorials a bit outside our normal purviews. Think we're spot on -- or out of our minds? Let us know in the comments!