When we started working on what we knew would be the 'final' UI back in March '06
Yeah, the point here isn't whether what you did was justified or not. The point is the final result. The point is that you were late. I don't doubt that there aren't good reasons, and what I pointed out was the bad management.
Thanks for the explanations anyway.
Now, I'm a fan of your blog because you cheerlead for more creativity in games, but blanket criticism like this serves no benefit. If you don't personally enjoy the game, I would encourage you to recognize the accomplishments of a programming team a fraction of the size of EQ2's or WoW's, and a design team that has been on crunch since last May.
I know it's of no use. This site is closing down, I wasn't giving the game a complete review, not even constructive criticism of any sort. I was just commenting the "context", just pointing out bluntly where I stand in the debate.
About recognizing the accomplishment, that's not a problem. But to the public it doesn't matter if the game was built just by one guy, or in ten years. What matters is the final result. If the game can survive and deserve its space in the market. Vanguard has always been publicized as a big budget AAA project, so I'm not going to be mild with it.
About the "dedication", I'm just commenting a general trend and something likely to happen. The point is: what happens if Vanguard doesn't meet the expectations? I wouldn't be surprised if Sigil gets reabsorbed into SOE in the mid/long term. And it's a possibility that when things don't go well everyone decides to scrap everything and redo from start. It happens even with successful games.
I doubt the choice will be "yours". I would never comment the kind of dedication behind the scenes of a single dev, because I cannot see that and it would be unfair. It's the upper management to make the calls and decide of the future of the game.
Re: Vanguard day
When we started working on what we knew would be the 'final' UI back in March '06
Yeah, the point here isn't whether what you did was justified or not. The point is the final result. The point is that you were late. I don't doubt that there aren't good reasons, and what I pointed out was the bad management.
Thanks for the explanations anyway.
Now, I'm a fan of your blog because you cheerlead for more creativity in games, but blanket criticism like this serves no benefit. If you don't personally enjoy the game, I would encourage you to recognize the accomplishments of a programming team a fraction of the size of EQ2's or WoW's, and a design team that has been on crunch since last May.
I know it's of no use. This site is closing down, I wasn't giving the game a complete review, not even constructive criticism of any sort. I was just commenting the "context", just pointing out bluntly where I stand in the debate.
About recognizing the accomplishment, that's not a problem. But to the public it doesn't matter if the game was built just by one guy, or in ten years. What matters is the final result. If the game can survive and deserve its space in the market. Vanguard has always been publicized as a big budget AAA project, so I'm not going to be mild with it.
About the "dedication", I'm just commenting a general trend and something likely to happen. The point is: what happens if Vanguard doesn't meet the expectations? I wouldn't be surprised if Sigil gets reabsorbed into SOE in the mid/long term. And it's a possibility that when things don't go well everyone decides to scrap everything and redo from start. It happens even with successful games.
I doubt the choice will be "yours". I would never comment the kind of dedication behind the scenes of a single dev, because I cannot see that and it would be unfair. It's the upper management to make the calls and decide of the future of the game.