Not as weird as labeling over 200 MMOs "niche" because of one game released five years ago. This is like saying Every Rpg is niche because they don't sell like Final Fantasy or Every action game is Niche because it doesn't sell like GTA or Halo.
It's dumb.
You realize we're the only ones in a videogame genre that do this right? it's beyond asinine!
Over 200 MMO's, but maybe 3 or 4 different types of MMO's..
We have like 180 versions of Coke and then the rest. You're right, this is the only genre that do this, it's funny.
Those 4 different types of MMO's may be niche, the rest are just copies.
LOL i can't really disagree with that. I've been screaming for variety in the genre for years.
Lets see we have UO,EQ then AO and DAoC basically every MMO out today is a copy off of those four games.
I think the only MMos that added some variety in the genre since those four were Eve and Planetside.
Since we've had nothing but clones. Almost pisses me off that I've stuck to the genre this long.
Seems sensible. "Mainstream" has to be defined by game mechanics. Subscription numbers are misleading. WAR is down to what, 200-300k subs? .. doesn't make it a niche game, just makes it a crappy and failing mainstream game.
Less than 100,000, I'm pretty sure. I agree that it qualifies as mainstream, despite a higher than usual attention to PvP.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
EVE is often held up as a "successful" sandbox game (which it is) but at the same time people also seem to think this is a good indicator of how successful "most" sandbox games would be. I disagree with this premise.
EVE has a couple of game design features which limits its audience considerably:
1) Sci Fi based. Fantasy based would likely draw a wider player base.
2) Real time skill training - some players want to their own time/effort in the game to be rewarded and not set to a fixed rate.
3) PVP with looting
4) Combat system does not include free flight controls, preferred by a number of players
5) Slower paced in many ways, patience is a virtue in game but not every player has it.
6) Avatars - seems to be big sticking point for many people.
So, I think if one were to design a sandbox game with a different variation on the above features it could draw in a significantly greater proportion of players. Perhaps never near WOW numbers, but certainly I would think 500K-1M subs would be in reach.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Simple, really. Themeparks sell better. No doubt there will be a resurgence of the sandbox MMO when the mainstream (themepark) market is saturated, but right now all the big-money developers are focused on knocking WoW off the top slot. Besides, I still don't get the whole "sandbox" thing. Whenever I ask what makes sandboxes so great, the answer I always get is "the freedom" .. but freedom to do what exactly? .. no-one seems able to elucidate.
I think the problem is not necessarily the fact that Themeparks sell better, it's that directed content is easier for marketing people to understand, therefore gets more focused marketing pushes. Sandbox content scares the hell out of marketing people/execs/shareholders because the control is not in their hands, but in the hands of the players. That makes it a roll of the dice. Therefore it's harder to justify to the beancounters that your sandbox mmo will sell well, when Themeparks can easily be broken down into 'fun features'.
The reason Sandbox games arent backed more is most people don't like feeling lost.
I think its because most people want a clear goal/direction to aim towards. It's kind of missing in a sandbox.
Isn't in sandbox games player supposed to make goal/direction themselves? Look at The Sims, SimCity, and Spore for example.
Originally posted by Bob_Blawblaw I think the problem is not necessarily the fact that Themeparks sell better, it's that directed content is easier for marketing people to understand, therefore gets more focused marketing pushes. Sandbox content scares the hell out of marketing people/execs/shareholders because the control is not in their hands, but in the hands of the players. That makes it a roll of the dice. Therefore it's harder to justify to the beancounters that your sandbox mmo will sell well, when Themeparks can easily be broken down into 'fun features'.
Interesting thought. I do like how EVE market their game though, especially the Butterfly Effect video.
LOL i can't really disagree with that. I've been screaming for variety in the genre for years. Lets see we have UO,EQ then AO and DAoC basically every MMO out today is a copy off of those four games.
I think the only MMos that added some variety in the genre since those four were Eve and Planetside.
Since we've had nothing but clones. Almost pisses me off that I've stuck to the genre this long.
The sad thing is, it almost looks like we're only getting copies of DAoC (or AC) nowadays.. even going back to UO/EQ/AO style would be quite refreshing right now, which is funny in a way.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The reason Sandbox games arent backed more is most people don't like feeling lost.
I think its because most people want a clear goal/direction to aim towards. It's kind of missing in a sandbox.
Isn't in sandbox games player supposed to make goal/direction themselves? Look at The Sims, SimCity, and Spore for example.
Yes, but that kind of goal is, at least in my opinion, kind of artificial. I think many of us want to achieve a goal the game has set for us- if we make our own goals, we may achieve them but we can never get the feeling that we have 'beaten' the game. And while MMO's can rarely be 'beaten', smaller goals like leveling a character to cap are more realistic to achieve.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
LOL i can't really disagree with that. I've been screaming for variety in the genre for years. Lets see we have UO,EQ then AO and DAoC basically every MMO out today is a copy off of those four games.
I think the only MMos that added some variety in the genre since those four were Eve and Planetside.
Since we've had nothing but clones. Almost pisses me off that I've stuck to the genre this long.
The sad thing is, it almost looks like we're only getting copies of DAoC (or AC) nowadays.. even going back to UO/EQ/AO style would be quite refreshing right now, which is funny in a way.
thing is the people that want something extremely different are the vast minority. For every Metalhead we have a couple thousand casuals who could care less.
thing is the people that want something extremely different are the vast minority. For every Metalhead we have a couple thousand casuals who could care less.
Thats why the change must happen sloowly~
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
EVE is often held up as a "successful" sandbox game (which it is) but at the same time people also seem to think this is a good indicator of how successful "most" sandbox games would be. I disagree with this premise. EVE has a couple of game design features which limits its audience considerably: 1) Sci Fi based. Fantasy based would likely draw a wider player base. 2) Real time skill training - some players want to their own time/effort in the game to be rewarded and not set to a fixed rate. 3) PVP with looting 4) Combat system does not include free flight controls, preferred by a number of players 5) Slower paced in many ways, patience is a virtue in game but not every player has it. 6) Avatars - seems to be big sticking point for many people. So, I think if one were to design a sandbox game with a different variation on the above features it could draw in a significantly greater proportion of players. Perhaps never near WOW numbers, but certainly I would think 500K-1M subs would be in reach.
Eve isn't a new game, a lot of it's success is built on a strong niche player base that has expanded due to improved distribution of the game recently, and also through good patching and expansion of the original game, but, it's still played by only a few hundred 1000s of players.
Originally posted by nateslo I'm gonna make this really direct and to the point. I very unhappy with the current selection of sandbox style mmos out there right now. I've been gaming for a long time (15+ years) and there is really nothing out there that excites me. I want a really good sandbox fantasy mmo. There have been a few glimmers of hope, with Darkfall and Mortal Online, but both seem to be fizzling out. I dont think Im alone in feeling this way. My question is... Why arent any major companies making Sandbox mmos?
Because, historically, they don't make as much money.
Both Darkfall and MO are made by very small companies, just not capable of delivering the gaming experience and qualitly I want in a game. I know some will say that the sandbox hardcore player base is just not big enough to make a game profitable, but I have to disagree. Just a quick look at forums across the web the show that many many others are looking for a quality sandbox mmo. I think if a major company would put out a polished high quality sandbox mmo, unlike this sloppy 10 year old looking stuff we are getting recently, they would be incredibly succesful, and would blow the genre way open for others to follow.
*Sigh* Once again, the forums are not a typical slice of the MMORPG customer. The only thing the publishers are interested in are actual sales figures, and they say, "Sandbox MMOs don't sell."
Because all the greedy little piggies want WoW dollars. It has nothing to do with their being a "low demand". People who say that are only saying it to either make themselves seem important or they truly don't have a finger on the pulse of that gaming demographic. No, MMOs used to be made by geeks for geeks. Now they are created by CEOs for shareholders. And shareholders want their game "like WoW" because they want that chance to strike it rich. If you'll notice, it's only the indy companies that don't have that heavy "AAA" shareholder pressure that try anything outside of the Blizzard recipe. The days of making in-depth, detailed, MMO worlds has gone by and now we are faced with games based on minimal effort with a hopes for a high ROI from the box sales.
That line reminded me of Microsoft and Marvel Universe Online. Microsoft realized they wouldn't make WoW bucks so they pulled it.
But another go at it? I hope Gazillion E. will be able to do it proper. I would really like to play in the Marvel Universe.
I think the problem is not necessarily the fact that Themeparks sell better, it's that directed content is easier for marketing people to understand, therefore gets more focused marketing pushes. Sandbox content scares the hell out of marketing people/execs/shareholders because the control is not in their hands, but in the hands of the players. That makes it a roll of the dice. Therefore it's harder to justify to the beancounters that your sandbox mmo will sell well, when Themeparks can easily be broken down into 'fun features'.
Are you saying that you think game design direction is dictated by marketing, or are you saying that these games do have a lot of sandbox like features but marketing won't sell those features and, as such, the consumer - who is obviously just as stupid as marketing - never finds these locked away features?
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Originally posted by Hyanmen Originally posted by kirawats Isn't in sandbox games player supposed to make goal/direction themselves? Look at The Sims, SimCity, and Spore for example.
Yes, but that kind of goal is, at least in my opinion, kind of artificial. I think many of us want to achieve a goal the game has set for us- if we make our own goals, we may achieve them but we can never get the feeling that we have 'beaten' the game. And while MMO's can rarely be 'beaten', smaller goals like leveling a character to cap are more realistic to achieve.
The feeling of destroy the bridge that raider often uses to cross to harass my town is quite satisfy me as being achievable in a short time, especially the feeling that I have make the area safer for another 1,000 players who are on my side. Yet, the raiders could start building the bridge again at anytime when they have managed to gather enough wood.
It's the acknowledge that your in-game action does affect others that control by real player could ease the artificial achievement feeling, maybe?
The feeling of destroy the bridge that raider often uses to cross to harass my town is quite satisfy me as being achievable in a short time, especially the feeling that I have make the area safer for another 1,000 players who are on my side. Yet, the raiders could start building the bridge again at anytime when they have managed to gather enough wood. It's the acknowledge that your in-game action does affect others that control by real player could ease the artificial achievement feeling, maybe?
I'm talking about a bit longer, harder to achieve goals in a "what do I want to accomplish in this game"-way.
But yes, that you can affect others is a nice benefit. I like that feeling too, although I do it in a themepark games by helping others in different way; not by destroying bridges but helping out on a quest or leveling for example. It's not as complicated and 'real' way to affect others, but I think it's still as rewarding.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Originally posted by kirawats The feeling of destroy the bridge that raider often uses to cross to harass my town is quite satisfy me as being achievable in a short time, especially the feeling that I have make the area safer for another 1,000 players who are on my side. Yet, the raiders could start building the bridge again at anytime when they have managed to gather enough wood. It's the acknowledge that your in-game action does affect others that control by real player could ease the artificial achievement feeling, maybe?
I'm talking about a bit longer, harder to achieve goals in a "what do I want to accomplish in this game"-way. But yes, that you can affect others is a nice benefit. I like that feeling too, although I do it in a themepark games by helping others in different way; not by destroying bridges but helping out on a quest or leveling for example. It's not as complicated and 'real' way to affect others, but I think it's still as rewarding.
I always expect MMORPG to be more of a social game where there is no ending to the game as one clear goal. Some player would like to explore every corner of the game world, while some want to craft and trade item to be the richest in the game. When such player reach their first goal, they start to think of a new goal to achieve. As in real life, what do we have as our long term goal? Everyone has different goal to aim for before they die. Once we reach that goal by any chance, we create a new goal to keep our life entertain. Where in theme park MMORPG do have clear ending to work toward. That's just my opinion toward sandbox game where I can live another life as fantasy character carry sword and shield and explore new land which I could not be in real life. But I do understand that everyone have different preference about this type of virtual reality.
I'm not so sure why such type of open world would not suitable with majority of players where anything could be possible. Could be the different concept and ideas of what exactly 'sandbox' is in most people? I believe that if one sandbox can managed to get itself to be popular, many more sandbox would follow. It's the problem that there is no clear example of successful sandbox to prove to the developer and investor to believe that sandbox would be worthwhile to develops. Just have to cross the finger that indie developer out there can managed to create something that will hit the spot.
I found helping player doing the same quest again and again is repetitive as well as raiding the same place again and again and know exactly where the mobs are and what tactics we have to uses to bypass them. At least something that keep changing would be nice.
Am I going off topic? I feel like I'm going off topic...
I always expect MMORPG to be more of a social game where there is no ending to the game as one clear goal. Some player would like to explore every corner of the game world, while some want to craft and trade item to be the richest in the game. When such player reach their first goal, they start to think of a new goal to achieve. As in real life, what do we have as our long term goal? Everyone has different goal to aim for before they die. Where in theme park MMORPG do have clear ending to work toward. That's just my opinion toward sandbox game where I can live another life as fantasy character carry sword and shield and explore new land which I could not be in real life. But I do understand that everyone have different preference about this type of virtual reality. I'm not so sure why such type of open world would not suitable with majority of players where anything could be possible. Could be the different concept and ideas of what exactly 'sandbox' is in most people? I believe that if one sandbox can managed to get itself to be popular, many more sandbox would follow. It's the problem that there is no clear example of successful sandbox to prove to the developer and investor to believe that sandbox would be worthwhile to develops. Just have to cross the finger that indie developer out there can managed to create something that will hit the spot. I found helping player doing the same quest again and again is repetitive as well as raiding the same place again and again and know exactly where the mobs are and what tactics we have to uses to bypass them. At least something that keep changing would be nice. Am I going off topic? I feel like I'm going off topic...
There is no ending to an MMO, but in themepark the goals we can achieve are more clearly visible, imo. You can get your character to level cap as one class, or level a craft to max level.. or clear all the quests in the game, or get the ultimate sword of doom. In sandbox these goals aren't as apparent, or even impossible to achieve.. how could you finish every quest in the game if there is no definition of 'quest' or if every player can make their own quests? It'd be harder to work towards that kind of goal, I think.
While I think that nothing stops sandbox game from being hugely popular, I don't think the change can happen in just one game. I think transition is needed for that to happen; make a themepark game with sandboxy elements, then start piling up the sandbox features while leaving out the themepark ones. I wouldn't mind mixing the two up completely either though.
Nothing stops themepark games from being random, although the randomness is not as apparent as it'd be in a sandbox game. Mobs need better AI, the raid could change significantly every time you enter it, and so on.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
There are endings in an mmo, either: completion of the game, boredom and quit or the game closing. Non-linear in theory would give a game more scope for players, but in reality non-stated objectives can appear and once completed game-over.
There are endings in an mmo, either: completion of the game, boredom and quit or the game closing. Non-linear in theory would give a game more scope for players, but in reality non-stated objectives can appear and once completed game-over.
No designed ending, no. Or it's out of everyone's reach (except maybe ~10 brave nolifers)
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Originally posted by Hyanmen While I think that nothing stops sandbox game from being hugely popular, I don't think the change can happen in just one game. I think transition is needed for that to happen; make a themepark game with sandboxy elements, then start piling up the sandbox features while leaving out the themepark ones. I wouldn't mind mixing the two up completely either though.
Nothing stops themepark games from being random, although the randomness is not as apparent as it'd be in a sandbox game. Mobs need better AI, the raid could change significantly every time you enter it, and so on.
I do like the idea of being theme park combine with sandbox, but I would prefer developer to concentrate on keep developing for the exist hybrid rather than create a totally complete different game where it would require me to disband my own character and start a new one. Graphics could be improve with the new engine when time come, but I can see it can affect the player who does not want to upgrade.
The concept of sandbox itself would place itself to where community would lead it to. I can see why most company don't want to take the risk because they does not know where the game would lead to. GM control monster as seen in Ultima Online and The Lord of the Rings Online (Amarthiel's event) was a nice touch, and I would like to see it happen more often.
It does feel weird when I did an epic quest, and join other player who did the same epic quest of killing the same boss. It just pop in my mind that "I just kill that guy 15 minutes ago..." and it does reduce my sense of role-playing in a fantasy world when I can see game mechanic quite clearly. That's just my thought on current MMORPG anyway.
I'm sure majority of developer see the complexity of sandbox as well, and that's what push them away toward something that has clearer future, by using the formula of what being success at that time instead of try something different. It's like wondering why art film does not become mainstream, but we can see that sometime mainstream do borrow the idea from art/experimental film. With more support toward experimental MMO, it could drive developer to be more creative. But the question is who will be funding those experimental pieces?
Richard Garriott used money on his space journey instead of improve his games, but I can't blame him... ::)
I'm gonna make this really direct and to the point. I very unhappy with the current selection of sandbox style mmos out there right now. I've been gaming for a long time (15+ years) and there is really nothing out there that excites me. I want a really good sandbox fantasy mmo. There have been a few glimmers of hope, with Darkfall and Mortal Online, but both seem to be fizzling out. I dont think Im alone in feeling this way. My question is... Why arent any major companies making Sandbox mmos? Both Darkfall and MO are made by very small companies, just not capable of delivering the gaming experience and qualitly I want in a game. I know some will say that the sandbox hardcore player base is just not big enough to make a game profitable, but I have to disagree. Just a quick look at forums across the web the show that many many others are looking for a quality sandbox mmo. I think if a major company would put out a polished high quality sandbox mmo, unlike this sloppy 10 year old looking stuff we are getting recently, they would be incredibly succesful, and would blow the genre way open for others to follow.
Your "disagreement" is completely meaningless. People on forums are not representative. Just look at how many members are there on this forum, and what is the percentage of them in say 11M wow players.
Companies do market research. In fact, nick yee's site has some survey and stuff about what people want on MMOs, and sandbox is NOT one of them.
Companies do market research. In fact, nick yee's site has some survey and stuff about what people want on MMOs, and sandbox is NOT one of them.
People don't know what they want.
Spoken as someone who firmly believes in democracy...
Perhaps companies would be more willing to listen to sandbox advocates if they were actually supporting what few companies try to please them. Posting wish lists riddled with unbalanced hard to manage features doesnt seem like it will help your cause one bit...
Just to make things clear... I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.
Comments
Over 200 MMO's, but maybe 3 or 4 different types of MMO's..
We have like 180 versions of Coke and then the rest. You're right, this is the only genre that do this, it's funny.
Those 4 different types of MMO's may be niche, the rest are just copies.
LOL i can't really disagree with that. I've been screaming for variety in the genre for years.
Lets see we have UO,EQ then AO and DAoC basically every MMO out today is a copy off of those four games.
I think the only MMos that added some variety in the genre since those four were Eve and Planetside.
Since we've had nothing but clones. Almost pisses me off that I've stuck to the genre this long.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
Less than 100,000, I'm pretty sure. I agree that it qualifies as mainstream, despite a higher than usual attention to PvP.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
EVE is often held up as a "successful" sandbox game (which it is) but at the same time people also seem to think this is a good indicator of how successful "most" sandbox games would be. I disagree with this premise.
EVE has a couple of game design features which limits its audience considerably:
1) Sci Fi based. Fantasy based would likely draw a wider player base.
2) Real time skill training - some players want to their own time/effort in the game to be rewarded and not set to a fixed rate.
3) PVP with looting
4) Combat system does not include free flight controls, preferred by a number of players
5) Slower paced in many ways, patience is a virtue in game but not every player has it.
6) Avatars - seems to be big sticking point for many people.
So, I think if one were to design a sandbox game with a different variation on the above features it could draw in a significantly greater proportion of players. Perhaps never near WOW numbers, but certainly I would think 500K-1M subs would be in reach.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think the problem is not necessarily the fact that Themeparks sell better, it's that directed content is easier for marketing people to understand, therefore gets more focused marketing pushes. Sandbox content scares the hell out of marketing people/execs/shareholders because the control is not in their hands, but in the hands of the players. That makes it a roll of the dice. Therefore it's harder to justify to the beancounters that your sandbox mmo will sell well, when Themeparks can easily be broken down into 'fun features'.
Isn't in sandbox games player supposed to make goal/direction themselves? Look at The Sims, SimCity, and Spore for example.
Interesting thought. I do like how EVE market their game though, especially the Butterfly Effect video.
The sad thing is, it almost looks like we're only getting copies of DAoC (or AC) nowadays.. even going back to UO/EQ/AO style would be quite refreshing right now, which is funny in a way.
Isn't in sandbox games player supposed to make goal/direction themselves? Look at The Sims, SimCity, and Spore for example.
Yes, but that kind of goal is, at least in my opinion, kind of artificial. I think many of us want to achieve a goal the game has set for us- if we make our own goals, we may achieve them but we can never get the feeling that we have 'beaten' the game. And while MMO's can rarely be 'beaten', smaller goals like leveling a character to cap are more realistic to achieve.
The sad thing is, it almost looks like we're only getting copies of DAoC (or AC) nowadays.. even going back to UO/EQ/AO style would be quite refreshing right now, which is funny in a way.
Where's the copy of DAoC? I haven't seen one.
Well I have never played it, but I heard WoW borrows a lot of things from it. Of course I'm most likely wrong though
.
thing is the people that want something extremely different are the vast minority. For every Metalhead we have a couple thousand casuals who could care less.
Thats why the change must happen sloowly~
Eve isn't a new game, a lot of it's success is built on a strong niche player base that has expanded due to improved distribution of the game recently, and also through good patching and expansion of the original game, but, it's still played by only a few hundred 1000s of players.
Because, historically, they don't make as much money.
*Sigh* Once again, the forums are not a typical slice of the MMORPG customer. The only thing the publishers are interested in are actual sales figures, and they say, "Sandbox MMOs don't sell."
That line reminded me of Microsoft and Marvel Universe Online. Microsoft realized they wouldn't make WoW bucks so they pulled it.
But another go at it? I hope Gazillion E. will be able to do it proper. I would really like to play in the Marvel Universe.
Are you saying that you think game design direction is dictated by marketing, or are you saying that these games do have a lot of sandbox like features but marketing won't sell those features and, as such, the consumer - who is obviously just as stupid as marketing - never finds these locked away features?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
The feeling of destroy the bridge that raider often uses to cross to harass my town is quite satisfy me as being achievable in a short time, especially the feeling that I have make the area safer for another 1,000 players who are on my side. Yet, the raiders could start building the bridge again at anytime when they have managed to gather enough wood.
It's the acknowledge that your in-game action does affect others that control by real player could ease the artificial achievement feeling, maybe?
I'm talking about a bit longer, harder to achieve goals in a "what do I want to accomplish in this game"-way.
But yes, that you can affect others is a nice benefit. I like that feeling too, although I do it in a themepark games by helping others in different way; not by destroying bridges but helping out on a quest or leveling for example. It's not as complicated and 'real' way to affect others, but I think it's still as rewarding.
I always expect MMORPG to be more of a social game where there is no ending to the game as one clear goal. Some player would like to explore every corner of the game world, while some want to craft and trade item to be the richest in the game. When such player reach their first goal, they start to think of a new goal to achieve. As in real life, what do we have as our long term goal? Everyone has different goal to aim for before they die. Once we reach that goal by any chance, we create a new goal to keep our life entertain. Where in theme park MMORPG do have clear ending to work toward. That's just my opinion toward sandbox game where I can live another life as fantasy character carry sword and shield and explore new land which I could not be in real life. But I do understand that everyone have different preference about this type of virtual reality.
I'm not so sure why such type of open world would not suitable with majority of players where anything could be possible. Could be the different concept and ideas of what exactly 'sandbox' is in most people? I believe that if one sandbox can managed to get itself to be popular, many more sandbox would follow. It's the problem that there is no clear example of successful sandbox to prove to the developer and investor to believe that sandbox would be worthwhile to develops. Just have to cross the finger that indie developer out there can managed to create something that will hit the spot.
I found helping player doing the same quest again and again is repetitive as well as raiding the same place again and again and know exactly where the mobs are and what tactics we have to uses to bypass them. At least something that keep changing would be nice.
Am I going off topic? I feel like I'm going off topic...
There is no ending to an MMO, but in themepark the goals we can achieve are more clearly visible, imo. You can get your character to level cap as one class, or level a craft to max level.. or clear all the quests in the game, or get the ultimate sword of doom. In sandbox these goals aren't as apparent, or even impossible to achieve.. how could you finish every quest in the game if there is no definition of 'quest' or if every player can make their own quests? It'd be harder to work towards that kind of goal, I think.
While I think that nothing stops sandbox game from being hugely popular, I don't think the change can happen in just one game. I think transition is needed for that to happen; make a themepark game with sandboxy elements, then start piling up the sandbox features while leaving out the themepark ones. I wouldn't mind mixing the two up completely either though.
Nothing stops themepark games from being random, although the randomness is not as apparent as it'd be in a sandbox game. Mobs need better AI, the raid could change significantly every time you enter it, and so on.
There are endings in an mmo, either: completion of the game, boredom and quit or the game closing. Non-linear in theory would give a game more scope for players, but in reality non-stated objectives can appear and once completed game-over.
No designed ending, no. Or it's out of everyone's reach (except maybe ~10 brave nolifers)
I do like the idea of being theme park combine with sandbox, but I would prefer developer to concentrate on keep developing for the exist hybrid rather than create a totally complete different game where it would require me to disband my own character and start a new one. Graphics could be improve with the new engine when time come, but I can see it can affect the player who does not want to upgrade.
The concept of sandbox itself would place itself to where community would lead it to. I can see why most company don't want to take the risk because they does not know where the game would lead to. GM control monster as seen in Ultima Online and The Lord of the Rings Online (Amarthiel's event) was a nice touch, and I would like to see it happen more often.
It does feel weird when I did an epic quest, and join other player who did the same epic quest of killing the same boss. It just pop in my mind that "I just kill that guy 15 minutes ago..." and it does reduce my sense of role-playing in a fantasy world when I can see game mechanic quite clearly. That's just my thought on current MMORPG anyway.
I'm sure majority of developer see the complexity of sandbox as well, and that's what push them away toward something that has clearer future, by using the formula of what being success at that time instead of try something different. It's like wondering why art film does not become mainstream, but we can see that sometime mainstream do borrow the idea from art/experimental film. With more support toward experimental MMO, it could drive developer to be more creative. But the question is who will be funding those experimental pieces?
Richard Garriott used money on his space journey instead of improve his games, but I can't blame him... ::)
Your "disagreement" is completely meaningless. People on forums are not representative. Just look at how many members are there on this forum, and what is the percentage of them in say 11M wow players.
Companies do market research. In fact, nick yee's site has some survey and stuff about what people want on MMOs, and sandbox is NOT one of them.
People don't know what they want.
People don't know what they want.
Spoken as someone who firmly believes in democracy...
Perhaps companies would be more willing to listen to sandbox advocates if they were actually supporting what few companies try to please them. Posting wish lists riddled with unbalanced hard to manage features doesnt seem like it will help your cause one bit...
Just to make things clear...
I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.