I just want to put in how I honestly felt like a decade ago in this post because I don't remember ever posting about them but only praising Sandbox MMOs.
Based on my experience playing a sandbox mmo and switching to play a themepark mmo for the first time felt like switching over to play a dumbed-down game. At the time I've never heard of raids/dungeons before but only of grouping up with people and fighting tough mobs throughout the world. I never understood the concept of it or the enjoyment of doing raids/dungeons.
SWG was so ahead of its time put in excellent ideas that I liked and couldn't leave that game and stuck with it for so many years. When SWG wanted to be WoW it went down the toilet and some of my friends who switched over from SWG to WoW wanted me to try WoW. Those friends like WoW, its just me now trying the game out for the first time. Playing that just wasn't the same and after playing SWTOR I felt the same way.
I've been looking for the next SWG ever since and its coming but years away. Even with SWG's flaws it was the greatest MMO I've ever played with the greatest ideas. But now I matured as a gamer over time and enjoy WoW for what it is.
I can go on forever talking about this topic man.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
After 24 pages of this thread - one thing is becoming clear - this entire topic grows more pointless each passing day as both sandboxes and themeparks are become less relevant.
If this thread stays around for a few more years - it will turn into a pager vs blackberry discussion - with people realizing they're discussing things whose time has passed.
What if the terms sandbox and themepark are essentially meaningless in an mmoRPG context? We haven't got a consensus on a definition after all these years. Perhaps there aren't definition? I suspect too much of it is based on "feelings".
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
After 24 pages of this thread - one thing is becoming clear - this entire topic grows more pointless each passing day as both sandboxes and themeparks are become less relevant.
If this thread stays around for a few more years - it will turn into a pager vs blackberry discussion - with people realizing they're discussing things whose time has passed.
What if the terms sandbox and themepark are essentially meaningless in an mmoRPG context? We haven't got a consensus on a definition after all these years. Perhaps there aren't definition? I suspect too much of it is based on "feelings".
You don't need consensus on a definition for there to be a definition. People can be wrong you know.
I think there is a comfortable place between a sandbox and theme park
I kind of agree but would like to point out that a sandbox and themepark hybrid can take many different forms. So far it's mostly taken the form of sandbox content splashed into a themepark world.
I think themepark content splashed into a sandbox world would ultimately yield the best results.
After 24 pages of this thread - one thing is becoming clear - this entire topic grows more pointless each passing day as both sandboxes and themeparks are become less relevant.
If this thread stays around for a few more years - it will turn into a pager vs blackberry discussion - with people realizing they're discussing things whose time has passed.
I have to disagree with that. There is a huge difference between the sub genres and I do not see these sub genres merging anytime in the near future. On one hand you have the strict confines of a themepark and granted some of them at least attempt to give you some flexibility, but you are still basically locked into their design choices. On the other side of the coin you have freedom of choice in developing your character and potentially it's surroundings.
I think the problem that people have with these sub genres is that there are no really good sandboxes out there right now to compare to. They get confused with games like ArchAge with people attempting to call them sandboxes when they clearly are not. Games like Darkfall confuse people too, that full loot pvp is a necessary part of a sandbox. It can be, but it really depends how it is implemented.
If there is a common ground, noone has found it yet. Guess we will have to wait to see what the future brings.
sandbox = dev create a world and dynamic events/quest. player create their own story, endless possibilities
themepark = dev create a story, player just follow the path, perhaps 2,3 different ending
I still consider dynamic events mroe theme park than sandbox...Sandbox to me means I can go where I wanna go and do what I wanna do......Problem is in msot of them its boring to do anything......Themeparks are just as bad as all you do is follow some pre written script and go thru the motions to end game.
Sandbox will always win over theme park to me. I wish the mmorpg market would of followed the Ultima Online path rather than the EQ path. The mmorpg market would be in a much better state, and not full of wow clones which WoW was just a clone of EQ so there you have it.
Themepark means yellow markers over npc heads and on maps and full of hand holding and VERY linear.
Sandbox is a mis-used term that is used right now to mean ,less content ,less effort. I don't like what either stands for.
If you claim to be making a mmorpg then i EXPECT to see ideals and design that support BOTH the MMO and the RPG.That does NOT mean what the normal public has accepted as mmorpg,but instead what is actually MMO and RPG by definition.
Example rpg does NOT mean level numbers MMO does not mean multiple players that LOGIN,you have to actually SUPPORT the structure beyond a login screen.This would be similar to going to a baseball game,just because i passed though the turnstile and handed my ticket in,does not mean i am officially watching a baseball game.Sitting in the seat does no mean i am watching a baseball game,there actually has to be REAL LIVE elements that support an actual baseball game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
SWG was the best game ever... I am playing SWTOR for now, I wont lie though it's not the same. Not even close. Granted I find SWTOR to be a solid game and definitely worth your time if you like star wars..
Playing or interested in playing SWTOR? Use my referral link here and we will both get rewards! Including a week of game time for you, if you are a preferred status player! Click here for more info!
I think we should learn something from the movie industry.
Remakes and Sequels are not often as successful as the Originals.
There are a few exceptions to this rule:
Star Wars Indiana Jones The Lord of the Rings some superhero films
However, most of the time, the exceptions are the cases where the sequels were actually continuations and completions of a longer story.
So, I don't know why people in the game industry allowed themselves to believe so fervently for so long that they could had a good chance of becoming just as successful as Everquest or World of Warcraft by producing Remakes and Sequels.
You can't re-invent the wheel, but you can certainly re-invent MMORPGs anytime you want.
I just want to say, I notice people make assumptions whenever I mention I want to PvP in sandbox mainly over themepark.
They think I want a mostly PvP mmo which is not the case. It baffles me when they mention Darkfall or mention FFA OPvP. In terms of mmorpgs, 90 percent PvP, 10 percent PvE is a recipe for failure.
I agree with this I think, if you mean what I think you do. I also prefer a 90/10 PvE to PvP experience in an open world MMORPG. This means most of the time I'm doing PvE. In fact I'd say 95 percent or more has been PvE.
It's mainly the element of danger makes me prefer it over pure PvE.
I really like sandboxes. When I first played Everquest, I always imagined building houses and cities would be a standard element of MMORPGs. Back then I thought it was just a natural way to improve them. I still feel the same now.
That was what I liked so mcuh about Ultima Online.
Now I'm playing Wurm Online. It's very grindy I guess, but it's what I hoped MMORPGs would become. Only thing it's missing are more interesting monsters, both above and below the surface. I'd like to see the monsters make camps or forts and present more of a challenge for players. On PvE servers this could compensate for the lack of content in the combat portion. I'd also like true 3d tunnels. It focuses so much of its development on building, I think this part of it's negelected.
Well it's missing that and perhaps bettter mechanics for the skills and the villages. At present its design makes village life more grindy.
I just want to say, I notice people make assumptions whenever I mention I want to PvP in sandbox mainly over themepark.
They think I want a mostly PvP mmo which is not the case. It baffles me when they mention Darkfall or mention FFA OPvP. In terms of mmorpgs, 90 percent PvP, 10 percent PvE is a recipe for failure.
I agree with this I think, if you mean what I think you do. I also prefer a 90/10 PvE to PvP experience in an open world MMORPG. This means most of the time I'm doing PvE. In fact I'd say 95 percent or more has been PvE.
It's mainly the element of danger makes me prefer it over pure PvE.
That is also a recipe for failure, there has to be some kind of balance to make the entire universe of an mmo go around. Neglecting faction conflict makes it less of a full mmo experience and nerfs immersion. I want to see a lot going on, complex crafting, a war going on at some player's city, deep economy etc. I want to see each feature of the mmo to connect to each other if you know what I mean. Every feature and aspect is important for an mmo experience. Sure you can say some mmos(majority PvE, minority PvP 90 percent PvE 10 percent PvP as you say) like WoW have been successful in terms of selling their game and having many subscribers.
But to me personally when I want to feel like I'm living in a whole new other universe you can't neglect a single feature. I did imply PvP is my cup of tea and something that I like to participate in often but doesn't mean I'm looking for darkfall or something like that nor does it mean that I'm looking for a 90 percent PvE 10 percent PvP mmo.
I bolded my important points fyi.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wurm_Online
Based on my experience playing a sandbox mmo and switching to play a themepark mmo for the first time felt like switching over to play a dumbed-down game. At the time I've never heard of raids/dungeons before but only of grouping up with people and fighting tough mobs throughout the world. I never understood the concept of it or the enjoyment of doing raids/dungeons.
SWG was so ahead of its time put in excellent ideas that I liked and couldn't leave that game and stuck with it for so many years. When SWG wanted to be WoW it went down the toilet and some of my friends who switched over from SWG to WoW wanted me to try WoW. Those friends like WoW, its just me now trying the game out for the first time. Playing that just wasn't the same and after playing SWTOR I felt the same way.
I've been looking for the next SWG ever since and its coming but years away. Even with SWG's flaws it was the greatest MMO I've ever played with the greatest ideas. But now I matured as a gamer over time and enjoy WoW for what it is.
I can go on forever talking about this topic man.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
What if the terms sandbox and themepark are essentially meaningless in an mmoRPG context? We haven't got a consensus on a definition after all these years. Perhaps there aren't definition? I suspect too much of it is based on "feelings".
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I think themepark content splashed into a sandbox world would ultimately yield the best results.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
themepark = dev create a story, player just follow the path, perhaps 2,3 different ending
I think the problem that people have with these sub genres is that there are no really good sandboxes out there right now to compare to. They get confused with games like ArchAge with people attempting to call them sandboxes when they clearly are not. Games like Darkfall confuse people too, that full loot pvp is a necessary part of a sandbox. It can be, but it really depends how it is implemented.
If there is a common ground, noone has found it yet. Guess we will have to wait to see what the future brings.
Personally, I think it should be the best of both, combined into one.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
Sandbox is a mis-used term that is used right now to mean ,less content ,less effort.
I don't like what either stands for.
If you claim to be making a mmorpg then i EXPECT to see ideals and design that support BOTH the MMO and the RPG.That does NOT mean what the normal public has accepted as mmorpg,but instead what is actually MMO and RPG by definition.
Example rpg does NOT mean level numbers
MMO does not mean multiple players that LOGIN,you have to actually SUPPORT the structure beyond a login screen.This would be similar to going to a baseball game,just because i passed though the turnstile and handed my ticket in,does not mean i am officially watching a baseball game.Sitting in the seat does no mean i am watching a baseball game,there actually has to be REAL LIVE elements that support an actual baseball game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Remakes and Sequels are not often as successful as the Originals.
There are a few exceptions to this rule:
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
The Lord of the Rings
some superhero films
However, most of the time, the exceptions are the cases where the sequels were actually continuations and completions of a longer story.
So, I don't know why people in the game industry allowed themselves to believe so fervently for so long that they could had a good chance of becoming just as successful as Everquest or World of Warcraft by producing Remakes and Sequels.
You can't re-invent the wheel, but you can certainly re-invent MMORPGs anytime you want.
It's mainly the element of danger makes me prefer it over pure PvE.
I really like sandboxes. When I first played Everquest, I always imagined building houses and cities would be a standard element of MMORPGs. Back then I thought it was just a natural way to improve them. I still feel the same now.
That was what I liked so mcuh about Ultima Online.
Now I'm playing Wurm Online. It's very grindy I guess, but it's what I hoped MMORPGs would become. Only thing it's missing are more interesting monsters, both above and below the surface. I'd like to see the monsters make camps or forts and present more of a challenge for players. On PvE servers this could compensate for the lack of content in the combat portion. I'd also like true 3d tunnels. It focuses so much of its development on building, I think this part of it's negelected.
Well it's missing that and perhaps bettter mechanics for the skills and the villages. At present its design makes village life more grindy.
But to me personally when I want to feel like I'm living in a whole new other universe you can't neglect a single feature. I did imply PvP is my cup of tea and something that I like to participate in often but doesn't mean I'm looking for darkfall or something like that nor does it mean that I'm looking for a 90 percent PvE 10 percent PvP mmo.
I bolded my important points fyi.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.