Im similar and avoid open world pvp in general although I do like the eve model where some areas are safer than others and playing smart means you can avoid most trouble - it adds a nice edge to the game.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I would play a sandbox game if they would design one that doesnt include FFA PvP. Or should I say FFA PvP in all areas, especially the noobie zones.
I do enjoy PvP alot, but in these kinds of games nowdays PvP boils down to griefing more often than not. Wonder why Darkfall is stagnant and not growing?? Everyone who tries the game gets rolled right out of the gate, again and again. With no chance at all.
Fun for some I am sure, just not me. People say if you dont enjoy FFA PvP then dont play these sandboxes ( shrug ) I dont and neither do alot of people apparently.
IMO make a sandbox with FFA PvP in certain areas and Sandbox PvE areas so people who enjoy both can play. Catering to the FFA PvP or nothing crowd has not worked out well so far.....
Just my 2cp
This is not really something Origin couldn't have told us in the late 90s, UO lost players due to severe griefing and tried to limit it to keep the players.
I can understand that people talk about absolut freedom and so on, but the fact is really that there never been any society in the world where just could go out and kill random people (including your own kind) without punishment.
I however think that with the right tools you can have players who enforce the rules and hunt fugitives which would hold the griefing down. The game would need classes or orders that gets rewarded for keeping the law (and punished for not).
Still, this is not really the problem with current sandbox games, the base problem is just that they are not good enough, usually due to low budget and inexperienced devs. A good coded sandbox made by experienced devs would have to solve the issue of overgriefing, but Darkfall wouldn't be a large game even if it had PvE only servers. Don't get me wrong, DF have many good ideas but the team just can't make them as good as they should be.
Im similar and avoid open world pvp in general although I do like the eve model where some areas are safer than others and playing smart means you can avoid most trouble - it adds a nice edge to the game.
You nailed it. It wouldn't be hard to have zones in a fantasy mmorpg where you have lawless zones and zones that are heavily patrolled.
ah wait lol, I posted a tounge in cheek comment in another forum below (im actually a sandbox fan etc and think SWTOR is good but not for me) and someone complained. Guess not all get ironic scottish humour, better go easy on those youngsters after all!
I am not being rude but, omg what an elitist sandboxer idiot, you clearly havent actually really played or understood SWTOR and are not capable of having fun. Ofc I read the thread!
Lol, explaining preferances in taste isn't easy. Someone at the pub tried to explain to me why Justin Timberlake were our times Beethoven a while ago...
But I think we can agree that you can make good games of any type and genre and bad ones. That doesn't mean everyone should play all the games, CIV 5 is a great game but someone just liking FPS wont enjoy it anyways.
The real question of this thread is i there is enough people enjoying a sandbox game to make it commercially possible to make a AAA sandbox again. I think it is.
It also ask us why so few people play current sandbox games, my personal opinion is that they aren't good enough.
Sandbox people (and many others as well) might hate Wow but would still kill to get Blizzards programmers to code a new sandbox.
You nailed it. It wouldn't be hard to have zones in a fantasy mmorpg where you have lawless zones and zones that are heavily patrolled.
Agreed, there are several possibly solutions to that.
The question is who should patrol them?
Players, NPCs or just some kind of watchtowers? Or for that matter a set mechanic?
The last one just plain suck. NPCs have advantages but they are rather stupid and it ain't particularly "sandboxy".
A set mechanic is easiest but it do limit the choices of people.
As for players you need to motivate people to keep the law, like having a knight class that gets some kind of ranks for stopping crimes and catch criminals.
The main games I have followed to some degree have been DF and MO. Both by inexperienced Devs with good ideas but poor implementation.
All I am saying is add structure or layers if you will to the sandbox. If I wanna PvP i go to "red zones" If after work i wanna chill, gather and chat i stay in the "blue zones".
I started my MMO gaming with DAoC. I may be biased because of that but so far they are the only ones I think got PvP and PvE right.
I spent 1000s of hours in the frontiers over the course of 5+ years. Much PvP fun, both solo and grouped. But if the guild was doing a Dragon raid at 10pm then it was time to get some PvE on. Most people enjoy both aspects. I just dont understand why thats such a hard concept for Devs.
Seems sandbox = FFA PvP or nothing. And thats fine for a small niche, but thats all that want full time FFA PvP.
So no sandbox for me or anyone I know and game with until that changes. I am not holding my breath....
You nailed it. It wouldn't be hard to have zones in a fantasy mmorpg where you have lawless zones and zones that are heavily patrolled.
Agreed, there are several possibly solutions to that.
The question is who should patrol them?
Players, NPCs or just some kind of watchtowers? Or for that matter a set mechanic?
The last one just plain suck. NPCs have advantages but they are rather stupid and it ain't particularly "sandboxy".
A set mechanic is easiest but it do limit the choices of people.
As for players you need to motivate people to keep the law, like having a knight class that gets some kind of ranks for stopping crimes and catch criminals.
Well if it's in the realm of an NPC kingdom NPC guard patrols and watchtowers. Maybe even add to that by letting players enlist and get cash/xp for taking out criminals inside the kindoms boarders.
I'm starting to think sandboxes are failing because players and developers on the sandbox bandwagon equate sandbox to hardcore.
If you had a good sandbox game with the the benefits and ease of use of a popular themepark game you would have a winner. But for some reason ease of use and sandbox never goes hand in hand with game devs.
I think a big problem is simply the use of the term sandbox. It means something different to everyone, and to a lot of people it means hardcore.
Sandbox proponents need to show off their vocabular and actually promote the specifics of what they want and stop throwing around the Sandbox term.
Well most Sandboxes out there are just uncomfortable, and their few players jump on you when you start suggesting that stuff like tab-Targeting, a good UI and proper polished GFX would need to be looked at.
Hell for some Sandbox is only for the real Hardcore nerds (shit GFX, haggling around to target , fighting the UI more than your opponent) and yet freedom to play like you see fit. Fallen Earth is one of those.
Too bad that doesnt meet my requirements to be interested in a game to spend time in. I like to hit Tab or a intuitive UI, smart ability triggering and all that stuff that is state of the art now.
But having a good polished game doesnt make it a Themepark.
Any MMO structure will work if it's well designed and a good game. People play good games. Simple as that.
The main issue here is that there haven't been any well funded/designed sandbox MMOs in a long while. As game worlds become larger in scale and AI gets better, companies will shift back over to sandbox games because they provide more freedom. However, we sit in a market right now that isn't familiar with them and until someone proves they can do a good one, we have nothing more to go on.
They can be done. They can be done well. The other thing you have to remember is that if you truely make a good sandbox game, it's not going to just be a PvP game. A good sandbox game would allow for good everything; crafting, PvE, PvP, socialism, character development. When you market or design a game as a PvP or PvE game from the get go, you already have limited what you can do. And MO and Darkfall both went the route of PvP focused - and both were designed by underfunded amatuer dev teams and implemented poorly.
Anyway. MMOs are young in game years. It's one of the newer genres - and it's also the SLOWEST evolving genre out there. Things take a long time to progress in this genre as well developed MMOs take 5-6 years to create. Check back in 2020 and we'll re-evaluate the MMO scene. Check back in 2030 and I bet that most games will be Sandbox.
No one dedicates a serious budget to their development.
And for some reason people seem to think that a Sandbox games just HAS to have FFA full loot PVP.
As much fun as that is for some of us, it's a sure-fire way to make sure that a game will never have enough subs to survive.
That..and developers keep forgetting to put enough sand in the box.
Pretty much it. How it came to that was because of WoW's unprecedented success in '04-'05 timeframe. Everyone took notice of WoW's characteristics and tried to copy it. SOE took it so far as to completely alter an existing Sandbox game that already had subscribers, SWG, and alter it into a Themepark that tried to copy WoW. The result was the loss of the vast majority of players SWG once had, and never recovered since.
Again, developers and companies WANT the Themepark / WoW Model of gaming. How can millions of customers for WoW be wrong?
From that point onwards, any game that doesn't follow the WoW Model of gaming, i.e. Themepark, is guaranteed to not have good financial backing. Only indies will try it now, and it shows in their results that they don't have the big bucks and resources to pull it off.
EVE doesn't quite count as a new Sandbox title towards success since it came out in '03. But I do credit it for still succeeding in an ocean full of Themepark games.
Edit to add: Back in '04, maybe early '05, when I was still in SWG, I recall some players talking about WoW. Personally, the features described about WoW never interested me. But some of the guys talked about how WoW's huge, completely lopsided success in the MMORPG genre spelled doom for the genre as a whole. "Doom" in the way that future gameplay will all try to follow WoW's example and killing any diversity in the genre. I thought back then my friends were worrying too much. Fast forward a few years later, even from '07, but most definitely by '08, and you can see how gameplay diversity went out the window. If it doesn't follow the WoW / Themepark model, it's not considered at all for development. End of that. And the genre has not recovered since.
Sure, there are more players today than what was done before '04, but the gameplay and community over the years had steadily gone worse.
Also want to back this up: Sandbox =/= FFA full loot PvP.
The 2nd point I highlighted is crucial for a good Sandbox. Freedom of gameplay, IMO, is the foundation of a good Sandbox game. And that Freedom requires a wide variety of worthwhile activities to engage in outside of just combat.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The lack of sandbox players and the lack of sandbox AAA titles is a self-perpetuating problem at the moment.
Right now there is only one current sandbox MMO that can even be considered AAA - EVE. And let's remember that EVE was born as an indie game that succeeded and has grown into an AAA-level MMO over many years. We also need to realize that, even when we set aside the sandbox vs theme park argument, EVE is a very niche game. Sci-fi, and sci-fi limited to ship/space, is not nearly as popular in the MMORPG scene as on-the-ground fantasy with a humanoid avatar. This lack of good, current sandbox MMOs inevitably leads to a lack of sandbox players. Sure we love MMORPG sandboxes, but most of us enjoy single player games and other genres too. Just because we would love playing a good sandbox does not mean most of us will play the lackluster C-grade sandboxes we have available to us.
This lack of current players makes the sandbox MMORPG market an unknown. An expensive AAA sandbox could succeed big, but predicting that success is impossible when so many other development factors can ruin a game's popularity. On the other hand there is ample indication that a good theme park MMO will be profitable so sinking your capital into one of those is an almost sure bet. Sure it'll likely not be the stunning success that WoW is, but there are dozen's of WoW clones out there that are not in the red. So everyone out there with the money to back an AAA title is jumping on the theme-park bandwagon (or shall I say ride).
The bottom line is it's unlikely we'll see an AAA sandbox in the near future. Unfortunately it could be anywhere from years to a good decade till we see one. The bright side is that sooner or later it is bound to appear because the status quo, even a wildly popular one, only works for so long before it becomes stale. Maybe it'll be a sandbox developer like CCP wanting to break into a new setting. Maybe it'll be an established big name who will finally decide to take a big risk for a potential WoW-level hit into an undertapped market. Maybe it'll be a small indie sandbox that hits the right appeal buttons to become a runaway hit.
Sandboxes dont work because they aren't full sandboxes. everyone has to do combat and many people have to lose and no one wants to be the loser. also, the genre we're talking about isn't a sandbox. the term is wrongly used. Second Life is a sandbox game ultima online is a themepark where you have to tighten the bolts on the rides.
i would prefer a solution where the players or a special guard class/role take care for law. but i cant imagine, how it should work. at least i never saw it work.
a system like in EVE is possible in a fantasy world. just impelement some NPCs like EVEs Concorde. they are all mages e.g. Teleporters. as soon as you kill somebody, they teleport to you and instakill you. job done. or even simpler. the gods do not allow to kill people. if you murder, a 1 million DMG flash hits you. if there is no temple in a zone, its FFA. such simple.
A solution where players take care of the law will never work because there is no way to ensure the availability, dedication and fairness of the players in that role. In real life these things are ensured by the consequences on these freedom/career if they do not do their jobs properly (and even so we have corruption and abuses of power). All these things become of little value in a world where one respawns, can create alts or can leave forever for a different world.
No idea. Sandbox MMOs would be easier to develop long term and would have a higher survivability in the market.
Quest based Themepark MMOs inherently leave a trail of static content that 95% of the community use once and never look at again. The dev team is in a permanent race with the playerbase to keep them entertained.
My biggest experience with sandbox was PreCU SWG and none of the content ever became useless. You could be a full point char and there was still benefit in buffing and going out back of Kaadra and killing Mummer thugs. Because of the the rolling mat spawns a good Tat wooly saw a spike in Bantha farming. It was a good game world. Most of the bugs and problems were related to the theme parks that got added. The sandbox aspect was well done.
- Afterthought: Prelaunch development (the time spent with no income) is much, much, much higher. Spilling out a poorly developed sandbox equals empty world with no content. FF14 is a good example. Half done. nothing to do but grind your ass off, cap out and wait for a new game. So a successfull sandbox means alot more polish and no levels because levels convert all content to momentary usefullness.
What i felt SWG lacked at the start was meaningful content. If you recall they started putting in Galactic Civil war stuff or events which were fun content ( quest based ) areas. That said, what i remember early on was SWG development constantly bogged down in class balancing and never really getting rapid content and event development off the ground.
SWG was a great sandbox, that said SOE really stumbled in keeping that world evolving. I think that is the key part, the world has to evolve over time and the players should have impact in how the world evolves. If someone can capture that, it could be a fantastic experience for all.
No idea. Sandbox MMOs would be easier to develop long term and would have a higher survivability in the market.
Quest based Themepark MMOs inherently leave a trail of static content that 95% of the community use once and never look at again. The dev team is in a permanent race with the playerbase to keep them entertained.
This is my biggest gripe with themeparks. You just purchased your 3rd expansion pack for your said themepark game, making expansion pack content and any other updates from expansion 1 and 2 useless.
i would prefer a solution where the players or a special guard class/role take care for law. but i cant imagine, how it should work. at least i never saw it work.
a system like in EVE is possible in a fantasy world. just impelement some NPCs like EVEs Concorde. they are all mages e.g. Teleporters. as soon as you kill somebody, they teleport to you and instakill you. job done. or even simpler. the gods do not allow to kill people. if you murder, a 1 million DMG flash hits you. if there is no temple in a zone, its FFA. such simple.
yup i agree with that, eve in a fantasy setting, mages (or clerics) suddeny appearing and freezing/nuking. Complete with insurance on gear and even suicide ganking would work.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
But hence the point of "Role-Playing". I like playing the hack and slash murderous beast. I don't like crafting. But, in games like Rift or WoW I can do both. Hell, I can do just about everything on my own. If it was a true RPG, players with "twitch" or "talent" need players who enjoy crafting, guild building, gathering, trading, theiving, etc.
The problem with these games is that fighting takes no skill. So anyone can go out and fight anyone as long as their gear is better. But, not everyone has the patience or skillset to do the other things. If you want to eliminate or REDUCE ganking in MMOs, you need to make fighting skill based. But, make those fighters have to rely on people to craft perishable armor and weapons, and those people rely on gatherers and so on and so forth.
I think if a games industiral aspects are interesting enough, if fighting is tougher, but not impossible (ie. killing NPCs that even the gumpiest player can handle), everyone is happier than just one or the other.
My main concerin about Sandboxes, is if the new generation has the mental strength to understand unfairness and inequality. They certainly are quite a bit more sensitive than my generation and it is ruining my gaming experience. People need to understand Risk/Reward, Business Ethics (or lack there of), Training for Skill naturally not by getting a reward for going through the motions. In life there are areas where everyone can succeed. This point you made beautifully. Why can't people accept these in video games? Seems to me, all the "older' players prefer that to the way Themparks do it.
Opinions?
The thing is older gamers are the minority in gaming it is sad, but yet true we are well out numbered as such the younger generation is who they gear their games to. Also it is that they do not want to pay for being fustrated, annoyed or just plain out down in game. Most gamers in mmos want to enjoy their time, relax , f they wish (that is the big thing here.) go and do somethign that is difficult in the game. We have had a great number of years in mmos to enjoy them, but now i see way too many people saying that since they were here first that their playstyle should be the norm of the games. Also in many cases making a game mre skill based leads to more ganking as that player that wants to enjoy his day in game, s not as skilled as a vet in the game leading to his death (with in many cases no chance to win as thier difference in skills is too large.), players that want to gank put in more time to get good enouph to take out those that are theri to have fun.
I think what many older gamers need to come to uunderstand is that you are talking about a game, not the stanly cup, or your mother silverware. To many a game is to have fun in, risk/reward is fun to some and hell to others, having to treat the game like a job is kjust not what they paid money and a sub to do in game. People talk abotu how their playing exeperince is being impared by the newer mmos gamers, but yet the new generation of them is larger so who's gaming experince is more important? People talk abotu learning to deal with unfairness and inequality, but then say that since they were there first that the game should catter thier style of play, while they are being unfair to the gamers that are the majority, annd maybe should take a pil of unfairness in that theur style is now extinct overall. THe mmo gamers that want these things are not taking it well that the games are treating them unfairly by making them play hwo the majority desire to, and this inequality. Good business sense is to mark your game to the largest group to make your money bacck quickly, while trying to keep a good primary base of players to keep it running, but marketing it to a mnority group with only seeing it get bac what is spent in the game after several years of play s not a bad idea although s a worse option.
Agreed.
Specifically the reason I think sandboxes dont appeal to the majority is cause they focus on 2 things....PVP and the RP gamer. The RP gamer thinks playing the role of an Uncle Owen, where they can sell their virtually produced goods is what gaming is about. The PVP hardcore gamer sees any type of combat, other than against others, as a waste of time.
The problem being is that PVE gamers outnumber these 2 groups by a large margin in MMOs. Themeparks focus on the PVE area, and provide a bit of content to folks wishing to get some PVP/Owen play in. They dont require a person to farm money to support Uncle Owen having a forced dependancy. The players get to loot their gear due to completing content.
It would be a hard enough sell for PVP/Owen, but for some reason a game isnt a "true" sandbox unless folks are allowed to gank/grief others. Sandboxes are already on the short end of the stick, and then they allow their PVP gamers to drive off the Owens/low levels.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
I'm raising 3 future sandbox players so the market will change one day. =P
Also FFA Full loot PvP is not a requirement to be a sandbox. However I think a system similar to EvE online where you can have a lot of zones that are safe and never have to leave them and zones that are PvP and lawless. In EvE I can PvE and mine in saftey or I can go to low sec to blow some shit up or with a mining op for high priced ore.
Would people stop claiming Skyrim is a sandbox. It most defnitely is not. It' a just a more flexible then normal Themepark. At least arguably so. A solid Sandbox game (post-early SWG) requires more non-combat related goals to be considered Sandbox. Can you sit somewhere and heal damaged NPCs to earn a living? Can you 'perform' in order to buff/heal? I don't think so. Besides play Skyrim more then once and you'll see just how scripted it all is. Not very flexible at all really.
Would people stop claiming Skyrim is a sandbox. It most defnitely is not. It' a just a more flexible then normal Themepark. At least arguably so. A solid Sandbox game (post-early SWG) requires more non-combat related goals to be considered Sandbox. Can you sit somewhere and heal damaged NPCs to earn a living? Can you 'perform' in order to buff/heal? I don't think so. Besides play Skyrim more then once and you'll see just how scripted it all is. Not very flexible at all really.
I'd say if you could pick a random spot and build a house, start a village or farm, or build a castle then it would be a sandbox. As it is now it is theme park.
Would people stop claiming Skyrim is a sandbox. It most defnitely is not. It' a just a more flexible then normal Themepark. At least arguably so. A solid Sandbox game (post-early SWG) requires more non-combat related goals to be considered Sandbox. Can you sit somewhere and heal damaged NPCs to earn a living? Can you 'perform' in order to buff/heal? I don't think so. Besides play Skyrim more then once and you'll see just how scripted it all is. Not very flexible at all really.
I'd say if you could pick a random spot and build a house, start a village or farm, or build a castle then it would be a sandbox. As it is now it is theme park.
Technically it will be a Sandbox when the construction set is released but presently (and without it - sucks for Console players) it isn't.
It is harder to make a game where you have freedom, and you have to balance things, verse the newer railed repetitive/limited treadmills that limit choice/options.
Just because some sandboxes have been FFA gankfests does not mean a sandbox has to be one, and people like to cry that sandbox people argue about what a sandbox is....Well if you ask a themepark person what the perfect skill/feature set for a themepark is, they would argue too...
People have a lot of misconceptions, like needing to fund a crafter, in a good game, the crafter funds himself and can sell stuff they are making, while they do so....I have done it in sandboxes and themeparks...PvP is villified, but nearly every themepark tries to put it in, just like crafting...Just like people are always asking for housing or the equivalent of it in their themeparks... If these things sucked so bad, why does almost every dev. think they need to be put in their game?
I think a lot of the people that are counted on the themepark side would be on the sandbox side, if a good AAA sandbox was made, that had good solutions, griefing problems and such...The dev cycle of themeparks is starting to move to hybrids, and give more playing options that are usually in a sandbox, but not a themepark. PnP D&D could be labeled a hybrid concept, people talk about Skyrim, it would also technically be a hybrid concept, if it were a MMO.
Hopefully we see the death of the shallow, limited, sock puppet railfest mmos that have been the norm of the last 5+ years. It's time we stop having to play these mmos with 1-4 starting areas and are so instanced, they no longer are massive multiplayer, just people in a city waiting for a LFG tool to throw them into an instance....Might as well play an old RPG that allowed you to play with a few people.
So I ask....Why do people put up with themeparks that are more limited than games that were introduced over a decade ago. Things are supposed to progress with technology for the players, but they only have for the devs...Its almost like they use a Themepark Rail toolkit and spit out some generic thing that maximizes profit for effort, screw quality and vision.
Comments
Im similar and avoid open world pvp in general although I do like the eve model where some areas are safer than others and playing smart means you can avoid most trouble - it adds a nice edge to the game.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
This is not really something Origin couldn't have told us in the late 90s, UO lost players due to severe griefing and tried to limit it to keep the players.
I can understand that people talk about absolut freedom and so on, but the fact is really that there never been any society in the world where just could go out and kill random people (including your own kind) without punishment.
I however think that with the right tools you can have players who enforce the rules and hunt fugitives which would hold the griefing down. The game would need classes or orders that gets rewarded for keeping the law (and punished for not).
Still, this is not really the problem with current sandbox games, the base problem is just that they are not good enough, usually due to low budget and inexperienced devs. A good coded sandbox made by experienced devs would have to solve the issue of overgriefing, but Darkfall wouldn't be a large game even if it had PvE only servers. Don't get me wrong, DF have many good ideas but the team just can't make them as good as they should be.
You nailed it. It wouldn't be hard to have zones in a fantasy mmorpg where you have lawless zones and zones that are heavily patrolled.
My theme song.
Lol, explaining preferances in taste isn't easy. Someone at the pub tried to explain to me why Justin Timberlake were our times Beethoven a while ago...
But I think we can agree that you can make good games of any type and genre and bad ones. That doesn't mean everyone should play all the games, CIV 5 is a great game but someone just liking FPS wont enjoy it anyways.
The real question of this thread is i there is enough people enjoying a sandbox game to make it commercially possible to make a AAA sandbox again. I think it is.
It also ask us why so few people play current sandbox games, my personal opinion is that they aren't good enough.
Sandbox people (and many others as well) might hate Wow but would still kill to get Blizzards programmers to code a new sandbox.
Agreed, there are several possibly solutions to that.
The question is who should patrol them?
Players, NPCs or just some kind of watchtowers? Or for that matter a set mechanic?
The last one just plain suck. NPCs have advantages but they are rather stupid and it ain't particularly "sandboxy".
A set mechanic is easiest but it do limit the choices of people.
As for players you need to motivate people to keep the law, like having a knight class that gets some kind of ranks for stopping crimes and catch criminals.
The main games I have followed to some degree have been DF and MO. Both by inexperienced Devs with good ideas but poor implementation.
All I am saying is add structure or layers if you will to the sandbox. If I wanna PvP i go to "red zones" If after work i wanna chill, gather and chat i stay in the "blue zones".
I started my MMO gaming with DAoC. I may be biased because of that but so far they are the only ones I think got PvP and PvE right.
I spent 1000s of hours in the frontiers over the course of 5+ years. Much PvP fun, both solo and grouped. But if the guild was doing a Dragon raid at 10pm then it was time to get some PvE on. Most people enjoy both aspects. I just dont understand why thats such a hard concept for Devs.
Seems sandbox = FFA PvP or nothing. And thats fine for a small niche, but thats all that want full time FFA PvP.
So no sandbox for me or anyone I know and game with until that changes. I am not holding my breath....
Well if it's in the realm of an NPC kingdom NPC guard patrols and watchtowers. Maybe even add to that by letting players enlist and get cash/xp for taking out criminals inside the kindoms boarders.
My theme song.
Well most Sandboxes out there are just uncomfortable, and their few players jump on you when you start suggesting that stuff like tab-Targeting, a good UI and proper polished GFX would need to be looked at.
Hell for some Sandbox is only for the real Hardcore nerds (shit GFX, haggling around to target , fighting the UI more than your opponent) and yet freedom to play like you see fit. Fallen Earth is one of those.
Too bad that doesnt meet my requirements to be interested in a game to spend time in. I like to hit Tab or a intuitive UI, smart ability triggering and all that stuff that is state of the art now.
But having a good polished game doesnt make it a Themepark.
Any MMO structure will work if it's well designed and a good game. People play good games. Simple as that.
The main issue here is that there haven't been any well funded/designed sandbox MMOs in a long while. As game worlds become larger in scale and AI gets better, companies will shift back over to sandbox games because they provide more freedom. However, we sit in a market right now that isn't familiar with them and until someone proves they can do a good one, we have nothing more to go on.
They can be done. They can be done well. The other thing you have to remember is that if you truely make a good sandbox game, it's not going to just be a PvP game. A good sandbox game would allow for good everything; crafting, PvE, PvP, socialism, character development. When you market or design a game as a PvP or PvE game from the get go, you already have limited what you can do. And MO and Darkfall both went the route of PvP focused - and both were designed by underfunded amatuer dev teams and implemented poorly.
Anyway. MMOs are young in game years. It's one of the newer genres - and it's also the SLOWEST evolving genre out there. Things take a long time to progress in this genre as well developed MMOs take 5-6 years to create. Check back in 2020 and we'll re-evaluate the MMO scene. Check back in 2030 and I bet that most games will be Sandbox.
Pretty much it. How it came to that was because of WoW's unprecedented success in '04-'05 timeframe. Everyone took notice of WoW's characteristics and tried to copy it. SOE took it so far as to completely alter an existing Sandbox game that already had subscribers, SWG, and alter it into a Themepark that tried to copy WoW. The result was the loss of the vast majority of players SWG once had, and never recovered since.
Again, developers and companies WANT the Themepark / WoW Model of gaming. How can millions of customers for WoW be wrong?
From that point onwards, any game that doesn't follow the WoW Model of gaming, i.e. Themepark, is guaranteed to not have good financial backing. Only indies will try it now, and it shows in their results that they don't have the big bucks and resources to pull it off.
EVE doesn't quite count as a new Sandbox title towards success since it came out in '03. But I do credit it for still succeeding in an ocean full of Themepark games.
Edit to add: Back in '04, maybe early '05, when I was still in SWG, I recall some players talking about WoW. Personally, the features described about WoW never interested me. But some of the guys talked about how WoW's huge, completely lopsided success in the MMORPG genre spelled doom for the genre as a whole. "Doom" in the way that future gameplay will all try to follow WoW's example and killing any diversity in the genre. I thought back then my friends were worrying too much. Fast forward a few years later, even from '07, but most definitely by '08, and you can see how gameplay diversity went out the window. If it doesn't follow the WoW / Themepark model, it's not considered at all for development. End of that. And the genre has not recovered since.
Sure, there are more players today than what was done before '04, but the gameplay and community over the years had steadily gone worse.
Also want to back this up: Sandbox =/= FFA full loot PvP.
The 2nd point I highlighted is crucial for a good Sandbox. Freedom of gameplay, IMO, is the foundation of a good Sandbox game. And that Freedom requires a wide variety of worthwhile activities to engage in outside of just combat.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The lack of sandbox players and the lack of sandbox AAA titles is a self-perpetuating problem at the moment.
Right now there is only one current sandbox MMO that can even be considered AAA - EVE. And let's remember that EVE was born as an indie game that succeeded and has grown into an AAA-level MMO over many years. We also need to realize that, even when we set aside the sandbox vs theme park argument, EVE is a very niche game. Sci-fi, and sci-fi limited to ship/space, is not nearly as popular in the MMORPG scene as on-the-ground fantasy with a humanoid avatar. This lack of good, current sandbox MMOs inevitably leads to a lack of sandbox players. Sure we love MMORPG sandboxes, but most of us enjoy single player games and other genres too. Just because we would love playing a good sandbox does not mean most of us will play the lackluster C-grade sandboxes we have available to us.
This lack of current players makes the sandbox MMORPG market an unknown. An expensive AAA sandbox could succeed big, but predicting that success is impossible when so many other development factors can ruin a game's popularity. On the other hand there is ample indication that a good theme park MMO will be profitable so sinking your capital into one of those is an almost sure bet. Sure it'll likely not be the stunning success that WoW is, but there are dozen's of WoW clones out there that are not in the red. So everyone out there with the money to back an AAA title is jumping on the theme-park bandwagon (or shall I say ride).
The bottom line is it's unlikely we'll see an AAA sandbox in the near future. Unfortunately it could be anywhere from years to a good decade till we see one. The bright side is that sooner or later it is bound to appear because the status quo, even a wildly popular one, only works for so long before it becomes stale. Maybe it'll be a sandbox developer like CCP wanting to break into a new setting. Maybe it'll be an established big name who will finally decide to take a big risk for a potential WoW-level hit into an undertapped market. Maybe it'll be a small indie sandbox that hits the right appeal buttons to become a runaway hit.
Sandboxes dont work because they aren't full sandboxes. everyone has to do combat and many people have to lose and no one wants to be the loser. also, the genre we're talking about isn't a sandbox. the term is wrongly used. Second Life is a sandbox game ultima online is a themepark where you have to tighten the bolts on the rides.
i would prefer a solution where the players or a special guard class/role take care for law. but i cant imagine, how it should work. at least i never saw it work.
a system like in EVE is possible in a fantasy world. just impelement some NPCs like EVEs Concorde. they are all mages e.g. Teleporters. as soon as you kill somebody, they teleport to you and instakill you. job done. or even simpler. the gods do not allow to kill people. if you murder, a 1 million DMG flash hits you. if there is no temple in a zone, its FFA. such simple.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
A solution where players take care of the law will never work because there is no way to ensure the availability, dedication and fairness of the players in that role. In real life these things are ensured by the consequences on these freedom/career if they do not do their jobs properly (and even so we have corruption and abuses of power). All these things become of little value in a world where one respawns, can create alts or can leave forever for a different world.
What i felt SWG lacked at the start was meaningful content. If you recall they started putting in Galactic Civil war stuff or events which were fun content ( quest based ) areas. That said, what i remember early on was SWG development constantly bogged down in class balancing and never really getting rapid content and event development off the ground.
SWG was a great sandbox, that said SOE really stumbled in keeping that world evolving. I think that is the key part, the world has to evolve over time and the players should have impact in how the world evolves. If someone can capture that, it could be a fantastic experience for all.
This is my biggest gripe with themeparks. You just purchased your 3rd expansion pack for your said themepark game, making expansion pack content and any other updates from expansion 1 and 2 useless.
SWG was a sandbox and expertly accompolished until Smedley and his lackies got involved.
yup i agree with that, eve in a fantasy setting, mages (or clerics) suddeny appearing and freezing/nuking. Complete with insurance on gear and even suicide ganking would work.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
This is true, except for the part where they made enough money to make the time spent developing the game worthwhile.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Agreed.
Specifically the reason I think sandboxes dont appeal to the majority is cause they focus on 2 things....PVP and the RP gamer. The RP gamer thinks playing the role of an Uncle Owen, where they can sell their virtually produced goods is what gaming is about. The PVP hardcore gamer sees any type of combat, other than against others, as a waste of time.
The problem being is that PVE gamers outnumber these 2 groups by a large margin in MMOs. Themeparks focus on the PVE area, and provide a bit of content to folks wishing to get some PVP/Owen play in. They dont require a person to farm money to support Uncle Owen having a forced dependancy. The players get to loot their gear due to completing content.
It would be a hard enough sell for PVP/Owen, but for some reason a game isnt a "true" sandbox unless folks are allowed to gank/grief others. Sandboxes are already on the short end of the stick, and then they allow their PVP gamers to drive off the Owens/low levels.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
I'm raising 3 future sandbox players so the market will change one day. =P
Also FFA Full loot PvP is not a requirement to be a sandbox. However I think a system similar to EvE online where you can have a lot of zones that are safe and never have to leave them and zones that are PvP and lawless. In EvE I can PvE and mine in saftey or I can go to low sec to blow some shit up or with a mining op for high priced ore.
My theme song.
Would people stop claiming Skyrim is a sandbox. It most defnitely is not. It' a just a more flexible then normal Themepark. At least arguably so. A solid Sandbox game (post-early SWG) requires more non-combat related goals to be considered Sandbox. Can you sit somewhere and heal damaged NPCs to earn a living? Can you 'perform' in order to buff/heal? I don't think so. Besides play Skyrim more then once and you'll see just how scripted it all is. Not very flexible at all really.
I'd say if you could pick a random spot and build a house, start a village or farm, or build a castle then it would be a sandbox. As it is now it is theme park.
My theme song.
Technically it will be a Sandbox when the construction set is released but presently (and without it - sucks for Console players) it isn't.
It is harder to make a game where you have freedom, and you have to balance things, verse the newer railed repetitive/limited treadmills that limit choice/options.
Just because some sandboxes have been FFA gankfests does not mean a sandbox has to be one, and people like to cry that sandbox people argue about what a sandbox is....Well if you ask a themepark person what the perfect skill/feature set for a themepark is, they would argue too...
People have a lot of misconceptions, like needing to fund a crafter, in a good game, the crafter funds himself and can sell stuff they are making, while they do so....I have done it in sandboxes and themeparks...PvP is villified, but nearly every themepark tries to put it in, just like crafting...Just like people are always asking for housing or the equivalent of it in their themeparks... If these things sucked so bad, why does almost every dev. think they need to be put in their game?
I think a lot of the people that are counted on the themepark side would be on the sandbox side, if a good AAA sandbox was made, that had good solutions, griefing problems and such...The dev cycle of themeparks is starting to move to hybrids, and give more playing options that are usually in a sandbox, but not a themepark. PnP D&D could be labeled a hybrid concept, people talk about Skyrim, it would also technically be a hybrid concept, if it were a MMO.
Hopefully we see the death of the shallow, limited, sock puppet railfest mmos that have been the norm of the last 5+ years. It's time we stop having to play these mmos with 1-4 starting areas and are so instanced, they no longer are massive multiplayer, just people in a city waiting for a LFG tool to throw them into an instance....Might as well play an old RPG that allowed you to play with a few people.
So I ask....Why do people put up with themeparks that are more limited than games that were introduced over a decade ago. Things are supposed to progress with technology for the players, but they only have for the devs...Its almost like they use a Themepark Rail toolkit and spit out some generic thing that maximizes profit for effort, screw quality and vision.