Who says Sandbox gamers want an empty world? Themepark faithful like yourself, that's who.
And no, players do not want just games. If they did, all your recent Themepark games would be doing great instead of treading water with talk of going FTP within 6 months of release. Players do want worlds. They have been saying so, but Themeparkers like you just will not listen, will not hear them. They have been leaving the genre and you still won't hear them. The only way Themepark games can stay around is to give it away and sucker a few into spending big $'s and a few more in little bites.
The belief that players want a game and don't care about "worlds" is killing the entire genre. You are watching it happen. Go play TOR, and then the next few, watch it happen first hand.
You know Axehilt, I think you're pretty smart, I don't think you're a dumbass. But you sure as hell have a consistent way of acting like one. That's more persistence than we find in your Themepark gamey games these days.
Sandbox players settle for empty worlds. Empty worlds aren't the desire, and they (and everyone else who hates sandboxes because they're empty and boring) would like a gameplay-focused sandbox much more than the crap they're settling for currently. Sandboxes have potential, but most existing sandboxes are empty, boring crap.
All "my" recent themeparks have been inferiorgames compared to WOW. Inferior in part because they copied WOW, so they provide few (if any) new gameplay patterns. New gameplay patterns are what make games compelling.
I claim no "ownership" of games which mindlessly copy a proven model without knowing what made the model successful. I mean it's better than mindlessly copying a formula which has proven to be un-successful (empty worlds), but in either case the developer is failing to provide a compelling new game. But that's what players want: a compelling new game.
The themepark model as a framework is the best way to provide that new game. Copying every detail of a themepark is the way to provide an old-feeling game where the player feels they've mastered it before they leave the newbie area.
As for Free to Play, that's just outright the superior game model. Any money the player gives prior to playing a game is gained purely through hype and marketing, not gameplay. Meanwhile in a free to play game you're not getting money til the player has fun -- so you better damn well make it fun!
Isn't that thinking very contradictory?
"themepark model as a framework is the best way to provide that new game"
"no "ownership" of games which mindlessly copy" AS IF everything using the themepark model is a mindless copy. Does anything following the themepark framework represent a new game and not a mindless copy? Example?
F2P is superior when using the themepark framework (I think that is what you meant). Play what you want for free for a few months until you reach the end(game) and discard it. Wait for next "new" game.
Wow, apparently I am part of the tiny, tiny minority who voted "I like game-generated content, quests etc"! The thought of having to rely on interaction with other players as 100% of the game's content just does not appeal to me. It's the difference between watching a movie or staring our your window. While something entertaining might rarely happen as some girl is walking down the street, movies are made to be entertaining. Same deal. I want to be entertained, and I'm unwilling to play a game where something entertaining might happen once in a while based on what other people are doing.
Agreed, especially since most players in these games are so awful anyhow, I don't want much, if anything to do with them. I have nothing in common with the majority of MMO players, the communities are horrible, why would I want to interact with these asshats in the first place?
Come up with better communities or a better, more intelligent, rational and mature class of player and we'll talk.
No, come up with a better game.
The game-mechanics fosters the community you will get. If you make your game about being competitive, smacktalking, backstabing and griefing, then you will attract a community that is competitve, smacktalking, backstabbing and full of griefers.
You harvest what you sow.
Design a game about co-operation, it will foster a community of co-operative friendly players.
MMOs are mini-societies, you, the game developer, sets up rules (the physics so to speak) which then evolve ingame-morality and ethics.
In real life, we have the society that we have because we evolved rules of conduct that are beneficial to the survival of the species.
If your game is made so there is no incentive to be nice, then there will be no nice players in it.
Your offline morality and ethics does not transfer into the online. I've seen completely rational and mature people turn into cock-shit spewing abominations of humanity online.
Wow, apparently I am part of the tiny, tiny minority who voted "I like game-generated content, quests etc"! The thought of having to rely on interaction with other players as 100% of the game's content just does not appeal to me. It's the difference between watching a movie or staring our your window. While something entertaining might rarely happen as some girl is walking down the street, movies are made to be entertaining. Same deal. I want to be entertained, and I'm unwilling to play a game where something entertaining might happen once in a while based on what other people are doing.
Agreed, especially since most players in these games are so awful anyhow, I don't want much, if anything to do with them. I have nothing in common with the majority of MMO players, the communities are horrible, why would I want to interact with these asshats in the first place?
Come up with better communities or a better, more intelligent, rational and mature class of player and we'll talk.
You can't lump every mmo community with each other. My first mmo was SWG pre-cu and it had one if not the best community i had ever been part of. The reason why mmo communities today lack something to be desired is because mmo's today don't focus on putting people together in a social environment that has nothing to do with combat. It's all about me, me, me and fighting for the best gear trying to out do each other non stop.
This is why SWG pre-cu is considered if not one but maybe the best sandbox mmorpg's that was ever made. The way players came together and the interactions and interdependecies through crafting and the player run economy is what makes a strong game community.
You can look at the profession in-balances and a few other issues it had, but the proof is in the pudding. No one, that has ever played that mmo when it was released up until the NGE, will say one bad thing about the community.
Once WOW hit the scene, it took a spell for the community to get just flat out awful. That can be blamed on the amount of people that played the game and direction that Blizzard took with the gear grind and dungeon crawling carrot on the stick approach. All the games that have followed have used the same foundation that WOW was built upon, hence breeding the craptastic single player minded communities that plagues the genre to this day.
This is the drawback that comes with linear themepark mmo's. Everything is about combat, instant gratification and no social systems and tools to bring players together. Not to just throw themeparks under the bus, but the latest sandbox's leave alot to be desired as well, with their FFA full loot PVP bull, that is not needed and continue's to keep sandbox mmo's niche among mmo players.
Just look at Minecraft. You can play single player, with friends, host your own server, mods and 100+ population servers of all types. Thing is 8 bit graphics and one click combat.
Terraria is a 2d scroller. SWG got the axe. Mortal Online and Darkfall are both oozing with a lack of polish.
Other than Archage which is Korean with no NA release date it looks pretty bleak for a quality sandbox with serious funding anytime soon.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
"themepark model as a framework is the best way to provide that new game"
"no "ownership" of games which mindlessly copy" AS IF everything using the themepark model is a mindless copy. Does anything following the themepark framework represent a new game and not a mindless copy? Example?
F2P is superior when using the themepark framework (I think that is what you meant). Play what you want for free for a few months until you reach the end(game) and discard it. Wait for next "new" game.
It's not contradictory at all. But your mistaking the two concepts is exactly why lackluster MMORPG devs have produced copies of WOW.
They copy the details of WOW instead of copying the design philosophies of WOW. And that's exactly why they fail.
Not every themepark has to be a mindless copy. Most mainstream games apart from MMORPGs are, at their heart, a series of interesting rides to play which reward player interaction and good decision-making. So most mainstream games are themeparks across all genres. But clearly they're very very different from one another in terms of the specific mechanics they employ.
I haven't played TERA enough to know how much of its framework is a WOW copy, or how fun the overall game will end up being, but it's pretty clearly a different game from WOW with unique mechanics to master. It's that differentiation that players want.
F2P doesn't care about themeparks vs. sandboxes. It's about selling fun vs. hype. I assure you, you could absolutely have a F2P sandbox where different elements of gameplay were all balanced with one another and the item store sold individual features/professions (probably with a weekly rotation of free professions for players to try them out.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just look at Minecraft. You can play single player, with friends, host your own server, mods and 100+ population servers of all types. Thing is 8 bit graphics and one click combat.
Terraria is a 2d scroller. SWG got the axe. Mortal Online and Darkfall are both oozing with a lack of polish.
Other than Archage which is Korean with no NA release date it looks pretty bleak for a quality sandbox with serious funding anytime soon.
World of Darkness from the makers of EvE in the medium term
"themepark model as a framework is the best way to provide that new game"
"no "ownership" of games which mindlessly copy" AS IF everything using the themepark model is a mindless copy. Does anything following the themepark framework represent a new game and not a mindless copy? Example?
F2P is superior when using the themepark framework (I think that is what you meant). Play what you want for free for a few months until you reach the end(game) and discard it. Wait for next "new" game.
It's not contradictory at all. But your mistaking the two concepts is exactly why lackluster MMORPG devs have produced copies of WOW.
They copy the details of WOW instead of copying the design philosophies of WOW. And that's exactly why they fail.
Not every themepark has to be a mindless copy. Most mainstream games apart from MMORPGs are, at their heart, a series of interesting rides to play which reward player interaction and good decision-making. So most mainstream games are themeparks across all genres. But clearly they're very very different from one another in terms of the specific mechanics they employ.
I haven't played TERA enough to know how much of its framework is a WOW copy, or how fun the overall game will end up being, but it's pretty clearly a different game from WOW with unique mechanics to master. It's that differentiation that players want.
F2P doesn't care about themeparks vs. sandboxes. It's about selling fun vs. hype. I assure you, you could absolutely have a F2P sandbox where different elements of gameplay were all balanced with one another and the item store sold individual features/professions (probably with a weekly rotation of free professions for players to try them out.)
Philosophies such as fast leveling, content that is easy and simple enough that anyone can do it, polish, quest delivered PvE content..? Is having features that hold players in the long term in there?
Just look at Minecraft. You can play single player, with friends, host your own server, mods and 100+ population servers of all types. Thing is 8 bit graphics and one click combat.
Terraria is a 2d scroller. SWG got the axe. Mortal Online and Darkfall are both oozing with a lack of polish.
Other than Archage which is Korean with no NA release date it looks pretty bleak for a quality sandbox with serious funding anytime soon.
World of Darkness from the makers of EvE in the medium term
If it releases and does well, that is.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
Yea voted poor quality. but msot of them i just find boring...go out and farm resources! be careful not to get ganked by somebody whos been playing the game way longer than you have though who you stand no chance against!
Philosophies such as fast leveling, content that is easy and simple enough that anyone can do it, polish, quest delivered PvE content..? Is having features that hold players in the long term in there?
Those are the details, not the design philosophies.
Philosophies are things like how Blizzard tries to avoid hiding the fun. So they provide a map, level-gate zones, use quests to lead players to participate in varied gameplay activities, and minimize travel time. (The latter list being the details of how they pursued the design philosophy.)
Another philosophy is that every player in a group should fill an interesting role. The trinity is merely one particular method of making that happen. Want a successful game? Create a completely new set of interesting roles for players to learn.
All of which points to one of the major cores of what makes games fun: learning. The human mind is delighted to learn things, and games package patterns in such a way that the player is always on the verge of learning something new. But if you copy a bunch of gameplay verbatim in a new game, the player has already learned those things and as a result the game feels old right out of the gates.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The game-mechanics fosters the community you will get. If you make your game about being competitive, smacktalking, backstabing and griefing, then you will attract a community that is competitve, smacktalking, backstabbing and full of griefers.
You harvest what you sow.
Design a game about co-operation, it will foster a community of co-operative friendly players.
MMOs are mini-societies, you, the game developer, sets up rules (the physics so to speak) which then evolve ingame-morality and ethics.
In real life, we have the society that we have because we evolved rules of conduct that are beneficial to the survival of the species.
If your game is made so there is no incentive to be nice, then there will be no nice players in it.
Your offline morality and ethics does not transfer into the online. I've seen completely rational and mature people turn into cock-shit spewing abominations of humanity online.
I'm not even talking about it on that level, I'm talking about most MMO players as a representative example of the human species. You've got immature idiots who can't spell, who think constant fart jokes are the height of comedy, etc. These are human beings I would not want to interact with in *ANY* way, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter if it was the best game ever designed, these people are assholes.
Come up with better people. Then I'll worry about what game to play.
The game-mechanics fosters the community you will get. If you make your game about being competitive, smacktalking, backstabing and griefing, then you will attract a community that is competitve, smacktalking, backstabbing and full of griefers.
You harvest what you sow.
Design a game about co-operation, it will foster a community of co-operative friendly players.
MMOs are mini-societies, you, the game developer, sets up rules (the physics so to speak) which then evolve ingame-morality and ethics.
In real life, we have the society that we have because we evolved rules of conduct that are beneficial to the survival of the species.
If your game is made so there is no incentive to be nice, then there will be no nice players in it.
Your offline morality and ethics does not transfer into the online. I've seen completely rational and mature people turn into cock-shit spewing abominations of humanity online.
I'm not even talking about it on that level, I'm talking about most MMO players as a representative example of the human species. You've got immature idiots who can't spell, who think constant fart jokes are the height of comedy, etc. These are human beings I would not want to interact with in *ANY* way, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter if it was the best game ever designed, these people are assholes.
Come up with better people. Then I'll worry about what game to play.
I don't know what you are talking about, MMO players are not representative of the human species, and most people are not fartjoke-producing, illiterate idiots either.
I'm not sure you are missing my point or drawing an impossible hyperbole of the bahaviour of people on planet earth.
The game-mechanics fosters the community you will get. If you make your game about being competitive, smacktalking, backstabing and griefing, then you will attract a community that is competitve, smacktalking, backstabbing and full of griefers.
You harvest what you sow.
Design a game about co-operation, it will foster a community of co-operative friendly players.
MMOs are mini-societies, you, the game developer, sets up rules (the physics so to speak) which then evolve ingame-morality and ethics.
In real life, we have the society that we have because we evolved rules of conduct that are beneficial to the survival of the species.
If your game is made so there is no incentive to be nice, then there will be no nice players in it.
Your offline morality and ethics does not transfer into the online. I've seen completely rational and mature people turn into cock-shit spewing abominations of humanity online.
I'm not even talking about it on that level, I'm talking about most MMO players as a representative example of the human species. You've got immature idiots who can't spell, who think constant fart jokes are the height of comedy, etc. These are human beings I would not want to interact with in *ANY* way, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter if it was the best game ever designed, these people are assholes.
Come up with better people. Then I'll worry about what game to play.
I don't know what you are talking about, MMO players are not representative of the human species, and most people are not fartjoke-producing, illiterate idiots either.
I'm not sure you are missing my point or drawing an impossible hyperbole of the bahaviour of people on planet earth.
Most people are pleasant, friendly individuals.
His point is that, you know, you find a lot of dopers in an opium den and you find a lot of griefers in a game made for griefing.
I've tried pretty much all of the major "sandbox" MMOs and I didn't like any of them. I hear a lot of cool stuff about sandboxes but that's just words to me. I've never seen all that good stuff put into practice.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The game-mechanics fosters the community you will get. If you make your game about being competitive, smacktalking, backstabing and griefing, then you will attract a community that is competitve, smacktalking, backstabbing and full of griefers.
You harvest what you sow.
Design a game about co-operation, it will foster a community of co-operative friendly players.
MMOs are mini-societies, you, the game developer, sets up rules (the physics so to speak) which then evolve ingame-morality and ethics.
In real life, we have the society that we have because we evolved rules of conduct that are beneficial to the survival of the species.
If your game is made so there is no incentive to be nice, then there will be no nice players in it.
Your offline morality and ethics does not transfer into the online. I've seen completely rational and mature people turn into cock-shit spewing abominations of humanity online.
I'm not even talking about it on that level, I'm talking about most MMO players as a representative example of the human species. You've got immature idiots who can't spell, who think constant fart jokes are the height of comedy, etc. These are human beings I would not want to interact with in *ANY* way, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter if it was the best game ever designed, these people are assholes.
Come up with better people. Then I'll worry about what game to play.
I don't know what you are talking about, MMO players are not representative of the human species, and most people are not fartjoke-producing, illiterate idiots either.
I'm not sure you are missing my point or drawing an impossible hyperbole of the bahaviour of people on planet earth.
Most people are pleasant, friendly individuals.
His point is that, you know, you find a lot of dopers in an opium den and you find a lot of griefers in a game made for griefing.
Didn't vote, but it's a combination of a few things. Don't like unstructured FFA PvP. Wouldn't mind a system similar to EvE. The other thing is the quality usually sucks.
The game-mechanics fosters the community you will get. If you make your game about being competitive, smacktalking, backstabing and griefing, then you will attract a community that is competitve, smacktalking, backstabbing and full of griefers.
You harvest what you sow.
Design a game about co-operation, it will foster a community of co-operative friendly players.
MMOs are mini-societies, you, the game developer, sets up rules (the physics so to speak) which then evolve ingame-morality and ethics.
In real life, we have the society that we have because we evolved rules of conduct that are beneficial to the survival of the species.
If your game is made so there is no incentive to be nice, then there will be no nice players in it.
Your offline morality and ethics does not transfer into the online. I've seen completely rational and mature people turn into cock-shit spewing abominations of humanity online.
I'm not even talking about it on that level, I'm talking about most MMO players as a representative example of the human species. You've got immature idiots who can't spell, who think constant fart jokes are the height of comedy, etc. These are human beings I would not want to interact with in *ANY* way, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter if it was the best game ever designed, these people are assholes.
Come up with better people. Then I'll worry about what game to play.
I don't know what you are talking about, MMO players are not representative of the human species, and most people are not fartjoke-producing, illiterate idiots either.
I'm not sure you are missing my point or drawing an impossible hyperbole of the bahaviour of people on planet earth.
Most people are pleasant, friendly individuals.
His point is that, you know, you find a lot of dopers in an opium den and you find a lot of griefers in a game made for griefing.
Isn't that exactly what i said?
Oh man, I'm sorry. I read your comment, but took it an entirely different way, the opposite way. That's one of the problems with words, sometimes they can be read in entirely different ways.
But it seems to me that all 3 of us agree on the main point then, right?
Comments
Isn't that thinking very contradictory?
"themepark model as a framework is the best way to provide that new game"
"no "ownership" of games which mindlessly copy" AS IF everything using the themepark model is a mindless copy. Does anything following the themepark framework represent a new game and not a mindless copy? Example?
F2P is superior when using the themepark framework (I think that is what you meant). Play what you want for free for a few months until you reach the end(game) and discard it. Wait for next "new" game.
No, come up with a better game.
The game-mechanics fosters the community you will get. If you make your game about being competitive, smacktalking, backstabing and griefing, then you will attract a community that is competitve, smacktalking, backstabbing and full of griefers.
You harvest what you sow.
Design a game about co-operation, it will foster a community of co-operative friendly players.
MMOs are mini-societies, you, the game developer, sets up rules (the physics so to speak) which then evolve ingame-morality and ethics.
In real life, we have the society that we have because we evolved rules of conduct that are beneficial to the survival of the species.
If your game is made so there is no incentive to be nice, then there will be no nice players in it.
Your offline morality and ethics does not transfer into the online. I've seen completely rational and mature people turn into cock-shit spewing abominations of humanity online.
You can't lump every mmo community with each other. My first mmo was SWG pre-cu and it had one if not the best community i had ever been part of. The reason why mmo communities today lack something to be desired is because mmo's today don't focus on putting people together in a social environment that has nothing to do with combat. It's all about me, me, me and fighting for the best gear trying to out do each other non stop.
This is why SWG pre-cu is considered if not one but maybe the best sandbox mmorpg's that was ever made. The way players came together and the interactions and interdependecies through crafting and the player run economy is what makes a strong game community.
You can look at the profession in-balances and a few other issues it had, but the proof is in the pudding. No one, that has ever played that mmo when it was released up until the NGE, will say one bad thing about the community.
Once WOW hit the scene, it took a spell for the community to get just flat out awful. That can be blamed on the amount of people that played the game and direction that Blizzard took with the gear grind and dungeon crawling carrot on the stick approach. All the games that have followed have used the same foundation that WOW was built upon, hence breeding the craptastic single player minded communities that plagues the genre to this day.
This is the drawback that comes with linear themepark mmo's. Everything is about combat, instant gratification and no social systems and tools to bring players together. Not to just throw themeparks under the bus, but the latest sandbox's leave alot to be desired as well, with their FFA full loot PVP bull, that is not needed and continue's to keep sandbox mmo's niche among mmo players.
Voted Indie/Quality
Just look at Minecraft. You can play single player, with friends, host your own server, mods and 100+ population servers of all types. Thing is 8 bit graphics and one click combat.
Terraria is a 2d scroller. SWG got the axe. Mortal Online and Darkfall are both oozing with a lack of polish.
Other than Archage which is Korean with no NA release date it looks pretty bleak for a quality sandbox with serious funding anytime soon.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/It's not contradictory at all. But your mistaking the two concepts is exactly why lackluster MMORPG devs have produced copies of WOW.
They copy the details of WOW instead of copying the design philosophies of WOW. And that's exactly why they fail.
Not every themepark has to be a mindless copy. Most mainstream games apart from MMORPGs are, at their heart, a series of interesting rides to play which reward player interaction and good decision-making. So most mainstream games are themeparks across all genres. But clearly they're very very different from one another in terms of the specific mechanics they employ.
I haven't played TERA enough to know how much of its framework is a WOW copy, or how fun the overall game will end up being, but it's pretty clearly a different game from WOW with unique mechanics to master. It's that differentiation that players want.
F2P doesn't care about themeparks vs. sandboxes. It's about selling fun vs. hype. I assure you, you could absolutely have a F2P sandbox where different elements of gameplay were all balanced with one another and the item store sold individual features/professions (probably with a weekly rotation of free professions for players to try them out.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
World of Darkness from the makers of EvE in the medium term
Philosophies such as fast leveling, content that is easy and simple enough that anyone can do it, polish, quest delivered PvE content..? Is having features that hold players in the long term in there?
If it releases and does well, that is.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
Yea voted poor quality. but msot of them i just find boring...go out and farm resources! be careful not to get ganked by somebody whos been playing the game way longer than you have though who you stand no chance against!
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
The sooner you fall behind the more time you have to catch up.
Those are the details, not the design philosophies.
Philosophies are things like how Blizzard tries to avoid hiding the fun. So they provide a map, level-gate zones, use quests to lead players to participate in varied gameplay activities, and minimize travel time. (The latter list being the details of how they pursued the design philosophy.)
Another philosophy is that every player in a group should fill an interesting role. The trinity is merely one particular method of making that happen. Want a successful game? Create a completely new set of interesting roles for players to learn.
All of which points to one of the major cores of what makes games fun: learning. The human mind is delighted to learn things, and games package patterns in such a way that the player is always on the verge of learning something new. But if you copy a bunch of gameplay verbatim in a new game, the player has already learned those things and as a result the game feels old right out of the gates.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm not even talking about it on that level, I'm talking about most MMO players as a representative example of the human species. You've got immature idiots who can't spell, who think constant fart jokes are the height of comedy, etc. These are human beings I would not want to interact with in *ANY* way, regardless of the circumstances. It doesn't matter if it was the best game ever designed, these people are assholes.
Come up with better people. Then I'll worry about what game to play.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I don't play in sandboxes because
X. I am a nudist.
I don't know what you are talking about, MMO players are not representative of the human species, and most people are not fartjoke-producing, illiterate idiots either.
I'm not sure you are missing my point or drawing an impossible hyperbole of the bahaviour of people on planet earth.
Most people are pleasant, friendly individuals.
Not on the Internet.
His point is that, you know, you find a lot of dopers in an opium den and you find a lot of griefers in a game made for griefing.
Once upon a time....
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Isn't that exactly what i said?
I dont play sandboxes because....
There hasn't been one released that I liked.
Didn't vote, but it's a combination of a few things. Don't like unstructured FFA PvP. Wouldn't mind a system similar to EvE. The other thing is the quality usually sucks.
I said other
Becouse all the good sandbox games are old or gone.
Oh man, I'm sorry. I read your comment, but took it an entirely different way, the opposite way. That's one of the problems with words, sometimes they can be read in entirely different ways.
But it seems to me that all 3 of us agree on the main point then, right?
Once upon a time....
LOL, I love that listing of sandboxes!
Where's the any key?