We should assume that the end product can be switched off by any consumer who is offended or frightened by it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
So... it's no different than a "themepark" or "wow clone"?
Who knew?
At least a WOW clone like TOR sold >2M boxes right out the gate. Tell me how many boxes sandbox games are selling?
How many Big Mac boxes are sold on a daily basis?
It doesn't make a case for how good they are, just that most people are too lazy to cook.
~and SW:ToR sold because of the IP and big names backing it alone, not because it's a good game. Kind of like a Big Mac, except that Big Macs are still selling, while SW:ToR is pretty much struggling to see a point in continuing. Nice try, though.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
So... it's no different than a "themepark" or "wow clone"?
Who knew?
At least a WOW clone like TOR sold >2M boxes right out the gate. Tell me how many boxes sandbox games are selling?
How many Big Mac boxes are sold on a daily basis?
It doesn't make a case for how good they are, just that most people are too lazy to cook.
~and SW:ToR sold because of the IP and big names backing it alone, not because it's a good game. Kind of like a Big Mac, except that Big Macs are still selling, while SW:ToR is pretty much struggling to see a point in continuing. Nice try, though.
It make a case that they are more popular than sandbox games. "Good" is subjective. Popularity and sales are not.
Personally i think TOR a much better game than Darkfall. My preference is not more or less valid than yours, and vice versa.
It makes a case that they are shiny and new for about 2 weeks, then people feel they've played it before X amount of times as *other* games, then band up in unison to cry about how they simply can't learn a lesson anymore.
Someday, you'll stray to the dark side and never look back... but until then, you're welcome to keep up your gamehopping ways.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Every Sandbox released is quickly kicked to the ground and called terrible for having the exact things they want and they demand another with the exact same things again. People love sandbox, but when they can't get to the top in it, they will quickly ditch it. Its like capitalism, only a few make it up top and the rest have to suffer with being a nobody. No one likes that.
Hm,as far as I know there has not been released any real sandbox game the last 10 years or more.If you think those ffa pvp games are sandbox then you are wrong. Sandbox game means you do what ever you want to do and nothing else. In those ffa pvp games you are forceed into pvp and that is not sandox at all.
There have been a handful of sandbox games in recent years. FFA PVP does not make a game "sandbox", in fact, far from it. But many games unfortunately just turn on the ability for anyone to attack anyone they wish, /FFA PVP ON if you will, and that's as far as the pvp support goes, as the pvp has no direction or purpose, no balance, etc. Factions help make a more competitive pvp game, but it's often abused (For example, one faction does poorly in pvp, so many people switch sides, causing more problems). This is where the 3 Faction rule kinda comes in, so if one side starts to stack up, 2 sides can team up to even it out.
But people who like sandbox games often prefer to choose who they kill / or don't kill (Which could be done with a choosable faction system that's not based on your character's class/skills/race/etc, but most faction pvp games often make the mistake of tieing your faction to some sort of character creation choice like race/class)
However, GW2 (though not sandbox) is doing PvP correctly because the 3 Factions are simply rotating servers. You faction is your server. This will make for competitive and much more balanced mass-pvp experience.
Now, make a sandbox game with a similar system, and it would be epic.
Though some will dislike the GW2 world pvp system because it does not allow you to gank lowbies as they are PVEing (You can only PvP in the WvWvW area)... nothing says a sandbox style game can't have both open world FFA and competitive objective based faction pvp area with keep seiges and stuff.
I love sandbox games, and I try them all as soon as they come out, but I can tell you for a fact that the problem isn't people's desire to "play on rails" or "Easy mode", people play the theme park MMOs because they always have a much higher production quality, and in turn, though the Theme-Park aspects are often boring/repetitive, the game will have many amazing features that suck people in.
Tera for example has amazingly fun combat mechanics and amazing graphics. Compare to, say, MO, which runs on the same base game UE3 engine (Yet looks 100x worst), and combat system that was absolute garbage.
As I said in my previous post, the problem isn't the player bases, or the Sandbox-style itself, it's the core-gameplay that's holding Sandbox back.
The core game needs to be made correctly. Very few people will play a game that has boring game mechanics and broken systems just because it's "Sandbox". The game needs to be all-around good. Combat needs to fast paced and fun. Character creation/customization needs to be top notch. PvP has to be balanced, rewarding and fun. Graphics need to look respectable. PvE content needs to be as non-repetitive as much as possible with fun and meaningful things to do solo, small group and raid sized parties.
Get all this right, and then make it sandboxy. That would be how to do it right.
Though all this is much easier said then done, as getting funding for a game-model that has notoriously been bad for profits, and getting devs together that know how to make a solid base-game to make all it work would be a feat in itself.
99% of everything made in the world is complete trash.
You all have fun playing in your popular trash and the few of us will have fun playing in our sandbox.
You see, that's the kind of comments that are so common, yet serve no purpose but to hold the genre back.
Making snide comments and pretending like everything is fine is idiodic. Sandbox experiences are often a lot of fun, but they also have a ton of issues lately and are causing them to flop really hard.
I'm not an ignorant person who thinks a game needs to sell more copies than WoW or even EQ to be considered a "successful game", in fact, I've come to learn that some games are great but just appeal to a smaller niche of people.
But don't pretend like whatever sand box you're playing is perfect. They all suffer from the main problems that I listed out in my previous post.
The core issues need to be discussed in a respectable way so future sandboxes don't make the same mistakes.
99% of everything made in the world is complete trash.
You all have fun playing in your popular trash and the few of us will have fun playing in our sandbox.
You see, that's the kind of comments that are so common, yet serve no purpose but to hold the genre back.
Making snide comments and pretending like everything is fine is idiodic. Sandbox experiences are often a lot of fun, but they also have a ton of issues lately and are causing them to flop really hard.
I'm not an ignorant person who thinks a game needs to sell more copies than WoW or even EQ to be considered a "successful game", in fact, I've come to learn that some games are great but just appeal to a smaller niche of people.
But don't pretend like whatever sand box you're playing is perfect. They all suffer from the main problems that I listed out in my previous post.
The core issues need to be discussed in a respectable way so future sandboxes don't make the same mistakes.
It's just the smart thing to do.
All games release lacking in content. All of em.
The difference between a sandbox and themepark is that the sandbox can recover over time, and eventually pull enough income to survive a long period of time. Themeparks are forced to go F2P, because the only thing keeping people playing is new content drops - which only happen in a blue moon. Sandboxes survive based on the variety of other options at hand.
So years from now, EVE will still be around, Wurn Online will get itself into a better position, MO and Darkfall might as well, but all these themepark games are going to go F2P and try to suck the lifeblood back from the mosquitos nibbling at their desicated corpses. They simply aren't built for any kind of longevity - especially if you compare them to WoW - which has tons more content at this stage, and is finally starting to face the same issues all the others are (interest coming post-expansion and dying off rather quickly after release).
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
If players do not want sandbox, why did Day Z become so popular so quickly?
"Hardcore" FPS players that demand more epeen.
Notice most of them clamoring for it to be made easier and/or have more predictable gameplay conventions in play. It sounded like something they wanted to take part of, initially, and then they actually got their hands on it. Now they want it changed to their liking, rather than having to adapt. Typical.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
99% of everything made in the world is complete trash.
You all have fun playing in your popular trash and the few of us will have fun playing in our sandbox.
You see, that's the kind of comments that are so common, yet serve no purpose but to hold the genre back.
Making snide comments and pretending like everything is fine is idiodic. Sandbox experiences are often a lot of fun, but they also have a ton of issues lately and are causing them to flop really hard.
I'm not an ignorant person who thinks a game needs to sell more copies than WoW or even EQ to be considered a "successful game", in fact, I've come to learn that some games are great but just appeal to a smaller niche of people.
But don't pretend like whatever sand box you're playing is perfect. They all suffer from the main problems that I listed out in my previous post.
The core issues need to be discussed in a respectable way so future sandboxes don't make the same mistakes.
It's just the smart thing to do.
All games release lacking in content. All of em.
The difference between a sandbox and themepark is that the sandbox can recover over time, and eventually pull enough income to survive a long period of time. Themeparks are forced to go F2P, because the only thing keeping people playing is new content drops - which only happen in a blue moon. Sandboxes survive based on the variety of other options at hand.
So years from now, EVE will still be around, Wurn Online will get itself into a better position, MO and Darkfall might as well, but all these themepark games are going to go F2P and try to suck the lifeblood back from the mosquitos nibbling at their desicated corpses. They simply aren't built for any kind of longevity - especially if you compare them to WoW - which has tons more content at this stage, and is finally starting to face the same issues all the others are (interest coming post-expansion and dying off rather quickly after release).
EVE I agree will be around for a while. MO and Darkfall however will not, that's almost garenteed. Because the base of the games are just down right terrible. EVE has a great team and did pretty well.
As for themeparks lacking content, I agree, but mainly because lately the Themeparks have neglected the PvP aspects of their game. PvP has amazing replay value. Just like a first person shooter. You might play through the campaign once or twice, but FFS count how many hours people log in and kill each other in multiplayer modes.
The argument that sandbox can recover where themeparks can not is subjective to say the least. A sandbox still requires content, it just doesn't force you to do it on a rail. A sandbox with no content is just as bad as a themepark with poor content.
If someone can make an Awesome AAA quality sandbox, with a good amount of PVE content, top-notch features like an innovative combat-system, fun and diverse cosmetic and skill character development, competitive and balanced pvp, good graphics, etc etc It'll be a huge winner.
Right now we're just stuck with AAA Themeparks that have neglected PVP terribly and have grindy/repetitive/boring PVE, and Sandboxes that fail to deliver a game of acceptable base quality.
Both are bad in their own way. We need a Hero for sure.
I for one have absolutely no faith in themepark mmos anymore.Ive tried most of the AAA titles and i just cant enjoy them like a simple,hard sandbox title.Personally i prefer a challenge not a oh ive outgrown this area time to move to where the new quests are till lvl 12 game.Sandbox Mmos have surprises are difficult to advance in and generally have strong communities for a reason,its not single player.
Also, Sandbox MMOs aren't what I want, rather, I'd prefer a virtual world to any MMORPG.
QFT. The game I want to play has content like a Themepark, but set in a well simulated virtual world. The Sandbox is a broken concept, and there are two big reasons why. At the same time, big name Themeparks like WoW and SWTOR have overcompensated for these flaws to such a degree that they've sucked all the life from their "worlds."
First off, "Sandbox" has become synonymous with unrestricted PvP. The problem is that most players don't want to be PK'd, and don't want to have to worry about geting stabbed in the throat every minute they're playing. FFA PvP dooms any game to niche status, case closed. I played UO from 1997 through 1999, and people put up with PKs back then because there were no other games like it at that time. As soon as Everquest came out, and then again when they added Trammel, people voted with thier feet. I'm not making a value judgement here about open world PvP -- it's just the way it is.
Themeparks, starting with WoW, took PvP and turned it into an instanced minigame. I know there are people that like battleground style PvP, but it bores the snot out of me. The game I want to play has optional, in-world PvP that gives players an incentive for participation and has consequences for the game world.
The second problem is that Sandboxes depend on the players to make their own fun. This is fine for veterans, but for new players it presents a huge barrier to entry. If you don't have the tools and knowledge to build a sandcastle, a sandbox looks a lot like a big box of dirt. I've gone back to EvE a couple of times now, drawn in by the idea of things I could do in the game. Maybe I'll be a smuggler! Maybe I'll be a pirate, or a captain of industry! The possibilities are thrilling -- but every time I've actually played the game, I wandered away long before I got to the fun. I can play techno music and watch my disk drive defrag for a similar experience, and save the subscription fee. I don't want to spend six months in a game before the fun starts.
Again, Themeparks have overcompenated by leading the player around from quest hub to quest hub, phase to phase. They do a good job of getting the player oriented, and starting the "game" part immediately. But once you get the hang of things, you quickly realize that you're not in control of you experience. In the effort to keep the player entertained, they completely squelch the kind of emergent gameplay that gives MMO s their longevity.
My perfect game is a bit of a Frankenstein, cobbled together from pieces of game that got one thing right, and failed elsewhere. It would begin as a Themepark, and slowly open up into a Sandbox. PvP would be non-instanced, concentual, and have real consequenses for the world -- like in DAoC. Raiding should be non-instanced, and encourage wide participation. Look at Rift's invasions for an example. The best items would be player-made, and the economy would be controlled by the players (EvE, SWG). At the same time, there should always be scripted content available for those that want it -- but it should be non-linear. No hubs and, for chrissakes, no phases (TSW). Let people explore and consume content at their own pace.
I really think I'm not alone in what I want from a game. The problem, as always, is that these games are too expensive for developers to innovate. But, as the recent spate of high profile failures has shown, playing it safe isn't safe either.
heres my problem with sandbox mmo's.. in my experience ..
sandbox=pvp=chaos=willynilly
themepark=pve=order=structure
That actually seems pretty accurate.......Im not a huge themepark fan, but all the sandboxes I have tried have not been very good......THe PVP is always a pain and there is always something that keeps you from doing anything you want to and sometimes even limiting it to where you cant do anything unless you do something that is very difficult to do beforehand (ie find land to build on, conquer a city, etc).......
Every Sandbox released is quickly kicked to the ground and called terrible for having the exact things they want and they demand another with the exact same things again.
And then someone mentioned Ultima Online, the oldest and logest running major mmo release. A game that people STILL pay to play 14 years later. A game that is still 1 of the sandbaxyest releases ever.
and the premise and basis for your entire arguement just dissapears.......
Every Sandbox released is quickly kicked to the ground and called terrible for having the exact things they want and they demand another with the exact same things again. People love sandbox, but when they can't get to the top in it, they will quickly ditch it. Its like capitalism, only a few make it up top and the rest have to suffer with being a nobody. No one likes that.
When Developers call a Full-On Free For PvP as the core tennant of thei game play, or building stuff just for the sake of building stuff a sandbox MMO the game will always fail. Somewhere the term got lost in translation and now every sandbox must contain detailed world building and free for PvP or it isnt a sandbox. Which is full of sh*t. Sandbox means non-linear with no hand holding and free to do as you please.
Untill the day a studio releases a PvE centric mega progression style sandbox which promotes and fosters community building through player run economies and full on adventure style exploration with detailed and lengthy style Asheron's Call style questing then the game will be a disaster or at the least a niche title. This means HUGE open ended free form exploration with no character levels or classes with thousands of dungeons to woander into and bosses to kill for their shinies.
Players like and enjoy combat and finding new things so for the life of me why cant a sandbox game employ development principles that cater to those 2 styles?
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I wish I had been around for UO or even Star Wars Galaxies. Well, I was actually playing EQ during SWG's release, but I didn't have a PC capable of handling SWG's graphics until years later.
I just think that through the years, there have only been 3 great sandbox MMORPGs, Ultima Online, EVE, and SWG. The rest cater too much to the extreme.
Every Sandbox released is quickly kicked to the ground and called terrible for having the exact things they want and they demand another with the exact same things again. People love sandbox, but when they can't get to the top in it, they will quickly ditch it. Its like capitalism, only a few make it up top and the rest have to suffer with being a nobody. No one likes that.
First not all players want the same things. Second Not all players want the same things from sandbox games. Third sandboxes, being unproven usually have no funding and no chance of success. Forth in capitalist societies the majority of people are middle class and considered successful not nobodies. Only in the United States are you considered poor and a nobody for owning one house instead of two, The problem is with the perception not reality.
Sandboxes were proven with the very first graphical MMO, Ultima Online and yet it still remains the least successful of the successful MMOs to date, right along with Eve. They were seconded by a very visible MMO, Star Wars Galaxies. SWG bled subs so badly they got desperate and revamped the game twice. Gamers are notorious when it comes to elitist attitudes. EverQuest raiding truly brought that nasty, ugly mindset to the fore and it's done nothing but get worse over the years. Home ownership in the US has not been a luxury enjoyed by the majority of Americans for a very long time. We've become a country of apartment complexes and duplexes and condiminiums. Renting is the standard, not ownership.
I've been trying to get into WUrm Online lately, and even though it is a sandbox it just feels wierd....WHile I can do anything I want, by the time I log out I've accomplished little to nothing......I think the reason why so many people like themeparks more is you can log in for an hour and accomplish something....Pretty much every sandbox I've tried it takes hours to do anything.
Sandbox, themepark, all are good, but
THIS IS THE PROBLEM...
tutorial prison---->linear quest hub 1---->cutscene--->linear quest hub 2--->cutscene---linear quest hub 3--->cutscene---final baddy showdown--->cutscene (you're-the-hero-who-saved-the-world) (reroll and repeat with next character)
I swear, I have played lots of games on this website, but do not feel like I have played a true MMORPG since 2002.
If it is fun, why would anyone care if it is a "true" MMORPG?
If it works, and people are enjoying the game, it is NOT a problem.
That design is NOT working, hence these big AA and AAA titles that splash and crash. You'd think after numerous tries, game management would get the message. No real replay value in a single player story, not much anyway.
Except it isnt true. Many/most are still successfull, not as successfull as they hoped but still generating tons of profit. Therefore it IS working.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I think sandbox mmo is what everyone wanted. It's just a good sandbox game never exist.
An alternative way of calling theme park game is a dumped down sandbox game. Because sandbox game is too complicated to create so developer need to dump down the game.
Comments
We should assume that the end product can be switched off by any consumer who is offended or frightened by it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
What sandbox game??? They don't exist except in our imaginations. Name one popular sandbox game.
At least a WOW clone like TOR sold >2M boxes right out the gate. Tell me how many boxes sandbox games are selling?
How many Big Mac boxes are sold on a daily basis?
It doesn't make a case for how good they are, just that most people are too lazy to cook.
~and SW:ToR sold because of the IP and big names backing it alone, not because it's a good game. Kind of like a Big Mac, except that Big Macs are still selling, while SW:ToR is pretty much struggling to see a point in continuing. Nice try, though.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
It make a case that they are more popular than sandbox games. "Good" is subjective. Popularity and sales are not.
Personally i think TOR a much better game than Darkfall. My preference is not more or less valid than yours, and vice versa.
It makes a case that they are shiny and new for about 2 weeks, then people feel they've played it before X amount of times as *other* games, then band up in unison to cry about how they simply can't learn a lesson anymore.
Someday, you'll stray to the dark side and never look back... but until then, you're welcome to keep up your gamehopping ways.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Hm,as far as I know there has not been released any real sandbox game the last 10 years or more.If you think those ffa pvp games are sandbox then you are wrong. Sandbox game means you do what ever you want to do and nothing else. In those ffa pvp games you are forceed into pvp and that is not sandox at all.
There have been a handful of sandbox games in recent years. FFA PVP does not make a game "sandbox", in fact, far from it. But many games unfortunately just turn on the ability for anyone to attack anyone they wish, /FFA PVP ON if you will, and that's as far as the pvp support goes, as the pvp has no direction or purpose, no balance, etc. Factions help make a more competitive pvp game, but it's often abused (For example, one faction does poorly in pvp, so many people switch sides, causing more problems). This is where the 3 Faction rule kinda comes in, so if one side starts to stack up, 2 sides can team up to even it out.
But people who like sandbox games often prefer to choose who they kill / or don't kill (Which could be done with a choosable faction system that's not based on your character's class/skills/race/etc, but most faction pvp games often make the mistake of tieing your faction to some sort of character creation choice like race/class)
However, GW2 (though not sandbox) is doing PvP correctly because the 3 Factions are simply rotating servers. You faction is your server. This will make for competitive and much more balanced mass-pvp experience.
Now, make a sandbox game with a similar system, and it would be epic.
Though some will dislike the GW2 world pvp system because it does not allow you to gank lowbies as they are PVEing (You can only PvP in the WvWvW area)... nothing says a sandbox style game can't have both open world FFA and competitive objective based faction pvp area with keep seiges and stuff.
I love sandbox games, and I try them all as soon as they come out, but I can tell you for a fact that the problem isn't people's desire to "play on rails" or "Easy mode", people play the theme park MMOs because they always have a much higher production quality, and in turn, though the Theme-Park aspects are often boring/repetitive, the game will have many amazing features that suck people in.
Tera for example has amazingly fun combat mechanics and amazing graphics. Compare to, say, MO, which runs on the same base game UE3 engine (Yet looks 100x worst), and combat system that was absolute garbage.
As I said in my previous post, the problem isn't the player bases, or the Sandbox-style itself, it's the core-gameplay that's holding Sandbox back.
The core game needs to be made correctly. Very few people will play a game that has boring game mechanics and broken systems just because it's "Sandbox". The game needs to be all-around good. Combat needs to fast paced and fun. Character creation/customization needs to be top notch. PvP has to be balanced, rewarding and fun. Graphics need to look respectable. PvE content needs to be as non-repetitive as much as possible with fun and meaningful things to do solo, small group and raid sized parties.
Get all this right, and then make it sandboxy. That would be how to do it right.
Though all this is much easier said then done, as getting funding for a game-model that has notoriously been bad for profits, and getting devs together that know how to make a solid base-game to make all it work would be a feat in itself.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
99% of everything made in the world is complete trash.
You all have fun playing in your popular trash and the few of us will have fun playing in our sandbox.
You see, that's the kind of comments that are so common, yet serve no purpose but to hold the genre back.
Making snide comments and pretending like everything is fine is idiodic. Sandbox experiences are often a lot of fun, but they also have a ton of issues lately and are causing them to flop really hard.
I'm not an ignorant person who thinks a game needs to sell more copies than WoW or even EQ to be considered a "successful game", in fact, I've come to learn that some games are great but just appeal to a smaller niche of people.
But don't pretend like whatever sand box you're playing is perfect. They all suffer from the main problems that I listed out in my previous post.
The core issues need to be discussed in a respectable way so future sandboxes don't make the same mistakes.
It's just the smart thing to do.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
All games release lacking in content. All of em.
The difference between a sandbox and themepark is that the sandbox can recover over time, and eventually pull enough income to survive a long period of time. Themeparks are forced to go F2P, because the only thing keeping people playing is new content drops - which only happen in a blue moon. Sandboxes survive based on the variety of other options at hand.
So years from now, EVE will still be around, Wurn Online will get itself into a better position, MO and Darkfall might as well, but all these themepark games are going to go F2P and try to suck the lifeblood back from the mosquitos nibbling at their desicated corpses. They simply aren't built for any kind of longevity - especially if you compare them to WoW - which has tons more content at this stage, and is finally starting to face the same issues all the others are (interest coming post-expansion and dying off rather quickly after release).
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
If players do not want sandbox, why did Day Z become so popular so quickly?
"Hardcore" FPS players that demand more epeen.
Notice most of them clamoring for it to be made easier and/or have more predictable gameplay conventions in play. It sounded like something they wanted to take part of, initially, and then they actually got their hands on it. Now they want it changed to their liking, rather than having to adapt. Typical.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
"what players want"
What players?
If players 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, & 10 dont want it, and players 4 and 8 do want it...doesnt it also mean that "players want it"?
Yeah.
EVE I agree will be around for a while. MO and Darkfall however will not, that's almost garenteed. Because the base of the games are just down right terrible. EVE has a great team and did pretty well.
As for themeparks lacking content, I agree, but mainly because lately the Themeparks have neglected the PvP aspects of their game. PvP has amazing replay value. Just like a first person shooter. You might play through the campaign once or twice, but FFS count how many hours people log in and kill each other in multiplayer modes.
The argument that sandbox can recover where themeparks can not is subjective to say the least. A sandbox still requires content, it just doesn't force you to do it on a rail. A sandbox with no content is just as bad as a themepark with poor content.
If someone can make an Awesome AAA quality sandbox, with a good amount of PVE content, top-notch features like an innovative combat-system, fun and diverse cosmetic and skill character development, competitive and balanced pvp, good graphics, etc etc It'll be a huge winner.
Right now we're just stuck with AAA Themeparks that have neglected PVP terribly and have grindy/repetitive/boring PVE, and Sandboxes that fail to deliver a game of acceptable base quality.
Both are bad in their own way. We need a Hero for sure.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I for one have absolutely no faith in themepark mmos anymore.Ive tried most of the AAA titles and i just cant enjoy them like a simple,hard sandbox title.Personally i prefer a challenge not a oh ive outgrown this area time to move to where the new quests are till lvl 12 game.Sandbox Mmos have surprises are difficult to advance in and generally have strong communities for a reason,its not single player.
QFT. The game I want to play has content like a Themepark, but set in a well simulated virtual world. The Sandbox is a broken concept, and there are two big reasons why. At the same time, big name Themeparks like WoW and SWTOR have overcompensated for these flaws to such a degree that they've sucked all the life from their "worlds."
First off, "Sandbox" has become synonymous with unrestricted PvP. The problem is that most players don't want to be PK'd, and don't want to have to worry about geting stabbed in the throat every minute they're playing. FFA PvP dooms any game to niche status, case closed. I played UO from 1997 through 1999, and people put up with PKs back then because there were no other games like it at that time. As soon as Everquest came out, and then again when they added Trammel, people voted with thier feet. I'm not making a value judgement here about open world PvP -- it's just the way it is.
Themeparks, starting with WoW, took PvP and turned it into an instanced minigame. I know there are people that like battleground style PvP, but it bores the snot out of me. The game I want to play has optional, in-world PvP that gives players an incentive for participation and has consequences for the game world.
The second problem is that Sandboxes depend on the players to make their own fun. This is fine for veterans, but for new players it presents a huge barrier to entry. If you don't have the tools and knowledge to build a sandcastle, a sandbox looks a lot like a big box of dirt. I've gone back to EvE a couple of times now, drawn in by the idea of things I could do in the game. Maybe I'll be a smuggler! Maybe I'll be a pirate, or a captain of industry! The possibilities are thrilling -- but every time I've actually played the game, I wandered away long before I got to the fun. I can play techno music and watch my disk drive defrag for a similar experience, and save the subscription fee. I don't want to spend six months in a game before the fun starts.
Again, Themeparks have overcompenated by leading the player around from quest hub to quest hub, phase to phase. They do a good job of getting the player oriented, and starting the "game" part immediately. But once you get the hang of things, you quickly realize that you're not in control of you experience. In the effort to keep the player entertained, they completely squelch the kind of emergent gameplay that gives MMO s their longevity.
My perfect game is a bit of a Frankenstein, cobbled together from pieces of game that got one thing right, and failed elsewhere. It would begin as a Themepark, and slowly open up into a Sandbox. PvP would be non-instanced, concentual, and have real consequenses for the world -- like in DAoC. Raiding should be non-instanced, and encourage wide participation. Look at Rift's invasions for an example. The best items would be player-made, and the economy would be controlled by the players (EvE, SWG). At the same time, there should always be scripted content available for those that want it -- but it should be non-linear. No hubs and, for chrissakes, no phases (TSW). Let people explore and consume content at their own pace.
I really think I'm not alone in what I want from a game. The problem, as always, is that these games are too expensive for developers to innovate. But, as the recent spate of high profile failures has shown, playing it safe isn't safe either.
That actually seems pretty accurate.......Im not a huge themepark fan, but all the sandboxes I have tried have not been very good......THe PVP is always a pain and there is always something that keeps you from doing anything you want to and sometimes even limiting it to where you cant do anything unless you do something that is very difficult to do beforehand (ie find land to build on, conquer a city, etc).......
And then someone mentioned Ultima Online, the oldest and logest running major mmo release. A game that people STILL pay to play 14 years later. A game that is still 1 of the sandbaxyest releases ever.
and the premise and basis for your entire arguement just dissapears.......
When Developers call a Full-On Free For PvP as the core tennant of thei game play, or building stuff just for the sake of building stuff a sandbox MMO the game will always fail. Somewhere the term got lost in translation and now every sandbox must contain detailed world building and free for PvP or it isnt a sandbox. Which is full of sh*t. Sandbox means non-linear with no hand holding and free to do as you please.
Untill the day a studio releases a PvE centric mega progression style sandbox which promotes and fosters community building through player run economies and full on adventure style exploration with detailed and lengthy style Asheron's Call style questing then the game will be a disaster or at the least a niche title. This means HUGE open ended free form exploration with no character levels or classes with thousands of dungeons to woander into and bosses to kill for their shinies.
Players like and enjoy combat and finding new things so for the life of me why cant a sandbox game employ development principles that cater to those 2 styles?
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I wish I had been around for UO or even Star Wars Galaxies. Well, I was actually playing EQ during SWG's release, but I didn't have a PC capable of handling SWG's graphics until years later.
I just think that through the years, there have only been 3 great sandbox MMORPGs, Ultima Online, EVE, and SWG. The rest cater too much to the extreme.
Sandboxes were proven with the very first graphical MMO, Ultima Online and yet it still remains the least successful of the successful MMOs to date, right along with Eve. They were seconded by a very visible MMO, Star Wars Galaxies. SWG bled subs so badly they got desperate and revamped the game twice. Gamers are notorious when it comes to elitist attitudes. EverQuest raiding truly brought that nasty, ugly mindset to the fore and it's done nothing but get worse over the years. Home ownership in the US has not been a luxury enjoyed by the majority of Americans for a very long time. We've become a country of apartment complexes and duplexes and condiminiums. Renting is the standard, not ownership.
Except it isnt true. Many/most are still successfull, not as successfull as they hoped but still generating tons of profit. Therefore it IS working.
I think sandbox mmo is what everyone wanted. It's just a good sandbox game never exist.
An alternative way of calling theme park game is a dumped down sandbox game. Because sandbox game is too complicated to create so developer need to dump down the game.