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.
Anyones list is Subjective and speculation. Myself I couldnt stand none of those 3. UO had crappy top down 2D view, Eve feels like I am playing a Excel Spreadsheet not to mention your character isnt even a character its a ship and SWG I never touched mainly because I was still playing Asherons Call at the time which IMO is the best sandbox game ever. The funny thing is AC didnt let you build crap, nor did it have forced PvP. What it did have was 2nd to none character creation (which explains why I love TSW so much) open world free form exploration and truely epic and detailed quests plus it had player housing and a loot system that didnt entail me having to gather up 700 of my closest friends and organize to go kill structured bosses for the best loot, instead the best loot could be obtained from someone who played 10 minutes a day or 10 hours a day, in that system it promoted community and socializing and a great player economy.
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'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.
Most themepark games that are released have a very unhealthy status, the few, and i do mean very very few, that linger on, are pretty much doing so either by moving to F2P or by making huge cuts in their support services, even WoW, the only really successful 'themepark' is managing because they are always adding more and more content and, not locking players into a single, linear path, which most themepark games do, as for generating tons of profit, that is something that is extremely debateable as players are more and more voting with their wallets, and long term subs is something most AAA themepark MMO's are not achieving, most facebook apps generate more revenue than AAA MMO's these days, possibly barring WoW that is, and the list of themepark games that failed to make it, grows ever longer.
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.
UO is very successful and is stil going today.. Eve is also very successful is keeps growing.. SWG was one of the best and most popular MMORPGs out there until SOE and LA managed to brake it.. They seen how many players wow had managed to get an wanted some of that pie..
MMORPGs where never aimed at the millinos of average joes that wow managed to drag in.. People who enjoyed role playing in RL enjoyed MMORPGs. If we take wow out of the loop then you see that most MMORPGs are pretty successful and keep a good subscriber base..
Companies need to stop trying to pull people away from wow and accept it was more of a one off in the MMORPG industry and go back to maknig proper MMORPGs for the people who actually like what MMORPGs where suppose to be..
Myself I have enjoyed nearly all the Sandbox MMORPGs that have been released over the years.. Sure they have been a bit buggy due to lack of funds and no big publisher wanting to back them.. but they have had a vision and I had tons of fun in games like Darkfall and Mortal Online.
if players knew what they want they would simpley play a game. most gamers actually have no idea, and therefor are bashing games for 5 years now, without playing anything for real.
that's what moms used to do back in the days, now it's gamers ^^ weird enough imo
"believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid and i did it anyway!"
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.
Most themepark games that are released have a very unhealthy status, the few, and i do mean very very few, that linger on, are pretty much doing so either by moving to F2P or by making huge cuts in their support services, even WoW, the only really successful 'themepark' is managing because they are always adding more and more content and, not locking players into a single, linear path, which most themepark games do, as for generating tons of profit, that is something that is extremely debateable as players are more and more voting with their wallets, and long term subs is something most AAA themepark MMO's are not achieving, most facebook apps generate more revenue than AAA MMO's these days, possibly barring WoW that is, and the list of themepark games that failed to make it, grows ever longer.
I don't think so. We think they are unhealthy because they don't have millions. However many are stable at 100-300k subs adn were stable before F2P. EQ2, CoH and Lotro are examples of this. That is not an unhealthy number, it is a very healthy number.
True it is not as much as they wanted, but it is still healthy, stable and generating a profit. The move to F2P wasn't because they were unsuccessfull but because they felt there could make even more money with that model.
The list of themepark games that failed to make it is smaller than the ones that turned a profit.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
MMORPGs where never aimed at the millinos of average joes that wow managed to drag in.. People who enjoyed role playing in RL enjoyed MMORPGs.
You are aware that the table-top roleplaying industry is pretty much dead these days, right? If the MMO industry continued to focus on those people, it would be just as dead today. At the time MMOs got started, pretty much the only audience who had the broadband connections they needed to play the games were the geeks who also enjoyed PnP RPGs. Therefore the first games focused on those people and took advantage of their common interests. Even when there was only 1-2 games out there, they could never get more than 300-500K players. Today, that just isn't true. No game company would be satisfied with just 300-500k players. WoW showed the industry that there were millions of people who would love to play the games, if companies made games they wanted to play.
The early games failed because they didn't appeal to a wide enough audience. That's why nobody makes games like that anymore!
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.
UO is very successful and is stil going today.. Eve is also very successful is keeps growing.. SWG was one of the best and most popular MMORPGs out there until SOE and LA managed to brake it.. They seen how many players wow had managed to get an wanted some of that pie..
MMORPGs where never aimed at the millinos of average joes that wow managed to drag in.. People who enjoyed role playing in RL enjoyed MMORPGs. If we take wow out of the loop then you see that most MMORPGs are pretty successful and keep a good subscriber base..
Companies need to stop trying to pull people away from wow and accept it was more of a one off in the MMORPG industry and go back to maknig proper MMORPGs for the people who actually like what MMORPGs where suppose to be..
Myself I have enjoyed nearly all the Sandbox MMORPGs that have been released over the years.. Sure they have been a bit buggy due to lack of funds and no big publisher wanting to back them.. but they have had a vision and I had tons of fun in games like Darkfall and Mortal Online.
From the very beginning, EQ outshined and continues to outshine UO in subscriber numbers as do most themepark MMOs. Yes, both UO and Eve and to some extent early SWG were successful in their own right, but not nearly so in comparison to their competition (themeparks). The market didn't just pick themparks on a whim, they have proven to be the better money makers so far.
heres my problem with sandbox mmo's.. in my experience ..
sandbox=pvp=chaos=willynilly
themepark=pve=order=structure
This is the common misconception of what a sandbox is and is the fault of indy games developers who also didn't have much of a clue. A sandbox is a perpetual world where you as players are given the tools and told to get on with it, it is not a PvP killfest for the immature, short epeen crowd who get their kicks solely by causing grief to everyone they come across.
In a sandbox your virtual character is given a place to live and to explore, you are not taken by the hand and led through a series of scripted areas until you reach max level when you are presented with a sub-standard endgame. In a sandbox you are expected to contribute to and build the world and experience around you, it is not a giant BG.
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.
Actually SWG had around 100-150k stable subs. It was revamped and ruined by overpaid suits that have no idea what an MMO is aside from the balance sheet and who got greedy after seeing the numbers that WoW pulled in.
I used to think that sandbox was what I really wanted. But after playing some minecraft and entropia universe, I can tell you I'm not a huge fan of 100% open ended player made content.
Theres a middle ground. Something that SWG did back before the changes. Even after the changes, it was still ok. I want a virtual world with a strong theme that ties that world together.
I enjoy playing an mmo that lets you do whatever you want within the setting of the game. More than combat classes and more than a house (instanced or not). Im talking about multiple ways to approach the game world, whether it be as a combatant or farmer, traveler, scientist, ranger, business person, the more the better.
I actually do like the themeparks coming out these days. They just dont have the variety to keep me playing for long. I can go through these games as a combatant. Thats the bulk of the game design. I can roleplay and craft items (usually items that aid in combat), but it doesnt take long to realize that although technically you can play the game that way, you're ignoring about 90% of the content and thats just not worth the time or the money. Its like buying an MMO just to play with the character creator and never log on.
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.
UO is very successful and is stil going today.. Eve is also very successful is keeps growing.. SWG was one of the best and most popular MMORPGs out there until SOE and LA managed to brake it.. They seen how many players wow had managed to get an wanted some of that pie..
MMORPGs where never aimed at the millinos of average joes that wow managed to drag in.. People who enjoyed role playing in RL enjoyed MMORPGs. If we take wow out of the loop then you see that most MMORPGs are pretty successful and keep a good subscriber base..
Companies need to stop trying to pull people away from wow and accept it was more of a one off in the MMORPG industry and go back to maknig proper MMORPGs for the people who actually like what MMORPGs where suppose to be..
Myself I have enjoyed nearly all the Sandbox MMORPGs that have been released over the years.. Sure they have been a bit buggy due to lack of funds and no big publisher wanting to back them.. but they have had a vision and I had tons of fun in games like Darkfall and Mortal Online.
From the very beginning, EQ outshined and continues to outshine UO in subscriber numbers as do most themepark MMOs. Yes, both UO and Eve and to some extent early SWG were successful in their own right, but not nearly so in comparison to their competition (themeparks). The market didn't just pick themparks on a whim, they have proven to be the better money makers so far.
What a flawed argument.
UO has maintained a profitable subscription based model to this day.
EQ is currently free to play.
In their Prime EQ was more popular for sure, but that is hardly a fair comparision as almost double the number of people in the world had computers when EQ was released compared to UO. UO was the effective founder of the MMO market and eq built on that. They were both good games in their own way, but saying that because EQ was more popular than UO is very different than saying "mmo players dont like sandboxes" which is what the OP is saying.
1 could also make the claim that looking at the most anticipated games, 3 of the top 4 are sandboxes(1 is a fps, so neither themepark or sandbox.). So clearly there is a large niche group of gamers that does not like the current crop of themeparks that flood the market.
Honestly, it's just a matter of people roleplaying two personas - their posturing life on the MMORPG.com forums, and the one in-game.
On MMORPG.com, they are totally badass. They say any game is too easy and they want MOAR HARDKORE! MOAR FULL LOOT PVP ALL THE TIME!!11.
When they get into the game, they find out that they aren't the top of the food chain. They start to become Hulks in EVE, or try to be a crafter in Darkfall. Needless to say, they are the sheep that the wolves prey on all the time. Only few people have a recognizable name in one of these two games, and MMORPG.com doesn't have any of them.
So eventually, they reach out and say the game's buggy. Insult the developers. Or, in the case of MMORPG.com, insult themepark games at every turn so they can distract other people from the fact that they are carebear themselves. This is why we have so many 'Themepark is bad; sandbox is good' threads. These sandbox gamers need self-esteem as if it's a currency necessary to continue playing their game, since they will never be wolves - just addicted sheep.
As an aside, if you start talking about 'skill caps' in games, you're an idiot. No one here will ever reach a skill cap for any game ever. I was #1 in a few mATs in GW1, and even then, I'm far from any skill cap. HoN might have a higher skill cap than LoL, but it doesn't matter because none of you are good enough to get near it anyway, so it doesn't matter what game you play. You're just bad.
And yes, that includes themepark games. None of you are in Paragon, so you really can't talk about reaching skill caps.
Honestly, it's just a matter of people roleplaying two personas - their posturing life on the MMORPG.com forums, and the one in-game.
On MMORPG.com, they are totally badass. They say any game is too easy and they want MOAR HARDKORE! MOAR FULL LOOT PVP ALL THE TIME!!11.
When they get into the game, they find out that they aren't the top of the food chain. They start to become Hulks in EVE, or try to be a crafter in Darkfall. Needless to say, they are the sheep that the wolves prey on all the time. Only few people have a recognizable name in one of these two games, and MMORPG.com doesn't have any of them.
So eventually, they reach out and say the game's buggy. Insult the developers. Or, in the case of MMORPG.com, insult themepark games at every turn so they can distract other people from the fact that they are carebear themselves. This is why we have so many 'Themepark is bad; sandbox is good' threads. These sandbox gamers need self-esteem as if it's a currency necessary to continue playing their game, since they will never be wolves - just addicted sheep.
As an aside, if you start talking about 'skill caps' in games, you're an idiot. No one here will ever reach a skill cap for any game ever. I was #1 in a few mATs in GW1, and even then, I'm far from any skill cap. HoN might have a higher skill cap than LoL, but it doesn't matter because none of you are good enough to get near it anyway, so it doesn't matter what game you play. You're just bad.
And yes, that includes themepark games. None of you are in Paragon, so you really can't talk about reaching skill caps.
i dont think so, in fact, the only PvP i have tasted has been in WoW, Lineage II, Aion and EVE. i have tasted FFA PvP, BGs and Factional Warfare, but i dont whine in this forum about how hard it is, war isnt supposed to be fair. i wouldnt mind a sandbox with FFA PvP as long as i didnt have to loose my loot, like in EVE. or unless you would be able to recover quickly, as in EVE. to be honest, when i tasted EVE i wanted to go quickly to mining, i wasnt really interested in PvP, my only motive was to have a Rorcual, but i got a hurricane anyways and started to train in killing rats, and even went to kill some enemies with my corp in a matari frigate.
you cannot classify all the members of this forum to be bad gamers and good whiners.
the only problem i get with a total Sandbox is that players put many effort in it, but are afraid of loosing everything if they aren't awake. its has been proven in Minecraft servers, some players like to troll othe users creations. in MMOs we have the problem of griefing and ganking. but its a necessary evil, i mean. difficulty make us fight for the things, i used to get pissed when i got can flipped, but i just realized that i couldnt do more, every game has its group of a**holes and the only thing you can do is fight them or just dont get in their way.
also, the danger helps to create communities, i mean, with a good structured and balanced PvP, lowbies could organize and fight the gankers, this forming little militias. as they advance they could form bigger companies and later found a whole organization/nation or whatever, and the only enemies they would have would be other coalitions or factions in the same place as them.
FFA PvP with full loot is viable, but only if there's community. solo players wont survive in a place like that, unless they learn quickly how do the things work in the game, but if they like to be hand guided then they're doomed.
You're right, I don't want a sandbox game. I never asked for a sandbox game.
I asked for a game with depth, choices/multiple viable play styles, and socializing.
That was the bare minimum for MMOs in the 90s. Now its a pipe dream.
The games I loved in the past like DAoC weren't sandboxes. They may be called that now because of how simple online games like WoW and SWTOR are. But they weren't sandboxes they were just well made games.
I don't want a sandbox. I want an MMORPG. A real one.
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
^ not here for any of that tbh. I understand some people have a very deep, avid love and appreciation for sandbox games and maybe themepark game developers could learn to incorporate some of the best features of a sandbox game into their themepark games, and that sort of hybrid would be popular. But themeparks are what sell, and just because developers have not been smart in preparing longterm viability for said themepark games lately doesn't change that they are what people actually purchase.
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
I'd consider boring linear content like the "quests" in WoW clones to be a second job. Not the dynamic social experiences found in sandboxes. How can it be a job if its dynamic?
And A and C are both BS. Asshats ruin any game, not just sandboxes. And I can't think of a single sandbox game that hasn't had content.
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
But themeparks are what sell
Er, no, they aren't. The healthiest MMO on the market right now is Eve.
SWG, a sandbox, when it came out, was the second most popular MMO.
DayZ, a sandbox game thats more MMO than almost any AAA title from the last 7 years is pushing a million users soon.
Meanwhile, SWTOR is crashing and burning taking EA with it. LotRO and DDO are limping along in FTP obscurity, AoC was dead on arrival, Aion vanished, Rift merged servers almost right away... Yeah. No.
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
You might as well have posted that the sun is made of trillions of oranges and peanut butter is actually alien poop because nothing you posted has any truth to it.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
You might as well have posted that the sun is made of trillions of oranges and peanut butter is actually alien poop because nothing you posted has any truth to it.
The issue is existing sandboxes are mostly bad games. The few which aren't bad games tend to be singleplayer (Terrarria, and to a lesser degree Minecraft,) or really low quality in other ways (Haven & Hearth)
Players want a game about manipulating the world, but they want a game. That means interesting decisions, which oftentimes sandbox games let fall by the wayside in the pursuit of less important goals like world simulation or world PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
But themeparks are what sell
Er, no, they aren't. The healthiest MMO on the market right now is Eve.
SWG, a sandbox, when it came out, was the second most popular MMO.
DayZ, a sandbox game thats more MMO than almost any AAA title from the last 7 years is pushing a million users soon.
Meanwhile, SWTOR is crashing and burning taking EA with it. LotRO and DDO are limping along in FTP obscurity, AoC was dead on arrival, Aion vanished, Rift merged servers almost right away... Yeah. No.
No. The highest are Wow, followed by Aion, than L2. Eve does have a strong and large playerbase but it is not the healthiest. Now the arguement is that those other games don't have more in the west, welll wow does, and Eve is played on the global market as well. http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=782711
Swg was popular however it was also bleeding subs for months before WoW came out.
Dayz has a lot of people downloadingit, I have no idea how many are currently using it. More MMO is largely opinion. And it is very limited on the number of people that are on a single instance/shard/server whatever you want to call it.
Lotro has a very healthy population. It had a very healthy and stable population in the 150-200k range before going f2p. It did not go f2p because of an unhealthy or low population or because it wasn't making money. It went f2p because the owners felt they could make even more money with f2p.
Rift is doing very well. Healthy population and making enough profit to fund a 2nd game development.
I'll give you DDO and AoC. Although by all accounts DDO is not limping along at all.
And to the earlier person saying EQ does not have the population of UO and the evidence of this is it went F2p. No. It had a very stable population, low yes, but higher than UO IMO. Just like EQ2 and Lotro, it went f2p, not because it had to but because the owners felt they could generate more money.
edit - in NA alone Eve probably has just between 100 and 150k
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
You might as well have posted that the sun is made of trillions of oranges and peanut butter is actually alien poop because nothing you posted has any truth to it.
Have fun being delusional then.
Your problems with "sandbox games" are UNIVERSAL problems every MMO encounters and has to deal with. That is why your post is comparable to alien feces.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
People don't want a second job.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
You might as well have posted that the sun is made of trillions of oranges and peanut butter is actually alien poop because nothing you posted has any truth to it.
Have fun being delusional then.
Your problems with "sandbox games" are UNIVERSAL problems every MMO encounters and has to deal with. That is why your post is comparable to alien feces.
I agree with Thane. These are problems that have plagued Sandboxes and have IMO kept them from being more popular.
FFAPVP has plagued sandboxes. No sandbox doesn't mean ffapvp but many/most of the ones in the last decade have had that.
Most of the activities in a sandbox take a very very very long time before they start becoming usefull/meaning full, very long crafting projects, very long skill advancement...
Sandbox typically has less content than other MMO's, again it shouldn't but typicall does.
These are real and valid concerns. While some other games share them, Sandbox has been plagued with them.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Anyones list is Subjective and speculation. Myself I couldnt stand none of those 3. UO had crappy top down 2D view, Eve feels like I am playing a Excel Spreadsheet not to mention your character isnt even a character its a ship and SWG I never touched mainly because I was still playing Asherons Call at the time which IMO is the best sandbox game ever. The funny thing is AC didnt let you build crap, nor did it have forced PvP. What it did have was 2nd to none character creation (which explains why I love TSW so much) open world free form exploration and truely epic and detailed quests plus it had player housing and a loot system that didnt entail me having to gather up 700 of my closest friends and organize to go kill structured bosses for the best loot, instead the best loot could be obtained from someone who played 10 minutes a day or 10 hours a day, in that system it promoted community and socializing and a great player economy.
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.
Most themepark games that are released have a very unhealthy status, the few, and i do mean very very few, that linger on, are pretty much doing so either by moving to F2P or by making huge cuts in their support services, even WoW, the only really successful 'themepark' is managing because they are always adding more and more content and, not locking players into a single, linear path, which most themepark games do, as for generating tons of profit, that is something that is extremely debateable as players are more and more voting with their wallets, and long term subs is something most AAA themepark MMO's are not achieving, most facebook apps generate more revenue than AAA MMO's these days, possibly barring WoW that is, and the list of themepark games that failed to make it, grows ever longer.
UO is very successful and is stil going today.. Eve is also very successful is keeps growing.. SWG was one of the best and most popular MMORPGs out there until SOE and LA managed to brake it.. They seen how many players wow had managed to get an wanted some of that pie..
MMORPGs where never aimed at the millinos of average joes that wow managed to drag in.. People who enjoyed role playing in RL enjoyed MMORPGs. If we take wow out of the loop then you see that most MMORPGs are pretty successful and keep a good subscriber base..
Companies need to stop trying to pull people away from wow and accept it was more of a one off in the MMORPG industry and go back to maknig proper MMORPGs for the people who actually like what MMORPGs where suppose to be..
Myself I have enjoyed nearly all the Sandbox MMORPGs that have been released over the years.. Sure they have been a bit buggy due to lack of funds and no big publisher wanting to back them.. but they have had a vision and I had tons of fun in games like Darkfall and Mortal Online.
if players knew what they want they would simpley play a game. most gamers actually have no idea, and therefor are bashing games for 5 years now, without playing anything for real.
that's what moms used to do back in the days, now it's gamers ^^ weird enough imo
"believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid and i did it anyway!"
I don't think so. We think they are unhealthy because they don't have millions. However many are stable at 100-300k subs adn were stable before F2P. EQ2, CoH and Lotro are examples of this. That is not an unhealthy number, it is a very healthy number.
True it is not as much as they wanted, but it is still healthy, stable and generating a profit. The move to F2P wasn't because they were unsuccessfull but because they felt there could make even more money with that model.
The list of themepark games that failed to make it is smaller than the ones that turned a profit.
You are aware that the table-top roleplaying industry is pretty much dead these days, right? If the MMO industry continued to focus on those people, it would be just as dead today. At the time MMOs got started, pretty much the only audience who had the broadband connections they needed to play the games were the geeks who also enjoyed PnP RPGs. Therefore the first games focused on those people and took advantage of their common interests. Even when there was only 1-2 games out there, they could never get more than 300-500K players. Today, that just isn't true. No game company would be satisfied with just 300-500k players. WoW showed the industry that there were millions of people who would love to play the games, if companies made games they wanted to play.
The early games failed because they didn't appeal to a wide enough audience. That's why nobody makes games like that anymore!
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
From the very beginning, EQ outshined and continues to outshine UO in subscriber numbers as do most themepark MMOs. Yes, both UO and Eve and to some extent early SWG were successful in their own right, but not nearly so in comparison to their competition (themeparks). The market didn't just pick themparks on a whim, they have proven to be the better money makers so far.
This is the common misconception of what a sandbox is and is the fault of indy games developers who also didn't have much of a clue. A sandbox is a perpetual world where you as players are given the tools and told to get on with it, it is not a PvP killfest for the immature, short epeen crowd who get their kicks solely by causing grief to everyone they come across.
In a sandbox your virtual character is given a place to live and to explore, you are not taken by the hand and led through a series of scripted areas until you reach max level when you are presented with a sub-standard endgame. In a sandbox you are expected to contribute to and build the world and experience around you, it is not a giant BG.
Actually SWG had around 100-150k stable subs. It was revamped and ruined by overpaid suits that have no idea what an MMO is aside from the balance sheet and who got greedy after seeing the numbers that WoW pulled in.
I used to think that sandbox was what I really wanted. But after playing some minecraft and entropia universe, I can tell you I'm not a huge fan of 100% open ended player made content.
Theres a middle ground. Something that SWG did back before the changes. Even after the changes, it was still ok. I want a virtual world with a strong theme that ties that world together.
I enjoy playing an mmo that lets you do whatever you want within the setting of the game. More than combat classes and more than a house (instanced or not). Im talking about multiple ways to approach the game world, whether it be as a combatant or farmer, traveler, scientist, ranger, business person, the more the better.
I actually do like the themeparks coming out these days. They just dont have the variety to keep me playing for long. I can go through these games as a combatant. Thats the bulk of the game design. I can roleplay and craft items (usually items that aid in combat), but it doesnt take long to realize that although technically you can play the game that way, you're ignoring about 90% of the content and thats just not worth the time or the money. Its like buying an MMO just to play with the character creator and never log on.
What a flawed argument.
UO has maintained a profitable subscription based model to this day.
EQ is currently free to play.
In their Prime EQ was more popular for sure, but that is hardly a fair comparision as almost double the number of people in the world had computers when EQ was released compared to UO. UO was the effective founder of the MMO market and eq built on that. They were both good games in their own way, but saying that because EQ was more popular than UO is very different than saying "mmo players dont like sandboxes" which is what the OP is saying.
1 could also make the claim that looking at the most anticipated games, 3 of the top 4 are sandboxes(1 is a fps, so neither themepark or sandbox.). So clearly there is a large niche group of gamers that does not like the current crop of themeparks that flood the market.
The sandbox probably works for fewer people, less often, but when it does work it works better for those people?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Honestly, it's just a matter of people roleplaying two personas - their posturing life on the MMORPG.com forums, and the one in-game.
On MMORPG.com, they are totally badass. They say any game is too easy and they want MOAR HARDKORE! MOAR FULL LOOT PVP ALL THE TIME!!11.
When they get into the game, they find out that they aren't the top of the food chain. They start to become Hulks in EVE, or try to be a crafter in Darkfall. Needless to say, they are the sheep that the wolves prey on all the time. Only few people have a recognizable name in one of these two games, and MMORPG.com doesn't have any of them.
So eventually, they reach out and say the game's buggy. Insult the developers. Or, in the case of MMORPG.com, insult themepark games at every turn so they can distract other people from the fact that they are carebear themselves. This is why we have so many 'Themepark is bad; sandbox is good' threads. These sandbox gamers need self-esteem as if it's a currency necessary to continue playing their game, since they will never be wolves - just addicted sheep.
As an aside, if you start talking about 'skill caps' in games, you're an idiot. No one here will ever reach a skill cap for any game ever. I was #1 in a few mATs in GW1, and even then, I'm far from any skill cap. HoN might have a higher skill cap than LoL, but it doesn't matter because none of you are good enough to get near it anyway, so it doesn't matter what game you play. You're just bad.
And yes, that includes themepark games. None of you are in Paragon, so you really can't talk about reaching skill caps.
i dont think so, in fact, the only PvP i have tasted has been in WoW, Lineage II, Aion and EVE. i have tasted FFA PvP, BGs and Factional Warfare, but i dont whine in this forum about how hard it is, war isnt supposed to be fair. i wouldnt mind a sandbox with FFA PvP as long as i didnt have to loose my loot, like in EVE. or unless you would be able to recover quickly, as in EVE. to be honest, when i tasted EVE i wanted to go quickly to mining, i wasnt really interested in PvP, my only motive was to have a Rorcual, but i got a hurricane anyways and started to train in killing rats, and even went to kill some enemies with my corp in a matari frigate.
you cannot classify all the members of this forum to be bad gamers and good whiners.
the only problem i get with a total Sandbox is that players put many effort in it, but are afraid of loosing everything if they aren't awake. its has been proven in Minecraft servers, some players like to troll othe users creations. in MMOs we have the problem of griefing and ganking. but its a necessary evil, i mean. difficulty make us fight for the things, i used to get pissed when i got can flipped, but i just realized that i couldnt do more, every game has its group of a**holes and the only thing you can do is fight them or just dont get in their way.
also, the danger helps to create communities, i mean, with a good structured and balanced PvP, lowbies could organize and fight the gankers, this forming little militias. as they advance they could form bigger companies and later found a whole organization/nation or whatever, and the only enemies they would have would be other coalitions or factions in the same place as them.
FFA PvP with full loot is viable, but only if there's community. solo players wont survive in a place like that, unless they learn quickly how do the things work in the game, but if they like to be hand guided then they're doomed.
You're right, I don't want a sandbox game. I never asked for a sandbox game.
I asked for a game with depth, choices/multiple viable play styles, and socializing.
That was the bare minimum for MMOs in the 90s. Now its a pipe dream.
The games I loved in the past like DAoC weren't sandboxes. They may be called that now because of how simple online games like WoW and SWTOR are. But they weren't sandboxes they were just well made games.
I don't want a sandbox. I want an MMORPG. A real one.
I think the biggest problems with sandboxes are:
A) It leaves way too much room for asshats to ruin the experience for everyone.
C) Sandbox is an excuse for no content/development.
^ not here for any of that tbh. I understand some people have a very deep, avid love and appreciation for sandbox games and maybe themepark game developers could learn to incorporate some of the best features of a sandbox game into their themepark games, and that sort of hybrid would be popular. But themeparks are what sell, and just because developers have not been smart in preparing longterm viability for said themepark games lately doesn't change that they are what people actually purchase.
I'd consider boring linear content like the "quests" in WoW clones to be a second job. Not the dynamic social experiences found in sandboxes. How can it be a job if its dynamic?
And A and C are both BS. Asshats ruin any game, not just sandboxes. And I can't think of a single sandbox game that hasn't had content.
Er, no, they aren't. The healthiest MMO on the market right now is Eve.
SWG, a sandbox, when it came out, was the second most popular MMO.
DayZ, a sandbox game thats more MMO than almost any AAA title from the last 7 years is pushing a million users soon.
Meanwhile, SWTOR is crashing and burning taking EA with it. LotRO and DDO are limping along in FTP obscurity, AoC was dead on arrival, Aion vanished, Rift merged servers almost right away... Yeah. No.
You might as well have posted that the sun is made of trillions of oranges and peanut butter is actually alien poop because nothing you posted has any truth to it.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Have fun being delusional then.
The issue is existing sandboxes are mostly bad games. The few which aren't bad games tend to be singleplayer (Terrarria, and to a lesser degree Minecraft,) or really low quality in other ways (Haven & Hearth)
Players want a game about manipulating the world, but they want a game. That means interesting decisions, which oftentimes sandbox games let fall by the wayside in the pursuit of less important goals like world simulation or world PVP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No. The highest are Wow, followed by Aion, than L2. Eve does have a strong and large playerbase but it is not the healthiest. Now the arguement is that those other games don't have more in the west, welll wow does, and Eve is played on the global market as well. http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=782711
Swg was popular however it was also bleeding subs for months before WoW came out.
Dayz has a lot of people downloadingit, I have no idea how many are currently using it. More MMO is largely opinion. And it is very limited on the number of people that are on a single instance/shard/server whatever you want to call it.
Lotro has a very healthy population. It had a very healthy and stable population in the 150-200k range before going f2p. It did not go f2p because of an unhealthy or low population or because it wasn't making money. It went f2p because the owners felt they could make even more money with f2p.
Rift is doing very well. Healthy population and making enough profit to fund a 2nd game development.
I'll give you DDO and AoC. Although by all accounts DDO is not limping along at all.
And to the earlier person saying EQ does not have the population of UO and the evidence of this is it went F2p. No. It had a very stable population, low yes, but higher than UO IMO. Just like EQ2 and Lotro, it went f2p, not because it had to but because the owners felt they could generate more money.
edit - in NA alone Eve probably has just between 100 and 150k
Your problems with "sandbox games" are UNIVERSAL problems every MMO encounters and has to deal with. That is why your post is comparable to alien feces.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I agree with Thane. These are problems that have plagued Sandboxes and have IMO kept them from being more popular.
FFAPVP has plagued sandboxes. No sandbox doesn't mean ffapvp but many/most of the ones in the last decade have had that.
Most of the activities in a sandbox take a very very very long time before they start becoming usefull/meaning full, very long crafting projects, very long skill advancement...
Sandbox typically has less content than other MMO's, again it shouldn't but typicall does.
These are real and valid concerns. While some other games share them, Sandbox has been plagued with them.