But if you claim to enjoy the freedom of emoting in a field you should respect another players freedom to gang bang you back to town until you can raise a force to take back your emote area.
nah .. i can simply not play such a game. Having others spoiling my fun is .. well .. not fun to me.
lol then a open game world is not for you.
No. It is not. I don't mind an open world, but it is certainly not required for a game to be fun to me.
I would love for a good open world non-PvP game to come out. There is so much potential in the concept but it is stunted because most devs of these games cannot get over the FFA PvP trap.
You're dead wrong. The "best" ship in the game, a Titan, is dead meat if you're caught in one alone. The quality of the group you belong to matters massively more than your personal gear in EVE.
Good to know. I don't depend on others for my fun. Now i have one more reason to avoid Eve (the first one is that it is easy-mode boring pve missions).
I would say you're completely dependent on others for fun.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I would love for a good open world non-PvP game to come out. There is so much potential in the concept but it is stunted because most devs of these games cannot get over the FFA PvP trap.
Not in SP games. GTA and SKYRIM seems to have taken that concept and fun.
Those are not my kind of games (i don't like gangster games, and there is too much walking in SKYRIM) but i can't fault them for being successful open world games.
Part of the friction between the PVP crowd and the PVE crowd is the idea that any one game has to make both groups happy.
I don't hold that to be true.
Look at the game list on this site.
There are hundreds of games out there now - there is no need for one title to attempt to make both these groups happy and because of this, there is no reason for these two groups to hate one another because they should be playing entire worlds apart.
If someone wants to play a Korean bling-bling game that has virtual slot machines that give out fuzzy pink unicorns for the players to ride I wish them a world of fun but I won't be there. No reason to be upset with them and their game choices. Likewise, some people just want to come home and relax so the thrill of PvP is lost on them.
Very true.
Even the same person can have different moods and preferences at different times.
Usually i don't want any pvp in my games. Once in a while, i will log into PS2 to just do pvp for a while.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Except that EQ had linear clonal characters (all warriors were the same, all monks the same...), no way to differentiate classes, heavy loot driven game, no impact on the actual gameworld. The only thing remotely sandboxy was no restrictions on where you could go. To me EQ was a themepark through and through.
Well "themepark" is merely a buzzword that each of us define. The term "themepark" was coined to describe gameplay of WoW and its many clones. Saying EQ is a themepark suggests EQ is like WoW. If that were the case, then why are WoW and EQ players consistently on opposite side of gaming arguments? The question is rhetoric. EQ at its peak bore no resemblance to WoW whatsoever, and hence bore no resemblance to themeparks.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Except that EQ had linear clonal characters (all warriors were the same, all monks the same...), no way to differentiate classes, heavy loot driven game, no impact on the actual gameworld. The only thing remotely sandboxy was no restrictions on where you could go. To me EQ was a themepark through and through.
Well "themepark" is merely a buzzword that each of us define. The term "themepark" was coined to describe gameplay of WoW and its many clones. Saying EQ is a themepark suggests EQ is like WoW. If that were the case, then why are WoW and EQ players consistently on opposite side of gaming arguments? The question is rhetoric. EQ at its peak bore no resemblance to WoW whatsoever, and hence bore no resemblance to themeparks.
Arguing semantics?
I would suggest when someone want to refer to EQ .. just say "EQ". Categorizing it serves very little purpose.
There is no irony in the sense that the OP mentions. Sandbox means players have all control over the game world. That means it is up to the players what kind of game world they create. It's especially up to the players to organize themselves. If they don't want certain behaviour then they will have to set up some rules and enforce them (e.g. in-game law enforcement & bounty hunting). Like in the real world there will be safer areas and unsafer areas. Everything will change over time. Maybe a city / player hub will get abandoned in favour of other locations / player hubs. Rules players set up will change over time as well. Guilds / organisations will come into life, grow and eventually fall apart.
A big part will be to keep up with how the game world evolves. Things could go pear shaped. That's true. Then it's up to the players to step up and act.
There is no irony in the sense that the OP mentions. Sandbox means players have all control over the game world. That means it is up to the players what kind of game world they create. It's especially up to the players to organize themselves. If they don't want certain behaviour then they will have to set up some rules and enforce them (e.g. in-game law enforcement & bounty hunting). Like in the real world there will be safer areas and unsafer areas. Everything will change over time. Maybe a city / player hub will get abandoned in favour of other locations / player hubs. Rules players set up will change over time as well. Guilds / organisations will come into life, grow and eventually fall apart.
A big part will be to keep up with how the game world evolves. Things could go pear shaped. That's true. Then it's up to the players to step up and act.
That does not sound like a game i would like to play. I would much rather rely on professional devs to give me fun content, then reply on other players.
Plus, it just takes a few malicious players to ruin my fun.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Good to know. I don't depend on others for my fun. Now i have one more reason to avoid Eve (the first one is that it is easy-mode boring pve missions).
Nah, Malcanis is just silly narrow minded about how the game should be played. EVE provides excellent solo experience, no worries.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Except that EQ had linear clonal characters (all warriors were the same, all monks the same...), no way to differentiate classes, heavy loot driven game, no impact on the actual gameworld. The only thing remotely sandboxy was no restrictions on where you could go. To me EQ was a themepark through and through.
Well "themepark" is merely a buzzword that each of us define. The term "themepark" was coined to describe gameplay of WoW and its many clones. Saying EQ is a themepark suggests EQ is like WoW. If that were the case, then why are WoW and EQ players consistently on opposite side of gaming arguments? The question is rhetoric. EQ at its peak bore no resemblance to WoW whatsoever, and hence bore no resemblance to themeparks.
Yes it is a buzzword, but no it was not coined to desribe WoW. I first heard it in EQ used the same way it was today, to describe a game where the devs have created all the situations.
EQ is more like wow than it is a sandbox.
I don't think most EQ and WoW players are consistently on the opposite side. I think it is only fringes that are on the opposites sides. I think most EQ and WoW players are in agreement, There is more commonalities between EQ and WoW than either of those games and sandbox.
EQ at its peak was a linear clonal characters, no differentiated classes (all warriors the same, all monks the same..) heavy loot driven game, no impact to the game worldl. At it's peak it had instanced zones as well. These were the basic points that WoW become known for. EQ had them.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Saying EQ is a themepark suggests EQ is like WoW. If that were the case, then why are WoW and EQ players consistently on opposite side of gaming arguments?
Mechanics.
Both are themeparks, both also have their niches that's hardwired into the game. EQ/EQII's is "raid or die"; WoW's is "move or die".
EQ/EQII is more traditional RPG, where WoW can barely call itself RPG these days, as the combat mechanics is what's defining it now (and the real truth folks are leaving. Terribly boring going through the nth stat tweak just because Ghostcrawler and his numbnuts like spice more [to justify having a job] than game balance. The stat tweaking in WoW should've long been done. Not this skill/talent revision every <90 days).
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes it is a buzzword, but no it was not coined to desribe WoW. I first heard it in EQ used the same way it was today, to describe a game where the devs have created all the situations.
I spent over 8,000 hours playing Everquest and many hours on EQ forums/sites. Not once did I hear or see the term "themepark." I seriously doubt the term was mentioned on any forum prior to WoW's launch. Our disagreement here has to do with definitions. You think a PVE game that is class-based (instead of skill based) is Themepark? /bizarre. But you are entitled to your opinion. Cheers.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
EQ was not a theme park. A themeoark MMO guides you through zone after zone. There were multiple newbie zones in EQ, multiple newbie dungeons you could do or avoid, multiple mid level zones and a handful of high level zones and dungeons. It was not a quest game, despite the number of quests in the game. You did quests because you wanted to do them, not because you had to. Quest EXP was minimal, even now. EQ was more of a "get a group together and go grind EXP somewhere" type of game.
Also want to mention I admire WoW and have grown to respect WoW players (I used to think most were just kids, which is cool; just not who I choose to hang out with). But even the kids are men (and women) now, and I certainly respect them and their views.
I loved Blizzard before it was cool to love Blizzard. I am a huge fan of the franchise and certainly would have played WoW at launch if I wasn't already heavily involved with EQ.
TMI, perhaps, but there ya go.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes it is a buzzword, but no it was not coined to desribe WoW. I first heard it in EQ used the same way it was today, to describe a game where the devs have created all the situations.
I spent over 8,000 hours playing Everquest and many hours on EQ forums/sites. Not once did I hear or see the term "themepark." I seriously doubt the term was mentioned on any forum prior to WoW's launch. Our disagreement here has to do with definitions. You think a PVE game that is class-based (instead of skill based) is Themepark? /bizarre. But you are entitled to your opinion. Cheers.
Thats fine.
However I do not believe that a class based game is a themepark. I stated it was class based with no variations between the class (meaning all warriors are the same), heavy loot driven and no impact on the world, with instancing to boot. That is a themepark.
Istaria is class based. It is most definately not a themepark.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes it is a buzzword, but no it was not coined to desribe WoW. I first heard it in EQ used the same way it was today, to describe a game where the devs have created all the situations.
I spent over 8,000 hours playing Everquest and many hours on EQ forums/sites. Not once did I hear or see the term "themepark." I seriously doubt the term was mentioned on any forum prior to WoW's launch. Our disagreement here has to do with definitions. You think a PVE game that is class-based (instead of skill based) is Themepark? /bizarre. But you are entitled to your opinion. Cheers.
Everquest was most definitely a theme park. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the terms "sandbox" and "theme park" as they relate to video games.
Originally posted by koboldfodder EQ was not a theme park. A themeoark MMO guides you through zone after zone. There were multiple newbie zones in EQ, multiple newbie dungeons you could do or avoid, multiple mid level zones and a handful of high level zones and dungeons. It was not a quest game, despite the number of quests in the game. You did quests because you wanted to do them, not because you had to. Quest EXP was minimal, even now. EQ was more of a "get a group together and go grind EXP somewhere" type of game.
You are mistaking open world = go wherever you want, with themepark = linear progression.
EQ is a themepark, just you can roam "freely"(well, as long as you get 1 hit by high lvl mobs).
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar ...I stated it was class based with no variations between the class (meaning all warriors are the same), heavy loot driven and no impact on the world, with instancing to boot. That is a themepark.
In a class based game, of course all warriors have similar skills. They weren't the same, though, because race, starting stats chosen, and gear heavily differentiated them. EQ didn't have instancing until several years after launch. When I say EQ, I always mean EQ in its prime; not current day EQ.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Everquest was most definitely a theme park. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the terms "sandbox" and "theme park" as they relate to video games.
Please state your definition of Themepark. Mine is:
1. Quest hubs 2. NPCs guilde the player through the entire game. Going off the predefined path will be costly in terms of lost xp and loot. 3. Little death penalty and often no corpse runs. 4. Lots of soloability
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningfull consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.
In the real world, anti-social types generaly aren't very successfull simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependance. Where many MMO's start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependance neccessary for an individual to function. If you actualy need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truely anti-social. You may still have villians.....but they'll be ones that at least treat thier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
Comments
I would love for a good open world non-PvP game to come out. There is so much potential in the concept but it is stunted because most devs of these games cannot get over the FFA PvP trap.
I would say you're completely dependent on others for fun.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Not in SP games. GTA and SKYRIM seems to have taken that concept and fun.
Those are not my kind of games (i don't like gangster games, and there is too much walking in SKYRIM) but i can't fault them for being successful open world games.
Very true.
Even the same person can have different moods and preferences at different times.
Usually i don't want any pvp in my games. Once in a while, i will log into PS2 to just do pvp for a while.
Virtual worlds make both groups happy.
The developers have to develop by the rules too. Best interest of the consumer in my opinion. Hard to add pandas and slowly replace your audience.
You're the customer. Do you want these games changed slowly over time for someone else or a new ceo? Virtual worlds can't do that.
The design is the failure not the groups of different people fighting. Don't be fooled.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Well "themepark" is merely a buzzword that each of us define. The term "themepark" was coined to describe gameplay of WoW and its many clones. Saying EQ is a themepark suggests EQ is like WoW. If that were the case, then why are WoW and EQ players consistently on opposite side of gaming arguments? The question is rhetoric. EQ at its peak bore no resemblance to WoW whatsoever, and hence bore no resemblance to themeparks.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
It does not make me happy. I guess i don't belong to either group.
Arguing semantics?
I would suggest when someone want to refer to EQ .. just say "EQ". Categorizing it serves very little purpose.
There is no irony in the sense that the OP mentions. Sandbox means players have all control over the game world. That means it is up to the players what kind of game world they create. It's especially up to the players to organize themselves. If they don't want certain behaviour then they will have to set up some rules and enforce them (e.g. in-game law enforcement & bounty hunting). Like in the real world there will be safer areas and unsafer areas. Everything will change over time. Maybe a city / player hub will get abandoned in favour of other locations / player hubs. Rules players set up will change over time as well. Guilds / organisations will come into life, grow and eventually fall apart.
A big part will be to keep up with how the game world evolves. Things could go pear shaped. That's true. Then it's up to the players to step up and act.
Now I understand where you're coming from.
I can play too. /Snip
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
That does not sound like a game i would like to play. I would much rather rely on professional devs to give me fun content, then reply on other players.
Plus, it just takes a few malicious players to ruin my fun.
Nah, Malcanis is just silly narrow minded about how the game should be played. EVE provides excellent solo experience, no worries.
It isn't, you just lack knowledge how the game works, what has to offer and how to exploit it.
You base your opinion on very false assumptions.
Give the game try.
Yes it is a buzzword, but no it was not coined to desribe WoW. I first heard it in EQ used the same way it was today, to describe a game where the devs have created all the situations.
EQ is more like wow than it is a sandbox.
I don't think most EQ and WoW players are consistently on the opposite side. I think it is only fringes that are on the opposites sides. I think most EQ and WoW players are in agreement, There is more commonalities between EQ and WoW than either of those games and sandbox.
EQ at its peak was a linear clonal characters, no differentiated classes (all warriors the same, all monks the same..) heavy loot driven game, no impact to the game worldl. At it's peak it had instanced zones as well. These were the basic points that WoW become known for. EQ had them.
Mechanics.
Both are themeparks, both also have their niches that's hardwired into the game. EQ/EQII's is "raid or die"; WoW's is "move or die".
EQ/EQII is more traditional RPG, where WoW can barely call itself RPG these days, as the combat mechanics is what's defining it now (and the real truth folks are leaving. Terribly boring going through the nth stat tweak just because Ghostcrawler and his numbnuts like spice more [to justify having a job] than game balance. The stat tweaking in WoW should've long been done. Not this skill/talent revision every <90 days).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I spent over 8,000 hours playing Everquest and many hours on EQ forums/sites. Not once did I hear or see the term "themepark." I seriously doubt the term was mentioned on any forum prior to WoW's launch. Our disagreement here has to do with definitions. You think a PVE game that is class-based (instead of skill based) is Themepark? /bizarre. But you are entitled to your opinion. Cheers.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Also want to mention I admire WoW and have grown to respect WoW players (I used to think most were just kids, which is cool; just not who I choose to hang out with). But even the kids are men (and women) now, and I certainly respect them and their views.
I loved Blizzard before it was cool to love Blizzard. I am a huge fan of the franchise and certainly would have played WoW at launch if I wasn't already heavily involved with EQ.
TMI, perhaps, but there ya go.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Thats fine.
However I do not believe that a class based game is a themepark. I stated it was class based with no variations between the class (meaning all warriors are the same), heavy loot driven and no impact on the world, with instancing to boot. That is a themepark.
Istaria is class based. It is most definately not a themepark.
Everquest was most definitely a theme park. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the terms "sandbox" and "theme park" as they relate to video games.
You are mistaking open world = go wherever you want, with themepark = linear progression.
EQ is a themepark, just you can roam "freely"(well, as long as you get 1 hit by high lvl mobs).
In a class based game, of course all warriors have similar skills. They weren't the same, though, because race, starting stats chosen, and gear heavily differentiated them. EQ didn't have instancing until several years after launch. When I say EQ, I always mean EQ in its prime; not current day EQ.
Please state your definition of Themepark. Mine is:
1. Quest hubs
2. NPCs guilde the player through the entire game. Going off the predefined path will be costly in terms of lost xp and loot.
3. Little death penalty and often no corpse runs.
4. Lots of soloability
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningfull consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.
In the real world, anti-social types generaly aren't very successfull simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependance. Where many MMO's start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependance neccessary for an individual to function. If you actualy need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truely anti-social. You may still have villians.....but they'll be ones that at least treat thier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
wow ... fighting over semantics about EQ.
Isn't it more efficient just to discuss what one likes and dislike about EQ? Does it matter if it is a themepark or a sandbox?
Will anyone change their opinion of the game if the label is different?