I have been lurking around here for a few years and I agree with you. I'm starting to feel like it's almost time. No one wants to build one yet because it's a gamble. The safe bet is to build another one of what we have all been playing for the last 7-8 years. If those games continue to fail, then maybe, just maybe there will be a bit of a retro movement.
Here's hoping.
Agreed. If I was in charge of a company with a "current themepark" game in mid development I would seriously consider a change in design. Not to say we will suddenly see more "open" games but this last year alone has shown, at least to me, that fully scripted content is not enough for new games. The cost of development vs. player consumption is insane.
Does this mean we'll suddenly see sandbox type games coming out? Games that are more open and allow you to feel like part of the world? I think at first we'll see parts here and there as the development cycles bring us new titles. Hopefully some development teams, aside from known games, have seen this comin and have already been at work.
The majorrity of MMO players is actually very happy with things like dungeon finders, instance quests crossrealm interaction and such
So dont say We need, but refer to me and my friends, or even the very lonely I.
When do people like the OP start to realise they are currently a very small minority.
If a majority of players are happy with these features, why do they leave most MMO's so quickly.
What are they looking for to keep them playing for longer than 2-3 months?
The same majority aren't looking for a game to play for 6 months to a year. They want to play for a month tops, beat it and move on. They approach it the same they would a single player game. It is a box price to give them a couple weeks entertainment until the next thing pops up.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
I would say the majority do like those features. However they leave likely because they find the gameplay itself a tad dull and repetitive.
All those things do is help you access the content, if the content itself is kinda blah, who cares about accessing it.
I tend to agree, I think it is wrong to blame feature for game that fail to provide anything for players to do. Take SWTOR, I doubt anyone who has played it would play its faulure on group finders or instances, the game was sold on the premise of an epic story, but depending on how many classes you're willing to play you only get about a months worth of content out of the game at best.
It isn't about easy or hard. The "addiction" or desire to keep playing comes from the proper rate of reward. The hope or anticipation of reward must be maintained. This is what really matters. The "magnitude", number, and method of rewards are determined by the "difficulty" of the game.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
The majorrity of MMO players is actually very happy with things like dungeon finders, instance quests crossrealm interaction and such
So dont say We need, but refer to me and my friends, or even the very lonely I.
When do people like the OP start to realise they are currently a very small minority.
If a majority of players are happy with these features, why do they leave most MMO's so quickly.
What are they looking for to keep them playing for longer than 2-3 months?
The same majority aren't looking for a game to play for 6 months to a year. They want to play for a month tops, beat it and move on. They approach it the same they would a single player game. It is a box price to give them a couple weeks entertainment until the next thing pops up.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
I would say the majority do like those features. However they leave likely because they find the gameplay itself a tad dull and repetitive.
All those things do is help you access the content, if the content itself is kinda blah, who cares about accessing it.
I tend to agree, I think it is wrong to blame feature for game that fail to provide anything for players to do. Take SWTOR, I doubt anyone who has played it would play its faulure on group finders or instances, the game was sold on the premise of an epic story, but depending on how many classes you're willing to play you only get about a months worth of content out of the game at best.
They also destroy the world the developers built to begin with.
Dungeon finders, Instances, "Cross Realming", all destroys the social aspect as well as the whole point of having a "world" to explore.
The problem are that the super casuals looking @ the product as only a couple months worth of entertainment & treating them like single-player games.
I'm glad most developers are starting to shun these practices in favor of open-world gameplay .
The majorrity of MMO players is actually very happy with things like dungeon finders, instance quests crossrealm interaction and such
So dont say We need, but refer to me and my friends, or even the very lonely I.
When do people like the OP start to realise they are currently a very small minority.
If a majority of players are happy with these features, why do they leave most MMO's so quickly.
What are they looking for to keep them playing for longer than 2-3 months?
The same majority aren't looking for a game to play for 6 months to a year. They want to play for a month tops, beat it and move on. They approach it the same they would a single player game. It is a box price to give them a couple weeks entertainment until the next thing pops up.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
I would say the majority do like those features. However they leave likely because they find the gameplay itself a tad dull and repetitive.
All those things do is help you access the content, if the content itself is kinda blah, who cares about accessing it.
I tend to agree, I think it is wrong to blame feature for game that fail to provide anything for players to do. Take SWTOR, I doubt anyone who has played it would play its faulure on group finders or instances, the game was sold on the premise of an epic story, but depending on how many classes you're willing to play you only get about a months worth of content out of the game at best.
They also destroy the world the developers built to begin with.
Dungeon finders, Instances, "Cross Realming", all destroys the social aspect as well as the whole point of having a "world" to explore.
The problem are that the super casuals looking @ the product as only a couple months worth of entertainment & treating them like single-player games.
I'm glad most developers are starting to shun these practices in favor of open-world gameplay .
This is the same arguement as guns are to blame for gun violence. These arguments are specious and overly simplistic. The reality is that these things are tools, if they are used in such away that destroys community that is part of the design and not the tool itself.
Instances can be a brilliant idea for example. It is the perfect way to provide things like story or player generated content (something that can be a huge social boost), but how one implements an instance, how often they are used, where they are placed, how low or high instance population is set to are all factors that determine if instancing fractures a world or enhances it.
What we need is an old school mmo. In other words we need an mmo that is hard.
We DON'T need. Dungeon finders, cross realm nothing,Dynamic events with auto group, story telling that other social people can't get involved,cinematic that pulls players away from the game for 3 minutes when in groups....This stuff is bull crap...Bottom line.
We DO need. A somewhat hard mmo. One that relays on the guy next to you having a hard time soloing too. A game that joining a guild means something, and helps the players progress as a team. Make a friend that you click with?....Add him to your friends list....It's all about survival in a hard world.
SOMETHING THAT MAKES YOUR HART POUND, BUT WITH FRIENDS,IT CAN BE DONE. This is an mmo !....I don't know what you call all this crap we have now. GuildWars 2 in a nice game. Well made, tons of features. BUTT is still a disappointment as a sociable mmo. It's too easy, no chatting, no social, no guild or friends dependent. It's almost hard to call it an mmo depending on how you look at it ( yes and no ).
I for one would like ( my opinion ) An old school mmo with no auto features, yet nice graphics. An mmo where the developers promise to not ever screw it up and make it easy mode. A game where developers can concentrate on making the world larger, more exploration, more dungeons and raids . Always working on coding to make the game run better. What I would like to see ( my opinion ) is the opposite of SWTOR, with its shallow game play yet a bunch of crap cintamatics and cut seens that takes away from grouping and game play.
Okay you're talking about MMO and not MMORPG so Halo with a lot more players will fit into that or a racing game with a lot of players. Just a game without role playing or maybe you do mean MMORPG, im not sure.
What do you mean by old school mmo? Ultima Online?
What do you mean by hard? Asian MMOs consider harder to be more grinding. Or do you mean more dying? Isn't that like saying, 'I want a game! The best game!'
You arguing this is the most foolish thing in the entire thread.
You honestly think that the people out there who approach all games casually are a wholly seperate group from playing iPhone games? How can a personly possibly be that dense in life? Yes report this post for being true.
Anyone who thinks markets are that segregated have NO IDEA how the markets work.
Are you suggesting the customer segment which enjoys iPhone games is the same which rarely plays MMORPGs past their first 3 months? Seriously?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The ideal game to come out would have a HUGE world to explore as well as good reason to do so. Crafting can be the only thing you do in the game if you'd like.
Character skill progression would be very involved and difficult. Im thinking something similar to Anarchy Online. Was the best character skill/stat system ever.
PVP would exhist on all servers and (like Origins is planning) if you join a nation, you'd instantly be flagged for pvp. If you do not join one, you will not be flagged.
The world would allow the player to dictate its goings on and atmosphere through building (crafting), nation wars, conquering and building.
Repopulation has a great idea with the quest system as well so that it's not linear and driven to drive you to the end. Random quest generator....or whatever they call it....same thing.
To give those that are on the fence between Thempark and sandbox, give them gear that can only be equipped if according to stats....much like AO.
have open dungeons and raids as well as instanced dungeons and raids (if possible....probably would take too much manpower)
Make it ooze sandbox and sprinkle it with a touch of themepark and you've got a great idea.
Hopefully the Repop feels like this...
Playing DF for now and it satisfies my cravings enough.
You arguing this is the most foolish thing in the entire thread.
You honestly think that the people out there who approach all games casually are a wholly seperate group from playing iPhone games? How can a personly possibly be that dense in life? Yes report this post for being true.
Anyone who thinks markets are that segregated have NO IDEA how the markets work.
Are you suggesting the customer segment which enjoys iPhone games is the same which rarely plays MMORPGs past their first 3 months? Seriously?
Are you seriously suggesting that those who play MMOs don't play any phone/tablet games and vice/versa. Wake up.
The majorrity of MMO players is actually very happy with things like dungeon finders, instance quests crossrealm interaction and such
So dont say We need, but refer to me and my friends, or even the very lonely I.
When do people like the OP start to realise they are currently a very small minority.
If a majority of players are happy with these features, why do they leave most MMO's so quickly.
What are they looking for to keep them playing for longer than 2-3 months?
The same majority aren't looking for a game to play for 6 months to a year. They want to play for a month tops, beat it and move on. They approach it the same they would a single player game. It is a box price to give them a couple weeks entertainment until the next thing pops up.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
Lately I'm starting to think the number of us who want a long term experience could be counted on 2 hands with a couple of fingers left over.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The majorrity of MMO players is actually very happy with things like dungeon finders, instance quests crossrealm interaction and such
So dont say We need, but refer to me and my friends, or even the very lonely I.
When do people like the OP start to realise they are currently a very small minority.
If a majority of players are happy with these features, why do they leave most MMO's so quickly.
What are they looking for to keep them playing for longer than 2-3 months?
The same majority aren't looking for a game to play for 6 months to a year. They want to play for a month tops, beat it and move on. They approach it the same they would a single player game. It is a box price to give them a couple weeks entertainment until the next thing pops up.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
I would say the majority do like those features. However they leave likely because they find the gameplay itself a tad dull and repetitive.
All those things do is help you access the content, if the content itself is kinda blah, who cares about accessing it.
I tend to agree, I think it is wrong to blame feature for game that fail to provide anything for players to do. Take SWTOR, I doubt anyone who has played it would play its faulure on group finders or instances, the game was sold on the premise of an epic story, but depending on how many classes you're willing to play you only get about a months worth of content out of the game at best.
They also destroy the world the developers built to begin with.
Dungeon finders, Instances, "Cross Realming", all destroys the social aspect as well as the whole point of having a "world" to explore.
The problem are that the super casuals looking @ the product as only a couple months worth of entertainment & treating them like single-player games.
I'm glad most developers are starting to shun these practices in favor of open-world gameplay .
This is the same arguement as guns are to blame for gun violence. These arguments are specious and overly simplistic. The reality is that these things are tools, if they are used in such away that destroys community that is part of the design and not the tool itself.
Instances can be a brilliant idea for example. It is the perfect way to provide things like story or player generated content (something that can be a huge social boost), but how one implements an instance, how often they are used, where they are placed, how low or high instance population is set to are all factors that determine if instancing fractures a world or enhances it.
In a real MMORPG players create his own stories in a seamless world with unlimited potential, unlike instances, that limit and pigeonhole ur experience. the instanced player generate are nothing but a excuse of lazy devs and armchairs man to dumb down the game and please the lowest denominator.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
Lately I'm starting to think the number of us who want a long term experience could be counted on 2 hands with a couple of fingers left over.
Yeh. I would much rather play a game for a little while, then move on. And may be come back to visit later. With today's technology, you can play with the SAME group of friends (i.e. community) over multiple games. There is no need to confine oneself to ONE game.
The majorrity of MMO players is actually very happy with things like dungeon finders, instance quests crossrealm interaction and such
So dont say We need, but refer to me and my friends, or even the very lonely I.
When do people like the OP start to realise they are currently a very small minority.
If a majority of players are happy with these features, why do they leave most MMO's so quickly.
What are they looking for to keep them playing for longer than 2-3 months?
The same majority aren't looking for a game to play for 6 months to a year. They want to play for a month tops, beat it and move on. They approach it the same they would a single player game. It is a box price to give them a couple weeks entertainment until the next thing pops up.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
I would say the majority do like those features. However they leave likely because they find the gameplay itself a tad dull and repetitive.
All those things do is help you access the content, if the content itself is kinda blah, who cares about accessing it.
I tend to agree, I think it is wrong to blame feature for game that fail to provide anything for players to do. Take SWTOR, I doubt anyone who has played it would play its faulure on group finders or instances, the game was sold on the premise of an epic story, but depending on how many classes you're willing to play you only get about a months worth of content out of the game at best.
They also destroy the world the developers built to begin with.
Dungeon finders, Instances, "Cross Realming", all destroys the social aspect as well as the whole point of having a "world" to explore.
The problem are that the super casuals looking @ the product as only a couple months worth of entertainment & treating them like single-player games.
I'm glad most developers are starting to shun these practices in favor of open-world gameplay .
This is the same arguement as guns are to blame for gun violence. These arguments are specious and overly simplistic. The reality is that these things are tools, if they are used in such away that destroys community that is part of the design and not the tool itself.
Instances can be a brilliant idea for example. It is the perfect way to provide things like story or player generated content (something that can be a huge social boost), but how one implements an instance, how often they are used, where they are placed, how low or high instance population is set to are all factors that determine if instancing fractures a world or enhances it.
In a real MMORPG players create his own stories in a seamless world with unlimited potential, unlike instances, that limit and pigeonhole ur experience. the instanced player generate are nothing but a excuse of lazy devs and armchairs man to dumb down the game and please the lowest denominator.
This would suggest then that there is only one way to create an MMORPG, the problem with that mentality is that then games like WoW win as the one way because they've been most successful. Rather than thumping doctrine like a religious zealot, why don't we broaden the parameters. In fact the original NWN had one of the most dedicated communities and was built on user generated content, but hey clearly I must be a moron because I don't follow a doctrine that condems everything new.
Dungeon finders, Instances, "Cross Realming", all destroys the social aspect as well as the whole point of having a "world" to explore.
And
1) social aspect is not why i play games.
2) cross realming actually HELP .. so i am not confine to the server when i play with others. That makes my social group BIGGER, not smaller.
3) Same for real id friend list. In fact, the best is to have cross GAME community like battle.net id. I can call up my friend even if i am in WOW, and he is playing SC2. Technologies help not to limit your community to a single game, not to mention a single server. It is a good thing.
This would suggest then that there is only one way to create an MMORPG, the problem with that mentality is that then games like WoW win as the one way because they've been most successful. Rather than thumping doctrine like a religious zealot, why don't we broaden the parameters. In fact the original NWN had one of the most dedicated communities and was built on user generated content, but hey clearly I must be a moron because I don't follow a doctrine that condems everything new.
Your confusing the original NWN with the Bioware remake. The original NWN was a pay per hour (then later less) MMORPG that ran from 1991 to 1997 on AOL. Considered by many to be the first graphical MMORPG (considering it was just sprite graphics though)
This would suggest then that there is only one way to create an MMORPG, the problem with that mentality is that then games like WoW win as the one way because they've been most successful. Rather than thumping doctrine like a religious zealot, why don't we broaden the parameters. In fact the original NWN had one of the most dedicated communities and was built on user generated content, but hey clearly I must be a moron because I don't follow a doctrine that condems everything new.
Your confusing the original NWN with the Bioware remake. The original NWN was a pay per hour (then later less) MMORPG that ran from 1991 to 1997 on AOL. Considered by many to be the first graphical MMORPG (considering it was just sprite graphics though)
You are correct I did confuse the two, or rather forgot about the AOL one. Biowares version depending on the on players to create the world in there persistant worlds.
That is the true majority of the game market and it is why smart phone games have been so successful. They can buy one cheap get a couple hours entertainment and move onto the next one. Those of us who want a title we love so much that we want to stay with it for years are the small minority.
Lately I'm starting to think the number of us who want a long term experience could be counted on 2 hands with a couple of fingers left over.
Yeh. I would much rather play a game for a little while, then move on. And may be come back to visit later. With today's technology, you can play with the SAME group of friends (i.e. community) over multiple games. There is no need to confine oneself to ONE game.
It has nothing to do with the people, it has to do with the game and the world within. Certain games occasionally nail it and you just want to be a part of that game for a long long time. Unfortunately, not many MMOs nail it.
If you do look at something like XFire, you tend to see that certain games, many of which are years and years old, are continually in the top group despite how many new games are constantly released. A new game will spike up on the list and then vanish off down into the bottom of the charts a month later but those certain games will keep on going.
Those are games that from a gamer standpoint are made right. From a business standpoint they aren't necessarily made right because outside of something like WoW, they can't keep profitting off ot it for all that time. Usually it is stand alone games where they got $50 up front and the player just got 5-10 years of enjoyment out of it. That is why certain companies learned to keep releasing a new version of their franchise over and over, like Halo and CoD, to try and keep profitting off those people who enjoy the title so much. Steam is another source but the problem there is you have to play Valve games on steam and don't have to play many of the others there so the chart is very skewed in favor of Valve, however you'll still often see quality older games beat out lots of newer ones.
XFire:
1: LoL - 2009
2. CoD 4 - 2007
3. WoW - 2004
4. CoD 2 - 2005
5. GW2 - 2012
6. Borderlands 2 - 2012
7. Diablo 3 - 2012
8. BF 3 - 2012
9. WoT - 2010
10. Minecraft - depends on how you look at it because it was release in alpha mode allowing people to play so 2009/2010 ish
11. GTA: San Andreas - 2005
12. Dota 2 - 2012
13. Fifa 3 - 2012
14. CoD MW3 - 2011
15. SC2 - 2010
16. SW: tOR - 2012
17. MoH-AA - 2002
18. Aion - 2009
19. TF2 - 2007
20. CS:Go - 2012
So in the top 20 games on XFire, the oldest is from 2002. Only 8 are from this year and this year is almost over.
Give me a game I feel like playing for 5 to 8 years because it is so good anyday over one I'm bored of in a week. I like to get value for my money.
You arguing this is the most foolish thing in the entire thread.
You honestly think that the people out there who approach all games casually are a wholly seperate group from playing iPhone games? How can a personly possibly be that dense in life? Yes report this post for being true.
Anyone who thinks markets are that segregated have NO IDEA how the markets work.
Are you suggesting the customer segment which enjoys iPhone games is the same which rarely plays MMORPGs past their first 3 months? Seriously?
Are you seriously suggesting that those who play MMOs don't play any phone/tablet games and vice/versa. Wake up.
I thought about drawing you a Venn diagram, but since this is well within the reach common sense, I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling. Instead I'm only going to tell you: Those two groups are not the same.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You arguing this is the most foolish thing in the entire thread.
You honestly think that the people out there who approach all games casually are a wholly seperate group from playing iPhone games? How can a personly possibly be that dense in life? Yes report this post for being true.
Anyone who thinks markets are that segregated have NO IDEA how the markets work.
Are you suggesting the customer segment which enjoys iPhone games is the same which rarely plays MMORPGs past their first 3 months? Seriously?
Are you seriously suggesting that those who play MMOs don't play any phone/tablet games and vice/versa. Wake up.
I thought about drawing you a Venn diagram, but since this is well within the reach common sense, I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling. Instead I'm only going to tell you: Those two groups are not the same.
Thanks for clarifing something I never said.
The groups are not the same, the groups are also far from seperated. There is more cross over from people who play MMOs to those who play casual games than those who only play MMOs and never touch casual games.
My first game EQ the majority of my enjoyment came from the time I put into my character and the interactions with other players.
The only other MMO I really enjoyed since, DF I enjoyed that I had to rely on other players to help take out other clans.
I enjoyed not being the best (and knowing that) and having to have other people who were not as skilled as many others to try to take a better geared, better skill, better all around player. I like to work towards improving my characters skill, gear, and my skill/ability to play the game.
I would pay a premium to buy and per month to get what the OP is describing... and that may be what developpers should look into. The current variety of mmos are geared for people living in their parents basement, or kids having their parents pay their subscriptions... If it costs a little more, then you better really want it... I for one, would be willing to pay more for something like what the OP is describing. I DO want difficulty, I don`t care how frustrating it is to the "average" player, charge me extra to make up for the loss...
Ok, I am done laughing so I can comment, but please dont say BG is a sand box game, you will make me start laughing again. I read over your last few posts and you do make some good and thoughtfull comments. This may be a personal thing but I did not enjoy Istara one bit and thought it paled when compared to Ryzom. Yes in Ryzom you have to dig in the dirt, but there are many skills you can use to do it or find out exactly where you need to go digging, and when you dig you can be attacked by mobs which makes it exciting. "decorating my house" ? I know that was big in SWG but i dont play games to decorate my house. Speaking of which SWG while having some excellent elements reminded me of a giant chatroom where everyone hung out in the cantina chatting and waiting to get buffed to go out and play some bad combat. Space game-= Good, Harvesting and crafting==Good, Combat and performance===Bad. An MMO with bad combat combined with bad performance is an mmo that sony takes over and makes even worse LOL. As a matter of fact this has been the problem with Vanguard, The combat is fair but the intense lag makes it seem worse and has really hurt this fine game. By the way I have to dissagree again on Fallen Earth combat, it is not tera or AOC combat but I had fun useing guns and the fact that you get a horse right away is cool, and crafting takes some thought.
"Sandbox= Open ended gameplay that doesn't have a conclusion"--I have never seen a mmo that had a conclusion, I have seen some where the quests ran out but never one that had a conclusion.
"Player isn't always defined within a set role"--In Ryzom you are not in a set role, you are what you want to make yourself, if you want to be evil or good that is up to you, Combat in Ryzom,you can use several different types of magic or combine it with melle, it is a skill based building block game that takes ten times more thought than WOW ever did.
"There has yet to be a single sandbox MMO created in the last decade, that wasn't all about PvP"---I played Ryzom for about 75 hours and never even thought about PvP and I dont think I ran into anyone who did, with the occasional exception of a duel, UO on the otherhand was all about griefing and PvP. yes there was house building and such but Pv P ruled the roost there.
"Sandbox gameplay is all about providing a world for you to inhabit, and letting you loose in it"---hmmm if this does not define Ryzom i dont know what does.
Anyway as I said not many people play Ryzom so yes people do find it limiting, although I blame the developers for stagnating the game, however I will take games like Ryzom, Shadowbane, and fallen earth any day over SWG, UO and Eve (little dots in outer space make me blind and irratate me). However BG and BG2 are two of the greatest rpg's in history---but no not sand boxes
First let me clarify, that was Uhwops post as I stated (I went back and redid the font to make that part clearer) however I do generally agree with it.
Decorating your house is not the issue. The issue is about having some place to call your own, and being able to customize your world. Building, desiging and then decorating a home/castle/city farm... would do this, decorating is the least of it and Ryzom doesn't even have that
"Sandbox= Open ended gameplay that doesn't have a conclusion"--I have never seen a mmo that had a conclusion, I have seen some where the quests ran out but never one that had a conclusion. No most MMO's do not have a conclusion which is why there is not a single MMO that does not at least have some sandboxy elements. Every single MMO out is somewhere on the line between full sandbox and full linear gameplay.
"Player isn't always defined within a set role"--In Ryzom you are not in a set role, you are what you want to make yourself, if you want to be evil or good that is up to you, Combat in Ryzom,you can use several different types of magic or combine it with melle, it is a skill based building block game that takes ten times more thought than WOW ever did.
And that is the only thing that Ryzom has that makes it a sandbox, it's skill based. There is nothing else there.
"There has yet to be a single sandbox MMO created in the last decade, that wasn't all about PvP"---I played Ryzom for about 75 hours and never even thought about PvP and I dont think I ran into anyone who did, with the occasional exception of a duel, UO on the otherhand was all about griefing and PvP. yes there was house building and such but Pv P ruled the roost there.
See above. I personally don't consider Ryzom a sandbox. I played for about 3 months, no idea how many hours that was. There is no impact on the world either through your character, or building, there is no market to speak of because everyone can and does build everything. All it has is skill progression and there isn't even any variety in that. How many hours did you spend whacking those bushes to build swords, magic, and whatever other melle and magic they had. It was always exactly the same routine without variation, most even had the same animations. There was no variety in gameplay, no variety in crafting (yes there was tons of variety in stats but nothing in appearance, there were only a dozen or so styles of armor).
Again the only sandbox element it had was skill selection. So if Ryzom is a sandbox it is the worst implementation and description of one. I would consider Vanguard to be more of a sandbox.
"Sandbox gameplay is all about providing a world for you to inhabit, and letting you loose in it"---hmmm if this does not define Ryzom i dont know what does. Ryzom doesn't have anything for you to do in it. There is no impact on the world at all.
Anyway as I said not many people play Ryzom so yes people do find it limiting, although I blame the developers for stagnating the game, however I will take games like Ryzom, Shadowbane, and fallen earth any day over SWG, UO and Eve (little dots in outer space make me blind and irratate me). However BG and BG2 are two of the greatest rpg's in history---but no not sand boxes.
Here is Larsa's description of Sandbox which we use to keep the sandbox list going. Yes it is subjective, however I do agree with it.
An open world, not a collection of small maps
A non-instanced game world, no private instances for story mode or private dungeons (zones are okay if technically needed) Ryzom has this
Gameplay features other than combat activities, for example: fishing, harvesting, prospecting, crafting, diplomacy, music, trading. Ryzom has this
Character progression or development outside of combat(see above examples) Ryzom has this
Open-ended gameplay, no "game starts at level 50" game design Ryzom has this
Player-driven in-game economy, not a loot-driven economy, no bind-on-equip or bind-on acquire items --- Not really but that is because there is a very low population and everyone can make everything, so iffy on this one.
Character development that can be customised via skills and/or customisations of class roles, not a class system where every level 50 warrior has the exact same skills and attributes Ryzom has this
Non-linear character development where characters are not limited to developer-defined roles, for example: free skill trees or multi-classing of characters Ryzom has this
In-depth crafting system. A crafting system is considered in-depth if the majority of items in the game is player-made and when crafted items can be at least as good as dropped items. Ryzom has this with stats.
In-depth resource system. A resource system is considered in-depth if items can be made from raw resources that influence the resulting item (either it's stats or it's appearance is okay) Yes Ryzom has this
Persistent game world. A game where the world (or parts of the world) reset to a known state in regular intervals is not persistent. Ryzom has this.
Player's ability to change aspects of the game world, either by being able to modify the physical game world or by being able to take ownership of structures in the game world Ryzom has this only with taking control of outposts.
Some form of customizable player housing/building Ryzom does not have this.
So Ryzom has enough to be called a sandbox yes, but the implementation and what you actually do there is very very shaky.
But we are digressing. I don't want to talk specifically about Ryzom. More about what makes a sandbox, and by extension I guess, "What makes a true MMO".
LOL, I get it, you think Ryzom is a sand box but you personally do not like it, you should have said that earlier instead of saying BG, LOL ROFL, sorry man every time I think of it I laugh is a sand box.
Its not that I don't like it. I played for three months, not something I do if there is not some level of enjoyment. But they are very vwey limited on each and every sandbox feature.
The game is incredible limiting. For a themepark that is barely acceptable. For a sandbox Imo ir isn't acceptable.
Very limited armor All crafting is the same. From gear to weons to rings. The exact sme thing. All mellee the same All magic thr same. No building at all. very little economy Only outposts owned by a guild for ownership.
An incredibly limiting sandbox
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Agreed. If I was in charge of a company with a "current themepark" game in mid development I would seriously consider a change in design. Not to say we will suddenly see more "open" games but this last year alone has shown, at least to me, that fully scripted content is not enough for new games. The cost of development vs. player consumption is insane.
Does this mean we'll suddenly see sandbox type games coming out? Games that are more open and allow you to feel like part of the world? I think at first we'll see parts here and there as the development cycles bring us new titles. Hopefully some development teams, aside from known games, have seen this comin and have already been at work.
I tend to agree, I think it is wrong to blame feature for game that fail to provide anything for players to do. Take SWTOR, I doubt anyone who has played it would play its faulure on group finders or instances, the game was sold on the premise of an epic story, but depending on how many classes you're willing to play you only get about a months worth of content out of the game at best.
It isn't about easy or hard. The "addiction" or desire to keep playing comes from the proper rate of reward. The hope or anticipation of reward must be maintained. This is what really matters. The "magnitude", number, and method of rewards are determined by the "difficulty" of the game.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
They also destroy the world the developers built to begin with.
Dungeon finders, Instances, "Cross Realming", all destroys the social aspect as well as the whole point of having a "world" to explore.
The problem are that the super casuals looking @ the product as only a couple months worth of entertainment & treating them like single-player games.
I'm glad most developers are starting to shun these practices in favor of open-world gameplay
.
This is the same arguement as guns are to blame for gun violence. These arguments are specious and overly simplistic. The reality is that these things are tools, if they are used in such away that destroys community that is part of the design and not the tool itself.
Instances can be a brilliant idea for example. It is the perfect way to provide things like story or player generated content (something that can be a huge social boost), but how one implements an instance, how often they are used, where they are placed, how low or high instance population is set to are all factors that determine if instancing fractures a world or enhances it.
Okay you're talking about MMO and not MMORPG so Halo with a lot more players will fit into that or a racing game with a lot of players. Just a game without role playing or maybe you do mean MMORPG, im not sure.
What do you mean by old school mmo? Ultima Online?
What do you mean by hard? Asian MMOs consider harder to be more grinding. Or do you mean more dying? Isn't that like saying, 'I want a game! The best game!'
Are you suggesting the customer segment which enjoys iPhone games is the same which rarely plays MMORPGs past their first 3 months? Seriously?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The ideal game to come out would have a HUGE world to explore as well as good reason to do so. Crafting can be the only thing you do in the game if you'd like.
Character skill progression would be very involved and difficult. Im thinking something similar to Anarchy Online. Was the best character skill/stat system ever.
PVP would exhist on all servers and (like Origins is planning) if you join a nation, you'd instantly be flagged for pvp. If you do not join one, you will not be flagged.
The world would allow the player to dictate its goings on and atmosphere through building (crafting), nation wars, conquering and building.
Repopulation has a great idea with the quest system as well so that it's not linear and driven to drive you to the end. Random quest generator....or whatever they call it....same thing.
To give those that are on the fence between Thempark and sandbox, give them gear that can only be equipped if according to stats....much like AO.
have open dungeons and raids as well as instanced dungeons and raids (if possible....probably would take too much manpower)
Make it ooze sandbox and sprinkle it with a touch of themepark and you've got a great idea.
Hopefully the Repop feels like this...
Playing DF for now and it satisfies my cravings enough.
Are you seriously suggesting that those who play MMOs don't play any phone/tablet games and vice/versa. Wake up.
Lately I'm starting to think the number of us who want a long term experience could be counted on 2 hands with a couple of fingers left over.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In a real MMORPG players create his own stories in a seamless world with unlimited potential, unlike instances, that limit and pigeonhole ur experience. the instanced player generate are nothing but a excuse of lazy devs and armchairs man to dumb down the game and please the lowest denominator.
Yeh. I would much rather play a game for a little while, then move on. And may be come back to visit later. With today's technology, you can play with the SAME group of friends (i.e. community) over multiple games. There is no need to confine oneself to ONE game.
This would suggest then that there is only one way to create an MMORPG, the problem with that mentality is that then games like WoW win as the one way because they've been most successful. Rather than thumping doctrine like a religious zealot, why don't we broaden the parameters. In fact the original NWN had one of the most dedicated communities and was built on user generated content, but hey clearly I must be a moron because I don't follow a doctrine that condems everything new.
And
1) social aspect is not why i play games.
2) cross realming actually HELP .. so i am not confine to the server when i play with others. That makes my social group BIGGER, not smaller.
3) Same for real id friend list. In fact, the best is to have cross GAME community like battle.net id. I can call up my friend even if i am in WOW, and he is playing SC2. Technologies help not to limit your community to a single game, not to mention a single server. It is a good thing.
Your confusing the original NWN with the Bioware remake. The original NWN was a pay per hour (then later less) MMORPG that ran from 1991 to 1997 on AOL. Considered by many to be the first graphical MMORPG (considering it was just sprite graphics though)
You are correct I did confuse the two, or rather forgot about the AOL one. Biowares version depending on the on players to create the world in there persistant worlds.
I will love the shit out of the first AAA sandbox MMO to get PvP and PvE right.
So far, I haven't seen a single sandbox do either of them right.
Which is fine, haven't seen a themepark come close either.
It has nothing to do with the people, it has to do with the game and the world within. Certain games occasionally nail it and you just want to be a part of that game for a long long time. Unfortunately, not many MMOs nail it.
If you do look at something like XFire, you tend to see that certain games, many of which are years and years old, are continually in the top group despite how many new games are constantly released. A new game will spike up on the list and then vanish off down into the bottom of the charts a month later but those certain games will keep on going.
Those are games that from a gamer standpoint are made right. From a business standpoint they aren't necessarily made right because outside of something like WoW, they can't keep profitting off ot it for all that time. Usually it is stand alone games where they got $50 up front and the player just got 5-10 years of enjoyment out of it. That is why certain companies learned to keep releasing a new version of their franchise over and over, like Halo and CoD, to try and keep profitting off those people who enjoy the title so much. Steam is another source but the problem there is you have to play Valve games on steam and don't have to play many of the others there so the chart is very skewed in favor of Valve, however you'll still often see quality older games beat out lots of newer ones.
XFire:
1: LoL - 2009
2. CoD 4 - 2007
3. WoW - 2004
4. CoD 2 - 2005
5. GW2 - 2012
6. Borderlands 2 - 2012
7. Diablo 3 - 2012
8. BF 3 - 2012
9. WoT - 2010
10. Minecraft - depends on how you look at it because it was release in alpha mode allowing people to play so 2009/2010 ish
11. GTA: San Andreas - 2005
12. Dota 2 - 2012
13. Fifa 3 - 2012
14. CoD MW3 - 2011
15. SC2 - 2010
16. SW: tOR - 2012
17. MoH-AA - 2002
18. Aion - 2009
19. TF2 - 2007
20. CS:Go - 2012
So in the top 20 games on XFire, the oldest is from 2002. Only 8 are from this year and this year is almost over.
Give me a game I feel like playing for 5 to 8 years because it is so good anyday over one I'm bored of in a week. I like to get value for my money.
I thought about drawing you a Venn diagram, but since this is well within the reach common sense, I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling. Instead I'm only going to tell you: Those two groups are not the same.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Thanks for clarifing something I never said.
The groups are not the same, the groups are also far from seperated. There is more cross over from people who play MMOs to those who play casual games than those who only play MMOs and never touch casual games.
I actually think that most of the people that play MMO's casually are exactly the same people that do/would play games on tablets and phones.
Just data pulled out of my own rear end
What I miss most is the need of other players.
My first game EQ the majority of my enjoyment came from the time I put into my character and the interactions with other players.
The only other MMO I really enjoyed since, DF I enjoyed that I had to rely on other players to help take out other clans.
I enjoyed not being the best (and knowing that) and having to have other people who were not as skilled as many others to try to take a better geared, better skill, better all around player. I like to work towards improving my characters skill, gear, and my skill/ability to play the game.
LOL, I get it, you think Ryzom is a sand box but you personally do not like it, you should have said that earlier instead of saying BG, LOL ROFL, sorry man every time I think of it I laugh is a sand box.
The game is incredible limiting. For a themepark that is barely acceptable. For a sandbox Imo ir isn't acceptable.
Very limited armor
All crafting is the same. From gear to weons to rings. The exact sme thing.
All mellee the same
All magic thr same.
No building at all.
very little economy
Only outposts owned by a guild for ownership.
An incredibly limiting sandbox