Sandbox quests in the context of being created by developers would imply the quests are somewhat malleable in their manner of completion or alternatively the manner of their impact.
AKA, multiple methods to complete a quest so that one does not have to adhere to a standard means of play such as stabbing everything until victory, or that the quest affects the game world in some manner upon completion or failure or contains variables that splay out into branching narratives for a more free-form experience.
Sandbox quests in the context of player content would be the ability for players to construct their own contained and shareable narratives, be it personal character storylines, actual quest chains, etc.
The defining feature is, as always, the matter of choice. Giving players some form of agency to experience quests in a manner that is less narrowly scripted, and moving to a fluid experience that repeats itself less rather than a rigid one that is ultimately the same every time.
EDIT: And yeah always take what Nariu says with a grain of salt, as he definitely steers into the 'tag them and bag them' end of gaming more than caring about the concept of ongoing/indefinite play, community, or anything really outside the realm of 'finishing' something and moving on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But it doesnt, dont you see that some ppl want their actions to permamently affect a persisent world shared by everyone thats NOT the same as some "instance where the stuff changes according to the stage of your quest" and then after you finish its gone... It may work for you since you have a shallow view on MMOs, but not for others..
Not if you put everything into instances .. and save a copy of that. Ditch the persistent world.
Just like D3 .. you can go on YOUR quests, and YOUR world changes around you. Just put up a "neutral" city so people can mingle.
It also works like that in Marvel Heroes. Your problem is that you think a persistent world is always necessarily .. it is not. Problem solved.
These are elective positions That are given some game master abilitys to direct content. They set up an "event" that happens once at a particular time and date and sometimes they control the NPCs and some times the mobs and sometimes they play right along side the other players.
Consider it active-interactive modding. We've all played modded games well this is the online version of that.
And who pays for those event moderators? Are you willing to pay $50 a month for a game with event moderators? I know I'm not and I bet the vast majority of players aren't either. Nothing happens for free, if you increase the cost by having these moderators, you increase the price.
Then what among price will increase if use moderators to run events ?
You said $50 but are you sure it $50 and not $20 or $30 or same $15.
Technically we don't need they created all events from big to small , just the big ones that effect the game world .
And if the game designed allows moderators to direct control game events then the cost may go down.
If simple said that "the cost are too much" then we don't even have electricity to use now a days , since the cost to created electric was very high at time it first discover how to product.
Imagine a quest unfolding in a way that the developer did not foresee (objective accomplished by some unexpected strategy or the world ending in a state the developer did not imagine).
If this is seen as a problem with the quest design, it's a themepark-style.
If this is seen as a success of the quest design, it's a sandbox-style.
But it doesnt, dont you see that some ppl want their actions to permamently affect a persisent world shared by everyone thats NOT the same as some "instance where the stuff changes according to the stage of your quest" and then after you finish its gone... It may work for you since you have a shallow view on MMOs, but not for others..
Not if you put everything into instances .. and save a copy of that. Ditch the persistent world.
Just like D3 .. you can go on YOUR quests, and YOUR world changes around you. Just put up a "neutral" city so people can mingle.
It also works like that in Marvel Heroes. Your problem is that you think a persistent world is always necessarily .. it is not. Problem solved.
Not for me. I need a persistent world that is able to be affected by all the players in the game... if not, why play mmorpgs then? I could just play a single player RPG that does this much better, or a MOBA/FPs if I wanted straight up PvP..
Technically we don't need they created all events from big to small , just the big ones that effect the game world .
The devs already create all the events you encounter in a game. You already pay for it. There is no need to do it in real time.
That's how MMORPG work Mr.Narius. No matter how you see MMORPG as single player game , it still a MMORPG
Unlike single player game , in MMORPG , you log out and the game still run "in real time" ,
that's why you need to created "in real time" live events in other to feed the game world who need to keep "living".
All of time , player do created events intent or not , but as those events are small and don't effect the game world so much that's why it need major events created to keep the world run .
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by AxxarOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by Vermillion_RaventhalThemepark is just hard developer content though could be player instance like Neverwinter. This means farmer Bob will always have a farm in the shire and will offer quest to flagged eligible people.
Not if the farm is in an instance, and change according to the stage of your quest.But then you're not really changing the world, but seeing a different version of the world other players don't.So? Just give every player his own "version" of the world. That works in online SP games .. should work in a MMO.
but then it's a single player game and not an MMO.
These are elective positions That are given some game master abilitys to direct content. They set up an "event" that happens once at a particular time and date and sometimes they control the NPCs and some times the mobs and sometimes they play right along side the other players.
Consider it active-interactive modding. We've all played modded games well this is the online version of that.
And who pays for those event moderators? Are you willing to pay $50 a month for a game with event moderators? I know I'm not and I bet the vast majority of players aren't either. Nothing happens for free, if you increase the cost by having these moderators, you increase the price.
Then what among price will increase if use moderators to run events ?
You said $50 but are you sure it $50 and not $20 or $30 or same $15.
Technically we don't need they created all events from big to small , just the big ones that effect the game world .
And if the game designed allows moderators to direct control game events then the cost may go down.
If simple said that "the cost are too much" then we don't even have electricity to use now a days , since the cost to created electric was very high at time it first discover how to product.
The whole point is to avoid random quests by having moderators generating these events on a regular basis. You're not going to get that without hiring moderators who spend a significant amount of time, if not all of their time, creating events, running events and moderating events. Someone has to pay for these moderators and that's going to be the players.
But it doesnt, dont you see that some ppl want their actions to permamently affect a persisent world shared by everyone thats NOT the same as some "instance where the stuff changes according to the stage of your quest" and then after you finish its gone... It may work for you since you have a shallow view on MMOs, but not for others..
Not if you put everything into instances .. and save a copy of that. Ditch the persistent world.
Just like D3 .. you can go on YOUR quests, and YOUR world changes around you. Just put up a "neutral" city so people can mingle.
It also works like that in Marvel Heroes. Your problem is that you think a persistent world is always necessarily .. it is not. Problem solved.
Not for me. I need a persistent world that is able to be affected by all the players in the game... if not, why play mmorpgs then? I could just play a single player RPG that does this much better, or a MOBA/FPs if I wanted straight up PvP..
No, you *WANT* it. You don't need it. There is a difference. No one has any obligation to give you what you want, you're always welcome to go off and do something else.
But it doesnt, dont you see that some ppl want their actions to permamently affect a persisent world shared by everyone thats NOT the same as some "instance where the stuff changes according to the stage of your quest" and then after you finish its gone... It may work for you since you have a shallow view on MMOs, but not for others..
Not if you put everything into instances .. and save a copy of that. Ditch the persistent world.
Just like D3 .. you can go on YOUR quests, and YOUR world changes around you. Just put up a "neutral" city so people can mingle.
It also works like that in Marvel Heroes. Your problem is that you think a persistent world is always necessarily .. it is not. Problem solved.
Not for me. I need a persistent world that is able to be affected by all the players in the game... if not, why play mmorpgs then? I could just play a single player RPG that does this much better, or a MOBA/FPs if I wanted straight up PvP..
No, you *WANT* it. You don't need it. There is a difference. No one has any obligation to give you what you want, you're always welcome to go off and do something else.
Most people are playing/doing something else or posting on this board. It's true you don't need it, but that it isn't better that way for many. Considering the MMOs of today wouldn't be here if people hadn't payed for the old ones people should be more open to them and how unique they were compared to what you see today.
The whole point is to avoid random quests by having moderators generating these events on a regular basis. You're not going to get that without hiring moderators who spend a significant amount of time, if not all of their time, creating events, running events and moderating events. Someone has to pay for these moderators and that's going to be the players.
I don't see why you'd have to pay people. Make tools that are reasonably user-friendly and plenty of people would do it for free for the prestige and experience same as single player game modders work for free.
Quality control and fairness are really the biggest stumbling blocks to this kind of system. Not cost. But I believe there are ways around those issues.
Originally posted by Vermillion_RaventhalThemepark is just hard developer content though could be player instance like Neverwinter. This means farmer Bob will always have a farm in the shire and will offer quest to flagged eligible people.
Not if the farm is in an instance, and change according to the stage of your quest.
But then you're not really changing the world, but seeing a different version of the world other players don't.
So? Just give every player his own "version" of the world. That works in online SP games .. should work in a MMO.
but then it's a single player game and not an MMO.
So? It is just a label. If you can call GW1 or DDO or Marvel Heroes MMO, certainly you can call what i describe MMO.
But it doesnt, dont you see that some ppl want their actions to permamently affect a persisent world shared by everyone thats NOT the same as some "instance where the stuff changes according to the stage of your quest" and then after you finish its gone... It may work for you since you have a shallow view on MMOs, but not for others..
Not if you put everything into instances .. and save a copy of that. Ditch the persistent world.
Just like D3 .. you can go on YOUR quests, and YOUR world changes around you. Just put up a "neutral" city so people can mingle.
It also works like that in Marvel Heroes. Your problem is that you think a persistent world is always necessarily .. it is not. Problem solved.
Not for me. I need a persistent world that is able to be affected by all the players in the game... if not, why play mmorpgs then? I could just play a single player RPG that does this much better, or a MOBA/FPs if I wanted straight up PvP..
Most people are playing/doing something else or posting on this board. It's true you don't need it, but that it isn't better that way for many. Considering the MMOs of today wouldn't be here if people hadn't payed for the old ones people should be more open to them and how unique they were compared to what you see today.
"better" is subjective. I don't think it is better for me. My opinion is just as valid as yours.
Why should i be more open to old ideas? I have played them, and found them inferior (to me) games. I chose my entertainment based on what i like, not based on if the idea exists first.
Most people are playing/doing something else or posting on this board. It's true you don't need it, but that it isn't better that way for many. Considering the MMOs of today wouldn't be here if people hadn't payed for the old ones people should be more open to them and how unique they were compared to what you see today.
"better" is subjective. I don't think it is better for me. My opinion is just as valid as yours.
Why should i be more open to old ideas? I have played them, and found them inferior (to me) games. I chose my entertainment based on what i like, not based on if the idea exists first.
I would ask you the same question. Why are your ideas of what is good better then mine? You seem to state things with a matter of factness like that's how it should be. It's how I prefer things and I strongly believe they are better overall.
Originally posted by Vermillion_RaventhalThemepark is just hard developer content though could be player instance like Neverwinter. This means farmer Bob will always have a farm in the shire and will offer quest to flagged eligible people.
Not if the farm is in an instance, and change according to the stage of your quest.
But then you're not really changing the world, but seeing a different version of the world other players don't.
So? Just give every player his own "version" of the world. That works in online SP games .. should work in a MMO.
but then it's a single player game and not an MMO.
So? It is just a label. If you can call GW1 or DDO or Marvel Heroes MMO, certainly you can call what i describe MMO.
GW1 has never been advertised as an MMO, even the devs call it a CORPG. I don't know enough about the other games to determine if they are actually MMORPGs.
I know we've been over this before, but let's try again...this time with a historical approach.
The MMORPG genre really evolved from the MUD (Multi User Dungeon) genre. MUDs were, typically text-based, games in which several users would play in real-time in a shared virtual world. In fact, prior to the term MMORPG being coined with UO, games that you would now call MMORPGs were called "graphical MUDs." So really, MMORPG is just a modern term for the MUD, that's it.
The defining attribute of the MUD is the fact that there are many users playing in a shared virtual world. That is what differentiates them from normal RPGs...and that is also what differentiates MMORPGs from RPGs.
I know that you really want to stretch the definition of MMORPG for some reason, but I don't see why. Yes, I know this is just a semantic debate, but I think semantic debates are important sometimes. I don't want to see Starcraft advertised as an FPS just like I don't want to see Diablo 3 advertised as an MMORPG. It's basically false advertising and lying to your potential buyers.
So? It is just a label. If you can call GW1 or DDO or Marvel Heroes MMO, certainly you can call what i describe MMO.
GW1 has never been advertised as an MMO, even the devs call it a CORPG. I don't know enough about the other games to determine if they are actually MMORPGs.
I know we've been over this before, but let's try again...this time with a historical approach.
The MMORPG genre really evolved from the MUD (Multi User Dungeon) genre. MUDs were, typically text-based, games in which several users would play in real-time in a shared virtual world. In fact, prior to the term MMORPG being coined with UO, games that you would now call MMORPGs were called "graphical MUDs." So really, MMORPG is just a modern term for the MUD, that's it.
The defining attribute of the MUD is the fact that there are many users playing in a shared virtual world. That is what differentiates them from normal RPGs...and that is also what differentiates MMORPGs from RPGs.
I know that you really want to stretch the definition of MMORPG for some reason, but I don't see why. Yes, I know this is just a semantic debate, but I think semantic debates are important sometimes. I don't want to see Starcraft advertised as an FPS just like I don't want to see Diablo 3 advertised as an MMORPG. It's basically false advertising and lying to your potential buyers.
Great post that will inevitably induce the same tired misguided response that things change and language evolves.
Yes, Mr. Seldon, we understand the concept. It's just that it doesn't apply in this particular case. Romance novels are never going to be relabeled as Science Fiction, even if there is some bizarre industry push to get things switched up because Science Fiction books are all the rage.
Sometimes you have to put a little bit more thought into things, Mr. Seldon.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
No, you *WANT* it. You don't need it. There is a difference. No one has any obligation to give you what you want, you're always welcome to go off and do something else.
Most people are playing/doing something else or posting on this board. It's true you don't need it, but that it isn't better that way for many. Considering the MMOs of today wouldn't be here if people hadn't payed for the old ones people should be more open to them and how unique they were compared to what you see today.
Which is ridiculous. Video games in general would never have existed if not for Pong, that's not a good reason to keep making Pong. Things have changed in the past 10 years, people either need to move with the times or go do something else entirely.
No, you *WANT* it. You don't need it. There is a difference. No one has any obligation to give you what you want, you're always welcome to go off and do something else.
Most people are playing/doing something else or posting on this board. It's true you don't need it, but that it isn't better that way for many. Considering the MMOs of today wouldn't be here if people hadn't payed for the old ones people should be more open to them and how unique they were compared to what you see today.
Which is ridiculous. Video games in general would never have existed if not for Pong, that's not a good reason to keep making Pong. Things have changed in the past 10 years, people either need to move with the times or go do something else entirely.
People are stilling playing Shess, Baseball, and Tennis. Go figure.
Originally posted by emperorwings You can make your own quests that is a true sandbox.
Yeah that is what folks around here are always carrying on about....I can make my own stories. Not my cup of tea, but hey, to each their own.
Anything more than simple fed ex quests falls into themepark realm I would say. Themepark is directed content. sandbox is make your own. The fed ex quests excluded as they are just a simple way for people to make money. Involved quests are something you expect to see in a themepark.
Comments
Sandbox quests in the context of being created by developers would imply the quests are somewhat malleable in their manner of completion or alternatively the manner of their impact.
AKA, multiple methods to complete a quest so that one does not have to adhere to a standard means of play such as stabbing everything until victory, or that the quest affects the game world in some manner upon completion or failure or contains variables that splay out into branching narratives for a more free-form experience.
Sandbox quests in the context of player content would be the ability for players to construct their own contained and shareable narratives, be it personal character storylines, actual quest chains, etc.
The defining feature is, as always, the matter of choice. Giving players some form of agency to experience quests in a manner that is less narrowly scripted, and moving to a fluid experience that repeats itself less rather than a rigid one that is ultimately the same every time.
EDIT: And yeah always take what Nariu says with a grain of salt, as he definitely steers into the 'tag them and bag them' end of gaming more than caring about the concept of ongoing/indefinite play, community, or anything really outside the realm of 'finishing' something and moving on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Not if you put everything into instances .. and save a copy of that. Ditch the persistent world.
Just like D3 .. you can go on YOUR quests, and YOUR world changes around you. Just put up a "neutral" city so people can mingle.
It also works like that in Marvel Heroes. Your problem is that you think a persistent world is always necessarily .. it is not. Problem solved.
Then what among price will increase if use moderators to run events ?
You said $50 but are you sure it $50 and not $20 or $30 or same $15.
Technically we don't need they created all events from big to small , just the big ones that effect the game world .
And if the game designed allows moderators to direct control game events then the cost may go down.
If simple said that "the cost are too much" then we don't even have electricity to use now a days , since the cost to created electric was very high at time it first discover how to product.
The devs already create all the events you encounter in a game. You already pay for it. There is no need to do it in real time.
Imagine a quest unfolding in a way that the developer did not foresee (objective accomplished by some unexpected strategy or the world ending in a state the developer did not imagine).
If this is seen as a problem with the quest design, it's a themepark-style.
If this is seen as a success of the quest design, it's a sandbox-style.
Not for me. I need a persistent world that is able to be affected by all the players in the game... if not, why play mmorpgs then? I could just play a single player RPG that does this much better, or a MOBA/FPs if I wanted straight up PvP..
That's how MMORPG work Mr.Narius. No matter how you see MMORPG as single player game , it still a MMORPG
Unlike single player game , in MMORPG , you log out and the game still run "in real time" ,
that's why you need to created "in real time" live events in other to feed the game world who need to keep "living".
All of time , player do created events intent or not , but as those events are small and don't effect the game world so much that's why it need major events created to keep the world run .
But then you're not really changing the world, but seeing a different version of the world other players don't.
So? Just give every player his own "version" of the world. That works in online SP games .. should work in a MMO.
but then it's a single player game and not an MMO.
The whole point is to avoid random quests by having moderators generating these events on a regular basis. You're not going to get that without hiring moderators who spend a significant amount of time, if not all of their time, creating events, running events and moderating events. Someone has to pay for these moderators and that's going to be the players.
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
No, you *WANT* it. You don't need it. There is a difference. No one has any obligation to give you what you want, you're always welcome to go off and do something else.
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
Most people are playing/doing something else or posting on this board. It's true you don't need it, but that it isn't better that way for many. Considering the MMOs of today wouldn't be here if people hadn't payed for the old ones people should be more open to them and how unique they were compared to what you see today.
I don't see why you'd have to pay people. Make tools that are reasonably user-friendly and plenty of people would do it for free for the prestige and experience same as single player game modders work for free.
Quality control and fairness are really the biggest stumbling blocks to this kind of system. Not cost. But I believe there are ways around those issues.
So? It is just a label. If you can call GW1 or DDO or Marvel Heroes MMO, certainly you can call what i describe MMO.
I am glad you ask. Here is the answer ...
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/634/view/forums/post/5903599#5903599
and it has nothing to do with a persistent world.
"better" is subjective. I don't think it is better for me. My opinion is just as valid as yours.
Why should i be more open to old ideas? I have played them, and found them inferior (to me) games. I chose my entertainment based on what i like, not based on if the idea exists first.
I would ask you the same question. Why are your ideas of what is good better then mine? You seem to state things with a matter of factness like that's how it should be. It's how I prefer things and I strongly believe they are better overall.
GW1 has never been advertised as an MMO, even the devs call it a CORPG. I don't know enough about the other games to determine if they are actually MMORPGs.
I know we've been over this before, but let's try again...this time with a historical approach.
The MMORPG genre really evolved from the MUD (Multi User Dungeon) genre. MUDs were, typically text-based, games in which several users would play in real-time in a shared virtual world. In fact, prior to the term MMORPG being coined with UO, games that you would now call MMORPGs were called "graphical MUDs." So really, MMORPG is just a modern term for the MUD, that's it.
The defining attribute of the MUD is the fact that there are many users playing in a shared virtual world. That is what differentiates them from normal RPGs...and that is also what differentiates MMORPGs from RPGs.
I know that you really want to stretch the definition of MMORPG for some reason, but I don't see why. Yes, I know this is just a semantic debate, but I think semantic debates are important sometimes. I don't want to see Starcraft advertised as an FPS just like I don't want to see Diablo 3 advertised as an MMORPG. It's basically false advertising and lying to your potential buyers.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Great post that will inevitably induce the same tired misguided response that things change and language evolves.
Yes, Mr. Seldon, we understand the concept. It's just that it doesn't apply in this particular case. Romance novels are never going to be relabeled as Science Fiction, even if there is some bizarre industry push to get things switched up because Science Fiction books are all the rage.
Sometimes you have to put a little bit more thought into things, Mr. Seldon.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Which is ridiculous. Video games in general would never have existed if not for Pong, that's not a good reason to keep making Pong. Things have changed in the past 10 years, people either need to move with the times or go do something else entirely.
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
People are stilling playing Shess, Baseball, and Tennis. Go figure.
Yeah that is what folks around here are always carrying on about....I can make my own stories. Not my cup of tea, but hey, to each their own.
Anything more than simple fed ex quests falls into themepark realm I would say. Themepark is directed content. sandbox is make your own. The fed ex quests excluded as they are just a simple way for people to make money. Involved quests are something you expect to see in a themepark.