His comment on the sandbox - from BioWare - learned from WoW.
Moving on, Walton discussed an issue that comes up in many games -- and one that generated a little debate in the audience. Suggesting you should direct your players' experience of the game, he asked, "Are you Disneyland or are you a sandbox?" Noting "the interesting thing about sandbox games is that they tend to have a ton more griefing" he suggested "an accessible game is directed. You never leave them in a place where they go 'what do I do next?' The vast majority of customers -- particularly when you get out of the hardcore -- need the signposts."
He suggested that too many choices are paralyzing. If a player sees 10, he thinks, "I can make nine bad choices!" According to studies Walton has read about the human mind, "If you want people to do well, give them two, no more than four choices."
This is what Blizzard is teaching other developers, so good luck getting a sandbox game.
You are right, but we should also take into consideration the ADD kids. There are so many kids these days taking meds that it's rediculous. For sure the money is not in sandbox games. If I were an investor, I would not invest in a sandbox game. Cookie cutter theme parks is the way to go.
The cookie cutter theme park model is saturated. Why would you invest in a saturated market? Sandbox is the way to go from an investment stand point.
The market might be saturated, but there is still much more profit potential there than there is for sandbox games for all of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
There have been lots of sanbox games in the past and ultimately none of them has reached the level of success developers are hoping for. They need only take a brief history lesson of the genre to know that sandbox games do not usually equate major monetary success.
His comment on the sandbox - from BioWare - learned from WoW. Moving on, Walton discussed an issue that comes up in many games -- and one that generated a little debate in the audience. Suggesting you should direct your players' experience of the game, he asked, "Are you Disneyland or are you a sandbox?" Noting "the interesting thing about sandbox games is that they tend to have a ton more griefing" he suggested "an accessible game is directed. You never leave them in a place where they go 'what do I do next?' The vast majority of customers -- particularly when you get out of the hardcore -- need the signposts." He suggested that too many choices are paralyzing. If a player sees 10, he thinks, "I can make nine bad choices!" According to studies Walton has read about the human mind, "If you want people to do well, give them two, no more than four choices."
This is what Blizzard is teaching other developers, so good luck getting a sandbox game.
Keyword is "suggested", its not a proven fact or anything that has been researched heavily with significiant correlation. You want to know one of the commonly practiced methods of actually making a sale of any product is? Providing alternate choices i.e. if I were trying to prospect to a client for a face to face talk, I would say something like "When's a good time to meet up to talk about these things, Tuesday morning or Friday afternoons?". I think its natural for people to want to do as little thinking as possible including within their video games. There are some people, a select few, that would like to and weigh out many choices including myself (making Walton's statement partially wrong). Walton's statements was a matter of his own opinions but not necessarily fact.
His comment on the sandbox - from BioWare - learned from WoW. Moving on, Walton discussed an issue that comes up in many games -- and one that generated a little debate in the audience. Suggesting you should direct your players' experience of the game, he asked, "Are you Disneyland or are you a sandbox?" Noting "the interesting thing about sandbox games is that they tend to have a ton more griefing" he suggested "an accessible game is directed. You never leave them in a place where they go 'what do I do next?' The vast majority of customers -- particularly when you get out of the hardcore -- need the signposts." He suggested that too many choices are paralyzing. If a player sees 10, he thinks, "I can make nine bad choices!" According to studies Walton has read about the human mind, "If you want people to do well, give them two, no more than four choices."
This is what Blizzard is teaching other developers, so good luck getting a sandbox game.
That's rather tragic. That's also, I suspect, a rather misappropriated concept.
The thing about sandbox that makes it so appealing is that there's never a rush to do anything. But the publishers don't want that, because it puts too much of a burden on the server, CS, and design aspects. They want to entice the players just enough so they'll logon every few days, but not so much that they'll be there for a lot of time everyday.
Of course, if you want to rush players in and out of your servers, it is in your interest to give them push to act in some way, so they don't cause lag. Take 'em in, burn 'em out quickly, get 'em logged out so they can rest, and do it all again...that's the motto of MMOs today. And if your purpose is to get players on and off the servers as quickly as possible, then you don't want a game that gives anyone an opportunity to enjoy just logging in and existing IC style. That's why games like WoW:
1) Make it purposefully uncomfortable to do anything but combat.
2) Make it purposefully tedious to do combat for any extended period of time.
3) Give the players nothing to do if they get exhausted or bored from combat other than to logout.
See, the whole "paralysis phenomenon" Walton cites is only important if the game pressures the player to make a choice. That's the case with quest/loot-based WoW clones, because the worlds just plain aren't comfortable to play passively. It doesn't apply, however, when the game doesn't pressure the player to act.
Second Life is an interesting environment to experience, regardless of what you do. WoW, frankly, is a very uninteresting one if you don't feel like mashing buttons killing MOB ad nauseum. Both of them are successful games, but the difference is that Second Life invites the player to stay logged on, while WoW wants the player to get his business done and logoff ASAP.
But I digress...
I think the main reason the major publishers won't tackle sandbox is because they don't know how to sell it. Things like character customization, open-ended gameplay, player housing, emotes, non-combat gameplay, and player economies aren't "soundbyte sexy" like descriptions of fast-action PvP and PvE combat are. Players, I have found, almost universally appreciate those sandboxy things when they are there, but it's hard to sell them on those sandbox elements alone.
As soon as somebody learns how to sell a game like UO or pre-CU SWG, I think sandbox will be much more popular. After all, the reason action/adventure games got pwned in the late 90's were because they were linear and static, while MMOs were expansive and dynamic.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
His comment on the sandbox - from BioWare - learned from WoW. Moving on, Walton discussed an issue that comes up in many games -- and one that generated a little debate in the audience. Suggesting you should direct your players' experience of the game, he asked, "Are you Disneyland or are you a sandbox?" Noting "the interesting thing about sandbox games is that they tend to have a ton more griefing" he suggested "an accessible game is directed. You never leave them in a place where they go 'what do I do next?' The vast majority of customers -- particularly when you get out of the hardcore -- need the signposts." He suggested that too many choices are paralyzing. If a player sees 10, he thinks, "I can make nine bad choices!" According to studies Walton has read about the human mind, "If you want people to do well, give them two, no more than four choices."
This is what Blizzard is teaching other developers, so good luck getting a sandbox game.
In WOW you have many many choices in end goals these days. Gear is only a means to an end to get other achievements/titles/bragging/status symbols.
One example are the hundreds of achievements in any part of the game.
The joke is that I see people here that talk of "free open play" while they don't even recognize the open choices in themepark MMO's to have fun.
if you can't see the difference between WoWs little alternate end game tidbits, and something SWG pre-NGE where you could actually make a name for yourself, by being the best melee crafter on your server, you just don't understand this discussion. this isn't about minor trinkets that blizzard was inspired by other mmos....(titles: LOTRO, status symbols: EQ, achievements: every xbox360 game, bragging rights??? any game ever.) in a sandbox mmo, you can be someone, you can be known server wide, for something, other then pvp/raid. like SWG, you could just be a crafter, and what you craft could end up being the best option for people, since your swords could have the best dps, or your rifles the best range, pistols the fastest firing rates. there is an actual value to being good at what you've decided to do with your avatar. which is something truly missing from level based mmos.
i still think the next best sandbox mmo could be a survival horror/zombie apocalypse game. with a cross between pre-NGE SWG player made cities, and all the possibilities for roles to be filled, and Tabula Rasas outpost defense and captures, defending against hordes of zombies trying to overrun your cities.... i'd be first in line to play that
I don't quite understand it myself, there is a fairly large niche of players who want a skill oriented sandbox style game. Yet, all the major titles in this department are from small developers. I mean this formula is tried and tested, some of the first 2 mmos , Asherons Call and Ultima Online were both classless and pretty sandboxy, also both are still alive, and maybe even kicking. Why won't any of the bigger name MMO developers take on this challenge, instead of leaving our hopes in the hands of games such as Mortal Online and Darkfall?(Not saying there is anything wrong with those games).
Because there is no such large niche of players. UO never reached the popularly of even EQ, and would be considered niche today.
Most people like more directed content. Just look at the popularity of WOW & Aion.
Sadly this is true. A lot more people like to watch sports than play them too.
Have to disagree here. It isn't true in that at the time UO launched MMO gaming was the select province of the pencil and paper gaming nerd herd, of which I was a card carrying member. There just weren't that many people turned on to MMO gaming at that time. WoW brought a ton of RTS gaming folks into the MMO genre. ***severe opinion incoming*** Most of the RTS crowd like quick gameplay that isn't too involved and one in which they can "win". "Winning" and/or end-game wasn't an idea associated with MMOs prior to this.***
The only thing I could say is "true" about this is that we haven't to date had a major, AAA studio put forth a solid sandbox effort. We've had one attempt and then abort one (SOE with SWG) however it should be noted that they never really tried to make it succeed and instead worried about ways to change totally what they had from day 1. We've also had a few attempts by indy or minor studios, some of which turned out pretty darn decent (EvE).
But yeah, it would be very nice to see a sandbox game with the backing (money) of a major studio would look like. One that actually had a team working to improve it as it grew as opposed trying to dismantle it. Wouldn't hurt considering the sea of AAA themeparks out there to throw an AAA island in here and there.
You are wrong. UO is released in Sep 1997 and EQ in Mar 1999. EQ became more popular than UO in a very short time. Those are the only major choices of MMOs at that time. It is pretty clear that UO is not able to capture EQ's market of players and that EQ has a much bigger market than UO.
You are right, but we should also take into consideration the ADD kids. There are so many kids these days taking meds that it's rediculous. For sure the money is not in sandbox games. If I were an investor, I would not invest in a sandbox game. Cookie cutter theme parks is the way to go.
The cookie cutter theme park model is saturated. Why would you invest in a saturated market? Sandbox is the way to go from an investment stand point.
The market might be saturated, but there is still much more profit potential there than there is for sandbox games for all of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
There have been lots of sanbox games in the past and ultimately none of them has reached the level of success developers are hoping for. They need only take a brief history lesson of the genre to know that sandbox games do not usually equate major monetary success.
While I agree the potential is greater, it has a higher risk of failure. Unless you can bring something different and original to the table and launch smoothly and feature complete, you are set up to fail. The sandbox fans are foaming at the mouth for some quality. These small independent companies recognize this. These big companies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
The market might be saturated, but there is still much more profit potential there than there is for sandbox games for all of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. There have been lots of sanbox games in the past and ultimately none of them has reached the level of success developers are hoping for. They need only take a brief history lesson of the genre to know that sandbox games do not usually equate major monetary success.
While I agree the potential is greater, it has a higher risk of failure. Unless you can bring something different and original to the table and launch smoothly and feature complete, you are set up to fail. The sandbox fans are foaming at the mouth for some quality. These small independent companies recognize this. These big companies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
How does it have a higher risk of failure when there is a proven greater population that currently play within the theme-park models as opposed to the sandbox?
The sandbox is obviously the higher risk for failure (in terms of revenue) because there isn't as many players that have proven to play such games as opposed to the theme-park games (WoW alone warrants a guaranteed 13+ million potential buyers if you were to design a similar game with improvements). The big companies again, will just attack the bigger population they know that currently exists rather than create a game that would draw in a smaller crowd. This is honestly just smart business (from purely a business perspective) and business people aren't going to care about the contents of the game, just the selling points of it (and whether or not it can sell and how large is the market that you can most likely sell to). You have to think from a business perspective, not a gamers to understand why big companies act the way they do.
I've seen two people post about this earlier in the topic but got no relative attention....
Has no one ever heard of Final Fantasy XIV? I mean honestly... maybe it's because every other person on this board knows nothing outside of western games (aka pvp/halo gamers)
I don't quite understand it myself, there is a fairly large niche of players who want a skill oriented sandbox style game. Yet, all the major titles in this department are from small developers. I mean this formula is tried and tested, some of the first 2 mmos , Asherons Call and Ultima Online were both classless and pretty sandboxy, also both are still alive, and maybe even kicking. Why won't any of the bigger name MMO developers take on this challenge, instead of leaving our hopes in the hands of games such as Mortal Online and Darkfall?(Not saying there is anything wrong with those games).
Have you not heard of Final Fantasy 14? Classless, Leveless, 2010 nex-gen MMO... Developed by SquareEnix which is a 'major' developer in the RPG world with one of the biggest RPG franchises backing it
No pvp isn't sandbox imo. Thanks for all the replies everyone though.
I don't quite understand it myself, there is a fairly large niche of players who want a skill oriented sandbox style game. Yet, all the major titles in this department are from small developers. I mean this formula is tried and tested, some of the first 2 mmos , Asherons Call and Ultima Online were both classless and pretty sandboxy, also both are still alive, and maybe even kicking. Why won't any of the bigger name MMO developers take on this challenge, instead of leaving our hopes in the hands of games such as Mortal Online and Darkfall?(Not saying there is anything wrong with those games).
Have you not heard of Final Fantasy 14? Classless, Leveless, 2010 nex-gen MMO... Developed by SquareEnix which is a 'major' developer in the RPG world with one of the biggest RPG franchises backing it
No pvp isn't sandbox imo. Thanks for all the replies everyone though.
All major mmorpgs seem to disagree with you. Eastern and western mmos. Your telling me pvp isnt a big part of L2 or Aion?
You might not be aware of the player driven endgame content pvp creates. The instant change of plans when you see someone on your kos list or guilds list, then the retaliation ect. Deciding to drop what your doing to assist a friend or guildie who is getting ganked. Spying on the enemy faction. PvP endgame has become so popular because its a very fun way to add content without adding actual content.
Of course theres a lot of people who cant handle getting ganked, hence the pve servers.
But saying pvp isnt for mmorpgs is nuts.....single player rpgs, another story of course.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 Keyword is "suggested", its not a proven fact or anything that has been researched heavily with significiant correlation. You want to know one of the commonly practiced methods of actually making a sale of any product is? Providing alternate choices i.e. if I were trying to prospect to a client for a face to face talk, I would say something like "When's a good time to meet up to talk about these things, Tuesday morning or Friday afternoons?".
He specifically said 2-4 choices is the "sweet spot", not 1.
This isn't the first time I've heard of choice overload. A game designer who I worked with mentioned that some study of supermarket products showed that people spent far less time making a choice when there were ~3 products to choose from, compared to when there were many choices. Additionally, less customers bought the product when there were many choices!
At the time I merely thought it was interesting, since my GF does exactly that when grocery shopping with me: if there's 4+ choices on the shelf she'll sit there deliberating for excessive amounts of time (whereas I've learned to impulsively choose one based on shallow criteria like price or attractiveness.)
But the Bioware comment puts it into a clear game design light (and is probably what my game designer coworker was trying to teach me at the time.)
Beatnik59 wrote:
"See, the whole "paralysis phenomenon" Walton cites is only important if the game pressures the player to make a choice."
Incorrect.
After some digging, this appears to be the actual research article my friend cited.
Basically they set up a jam-tasting booth in a store (and also gave out jam coupons.) In one study, 6 varieties of jam existed, 40% of the customers stopped to try some, and then 30% purchased jam. In the second study, 24 varieties, 60% of customers sampled some, 3% purchased jam.
These customers were free to determine whether or not to purchase jam, and they purchased more (a lot more) when their choices were limited.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
After some digging, this appears to be the actual research article my friend cited. Basically they set up a jam-tasting booth in a store (and also gave out jam coupons.) In one study, 6 varieties of jam existed, 40% of the customers stopped to try some, and then 30% purchased jam. In the second study, 24 varieties, 60% of customers sampled some, 3% purchased jam. These customers were free to determine whether or not to purchase jam, and they purchased more (a lot more) when their choices were limited.
Tasting jams and being provided with mass choices within a game are a bit different things. On point in regards what people will do when choices are presented, but its easier to weigh between jams and this further proves how lazy SOME people can be in terms of their thinking process. It would of taken many too much time to taste even 1/4th of the samples and its just too much brain power to make an appropriate judgement. BTW 24 jams is a bit excessive, people have things to do when they are at a grocery store outside of shopping. With our instant gratification society, you're not providing much gratification by providing an overload of jams.
Between jams and choices within a game, its easier to weigh jams against each other. Choices in a game is a decision between time and how fun will it be to particular players. Again, I think some people are just too lazy and want to have a clear path to follow (and more power to them). I don't think this is the case with everybody and some will prefer to have a large amount of options.
Lets take your jam, I'm the type that doesn't like the same flavor twice, those 24 selections of jams (albeit maybe I wouldn't of bought right away), but I would of tasted and experienced a much wider variety and know which ones to go after for later. What kind of follow up study (if possible) did those jam people even do (in regards to whether or not they purchased) with the customers that tried it, didn't buy, but might of bought it at another time. There's the flaw in that research.
Same goes for a game, I like to have many different things to do, but I'm not necessarily going to do it all at once on the same day, week or even month. One day I'm going to feel like experiencing something totally different and its great to have different options to choose from outside of the regular combat and crafting (which is pretty shallow in most games). Why not a political system where I climb up the ranks through being voted for particular positions or in depth mining (like in EVE Online) or anything else outside of combat. I would love to have 24 varieties of different things to do within a game, that would be awesome. And I want to believe I'm not alone with this sentiment either. (If I am, then maybe I'm wrong )
Because the majority of the consumers in the industry don't like games that require too much thought and planning. The easier it is to understand and define your character the more people seem to like it. It also helps if you can change your mind on how your character functions, but still be within a clearly defined boundry.
For example: People like it if they have a warrior that they can dps or tank with and they like a priest they can group or single-target heal with. Different roles within the same definition of a 'class'. What people don't like however is having just a character that can learn to put on armor and a sword and shield. Maybe you're a tank, but maybe there are other abilities in this class-less system that aren't what fit into the majority's preconceptions that are generally required.
People like being able to draw a line and say, 'this is on this side of the line and this is on this side of the line. they can't cross the line.' You can certainly do this with a classless, leveless system, but the problem is just about every company that has tried to do it has used some extremely contrived system that turned people off.
The best system I've seen to handle this was SWG pre-cu. There were classes, but you didn't only have one pool of skills to draw from. You could draw skills from all professions if you wanted. One major problem with any system like this is balancing. You will never be able to please everybody, period.
After some digging, this appears to be the actual research article my friend cited. Basically they set up a jam-tasting booth in a store (and also gave out jam coupons.) In one study, 6 varieties of jam existed, 40% of the customers stopped to try some, and then 30% purchased jam. In the second study, 24 varieties, 60% of customers sampled some, 3% purchased jam. These customers were free to determine whether or not to purchase jam, and they purchased more (a lot more) when their choices were limited.
Tasting jams and being provided with mass choices within a game are a bit different things. On point in regards what people will do when choices are presented, but its easier to weigh between jams and this further proves how lazy SOME people can be in terms of their thinking process. It would of taken many too much time to taste even 1/4th of the samples and its just too much brain power to make an appropriate judgement. BTW 24 jams is a bit excessive, people have things to do when they are at a grocery store outside of shopping. With our instant gratification society, you're not providing much gratification by providing an overload of jams.
Between jams and choices within a game, its easier to weigh jams against each other. Choices in a game is a decision between time and how fun will it be to particular players. Again, I think some people are just too lazy and want to have a clear path to follow (and more power to them). I don't think this is the case with everybody and some will prefer to have a large amount of options.
Lets take your jam, I'm the type that doesn't like the same flavor twice, those 24 selections of jams (albeit maybe I wouldn't of bought right away), but I would of tasted and experienced a much wider variety and know which ones to go after for later. What kind of follow up study (if possible) did those jam people even do (in regards to whether or not they purchased) with the customers that tried it, didn't buy, but might of bought it at another time. There's the flaw in that research.
Same goes for a game, I like to have many different things to do, but I'm not necessarily going to do it all at once on the same day, week or even month. One day I'm going to feel like experiencing something totally different and its great to have different options to choose from outside of the regular combat and crafting (which is pretty shallow in most games). Why not a political system where I climb up the ranks through being voted for particular positions or in depth mining (like in EVE Online) or anything else outside of combat. I would love to have 24 varieties of different things to do within a game, that would be awesome. And I want to believe I'm not alone with this sentiment either. (If I am, then maybe I'm wrong )
You are not alone. I would love to see a skill-based, sandboxy game as well. I would love to see a game that mirrors reality a little better. Levels and classes are kinda silly. If this game were done right, there would be no 'endgame'. Time would be occupied learning and practicing skills. And think of the infinite number of skills that one could learn and forget!
One major problem with any system like this is balancing. You will never be able to please everybody, period.
I really think the "It's impossible to balance" argument against skill systems is really terrible, as I have yet to see a class based game that is actually balanced. WoW has rigid classes and their balance is terrible. In skill based games, there are imbalances, but you at least have the option to change up your skills if you are suddenly nerfed. In class based games, if you get nerfed, you either wait quietly for the devs to buff your class again, or roll a new character.
The most balanced MMO I think that I have played would be Guild Wars, which, even though it has classes, is a skill based game.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Mainly because it is harder to develop, harder to maintain, and also not easy to convince investors when your whole development direction is classless sandbox.
Classless sandbox run into the trouble of not having enough concrete example to show the investors (remember not all investor know enough about MMORPG) When trying to convince investors to fund the game, the first thing is to give them a projected profit margin based on marketing research and the appeal of the game. They are not investing for the sake of making a great game, they are investing for the sake of making more money than they invested.
It is harder to get over the hurdle of funds gathering and marketing strategy than most believe to be. Creating a MMORPG these days is not as easy as a group of friend just sit down and program. MMORPG is now an industry, and as an industry the number one goal is to not lose money before anything else. Ultimately, the quality and entertainment value of the game developed rest entirely on the developer's hand assuming they have enough funding.
I don't quite understand it myself, there is a fairly large niche of players who want a skill oriented sandbox style game. Yet, all the major titles in this department are from small developers. I mean this formula is tried and tested, some of the first 2 mmos , Asherons Call and Ultima Online were both classless and pretty sandboxy, also both are still alive, and maybe even kicking. Why won't any of the bigger name MMO developers take on this challenge, instead of leaving our hopes in the hands of games such as Mortal Online and Darkfall?(Not saying there is anything wrong with those games).
Because there is no such large niche of players. UO never reached the popularly of even EQ, and would be considered niche today.
Most people like more directed content. Just look at the popularity of WOW & Aion.
Sadly this is true. A lot more people like to watch sports than play them too.
Have to disagree here. It isn't true in that at the time UO launched MMO gaming was the select province of the pencil and paper gaming nerd herd, of which I was a card carrying member. There just weren't that many people turned on to MMO gaming at that time. WoW brought a ton of RTS gaming folks into the MMO genre. ***severe opinion incoming*** Most of the RTS crowd like quick gameplay that isn't too involved and one in which they can "win". "Winning" and/or end-game wasn't an idea associated with MMOs prior to this.***
The only thing I could say is "true" about this is that we haven't to date had a major, AAA studio put forth a solid sandbox effort. We've had one attempt and then abort one (SOE with SWG) however it should be noted that they never really tried to make it succeed and instead worried about ways to change totally what they had from day 1. We've also had a few attempts by indy or minor studios, some of which turned out pretty darn decent (EvE).
But yeah, it would be very nice to see a sandbox game with the backing (money) of a major studio would look like. One that actually had a team working to improve it as it grew as opposed trying to dismantle it. Wouldn't hurt considering the sea of AAA themeparks out there to throw an AAA island in here and there.
You sound very bitter towards wow and it's success and sound like you are pulling out all the old copout statments like bringing in the rts crowd. Blizzard made a quality product. UO's success was due to having almost zero competition and was losing subs before EQ came and took even more of them. Sandbox games are like the alternative music scene in that those who hate the main stream have to have a place to call their own.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 Same goes for a game, I like to have many different things to do, but I'm not necessarily going to do it all at once on the same day, week or even month. One day I'm going to feel like experiencing something totally different and its great to have different options to choose from outside of the regular combat and crafting (which is pretty shallow in most games). Why not a political system where I climb up the ranks through being voted for particular positions or in depth mining (like in EVE Online) or anything else outside of combat. I would love to have 24 varieties of different things to do within a game, that would be awesome. And I want to believe I'm not alone with this sentiment either. (If I am, then maybe I'm wrong )
Well the Bioware Quote and my Jam Research are merely the psychology of the average person. If you want to create a game which is more fun to more people, you naturally want to understand the psychology of your audience.
Neither the Quote or my use of the Research says sandbox games can't exist. They simply describe sandbox games as a minority thing.
To be honest, aside from the fact that this Choice Overload research is awesome info for anyone interested in game design, I'm not sure it directly applies to a sandbox vs. themepark debate. I can cite many reasons Themeparks are more successful/fun games than Sandbox, but "Sandboxes give you too much choice" isn't one of them.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You know what would be nice, even if games continue to be made with classes, is if a player coudn't hover their mouse over you or pull up your paper doll and view your class. It would also be nice if you couldn't look at what someone was wearing or wielding and know what class they are.
Can you imagine in PvP not knowing what class someone was, seeing a robed character thinking them a caster, only to find they are wearing the robes over heavy armor, while they whip out their Great Sword and beat you down?
That was what made Ultima so great :P
I played UO, didn't like having to create my own fun. I enjoy story and quests, and UO had none of that. It was basically a pointless dungeon crawler, but that's just my opinion.
I don't quite understand it myself, there is a fairly large niche of players who want a skill oriented sandbox style game. Yet, all the major titles in this department are from small developers. I mean this formula is tried and tested, some of the first 2 mmos , Asherons Call and Ultima Online were both classless and pretty sandboxy, also both are still alive, and maybe even kicking. Why won't any of the bigger name MMO developers take on this challenge, instead of leaving our hopes in the hands of games such as Mortal Online and Darkfall?(Not saying there is anything wrong with those games).
Have you not heard of Final Fantasy 14? Classless, Leveless, 2010 nex-gen MMO... Developed by SquareEnix which is a 'major' developer in the RPG world with one of the biggest RPG franchises backing it
I have high hopes for FFXIV, but as it stands, because (as far as I can tell) it has a WoW-like quest system, it isn't a true sandbox. Rather, it combines elements of both. TBH though, FFXIV is good enough for me if they keep that class system going. At least for now.
But really, you'd think potential game developers would have seen enough of other companies epically failing at duplicating WoW's success by duplicating WoW's formula, that they'd move on to something else? Like a SANDBOX?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]" (Wikipedia.org, 8-24-09)
Comments
AGDC: BioWare's Walton On Making MMOs Post-World of Warcraft
His comment on the sandbox - from BioWare - learned from WoW.
Moving on, Walton discussed an issue that comes up in many games -- and one that generated a little debate in the audience. Suggesting you should direct your players' experience of the game, he asked, "Are you Disneyland or are you a sandbox?" Noting "the interesting thing about sandbox games is that they tend to have a ton more griefing" he suggested "an accessible game is directed. You never leave them in a place where they go 'what do I do next?' The vast majority of customers -- particularly when you get out of the hardcore -- need the signposts."
He suggested that too many choices are paralyzing. If a player sees 10, he thinks, "I can make nine bad choices!" According to studies Walton has read about the human mind, "If you want people to do well, give them two, no more than four choices."
This is what Blizzard is teaching other developers, so good luck getting a sandbox game.
The cookie cutter theme park model is saturated. Why would you invest in a saturated market? Sandbox is the way to go from an investment stand point.
The market might be saturated, but there is still much more profit potential there than there is for sandbox games for all of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
There have been lots of sanbox games in the past and ultimately none of them has reached the level of success developers are hoping for. They need only take a brief history lesson of the genre to know that sandbox games do not usually equate major monetary success.
Keyword is "suggested", its not a proven fact or anything that has been researched heavily with significiant correlation. You want to know one of the commonly practiced methods of actually making a sale of any product is? Providing alternate choices i.e. if I were trying to prospect to a client for a face to face talk, I would say something like "When's a good time to meet up to talk about these things, Tuesday morning or Friday afternoons?". I think its natural for people to want to do as little thinking as possible including within their video games. There are some people, a select few, that would like to and weigh out many choices including myself (making Walton's statement partially wrong). Walton's statements was a matter of his own opinions but not necessarily fact.
That's rather tragic. That's also, I suspect, a rather misappropriated concept.
The thing about sandbox that makes it so appealing is that there's never a rush to do anything. But the publishers don't want that, because it puts too much of a burden on the server, CS, and design aspects. They want to entice the players just enough so they'll logon every few days, but not so much that they'll be there for a lot of time everyday.
Of course, if you want to rush players in and out of your servers, it is in your interest to give them push to act in some way, so they don't cause lag. Take 'em in, burn 'em out quickly, get 'em logged out so they can rest, and do it all again...that's the motto of MMOs today. And if your purpose is to get players on and off the servers as quickly as possible, then you don't want a game that gives anyone an opportunity to enjoy just logging in and existing IC style. That's why games like WoW:
1) Make it purposefully uncomfortable to do anything but combat.
2) Make it purposefully tedious to do combat for any extended period of time.
3) Give the players nothing to do if they get exhausted or bored from combat other than to logout.
See, the whole "paralysis phenomenon" Walton cites is only important if the game pressures the player to make a choice. That's the case with quest/loot-based WoW clones, because the worlds just plain aren't comfortable to play passively. It doesn't apply, however, when the game doesn't pressure the player to act.
Second Life is an interesting environment to experience, regardless of what you do. WoW, frankly, is a very uninteresting one if you don't feel like mashing buttons killing MOB ad nauseum. Both of them are successful games, but the difference is that Second Life invites the player to stay logged on, while WoW wants the player to get his business done and logoff ASAP.
But I digress...
I think the main reason the major publishers won't tackle sandbox is because they don't know how to sell it. Things like character customization, open-ended gameplay, player housing, emotes, non-combat gameplay, and player economies aren't "soundbyte sexy" like descriptions of fast-action PvP and PvE combat are. Players, I have found, almost universally appreciate those sandboxy things when they are there, but it's hard to sell them on those sandbox elements alone.
As soon as somebody learns how to sell a game like UO or pre-CU SWG, I think sandbox will be much more popular. After all, the reason action/adventure games got pwned in the late 90's were because they were linear and static, while MMOs were expansive and dynamic.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
In WOW you have many many choices in end goals these days. Gear is only a means to an end to get other achievements/titles/bragging/status symbols.
One example are the hundreds of achievements in any part of the game.
The joke is that I see people here that talk of "free open play" while they don't even recognize the open choices in themepark MMO's to have fun.
if you can't see the difference between WoWs little alternate end game tidbits, and something SWG pre-NGE where you could actually make a name for yourself, by being the best melee crafter on your server, you just don't understand this discussion. this isn't about minor trinkets that blizzard was inspired by other mmos....(titles: LOTRO, status symbols: EQ, achievements: every xbox360 game, bragging rights??? any game ever.) in a sandbox mmo, you can be someone, you can be known server wide, for something, other then pvp/raid. like SWG, you could just be a crafter, and what you craft could end up being the best option for people, since your swords could have the best dps, or your rifles the best range, pistols the fastest firing rates. there is an actual value to being good at what you've decided to do with your avatar. which is something truly missing from level based mmos.
i still think the next best sandbox mmo could be a survival horror/zombie apocalypse game. with a cross between pre-NGE SWG player made cities, and all the possibilities for roles to be filled, and Tabula Rasas outpost defense and captures, defending against hordes of zombies trying to overrun your cities.... i'd be first in line to play that
Because there is no such large niche of players. UO never reached the popularly of even EQ, and would be considered niche today.
Most people like more directed content. Just look at the popularity of WOW & Aion.
Sadly this is true. A lot more people like to watch sports than play them too.
Have to disagree here. It isn't true in that at the time UO launched MMO gaming was the select province of the pencil and paper gaming nerd herd, of which I was a card carrying member. There just weren't that many people turned on to MMO gaming at that time. WoW brought a ton of RTS gaming folks into the MMO genre. ***severe opinion incoming*** Most of the RTS crowd like quick gameplay that isn't too involved and one in which they can "win". "Winning" and/or end-game wasn't an idea associated with MMOs prior to this.***
The only thing I could say is "true" about this is that we haven't to date had a major, AAA studio put forth a solid sandbox effort. We've had one attempt and then abort one (SOE with SWG) however it should be noted that they never really tried to make it succeed and instead worried about ways to change totally what they had from day 1. We've also had a few attempts by indy or minor studios, some of which turned out pretty darn decent (EvE).
But yeah, it would be very nice to see a sandbox game with the backing (money) of a major studio would look like. One that actually had a team working to improve it as it grew as opposed trying to dismantle it. Wouldn't hurt considering the sea of AAA themeparks out there to throw an AAA island in here and there.
You are wrong. UO is released in Sep 1997 and EQ in Mar 1999. EQ became more popular than UO in a very short time. Those are the only major choices of MMOs at that time. It is pretty clear that UO is not able to capture EQ's market of players and that EQ has a much bigger market than UO.
The cookie cutter theme park model is saturated. Why would you invest in a saturated market? Sandbox is the way to go from an investment stand point.
The market might be saturated, but there is still much more profit potential there than there is for sandbox games for all of the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
There have been lots of sanbox games in the past and ultimately none of them has reached the level of success developers are hoping for. They need only take a brief history lesson of the genre to know that sandbox games do not usually equate major monetary success.
While I agree the potential is greater, it has a higher risk of failure. Unless you can bring something different and original to the table and launch smoothly and feature complete, you are set up to fail. The sandbox fans are foaming at the mouth for some quality. These small independent companies recognize this. These big companies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
While I agree the potential is greater, it has a higher risk of failure. Unless you can bring something different and original to the table and launch smoothly and feature complete, you are set up to fail. The sandbox fans are foaming at the mouth for some quality. These small independent companies recognize this. These big companies need to wake up and smell the coffee.
How does it have a higher risk of failure when there is a proven greater population that currently play within the theme-park models as opposed to the sandbox?
The sandbox is obviously the higher risk for failure (in terms of revenue) because there isn't as many players that have proven to play such games as opposed to the theme-park games (WoW alone warrants a guaranteed 13+ million potential buyers if you were to design a similar game with improvements). The big companies again, will just attack the bigger population they know that currently exists rather than create a game that would draw in a smaller crowd. This is honestly just smart business (from purely a business perspective) and business people aren't going to care about the contents of the game, just the selling points of it (and whether or not it can sell and how large is the market that you can most likely sell to). You have to think from a business perspective, not a gamers to understand why big companies act the way they do.
I've seen two people post about this earlier in the topic but got no relative attention....
Has no one ever heard of Final Fantasy XIV? I mean honestly... maybe it's because every other person on this board knows nothing outside of western games (aka pvp/halo gamers)
Have you not heard of Final Fantasy 14? Classless, Leveless, 2010 nex-gen MMO... Developed by SquareEnix which is a 'major' developer in the RPG world with one of the biggest RPG franchises backing it
No pvp isn't sandbox imo. Thanks for all the replies everyone though.
Have you not heard of Final Fantasy 14? Classless, Leveless, 2010 nex-gen MMO... Developed by SquareEnix which is a 'major' developer in the RPG world with one of the biggest RPG franchises backing it
No pvp isn't sandbox imo. Thanks for all the replies everyone though.
PvP is for shooters and casuals, not rpgs
All major mmorpgs seem to disagree with you. Eastern and western mmos. Your telling me pvp isnt a big part of L2 or Aion?
You might not be aware of the player driven endgame content pvp creates. The instant change of plans when you see someone on your kos list or guilds list, then the retaliation ect. Deciding to drop what your doing to assist a friend or guildie who is getting ganked. Spying on the enemy faction. PvP endgame has become so popular because its a very fun way to add content without adding actual content.
Of course theres a lot of people who cant handle getting ganked, hence the pve servers.
But saying pvp isnt for mmorpgs is nuts.....single player rpgs, another story of course.
He specifically said 2-4 choices is the "sweet spot", not 1.
This isn't the first time I've heard of choice overload. A game designer who I worked with mentioned that some study of supermarket products showed that people spent far less time making a choice when there were ~3 products to choose from, compared to when there were many choices. Additionally, less customers bought the product when there were many choices!
At the time I merely thought it was interesting, since my GF does exactly that when grocery shopping with me: if there's 4+ choices on the shelf she'll sit there deliberating for excessive amounts of time (whereas I've learned to impulsively choose one based on shallow criteria like price or attractiveness.)
But the Bioware comment puts it into a clear game design light (and is probably what my game designer coworker was trying to teach me at the time.)
Beatnik59 wrote:
"See, the whole "paralysis phenomenon" Walton cites is only important if the game pressures the player to make a choice."
Incorrect.
After some digging, this appears to be the actual research article my friend cited.
Basically they set up a jam-tasting booth in a store (and also gave out jam coupons.) In one study, 6 varieties of jam existed, 40% of the customers stopped to try some, and then 30% purchased jam. In the second study, 24 varieties, 60% of customers sampled some, 3% purchased jam.
These customers were free to determine whether or not to purchase jam, and they purchased more (a lot more) when their choices were limited.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
answer to op:
balance
and please stop the pissing contest ... no one cares
The only real problem i see with a total sandbox....endgame being nothing but characters maxxed in everything.
Either way it would be nice to have a well made sandbox on the market. Can never have too many options.
Its the same reason they won't make open pvp games...
In their vision they will not attract enough customers to justify it. That's corporate thinking but that's what you get with "major developers".
I mean Ultima Online was my first game which was basicly "sandbox" and "open pvp"... of course its changed a lot too.
So I like both types of games but .. that is the answer .. they don't think its where the money they want to make is..
Tasting jams and being provided with mass choices within a game are a bit different things. On point in regards what people will do when choices are presented, but its easier to weigh between jams and this further proves how lazy SOME people can be in terms of their thinking process. It would of taken many too much time to taste even 1/4th of the samples and its just too much brain power to make an appropriate judgement. BTW 24 jams is a bit excessive, people have things to do when they are at a grocery store outside of shopping. With our instant gratification society, you're not providing much gratification by providing an overload of jams.
Between jams and choices within a game, its easier to weigh jams against each other. Choices in a game is a decision between time and how fun will it be to particular players. Again, I think some people are just too lazy and want to have a clear path to follow (and more power to them). I don't think this is the case with everybody and some will prefer to have a large amount of options.
Lets take your jam, I'm the type that doesn't like the same flavor twice, those 24 selections of jams (albeit maybe I wouldn't of bought right away), but I would of tasted and experienced a much wider variety and know which ones to go after for later. What kind of follow up study (if possible) did those jam people even do (in regards to whether or not they purchased) with the customers that tried it, didn't buy, but might of bought it at another time. There's the flaw in that research.
Same goes for a game, I like to have many different things to do, but I'm not necessarily going to do it all at once on the same day, week or even month. One day I'm going to feel like experiencing something totally different and its great to have different options to choose from outside of the regular combat and crafting (which is pretty shallow in most games). Why not a political system where I climb up the ranks through being voted for particular positions or in depth mining (like in EVE Online) or anything else outside of combat. I would love to have 24 varieties of different things to do within a game, that would be awesome. And I want to believe I'm not alone with this sentiment either. (If I am, then maybe I'm wrong
)
Because the majority of the consumers in the industry don't like games that require too much thought and planning. The easier it is to understand and define your character the more people seem to like it. It also helps if you can change your mind on how your character functions, but still be within a clearly defined boundry.
For example: People like it if they have a warrior that they can dps or tank with and they like a priest they can group or single-target heal with. Different roles within the same definition of a 'class'. What people don't like however is having just a character that can learn to put on armor and a sword and shield. Maybe you're a tank, but maybe there are other abilities in this class-less system that aren't what fit into the majority's preconceptions that are generally required.
People like being able to draw a line and say, 'this is on this side of the line and this is on this side of the line. they can't cross the line.' You can certainly do this with a classless, leveless system, but the problem is just about every company that has tried to do it has used some extremely contrived system that turned people off.
The best system I've seen to handle this was SWG pre-cu. There were classes, but you didn't only have one pool of skills to draw from. You could draw skills from all professions if you wanted. One major problem with any system like this is balancing. You will never be able to please everybody, period.
Tasting jams and being provided with mass choices within a game are a bit different things. On point in regards what people will do when choices are presented, but its easier to weigh between jams and this further proves how lazy SOME people can be in terms of their thinking process. It would of taken many too much time to taste even 1/4th of the samples and its just too much brain power to make an appropriate judgement. BTW 24 jams is a bit excessive, people have things to do when they are at a grocery store outside of shopping. With our instant gratification society, you're not providing much gratification by providing an overload of jams.
Between jams and choices within a game, its easier to weigh jams against each other. Choices in a game is a decision between time and how fun will it be to particular players. Again, I think some people are just too lazy and want to have a clear path to follow (and more power to them). I don't think this is the case with everybody and some will prefer to have a large amount of options.
Lets take your jam, I'm the type that doesn't like the same flavor twice, those 24 selections of jams (albeit maybe I wouldn't of bought right away), but I would of tasted and experienced a much wider variety and know which ones to go after for later. What kind of follow up study (if possible) did those jam people even do (in regards to whether or not they purchased) with the customers that tried it, didn't buy, but might of bought it at another time. There's the flaw in that research.
Same goes for a game, I like to have many different things to do, but I'm not necessarily going to do it all at once on the same day, week or even month. One day I'm going to feel like experiencing something totally different and its great to have different options to choose from outside of the regular combat and crafting (which is pretty shallow in most games). Why not a political system where I climb up the ranks through being voted for particular positions or in depth mining (like in EVE Online) or anything else outside of combat. I would love to have 24 varieties of different things to do within a game, that would be awesome. And I want to believe I'm not alone with this sentiment either. (If I am, then maybe I'm wrong
)
You are not alone. I would love to see a skill-based, sandboxy game as well. I would love to see a game that mirrors reality a little better. Levels and classes are kinda silly. If this game were done right, there would be no 'endgame'. Time would be occupied learning and practicing skills. And think of the infinite number of skills that one could learn and forget!
TSW, LotRO, EQ2, SWTOR, GW2, V:SoH, Neverwinter, ArchAge, EQ, UO, DAoC, WAR, DDO, AoC, MO, BDO, SotA, B&S, ESO,
I really think the "It's impossible to balance" argument against skill systems is really terrible, as I have yet to see a class based game that is actually balanced. WoW has rigid classes and their balance is terrible. In skill based games, there are imbalances, but you at least have the option to change up your skills if you are suddenly nerfed. In class based games, if you get nerfed, you either wait quietly for the devs to buff your class again, or roll a new character.
The most balanced MMO I think that I have played would be Guild Wars, which, even though it has classes, is a skill based game.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Mainly because it is harder to develop, harder to maintain, and also not easy to convince investors when your whole development direction is classless sandbox.
Classless sandbox run into the trouble of not having enough concrete example to show the investors (remember not all investor know enough about MMORPG) When trying to convince investors to fund the game, the first thing is to give them a projected profit margin based on marketing research and the appeal of the game. They are not investing for the sake of making a great game, they are investing for the sake of making more money than they invested.
It is harder to get over the hurdle of funds gathering and marketing strategy than most believe to be. Creating a MMORPG these days is not as easy as a group of friend just sit down and program. MMORPG is now an industry, and as an industry the number one goal is to not lose money before anything else. Ultimately, the quality and entertainment value of the game developed rest entirely on the developer's hand assuming they have enough funding.
Because there is no such large niche of players. UO never reached the popularly of even EQ, and would be considered niche today.
Most people like more directed content. Just look at the popularity of WOW & Aion.
Sadly this is true. A lot more people like to watch sports than play them too.
Have to disagree here. It isn't true in that at the time UO launched MMO gaming was the select province of the pencil and paper gaming nerd herd, of which I was a card carrying member. There just weren't that many people turned on to MMO gaming at that time. WoW brought a ton of RTS gaming folks into the MMO genre. ***severe opinion incoming*** Most of the RTS crowd like quick gameplay that isn't too involved and one in which they can "win". "Winning" and/or end-game wasn't an idea associated with MMOs prior to this.***
The only thing I could say is "true" about this is that we haven't to date had a major, AAA studio put forth a solid sandbox effort. We've had one attempt and then abort one (SOE with SWG) however it should be noted that they never really tried to make it succeed and instead worried about ways to change totally what they had from day 1. We've also had a few attempts by indy or minor studios, some of which turned out pretty darn decent (EvE).
But yeah, it would be very nice to see a sandbox game with the backing (money) of a major studio would look like. One that actually had a team working to improve it as it grew as opposed trying to dismantle it. Wouldn't hurt considering the sea of AAA themeparks out there to throw an AAA island in here and there.
You sound very bitter towards wow and it's success and sound like you are pulling out all the old copout statments like bringing in the rts crowd. Blizzard made a quality product. UO's success was due to having almost zero competition and was losing subs before EQ came and took even more of them. Sandbox games are like the alternative music scene in that those who hate the main stream have to have a place to call their own.
Well the Bioware Quote and my Jam Research are merely the psychology of the average person. If you want to create a game which is more fun to more people, you naturally want to understand the psychology of your audience.
Neither the Quote or my use of the Research says sandbox games can't exist. They simply describe sandbox games as a minority thing.
To be honest, aside from the fact that this Choice Overload research is awesome info for anyone interested in game design, I'm not sure it directly applies to a sandbox vs. themepark debate. I can cite many reasons Themeparks are more successful/fun games than Sandbox, but "Sandboxes give you too much choice" isn't one of them.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That was what made Ultima so great :P
I played UO, didn't like having to create my own fun. I enjoy story and quests, and UO had none of that. It was basically a pointless dungeon crawler, but that's just my opinion.
Have you not heard of Final Fantasy 14? Classless, Leveless, 2010 nex-gen MMO... Developed by SquareEnix which is a 'major' developer in the RPG world with one of the biggest RPG franchises backing it
I have high hopes for FFXIV, but as it stands, because (as far as I can tell) it has a WoW-like quest system, it isn't a true sandbox. Rather, it combines elements of both. TBH though, FFXIV is good enough for me if they keep that class system going. At least for now.
But really, you'd think potential game developers would have seen enough of other companies epically failing at duplicating WoW's success by duplicating WoW's formula, that they'd move on to something else? Like a SANDBOX?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]" (Wikipedia.org, 8-24-09)
The best way to deal with trolls:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ [IGNORE THEM, THEY JUST WANT ATTENTION!]