Square-Enix is attempting to revive sandbox type MMO's with their new MMO FFXIV. If it'll be successful, you all should expect to see more sandbox MMO's in the future too (or at least a mix of the 2 types)-- since the pattern of MMO business is to copy the successful MMO's and not try to make up anything new, so expect to see many FFXIV clones in the future if it sells well.
Please cite your information, AFAIK Square hasnt released any details about FFXIV's gameplay features.
Originally posted by Quale Opposite of no design = Lots of design. (Sand)
The box is just a concept. "Anyone" Can make a sandbox. The amount and quality of the sand is the hard part. Simply put: Making a good sandbox is alot harder than making a themepark.
Devs have a hard enough time balancing cookie-cutter games where practically every aspect of a player's development is pre-planned and controlled, so I can see devs avoiding a more open class structure due to cost and laziness. But if Guildwars can do a pretty good job and not even charge a monthly fee, I don't see why others can't even try.
It shouldn't be so difficult to let players have even small amounts of freedom like being able to choose what armor and weapons they want to use, and balance it with things like movement and casting penalties. Why can't I be a rogue character with a hammer or spear, or a healer who uses a bow or pbaoe fire magic? Saying it doesn't fit the lore is a cop-out in my mind. I understand its hard to balance, but thats what betas are for.
I am just so sick of the cookie cutter systems where every class is a carbon copy of each other from skills to gear. 'Lets grind for 8 months so I can be exactly the same as everyone else! woohoo!'
My other issue is the static worlds. If you are going to have things like set keeps to fight over or static towns, at least allow guilds to upgrade them and add their own touch if they can't entirely build their own. Just allow players to have some sort of impact on the world beyond simply having the base/town simply switch banners.
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.
I think it would be fair to say that in 1997 there were a SIGNIFICANTLY lot less people with access to the internet and who played computers games generally.
Given that population estimates give 70 million internet users WORLDWIDE (1.7%) in 1997 and by 1999 it's 248 millions (4.1%) and given the fancier graphics, better hardware available etc etc it's not that hard to see why EQ did better than UO.
Now take those figures and look at today, by June this year it is estimated that there are 1,669 millions (24.7%) with access to the net, it's hardly fair in my opinion to base UO and earlier sandbox games' subs against what is available now.
My two pennies worth.
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. ~Navajo Proverb
Square-Enix is attempting to revive sandbox type MMO's with their new MMO FFXIV. If it'll be successful, you all should expect to see more sandbox MMO's in the future too (or at least a mix of the 2 types)-- since the pattern of MMO business is to copy the successful MMO's and not try to make up anything new, so expect to see many FFXIV clones in the future if it sells well.
Please cite your information, AFAIK Square hasnt released any details about FFXIV's gameplay features.
Hate to break it to you, but large scale sandbox with open PVP, is indeed a niche- albeit a very vocal niche. Someone mentioned SWG pre-CU having 300k+ players in it's time. I'll remind you, that much of those numbers, was because of the IP, and not with it being "sandbox". That is why they changed it when they saw what people REALLY wanted- something ala WoW.
Dev studios large and small, cannot survive without venture capital. Venture capitalists want to know when they are going to make their profit, above all. Most will not care if it gives a small number of people their desired game. They care if those small numbers eventually grow to larger numbers, ala EvE, because this means more profit on their investment. However, since this is usually the unlikely scenerio with most mmos, the deeper pockets, who finance the larger studios, go for a tried and true moneymaker- the WoW clone. Only AFTER a niche game has become profitable enough, usually over time, will it attract the deeper pockets. This is what we are seeing with EvE now. It took them years to get noticed by the big boys.
No matter what you may wish for, a dev studio is still a business. You don't go into business unless you want to make as much money as you can. Investors also want to make as much money as they can. No one cares about your hobby until you give them money for it. This is what the sandbox crowd often forgets (I'm a sandbox person myself, but still am bright enough to understand it). The major studios don't however and that is why they go for themeparks over sandbox 100% of the time.
It may seem cold and heartless and reek of greed, but business is business.
Waiting for- Tera, Jumpgate Evo, WH40K, WWE, WOD, TSW -- -- "Hey, if Activision liked it, then they should have put a ring on it," Double Fine President Tim Schafer said. "Oh great, now Beyonce is going to sue me too."
What AAA developer can make a decent MMO of any type? Who out there has made a game that can sustain 200K subs a year after launch? Not many. Forget about drawing in 500k or more.
Now you ask why no one makes a sandbox? The developers out there have no clue how to make a MMO of any type. No one has a clue except Blizzard. Its a real shame.
i have to agree there, i look forward to FFXIV myself but all those popping in this thread every fifth post with "but haven't you all heard about FFXIV" while the info is still vague at best are frankly quite annoying and make themselves look stupid.
I'm not giving any specific examples. I'm using the info we have to make my point.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I usually don't respond to your kind, but I made the mistake of thinking you asked because you actually didn't understand what my post said right there. Now I know different, you can go on being unpleasant and dim alone
Blizzards as-of-yet unnamed new MMO will be a sandbox, and like they did with WoW and the themepark model, they will succeed. Mark my words, if anyone has the ability (and cash) its them.
Hate to break it to you, but large scale sandbox with open PVP, is indeed a niche- albeit a very vocal niche. Someone mentioned SWG pre-CU having 300k+ players in it's time. I'll remind you, that much of those numbers, was because of the IP, and not with it being "sandbox". That is why they changed it when they saw what people REALLY wanted- something ala WoW. Dev studios large and small, cannot survive without venture capital. Venture capitalists want to know when they are going to make their profit, above all. Most will not care if it gives a small number of people their desired game. They care if those small numbers eventually grow to larger numbers, ala EvE, because this means more profit on their investment. However, since this is usually the unlikely scenerio with most mmos, the deeper pockets, who finance the larger studios, go for a tried and true moneymaker- the WoW clone. Only AFTER a niche game has become profitable enough, usually over time, will it attract the deeper pockets. This is what we are seeing with EvE now. It took them years to get noticed by the big boys. No matter what you may wish for, a dev studio is still a business. You don't go into business unless you want to make as much money as you can. Investors also want to make as much money as they can. No one cares about your hobby until you give them money for it. This is what the sandbox crowd often forgets (I'm a sandbox person myself, but still am bright enough to understand it). The major studios don't however and that is why they go for themeparks over sandbox 100% of the time. It may seem cold and heartless and reek of greed, but business is business.
Although now that EvE has been noticed, we may see a little more interest.
Blizzards as-of-yet unnamed new MMO will be a sandbox, and like they did with WoW and the themepark model, they will succeed. Mark my words, if anyone has the ability (and cash) its them.
Think about it.
This time they don't have any game to steal all their ideas from though, so we'll see how that'll work.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Originally posted by Azureal Blizzards as-of-yet unnamed new MMO will be a sandbox, and like they did with WoW and the themepark model, they will succeed. Mark my words, if anyone has the ability (and cash) its them.
Think about it.
I will give birth to a live murloc if blizzard's next MMO is sandbox.
All MMOs are sandbox and themepark mixed together.
No game is mix of sandbox and themepark because they are excluding each other.
Sandbox is player driven.
Themepark is predetermined.
Let's examine your "definitions" using the game Lineage 2. What sort of game would you call it, themepark or sandbox?
It had well defined classes, players leveled up from 1-70, and marched towards a well defined end game which only the highest level players could really participate in. Theme park game, right?
Yet the bulk of player advancement came from grinding npc's for experience and more importantly, loot. Crafting was very important to player advancement throughout the entire game but especially at end game.
And speaking of end game, it consisted of players controlling developer generated keeps however it was the players who formed alliances to take and dominate the control of them. Owning these keeps was very important and those who controlled them could set tax rates and some other things that affected much of the player community.
So while most would classify Lineage 2 as a theme park style MMO, it had many elements traditionally associated with sand box style games.
All games contain sandbox elements (and theme park elements) which is why I like to define it as per the following chart.
(placement on above line in just my opinion and not necessarily where most people might place these games)
zymurgeist was spot on in his analysis, the more sand box like a game is, the harder it becomes to design content that is balanced and fun. Look at the challenges DF, AC, EVE and UO face with issues such as macroing and botting (granted, theme park games suffer from some of these as well) but the problem is intensified when developers reliinquish more control of the game to the players.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Blizzards as-of-yet unnamed new MMO will be a sandbox, and like they did with WoW and the themepark model, they will succeed. Mark my words, if anyone has the ability (and cash) its them.
Think about it.
This time they don't have any game to steal all their ideas from though, so we'll see how that'll work.
Why, cause no-ones made a sandbox game before?
Uo, SWG, EVE, AC etc etc.
Theres plenty of shit to steal ideas from, and I couldnt give a fuck, so long as they do it right.
There is a huge market for sandbox games. The Sims is the best selling game of all time, and undeniably Sandbox. GTA is another example of an extremely successfuly Sandbox game. I'm not saying these would make good MMOs, but if there are 100 million+ players that want freedom in their single player games, there's got to be a market for online equivalents too? Blizzard brought millions of players who had no previous interest in MMOs into the genre with an extremely polished linear, quest driven game. Who's to say another company can't do the same for the sandbox genre.
However, a majority of current MMO players who crave a sandbox experience want something like Ultima Online 2, Asheron's Call 3 or EVE without spaceships. There's certainly a market for such games, but probably not enough to draw millions of players. I'm guessing the first huge sandbox MMO will cater to non-gamers, and fans of single-player sandbox games. Not disgruntled old school MMO players. Still, while I'm in the disgruntled old school MMO player group myself, I would love to see a mass-market sandbox game succeed. Not to play it, but to enjoy the games that follow if major developers learn that there is more than one path to success and start experimenting more.
No game is mix of sandbox and themepark because they are excluding each other. Sandbox is player driven.
Themepark is predetermined.
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
No game is mix of sandbox and themepark because they are excluding each other. Sandbox is player driven.
Themepark is predetermined.
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
I disagree. A sandbox is a sandbox because of what the game is at its core. It provides you options and does not pidgeon hole you into 1 set role/class and a set of abilities with a linear progression. The character development is said to be horizontal rather than vertical because there are no set of levels that you are forced to follow. A theme park is setup the way it is because you provided only 1 track (your class) to follow and 1 set of levels to pursue. It generally just revolves around combat whereas a sandbox generally lets you do crafting (and the option to solely craft if that boats your float), exploration and a myriad of other things.
Success is more loosely described because it is hard to define what really makes a successful player because of the flexibility provided in terms of character development (and skills/abilities). Success in a theme-park can be measured by levels and gear and is more "concrete".
Generally, in a sandbox, I am no specific class, but I define what he is by the selection of skills/abilities I choose to work. In a theme-park, I am a specific class (like a Warrior) and generally the most of what I do is combat (with everything else more or less on the side).
Every MMO is going to be driven by the players (and things like economy better damn well be player driven as well), however, the differences between sand-box and theme-parks aren't whether or not it is player driven (an MMO cannot exist if it isn't driven by players in one way or another), its the character development and the flexibility (or lack thereof) provided for my character. Theme-park is more linear straightforward (limited choices, vertical) and sandbox is more spread out and non-linear (many choices, horizontal).
EDIT: EVE might have agent missions, but I'm not as required to go on these missions as I am required to go on quests to WoW for character progression (levels and eventually instances). An economy does not define whether or not a game is a sandbox, again its the choices provided to the players and the "nonlinear" zone progressions isn't as non-linear as you think it is, its just a straight path that cuts into two paths later on, but it doesn't make it any less linear in terms of the core of the game.
No game is mix of sandbox and themepark because they are excluding each other. Sandbox is player driven.
Themepark is predetermined.
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
Agreed. Sandbox and themepark are quite fuzzy terms. It's easier to discuss open-ended versus lineear, skill-based versus level-based, and class-less versus class-based, etc... but any combination of these can be used in both themepark games and sandbox games. In the end, the more of an illusion of freedom and illusion of player choice a game provides, the more of a sandbox game it is. Total freedom simply wouldn't make a good game, and as such is not something to strive for.
No game is mix of sandbox and themepark because they are excluding each other. Sandbox is player driven.
Themepark is predetermined.
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
I disagree. A sandbox is a sandbox because of what the game is at its core. It provides you options and does not pidgeon hole you into 1 set role/class and a set of abilities with a linear progression. The character development is said to be horizontal rather than vertical because there are no set of levels that you are forced to follow. A theme park is setup the way it is because you provided only 1 track (your class) to follow and 1 set of levels to pursue. It generally just revolves around combat whereas a sandbox generally lets you do crafting (and the option to solely craft if that boats your float), exploration and a myriad of other things.
Success is more loosely described because it is hard to define what really makes a successful player because of the flexibility provided in terms of character development (and skills/abilities). Success in a theme-park can be measured by levels and gear and is more "concrete".
Generally, in a sandbox, I am no specific class, but I define what he is by the selection of skills/abilities I choose to work. In a theme-park, I am a specific class (like a Warrior) and generally the most of what I do is combat (with everything else more or less on the side).
Every MMO is going to be driven by the players (and things like economy better damn well be player driven as well), however, the differences between sand-box and theme-parks aren't whether or not it is player driven (an MMO cannot exist if it isn't driven by players in one way or another), its the character development and the flexibility (or lack thereof) provided for my character. Theme-park is more linear straightforward (limited choices, vertical) and sandbox is more spread out and non-linear (many choices, horizontal).
EDIT: EVE might have agent missions, but I'm not as required to go on these missions as I am required to go on quests to WoW for character progression (levels and eventually instances). An economy does not define whether or not a game is a sandbox, again its the choices provided to the players and the "nonlinear" zone progressions isn't as non-linear as you think it is, its just a straight path that cuts into two paths later on, but it doesn't make it any less linear in terms of the core of the game.
I think you may have misunderstood my post.
I wasn't saying that there was no difference between two types of game, nor was I discussing the nature of what a sandbox/themepark game is. I was merely disputing Gdemami's statement that a sandbox game is 100% player-driven and that a themepark is 100% predetermined.
I stand by my statement that no game is 100% sandbox/themepark.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
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).
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that there was no difference between two types of game, nor was I discussing the nature of what a sandbox/themepark game is. I was merely disputing Gdemami's statement that a sandbox game is 100% player-driven and that a themepark is 100% predetermined. I stand by my statement that no game is 100% sandbox/themepark.
Well, maybe I did misunderstand your post a little (I do tend to be picky sometimes ). I think what I was trying to get at, was that I think sandbox and themepark terms are only used to really describe a game's character progression at its core. I don't believe there are sandbox or themepark "elements", I think the terms are more or less used to describe a game's system as a whole especially since sandbox MMO's and themepark MMO's are going to share many characteristics (so whos to say which one is considered sandbox and which a theme park). I think the terms are used more loosely than we think. I did just realize you were fitting along his statement upon pointing it out. Overall, I think we agree on much of the same thing when put this way.
Comments
Please cite your information, AFAIK Square hasnt released any details about FFXIV's gameplay features.
Do you even have an idea what game design is?
You can start on wiki...
No game is mix of sandbox and themepark because they are excluding each other.
Sandbox is player driven.
Themepark is predetermined.
Devs have a hard enough time balancing cookie-cutter games where practically every aspect of a player's development is pre-planned and controlled, so I can see devs avoiding a more open class structure due to cost and laziness. But if Guildwars can do a pretty good job and not even charge a monthly fee, I don't see why others can't even try.
It shouldn't be so difficult to let players have even small amounts of freedom like being able to choose what armor and weapons they want to use, and balance it with things like movement and casting penalties. Why can't I be a rogue character with a hammer or spear, or a healer who uses a bow or pbaoe fire magic? Saying it doesn't fit the lore is a cop-out in my mind. I understand its hard to balance, but thats what betas are for.
I am just so sick of the cookie cutter systems where every class is a carbon copy of each other from skills to gear. 'Lets grind for 8 months so I can be exactly the same as everyone else! woohoo!'
My other issue is the static worlds. If you are going to have things like set keeps to fight over or static towns, at least allow guilds to upgrade them and add their own touch if they can't entirely build their own. Just allow players to have some sort of impact on the world beyond simply having the base/town simply switch banners.
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.
I think it would be fair to say that in 1997 there were a SIGNIFICANTLY lot less people with access to the internet and who played computers games generally.
Given that population estimates give 70 million internet users WORLDWIDE (1.7%) in 1997 and by 1999 it's 248 millions (4.1%) and given the fancier graphics, better hardware available etc etc it's not that hard to see why EQ did better than UO.
Now take those figures and look at today, by June this year it is estimated that there are 1,669 millions (24.7%) with access to the net, it's hardly fair in my opinion to base UO and earlier sandbox games' subs against what is available now.
My two pennies worth.
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. ~Navajo Proverb
Please cite your information, AFAIK Square hasnt released any details about FFXIV's gameplay features.
www.ffxivcore.com/index.php
Hate to break it to you, but large scale sandbox with open PVP, is indeed a niche- albeit a very vocal niche. Someone mentioned SWG pre-CU having 300k+ players in it's time. I'll remind you, that much of those numbers, was because of the IP, and not with it being "sandbox". That is why they changed it when they saw what people REALLY wanted- something ala WoW.
Dev studios large and small, cannot survive without venture capital. Venture capitalists want to know when they are going to make their profit, above all. Most will not care if it gives a small number of people their desired game. They care if those small numbers eventually grow to larger numbers, ala EvE, because this means more profit on their investment. However, since this is usually the unlikely scenerio with most mmos, the deeper pockets, who finance the larger studios, go for a tried and true moneymaker- the WoW clone. Only AFTER a niche game has become profitable enough, usually over time, will it attract the deeper pockets. This is what we are seeing with EvE now. It took them years to get noticed by the big boys.
No matter what you may wish for, a dev studio is still a business. You don't go into business unless you want to make as much money as you can. Investors also want to make as much money as they can. No one cares about your hobby until you give them money for it. This is what the sandbox crowd often forgets (I'm a sandbox person myself, but still am bright enough to understand it). The major studios don't however and that is why they go for themeparks over sandbox 100% of the time.
It may seem cold and heartless and reek of greed, but business is business.
-----------------------
Tried- L2, Ryzom, WAR, DDO, PWI, Tab Rasa, Requiem, Champs, AA, JD, PWI, SUN, Dawntide
Played- SWG (pre-cu), AoC, VG, WoW, LoTRO,CoX, EQ2, DAOC, GW, PotBS, Aion, MO,APB, NASA, Fallen Earth, DCUO, Rift
Playing- EVE, Black Prophecy, TOR
Waiting for- Tera, Jumpgate Evo, WH40K, WWE, WOD, TSW
--
--
"Hey, if Activision liked it, then they should have put a ring on it," Double Fine President Tim Schafer said. "Oh great, now Beyonce is going to sue me too."
What AAA developer can make a decent MMO of any type? Who out there has made a game that can sustain 200K subs a year after launch? Not many. Forget about drawing in 500k or more.
Now you ask why no one makes a sandbox? The developers out there have no clue how to make a MMO of any type. No one has a clue except Blizzard. Its a real shame.
I'm not giving any specific examples. I'm using the info we have to make my point.
Do you even have an idea what game design is?
You can start on wiki...
I usually don't respond to your kind, but I made the mistake of thinking you asked because you actually didn't understand what my post said right there. Now I know different, you can go on being unpleasant and dim alone
Blizzards as-of-yet unnamed new MMO will be a sandbox, and like they did with WoW and the themepark model, they will succeed. Mark my words, if anyone has the ability (and cash) its them.
Think about it.
PAST: UO-SWG-DAOC-WOW-DDO-VG-AOC-WAR-FE-DFO-LOTRO-RIFT-GW2
PRESENT: Nothing
FUTURE: ESO
Although now that EvE has been noticed, we may see a little more interest.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
This time they don't have any game to steal all their ideas from though, so we'll see how that'll work.
I will give birth to a live murloc if blizzard's next MMO is sandbox.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
Oh, interesting... got a link for me?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Its pure speculation. Nothing more, nothing less.
PAST: UO-SWG-DAOC-WOW-DDO-VG-AOC-WAR-FE-DFO-LOTRO-RIFT-GW2
PRESENT: Nothing
FUTURE: ESO
No game is mix of sandbox and themepark because they are excluding each other.
Sandbox is player driven.
Themepark is predetermined.
Let's examine your "definitions" using the game Lineage 2. What sort of game would you call it, themepark or sandbox?
It had well defined classes, players leveled up from 1-70, and marched towards a well defined end game which only the highest level players could really participate in. Theme park game, right?
Yet the bulk of player advancement came from grinding npc's for experience and more importantly, loot. Crafting was very important to player advancement throughout the entire game but especially at end game.
And speaking of end game, it consisted of players controlling developer generated keeps however it was the players who formed alliances to take and dominate the control of them. Owning these keeps was very important and those who controlled them could set tax rates and some other things that affected much of the player community.
So while most would classify Lineage 2 as a theme park style MMO, it had many elements traditionally associated with sand box style games.
All games contain sandbox elements (and theme park elements) which is why I like to define it as per the following chart.
Fewer sandbox features, More sandbox features
(more theme park like) (less like a theme park)
<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
WOW AOC Lineage 2 EVE DF
LoTRO SWG
(placement on above line in just my opinion and not necessarily where most people might place these games)
zymurgeist was spot on in his analysis, the more sand box like a game is, the harder it becomes to design content that is balanced and fun. Look at the challenges DF, AC, EVE and UO face with issues such as macroing and botting (granted, theme park games suffer from some of these as well) but the problem is intensified when developers reliinquish more control of the game to the players.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This time they don't have any game to steal all their ideas from though, so we'll see how that'll work.
Why, cause no-ones made a sandbox game before?
Uo, SWG, EVE, AC etc etc.
Theres plenty of shit to steal ideas from, and I couldnt give a fuck, so long as they do it right.
PAST: UO-SWG-DAOC-WOW-DDO-VG-AOC-WAR-FE-DFO-LOTRO-RIFT-GW2
PRESENT: Nothing
FUTURE: ESO
There is a huge market for sandbox games. The Sims is the best selling game of all time, and undeniably Sandbox. GTA is another example of an extremely successfuly Sandbox game. I'm not saying these would make good MMOs, but if there are 100 million+ players that want freedom in their single player games, there's got to be a market for online equivalents too? Blizzard brought millions of players who had no previous interest in MMOs into the genre with an extremely polished linear, quest driven game. Who's to say another company can't do the same for the sandbox genre.
However, a majority of current MMO players who crave a sandbox experience want something like Ultima Online 2, Asheron's Call 3 or EVE without spaceships. There's certainly a market for such games, but probably not enough to draw millions of players. I'm guessing the first huge sandbox MMO will cater to non-gamers, and fans of single-player sandbox games. Not disgruntled old school MMO players. Still, while I'm in the disgruntled old school MMO player group myself, I would love to see a mass-market sandbox game succeed. Not to play it, but to enjoy the games that follow if major developers learn that there is more than one path to success and start experimenting more.
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
I disagree. A sandbox is a sandbox because of what the game is at its core. It provides you options and does not pidgeon hole you into 1 set role/class and a set of abilities with a linear progression. The character development is said to be horizontal rather than vertical because there are no set of levels that you are forced to follow. A theme park is setup the way it is because you provided only 1 track (your class) to follow and 1 set of levels to pursue. It generally just revolves around combat whereas a sandbox generally lets you do crafting (and the option to solely craft if that boats your float), exploration and a myriad of other things.
Success is more loosely described because it is hard to define what really makes a successful player because of the flexibility provided in terms of character development (and skills/abilities). Success in a theme-park can be measured by levels and gear and is more "concrete".
Generally, in a sandbox, I am no specific class, but I define what he is by the selection of skills/abilities I choose to work. In a theme-park, I am a specific class (like a Warrior) and generally the most of what I do is combat (with everything else more or less on the side).
Every MMO is going to be driven by the players (and things like economy better damn well be player driven as well), however, the differences between sand-box and theme-parks aren't whether or not it is player driven (an MMO cannot exist if it isn't driven by players in one way or another), its the character development and the flexibility (or lack thereof) provided for my character. Theme-park is more linear straightforward (limited choices, vertical) and sandbox is more spread out and non-linear (many choices, horizontal).
EDIT: EVE might have agent missions, but I'm not as required to go on these missions as I am required to go on quests to WoW for character progression (levels and eventually instances). An economy does not define whether or not a game is a sandbox, again its the choices provided to the players and the "nonlinear" zone progressions isn't as non-linear as you think it is, its just a straight path that cuts into two paths later on, but it doesn't make it any less linear in terms of the core of the game.
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
Agreed. Sandbox and themepark are quite fuzzy terms. It's easier to discuss open-ended versus lineear, skill-based versus level-based, and class-less versus class-based, etc... but any combination of these can be used in both themepark games and sandbox games. In the end, the more of an illusion of freedom and illusion of player choice a game provides, the more of a sandbox game it is. Total freedom simply wouldn't make a good game, and as such is not something to strive for.
I disagree. Every game is mix of sandbox/themepark. Some just lean heavily towards one or the other.
SWG. Sandbox, right? .. but what about the rebel/imperial/corvette themeparks?
EVE. Again, sandbox .. but what about the agent missions?
WoW. Themepark? .. but what about the player-driven economy and non-linear zone progression?
Even UO has quests these days.
There is no game in which the experience is 100% player-driven*, nor is there a game in which the experience is 100% linear and scripted. That's the nature of the genre; there are always elements of both playstyles in any given MMO. It's just the balance that differs.
*I exclude Second Life on the basis that it's populated with complete weirdos and isn't a game.
I disagree. A sandbox is a sandbox because of what the game is at its core. It provides you options and does not pidgeon hole you into 1 set role/class and a set of abilities with a linear progression. The character development is said to be horizontal rather than vertical because there are no set of levels that you are forced to follow. A theme park is setup the way it is because you provided only 1 track (your class) to follow and 1 set of levels to pursue. It generally just revolves around combat whereas a sandbox generally lets you do crafting (and the option to solely craft if that boats your float), exploration and a myriad of other things.
Success is more loosely described because it is hard to define what really makes a successful player because of the flexibility provided in terms of character development (and skills/abilities). Success in a theme-park can be measured by levels and gear and is more "concrete".
Generally, in a sandbox, I am no specific class, but I define what he is by the selection of skills/abilities I choose to work. In a theme-park, I am a specific class (like a Warrior) and generally the most of what I do is combat (with everything else more or less on the side).
Every MMO is going to be driven by the players (and things like economy better damn well be player driven as well), however, the differences between sand-box and theme-parks aren't whether or not it is player driven (an MMO cannot exist if it isn't driven by players in one way or another), its the character development and the flexibility (or lack thereof) provided for my character. Theme-park is more linear straightforward (limited choices, vertical) and sandbox is more spread out and non-linear (many choices, horizontal).
EDIT: EVE might have agent missions, but I'm not as required to go on these missions as I am required to go on quests to WoW for character progression (levels and eventually instances). An economy does not define whether or not a game is a sandbox, again its the choices provided to the players and the "nonlinear" zone progressions isn't as non-linear as you think it is, its just a straight path that cuts into two paths later on, but it doesn't make it any less linear in terms of the core of the game.
I think you may have misunderstood my post.
I wasn't saying that there was no difference between two types of game, nor was I discussing the nature of what a sandbox/themepark game is. I was merely disputing Gdemami's statement that a sandbox game is 100% player-driven and that a themepark is 100% predetermined.
I stand by my statement that no game is 100% sandbox/themepark.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Because there lazy
Well, maybe I did misunderstand your post a little (I do tend to be picky sometimes
). I think what I was trying to get at, was that I think sandbox and themepark terms are only used to really describe a game's character progression at its core. I don't believe there are sandbox or themepark "elements", I think the terms are more or less used to describe a game's system as a whole especially since sandbox MMO's and themepark MMO's are going to share many characteristics (so whos to say which one is considered sandbox and which a theme park). I think the terms are used more loosely than we think. I did just realize you were fitting along his statement upon pointing it out. Overall, I think we agree on much of the same thing when put this way.