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.
I hate to open your little mind Greenie, but this is a well know market psychology. Decades ago, autodealers discovered that when they offered a large variety of color choices they ended up having customers leave the showroom floor because they couldn't decide on the fight color. The offered fewer choices to correct the problem. Now you might now believe it, but that it your problem.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 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.
Yup; and we definately agree on the highlighted part.
Ask a room of people to define what makes a sandbox game and you'll get a dozen different answers.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I hate to open your little mind Greenie, but this is a well know market psychology. Decades ago, autodealers discovered that when they offered a large variety of color choices they ended up having customers leave the showroom floor because they couldn't decide on the fight color. The offered fewer choices to correct the problem. Now you might now believe it, but that it your problem.
It's true. I think it's been discovered that the human brain works best with no more than 7 choices / decisions / tasks at any one time. Any more and it gets flustered, too much less and it can get bored / disinterested. This is one of the reasons why having too many choices is actually a deterrent for most people. A true sandbox game does not give any direction, and has far too many choices usually to be fun (to most players). It's a lot like if you threw a kid into an orphanage and said "great, you can be whatever you want to be kid, good luck". The kid has no clue where he is in relation to the world, and basically has to discover everything for himself. Challenging indeed, but few would willingly choose this.
Simply put, it just doesn't market well (akin to what Bioware has been quoted).
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.
I hate to open your little mind Greenie, but this is a well know market psychology. Decades ago, autodealers discovered that when they offered a large variety of color choices they ended up having customers leave the showroom floor because they couldn't decide on the fight color. The offered fewer choices to correct the problem. Now you might now believe it, but that it your problem.
Sure, in regards to marketing and making purchasing decisions. I don't think this is the reason why more people choose Theme-park over Sandbox. Theme-park games tend to focus on Combat and revolve mostly around that. Theme-park provides good depth in many different aspects of a playing environment. However, what do most people like to do within a game even in sandbox games, they like to kick ass and feel powerful over their environment or other players. This is seen in EVE and has been seen even in UO, provided different options, more people focused on combat. When you think about it, a sandbox really doesn't provide all that many choices -- Combat, Crafting, Trading (in EVE's case), and then many other little misc activities that usually aren't in the forefront of the game (but people could revolve their characters around it if it pleased them, but they usually aren't as dee as the first 3).
Now within the 3 main tracks, there are options and choices like Mage or Warrior for Combat, Blacksmith or Tailoring for Crafting...these types of choices are similarly provided in theme-parks as well and if this were to be true in terms of buying a game based on amounts of choices, then why does a game like WoW have 10 classes, 6 or 7 different professions you can pick from, 5 or 6 different races PER side. The only choice within that game kept simple is really Horde or Alliance (which might be argued that they could be interconnected with their race selection).
I don't think this theory can safely be applied to the amount of choices within a sandbox is what turns people off from that type of MMO, because we can argue choices within theme park games the same way. I firmly believe people pick theme park over sandbox because they revolve around combat and people want to be powerful. Theme-parks provide more concrete ways to exhibit/display their power within the environment and player communities, thus more exciting for people in general. Its harder to show off in a sandbox and it only extends to respective crowds (only Combat people will care how powerful you are in a sandbox, whereas everyone will care in a theme park how awesome you are).
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).
They are afraid of risk and challenge. It is much harder to make a MMO with interesting, enjoyable long lasting sandbox content then another theme park where the only content is character progression build around boring quests, level and item grind and rat race to the top. Grind is the way in which MMO developers keep you playing their game until you relieze that there is nothing else there.
The alternative: sandbox demands from you to understand what will make people to enjoy interacting, socializing and competing with other people. It demands from you to build content not around grind as the core but around fun and social interactions which is going to cost you more time, money and comes with more risk of potential failure.
The problem is as well that more and more people demand open world player competition ( pvp, trade, gathering, crafting ) build around player skill: no auto-targeting, FPS like combat which pushes MMOs to their technological limits.
I won't reply on specific posts since too many people repeat the same thing - same mistake.
What people are talkig here are features or content. As I mentioned earlier, sandbox and themepark are determined by game design. That means that there are no sandbox elements either.
Q: What is game design? A: It is the way the content is created and inner game mechanics making the content interacting with player(s) and other content. Character progression, end game, raids, PVP, whatever are features or content.
Q: What is a design of themepark MMORPG? A: Character progression via gaining xp/gear. Levels, gears, raids - all are achievements in defined goal. There are strictly defined ways.
Q: What is a design of (EVE) sandbox? A: Player competition. Skill points, ships, resources - all are tools to be used in reching achievement that is player domination. There are no ways set how to reach the achievements, it is left on players to find the ways of becoming successfull.
It is not important What you can do in the game, but Why you do it. That is where the game turns out being a sandbox or themepark.
While I believe there are numerous ways how to make a sandbox game, the most accessible(and only known?) is through game economy.
Here I take EVE (again) as example because I do not know other concept for sandbox game. One of the aspects of the player driven world is that the world is living and breathing. EVE use game economy to achieve very sophosticated player interaction and vice versa.
Q: What?! A: The inustry system. You can create some very basic items pretty much on your own(leaving behind your competitiveness) but once you get in, you will find out very soon that it is impossible to produce items without more and more people participating in production chain.
This is where the complexity comes from, why the game is player driven and why the game is working sandbox.
Q:So what is the sandbox again? A:It is a player driven world with no ways set. You are given tools only and left alone to chew your way through.
I won't reply on specific posts since too many people repeat the same thing - same mistake. What people are talkig here are features or content. As I mentioned earlier, sandbox and themepark are determined by game design. That means that there are no sandbox elements either. Q: What is game design?
A: It is the way the content is created and inner game mechanics making the content interacting with player(s) and other content.
Character progression, end game, raids, PVP, whatever are features or content.
Q: What is a design of themepark MMORPG?
A: Character progression via gaining xp/gear.
Levels, gears, raids - all are achievements in defined goal.
There are strictly defined ways. Q: What is a design of (EVE) sandbox?
A: Player competition.
Skill points, ships, resources - all are tools to be used in reching achievement that is player domination.
There are no ways set how to reach the achievements, it is left on players to find the ways of becoming successfull.
It is not important What you can do in the game, but Why you do it. That is where the game turns out being a sandbox or themepark.
While I believe there are numerous ways how to make a sandbox game, the most accessible(and only known?) is through game economy. Here I take EVE (again) as example because I do not know other concept for sandbox game.
One of the aspects of the player driven world is that the world is living and breathing. EVE use game economy to achieve very sophosticated player interaction and vice versa. Q: What?!
A: The inustry system.
You can create some very basic items pretty much on your own(leaving behind your competitiveness) but once you get in, you will find out very soon that it is impossible to produce items without more and more people participating in production chain. This is where the complexity comes from, why the game is player driven and why the game is working sandbox. Q:So what is the sandbox again?
A:It is a player driven world with no ways set. You are given tools only and left alone to chew your way through. >.>
Nice post, I could agree more about building the game around economy of the game world, it provides with a lot of opportunities for sandbox content, make people to socialize, cooperate and think strategically.
Furthermore I think that genre bleeding - merging/borrowing from different game genres - is the way to go with evolution of MMORPGs.
Its a conspiracy by the ruling classes. They dont want you to imagine a classless society so they see a classless virtual world as a threat to their dominance.
What people are talkig here are features or content. As I mentioned earlier, sandbox and themepark are determined by game design. That means that there are no sandbox elements either. Q: What is game design?
A: It is the way the content is created and inner game mechanics making the content interacting with player(s) and other content.
Character progression, end game, raids, PVP, whatever are features or content.
While I believe there are numerous ways how to make a sandbox game, the most accessible(and only known?) is through game economy. Here I take EVE (again) as example because I do not know other concept for sandbox game.
One of the aspects of the player driven world is that the world is living and breathing. EVE use game economy to achieve very sophosticated player interaction and vice versa. Q: What?!
A: The inustry system.
You can create some very basic items pretty much on your own(leaving behind your competitiveness) but once you get in, you will find out very soon that it is impossible to produce items without more and more people participating in production chain. This is where the complexity comes from, why the game is player driven and why the game is working sandbox. Q:So what is the sandbox again?
A:It is a player driven world with no ways set. You are given tools only and left alone to chew your way through. >.>
I agree with the first part of the post, where the difference between sandbox and themepark is overall game design, not specific features. However, what makes a theme park any more or less player driven than a sandbox. This is where I disagree. You can place any economy system within a theme park, but it'll still be a theme park. I think the defining characterisitics are behind character progression and how its laid out, basically between being limited by options or given access to as many options as possible. ALL MMORPG's are driven by players, or else it wouldn't be much of an MMORPG. Its just a matter of what it is that the player is actually driving that separates sandbox from theme park.
In regards to the OP, I still think more people favor the theme park because it revolves around the combat system which seems to catch most gamers interest hence this is where the money is at, but it doesn't mean sandboxes cannot be profitable, theme parks just appear to have a greater chance at the moment (its the bigger thing right now in the industry and there are many people that are new to it).
Originally posted by Jairoe03 I agree with the first part of the post, where the difference between sandbox and themepark is overall game design, not specific features. I think the defining characterisitics are behind character progression and how its laid out, basically between being limited by options or given access to as many options as possible.
Unless character progression is game achievement, it is a game feature.
EVE could work just fine with predefined 'classes' with maxed out skills in certain field. It would not affect the sandbox mechanics at all.
Originally posted by Gdemami It is not important What you can do in the game, but Why you do it.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 ALL MMORPG's are driven by players
Definately not. World gives xp and gear to player. What has got a player to offer the game world? How does player affect game world? It is one way interaction only, the world drives the players.
In EVE, even avid mission runner provides minerals and ISK to manufacturer and researchers, enriching and participting in global economy.
I suggest you to re-read my post. EVE production chain is extremely complex, involving direct and indirect contributors, I can add some deeper description if needed. You literaly need other players to even undock.
1. The more power you give to players in a sandbox, the more likely they are to use it negatively. In UO, they ganked and ruined players experiences so much, they had to make Trammel. In CoH, players abused the mission editor for easy rewards. Even if it's solely PvE, players can wreck things. Second Life shows even if there is no GAME players can do so.
2.Sandbox is pointless because combat dominates any MMO. Everything important is ultimately done by fighting. You do not beat a dragon by offering it the freshest vegetables in the land, or singing songs to it. Most of the time, the most advanced content is usually beating up the dragon.
So you are essentially allowing players the freedom to choose inferior paths of action.
3. Sandbox seems to equal hardmode in players eyes now. Things like PvP, full loot on death, and harsh penalties for it, or even for carelessness, are becoming demanded. They don't just want sandbox, they want an old-school one, during a time when casual is ascending.
Oh, and for people thinking FFXIV is sandbox? It's not. They are making it they way it is because FFXI took four to eight hours per day to get anywhere in. It's the way it is to enable players to play more casually, and more to the way they like, than the rigid, hardcore experience FFXI was.
I was thinking progression very loosely in terms of what the game expects their players to do.
I think you have misunderstood what I have been trying to get at. An MMORPG cannot exist without players hence players are driving the game in some form whether it is direct or indirect. I'm quite aware of EVE's economy system (the first track I even decided to explore was Trade which gives a good glimpse of the flow of goods between regions etc.). However, what makes this any more driven than a game like World of Warcraft where gold is constantly produced in similar fashion in regards to money which is traded for all sorts of goods and services. You can argue by the fact of pure numbers that WoW is MORE driven than EVE because there is more player activity within the game. Sure, EVE has brought complexity in regards to MMO economy, and that complexity can be brought in turn into WoW but WoW will still be a theme park.
Generally, in a theme park, what is the focus of your character, its combat, its set, its more or less predefined and so is your character development either via levels or gear. Sandbox isn't predefined, the choice is left to the players and the game design provides that freedom (you choose your own set of skills rather then let a class define it for you). It doesn't JUST revolve around an economy, its overall game design, which revolves around what the player can and cannot do. You are not guided anywhere in a sandbox but you generally are guided in a theme park. Sure the economy might facilitate it but ultimately, it lies within the fact that the players have control over how their character develops and what they get to do.
Three of my own ideas why: 1. The more power you give to players in a sandbox, the more likely they are to use it negatively. In UO, they ganked and ruined players experiences so much, they had to make Trammel. In CoH, players abused the mission editor for easy rewards. Even if it's solely PvE, players can wreck things. Second Life shows even if there is no GAME players can do so. 2.Sandbox is pointless because combat dominates any MMO. Everything important is ultimately done by fighting. You do not beat a dragon by offering it the freshest vegetables in the land, or singing songs to it. Most of the time, the most advanced content is usually beating up the dragon. So you are essentially allowing players the freedom to choose inferior paths of action. 3. Sandbox seems to equal hardmode in players eyes now. Things like PvP, full loot on death, and harsh penalties for it, or even for carelessness, are becoming demanded. They don't just want sandbox, they want an old-school one, during a time when casual is ascending.
Oh, and for people thinking FFXIV is sandbox? It's not. They are making it they way it is because FFXI took four to eight hours per day to get anywhere in. It's the way it is to enable players to play more casually, and more to the way they like, than the rigid, hardcore experience FFXI was.
In Ultima Online you could tame a dragon which was Superior to killing it.
That wouldn't work today though. If you enable players to tame a dragon, and it's easier than fighting it, your combat people will bitch and rightfully so. You can't really balance that. Players will seize any advantage to make the progression easier, and a lot of stuff UO did will not work now. Players are more sensitive to game imbalances-UO the genre was new.
That wouldn't work today though. If you enable players to tame a dragon, and it's easier than fighting it, your combat people will bitch and rightfully so. You can't really balance that. Players will seize any advantage to make the progression easier, and a lot of stuff UO did will not work now. Players are more sensitive to game imbalances-UO the genre was new.
It wasn't easier than killing it, but you got a godly pet out of it, But realisticly animal taming was the hardest profession to raise in UO, because when your pets died, they were dead, so thinks like nightmares/wyrms etc were worth alot. All I'm saying is in UO you didn't have to kill everything, there was also a bardish skill peacemaking.
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.
That wouldn't work today though. If you enable players to tame a dragon, and it's easier than fighting it, your combat people will bitch and rightfully so. You can't really balance that. Players will seize any advantage to make the progression easier, and a lot of stuff UO did will not work now. Players are more sensitive to game imbalances-UO the genre was new.
You're right, and that happened in UO. (Note, as said, it wasn't easier, it was the gain of having a tamed dragon vs. the "kill".)
Players did have a confrontation over this, especially since UO wasn't instanced and strangers met at the same time with said dragon. Yet, many would stand back and let the tamers get their prized pet, some even would help them. There's all kinds in an MMORPG.
But some players are lame as hell. They'll complain about anything that doesn't give them reward, and just the way they want it too.And they can't stand someone else getting a turn. I'm glad most gamers are not that way.
It's been posted before, and maybe even in this thread, that the glory days of UO are gone. MMOs were a niche market then. MMO players were a select few of dedicated "gaming geeks". Conversations about MMOs outside of game were sparse and embarrassed.
Then WoW came. Now there are commercials for it on prime-time TV using big names. Non-MMO players are watching episodes of "The Guild". Free-to-play games litter non-gaming sites like Facebook. Internet users everywhere are educated to the presence of MMOs. My fire-team even had a conversation about subscribing to an FPS MMO to practice our maneuver skills...
The market has changed. The player base has changed. The influx of vast numbers has changed what an MMO community is, was or could be. The days of hanging out in town and listening to someone /shout poetry and philosophy have given way to innane conversations on /ooc and finding a raid for the best loot.
Us old-schoolers still exist. But there is no way to find us, and trap us in niche. those of us that miss the old-school MMO in its hey day cannot be defined. We cannot even define what we miss most. And there is no way to market or engineer 'community'. It exists in some games today, but mainly by accident.
I see the latest attempts at sandboxes in "Darkfall", which is populated gankers, and "Mortal" whose boards are populated by fans of ganking. The majority, or vocal and violent minority, in these games seem to have no interest in the grander, more ambitious, sandbox aspects of the game. MMOs have become big business and have attracted console-wielding FPSers with mad twitch skills. PvP is a vital part of the old-school sandbox but it easily dominates the entire MMO and drives old men like me away.
Yikes, I am rambling...
Anyway, I don't see a future for a modern UO unless there is some tyrannical, "Community" management. Freedom and Equality are mutually exclusive extremes.
Comments
I hate to open your little mind Greenie, but this is a well know market psychology. Decades ago, autodealers discovered that when they offered a large variety of color choices they ended up having customers leave the showroom floor because they couldn't decide on the fight color. The offered fewer choices to correct the problem. Now you might now believe it, but that it your problem.
Yup; and we definately agree on the highlighted part.
Ask a room of people to define what makes a sandbox game and you'll get a dozen different answers.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
It's true. I think it's been discovered that the human brain works best with no more than 7 choices / decisions / tasks at any one time. Any more and it gets flustered, too much less and it can get bored / disinterested. This is one of the reasons why having too many choices is actually a deterrent for most people. A true sandbox game does not give any direction, and has far too many choices usually to be fun (to most players). It's a lot like if you threw a kid into an orphanage and said "great, you can be whatever you want to be kid, good luck". The kid has no clue where he is in relation to the world, and basically has to discover everything for himself. Challenging indeed, but few would willingly choose this.
Simply put, it just doesn't market well (akin to what Bioware has been quoted).
I hate to open your little mind Greenie, but this is a well know market psychology. Decades ago, autodealers discovered that when they offered a large variety of color choices they ended up having customers leave the showroom floor because they couldn't decide on the fight color. The offered fewer choices to correct the problem. Now you might now believe it, but that it your problem.
Sure, in regards to marketing and making purchasing decisions. I don't think this is the reason why more people choose Theme-park over Sandbox. Theme-park games tend to focus on Combat and revolve mostly around that. Theme-park provides good depth in many different aspects of a playing environment. However, what do most people like to do within a game even in sandbox games, they like to kick ass and feel powerful over their environment or other players. This is seen in EVE and has been seen even in UO, provided different options, more people focused on combat. When you think about it, a sandbox really doesn't provide all that many choices -- Combat, Crafting, Trading (in EVE's case), and then many other little misc activities that usually aren't in the forefront of the game (but people could revolve their characters around it if it pleased them, but they usually aren't as dee as the first 3).
Now within the 3 main tracks, there are options and choices like Mage or Warrior for Combat, Blacksmith or Tailoring for Crafting...these types of choices are similarly provided in theme-parks as well and if this were to be true in terms of buying a game based on amounts of choices, then why does a game like WoW have 10 classes, 6 or 7 different professions you can pick from, 5 or 6 different races PER side. The only choice within that game kept simple is really Horde or Alliance (which might be argued that they could be interconnected with their race selection).
I don't think this theory can safely be applied to the amount of choices within a sandbox is what turns people off from that type of MMO, because we can argue choices within theme park games the same way. I firmly believe people pick theme park over sandbox because they revolve around combat and people want to be powerful. Theme-parks provide more concrete ways to exhibit/display their power within the environment and player communities, thus more exciting for people in general. Its harder to show off in a sandbox and it only extends to respective crowds (only Combat people will care how powerful you are in a sandbox, whereas everyone will care in a theme park how awesome you are).
They are afraid of risk and challenge. It is much harder to make a MMO with interesting, enjoyable long lasting sandbox content then another theme park where the only content is character progression build around boring quests, level and item grind and rat race to the top. Grind is the way in which MMO developers keep you playing their game until you relieze that there is nothing else there.
The alternative: sandbox demands from you to understand what will make people to enjoy interacting, socializing and competing with other people. It demands from you to build content not around grind as the core but around fun and social interactions which is going to cost you more time, money and comes with more risk of potential failure.
The problem is as well that more and more people demand open world player competition ( pvp, trade, gathering, crafting ) build around player skill: no auto-targeting, FPS like combat which pushes MMOs to their technological limits.
I won't reply on specific posts since too many people repeat the same thing - same mistake.
What people are talkig here are features or content. As I mentioned earlier, sandbox and themepark are determined by game design. That means that there are no sandbox elements either.
Q: What is game design?
A: It is the way the content is created and inner game mechanics making the content interacting with player(s) and other content.
Character progression, end game, raids, PVP, whatever are features or content.
Q: What is a design of themepark MMORPG?
A: Character progression via gaining xp/gear.
Levels, gears, raids - all are achievements in defined goal.
There are strictly defined ways.
Q: What is a design of (EVE) sandbox?
A: Player competition.
Skill points, ships, resources - all are tools to be used in reching achievement that is player domination.
There are no ways set how to reach the achievements, it is left on players to find the ways of becoming successfull.
It is not important What you can do in the game, but Why you do it. That is where the game turns out being a sandbox or themepark.
While I believe there are numerous ways how to make a sandbox game, the most accessible(and only known?) is through game economy.
Here I take EVE (again) as example because I do not know other concept for sandbox game.
One of the aspects of the player driven world is that the world is living and breathing. EVE use game economy to achieve very sophosticated player interaction and vice versa.
Q: What?!
A: The inustry system.
You can create some very basic items pretty much on your own(leaving behind your competitiveness) but once you get in, you will find out very soon that it is impossible to produce items without more and more people participating in production chain.
This is where the complexity comes from, why the game is player driven and why the game is working sandbox.
Q:So what is the sandbox again?
A:It is a player driven world with no ways set. You are given tools only and left alone to chew your way through.
>.>
Nice post, I could agree more about building the game around economy of the game world, it provides with a lot of opportunities for sandbox content, make people to socialize, cooperate and think strategically.
Furthermore I think that genre bleeding - merging/borrowing from different game genres - is the way to go with evolution of MMORPGs.
Its a conspiracy by the ruling classes. They dont want you to imagine a classless society so they see a classless virtual world as a threat to their dominance.
JK
I agree with the first part of the post, where the difference between sandbox and themepark is overall game design, not specific features. However, what makes a theme park any more or less player driven than a sandbox. This is where I disagree. You can place any economy system within a theme park, but it'll still be a theme park. I think the defining characterisitics are behind character progression and how its laid out, basically between being limited by options or given access to as many options as possible. ALL MMORPG's are driven by players, or else it wouldn't be much of an MMORPG. Its just a matter of what it is that the player is actually driving that separates sandbox from theme park.
In regards to the OP, I still think more people favor the theme park because it revolves around the combat system which seems to catch most gamers interest hence this is where the money is at, but it doesn't mean sandboxes cannot be profitable, theme parks just appear to have a greater chance at the moment (its the bigger thing right now in the industry and there are many people that are new to it).
EVE could work just fine with predefined 'classes' with maxed out skills in certain field. It would not affect the sandbox mechanics at all.
Definately not.World gives xp and gear to player. What has got a player to offer the game world? How does player affect game world? It is one way interaction only, the world drives the players.
In EVE, even avid mission runner provides minerals and ISK to manufacturer and researchers, enriching and participting in global economy.
I suggest you to re-read my post. EVE production chain is extremely complex, involving direct and indirect contributors, I can add some deeper description if needed.
You literaly need other players to even undock.
Three of my own ideas why:
1. The more power you give to players in a sandbox, the more likely they are to use it negatively. In UO, they ganked and ruined players experiences so much, they had to make Trammel. In CoH, players abused the mission editor for easy rewards. Even if it's solely PvE, players can wreck things. Second Life shows even if there is no GAME players can do so.
2.Sandbox is pointless because combat dominates any MMO. Everything important is ultimately done by fighting. You do not beat a dragon by offering it the freshest vegetables in the land, or singing songs to it. Most of the time, the most advanced content is usually beating up the dragon.
So you are essentially allowing players the freedom to choose inferior paths of action.
3. Sandbox seems to equal hardmode in players eyes now. Things like PvP, full loot on death, and harsh penalties for it, or even for carelessness, are becoming demanded. They don't just want sandbox, they want an old-school one, during a time when casual is ascending.
Oh, and for people thinking FFXIV is sandbox? It's not. They are making it they way it is because FFXI took four to eight hours per day to get anywhere in. It's the way it is to enable players to play more casually, and more to the way they like, than the rigid, hardcore experience FFXI was.
I was thinking progression very loosely in terms of what the game expects their players to do.
I think you have misunderstood what I have been trying to get at. An MMORPG cannot exist without players hence players are driving the game in some form whether it is direct or indirect. I'm quite aware of EVE's economy system (the first track I even decided to explore was Trade which gives a good glimpse of the flow of goods between regions etc.). However, what makes this any more driven than a game like World of Warcraft where gold is constantly produced in similar fashion in regards to money which is traded for all sorts of goods and services. You can argue by the fact of pure numbers that WoW is MORE driven than EVE because there is more player activity within the game. Sure, EVE has brought complexity in regards to MMO economy, and that complexity can be brought in turn into WoW but WoW will still be a theme park.
Generally, in a theme park, what is the focus of your character, its combat, its set, its more or less predefined and so is your character development either via levels or gear. Sandbox isn't predefined, the choice is left to the players and the game design provides that freedom (you choose your own set of skills rather then let a class define it for you). It doesn't JUST revolve around an economy, its overall game design, which revolves around what the player can and cannot do. You are not guided anywhere in a sandbox but you generally are guided in a theme park. Sure the economy might facilitate it but ultimately, it lies within the fact that the players have control over how their character develops and what they get to do.
In Ultima Online you could tame a dragon which was Superior to killing it.
That wouldn't work today though. If you enable players to tame a dragon, and it's easier than fighting it, your combat people will bitch and rightfully so. You can't really balance that. Players will seize any advantage to make the progression easier, and a lot of stuff UO did will not work now. Players are more sensitive to game imbalances-UO the genre was new.
It wasn't easier than killing it, but you got a godly pet out of it, But realisticly animal taming was the hardest profession to raise in UO, because when your pets died, they were dead, so thinks like nightmares/wyrms etc were worth alot. All I'm saying is in UO you didn't have to kill everything, there was also a bardish skill peacemaking.
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.
Very Well put!
You're right, and that happened in UO. (Note, as said, it wasn't easier, it was the gain of having a tamed dragon vs. the "kill".)
Players did have a confrontation over this, especially since UO wasn't instanced and strangers met at the same time with said dragon. Yet, many would stand back and let the tamers get their prized pet, some even would help them. There's all kinds in an MMORPG.
But some players are lame as hell. They'll complain about anything that doesn't give them reward, and just the way they want it too.And they can't stand someone else getting a turn. I'm glad most gamers are not that way.
Once upon a time....
It's been posted before, and maybe even in this thread, that the glory days of UO are gone. MMOs were a niche market then. MMO players were a select few of dedicated "gaming geeks". Conversations about MMOs outside of game were sparse and embarrassed.
Then WoW came. Now there are commercials for it on prime-time TV using big names. Non-MMO players are watching episodes of "The Guild". Free-to-play games litter non-gaming sites like Facebook. Internet users everywhere are educated to the presence of MMOs. My fire-team even had a conversation about subscribing to an FPS MMO to practice our maneuver skills...
The market has changed. The player base has changed. The influx of vast numbers has changed what an MMO community is, was or could be. The days of hanging out in town and listening to someone /shout poetry and philosophy have given way to innane conversations on /ooc and finding a raid for the best loot.
Us old-schoolers still exist. But there is no way to find us, and trap us in niche. those of us that miss the old-school MMO in its hey day cannot be defined. We cannot even define what we miss most. And there is no way to market or engineer 'community'. It exists in some games today, but mainly by accident.
I see the latest attempts at sandboxes in "Darkfall", which is populated gankers, and "Mortal" whose boards are populated by fans of ganking. The majority, or vocal and violent minority, in these games seem to have no interest in the grander, more ambitious, sandbox aspects of the game. MMOs have become big business and have attracted console-wielding FPSers with mad twitch skills. PvP is a vital part of the old-school sandbox but it easily dominates the entire MMO and drives old men like me away.
Yikes, I am rambling...
Anyway, I don't see a future for a modern UO unless there is some tyrannical, "Community" management. Freedom and Equality are mutually exclusive extremes.
TSW, LotRO, EQ2, SWTOR, GW2, V:SoH, Neverwinter, ArchAge, EQ, UO, DAoC, WAR, DDO, AoC, MO, BDO, SotA, B&S, ESO,