These so called Sandbox just games suck. Thats why all of them have low subs simply because they are not fun. I have said time and time again that until we get a High Quality & Fun sandbox game then Themeparks will always be better. There is not a game on the market where you can go anywhere and do anything. Thats why I dont even consider games like Eve, Ryzom, Darkfall and Fallen Earth to be Sandbox games. One day we may get a real Sandbox game but right now we dont have it and the so called sandbox games that we have now are not even close. What I dont understand is why dont the people who say they like sandbox games play them? They try the games and they too see how shallow and bland the games are and then come to a forum and bitch because people are not playing the games that they dont even like them selves. You dont hear Aion, Lord Of The Rings or WoW players complaining because they are having fun and enjoying what they play. LMAO
It's funny because Aion and WoW players aren't actually having fun grinding away for epics. It's unfortunate that you and most of the people who play those games are too deluded, ignorant, unexperienced, and ignorant of human psychology to see this.
Where in my post did I say anything about grinding for epics? The people that play these games enjoy EVERYTHING that these games have to offer. Maybe thats all you saw but dont try to speak for everybody because you cant. Bottom line is that if these people are not going to play a game that they do not enjoy so they are having fun.
It's pretty clear that you're an idiot. My favorite part about WoW was repeatedly doing an instance and not getting anything until I had done it over 50 times. Or the part where every quest from the start involved killing 5 of some random monster. It was compelling and interesting and completely immersive. I wish more games would aspire to be like this because it is truly the peak of innovative entertainment.
I am an idiot? Now you have been reduced to name calling. How sad and pathetic. Again you talk abou things that YOU did. Your opinion of a game does not speak for other people that play it. Are you dense or something? What part of this you dont understand?
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
These so called Sandbox just games suck. Thats why all of them have low subs simply because they are not fun. I have said time and time again that until we get a High Quality & Fun sandbox game then Themeparks will always be better. There is not a game on the market where you can go anywhere and do anything. Thats why I dont even consider games like Eve, Ryzom, Darkfall and Fallen Earth to be Sandbox games. One day we may get a real Sandbox game but right now we dont have it and the so called sandbox games that we have now are not even close. What I dont understand is why dont the people who say they like sandbox games play them? They try the games and they too see how shallow and bland the games are and then come to a forum and bitch because people are not playing the games that they dont even like them selves. You dont hear Aion, Lord Of The Rings or WoW players complaining because they are having fun and enjoying what they play. LMAO
It's funny because Aion and WoW players aren't actually having fun grinding away for epics. It's unfortunate that you and most of the people who play those games are too deluded, ignorant, unexperienced, and ignorant of human psychology to see this.
Where in my post did I say anything about grinding for epics? The people that play these games enjoy EVERYTHING that these games have to offer. Maybe thats all you saw but dont try to speak for everybody because you cant. Bottom line is that if these people are not going to play a game that they do not enjoy so they are having fun.
It's pretty clear that you're an idiot. My favorite part about WoW was repeatedly doing an instance and not getting anything until I had done it over 50 times. Or the part where every quest from the start involved killing 5 of some random monster. It was compelling and interesting and completely immersive. I wish more games would aspire to be like this because it is truly the peak of innovative entertainment.
I am an idiot? Now you have been reduced to name calling. How sad and pathetic. Again you talk abou things that YOU did. Your opinion of a game does not speak for other people that play it. Are you dense or something? What part of this you dont understand?
You make it so obvious that you're a troll. I love how you act as if a majority of the people who play World of Warcraft don't do the kill task quests or run instances. If it's not exploitation to make someone repeat the same content a ton of times before they can get to the next part of the story, then what is? The only purpose for this is so they can squeeze more money from you each month. The fact that they do it so bluntly without even trying to disguise it or make it interesting is what bothers me.
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
A lack of thinking is counter-productive in a video game. The fact is that games are designed around the user interacting with them. If you're into not thinking and being fed a story, you should stick to books or a movie, because gaming is not the proper medium for that. By the very nature of gaming and user interaction the player needs to have to think about what they're doing, that's just the nature of hands on activities.
Sandbox games usually boil down to doing the same thing over and over again which gets tedious pretty quickly. Also, the sandbox games seem dead if they have no NPC interaction at all or very little. Sandbox games can be fun if they're done right, but IMO, none have been done right yet, although EVE maybe has gotten close, although I consider it fairly boring.
Sandbox games usually boil down to doing the same thing over and over again which gets tedious pretty quickly. Also, the sandbox games seem dead if they have no NPC interaction at all or very little. Sandbox games can be fun if they're done right, but IMO, none have been done right yet, although EVE maybe has gotten close, although I consider it fairly boring.
My fear is that the debacle of SWG will disuade developers from creating sandbox games based on the false assumption that SWG failed because it was a sandbox game. In reality, the sandboxiness was implemented poorly. Its failure should not indicate a intrinsic failure of the sandbox concept in general.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
There is one thing I don't get from this thread. Why must there be a "meaning" when one plays game ? Why must death has a meaning ? why must pvp has a meaning ? why must quest has meaning ? Is it so far just to have FUN ? yeah I know..killing x number of y mobs is not fun. Running here to there is not fun. I , however, get lots fun interact with others when I do those. For me, the gaming TOGETHRE experience is well enough. I don't really need any other "meaning" in my gaming...but that's just me.
Most peoples like and need to be guided. Thats why most people prefer Theme Park games. Thats why only few choose the freedom in the face of things like Sandbox games, extreme music and extreme sports.
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration ______\m/_____ LordOfDarkDesire
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Because the current "sandbox" games make me want to smash my head into the wall? Well, except for EvE.
There is one thing I don't get from this thread. Why must there be a "meaning" when one plays game ? Why must death has a meaning ? why must pvp has a meaning ? why must quest has meaning ? Is it so far just to have FUN ? yeah I know..killing x number of y mobs is not fun. Running here to there is not fun. I , however, get lots fun interact with others when I do those. For me, the gaming TOGETHRE experience is well enough. I don't really need any other "meaning" in my gaming...but that's just me.
See thats the problem though; for a genre based on playing with many many other people, a lot of players tend to not play with/communicate with anyone at all unless they are forced to. Its odd really.
I mean I like to solo in MMOs. I like to group as well. I enjoy meeting and talking with new people. But if you look at most people who play an MMO these days, you will see a lot of people playing solo. And if you try to talk to them, you almost never get a response (which is fine, for all I know they could be heavily engaged in conversation with their guild or friends...)
But say there is a mob that spawns for a quest. You will have like 30 people standing solo around the mob waiting for it to respawn. You try to group people up to maybe finish the quest faster for everyone, but at least 80% of the people will decline the invite. Its annoying and kinda funny at the same time, because most of those people end up standing there longer than they should waiting for a chance to kill the quest mob.
Hell, maybe devs should just do away with grouping and instead add one of those deli counter 'pick-a-number' machines at spawn points...
But yeah, there is one thing that is true of all MMORPGs, and that is the meaning of the genre, a meaning that seems to be lost with every new game coming out. "Multiplayer" Somehow the second M in MMO has become "Multiple-singleplayer"
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Some people like themepark MMO's for the same reason that they like to watch films or read a book: they want to be enveloped in a story that unfolds around them, but doesn't mean that they have to be the designers of the story just so they can experience it. People enjoy movies, games and fictional books because they desire escapism. Therefore, such people look on MMO's as a graphical and interactive means to experience a pre-written story. Of course, just because a story is pre-written, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a little variation too. Which adds to the attraction when people can enjoy the story in different ways each time they experience it.
Originally posted by jusomdude
Sandbox games usually boil down to doing the same thing over and over again which gets tedious pretty quickly. Also, the sandbox games seem dead if they have no NPC interaction at all or very little. Sandbox games can be fun if they're done right, but IMO, none have been done right yet, although EVE maybe has gotten close, although I consider it fairly boring.
Its true that it has been fairly common that in the past "sandbox" MMO's have been seen as "grindy" and repetitive, probably due to the developers trying a little TOO hard to make their game to be seen as a sandbox game.
However, in my opinion, a themepark style MMO has all the potential to also be sandbox. It's all a matter of providing choice to the player. Of course, the devs also have to weigh up the amount of work put into developing an MMO element which no one may possibly use. But its all in the presentation at the end of the day. Just look at a typical quest system, if you looked at it from a mechanic point of view then its nothing more than a way to take the edge off repeatedly grinding mobs. However, a GOOD quest system is so much more because it weaves a story which envelopes the player. That is the sugar coating.
This is why I'm hoping that the next batch of AAA title MMO's have learned from the likes of WoW, SWG (both Pre and Post NGE), EVE, and Age of Conan (both the positives and the negatives). Because each of these titles has something unique about it, which has the possibility to be combined together could form something quite spectacular. None of the above are perfect. But what they introduced to the market shouldn't be ignored.
Imagine an MMO based on skills not levels (like in Pre-NGE SWG or EVE), with the depth of the AOC 1 - 20 storyline but in a scale that matches the quantity of quests in WoW (both general and role-specific quests). Which involves many factions, each with their own agendas. Now add random mission generators, frequent (and maybe even random) live events hosted by the devs, a means whereby players can create their own scenarios (with the ability to create missions for them) and an interactive combat system (for all classes, not just some). Finally, add in a player driven economy (like EVE) and housing (like in SWG).
There is one thing I don't get from this thread. Why must there be a "meaning" when one plays game ? Why must death has a meaning ? why must pvp has a meaning ? why must quest has meaning ? Is it so far just to have FUN ? yeah I know..killing x number of y mobs is not fun. Running here to there is not fun. I , however, get lots fun interact with others when I do those. For me, the gaming TOGETHRE experience is well enough. I don't really need any other "meaning" in my gaming...but that's just me.
I've never really understood this point of view, but I'll accept that it actually is personal opinion. For me, It's important that what I'm doing feels important to me, like I'm a part of something, or doing something for the greater good, or that my actions have an effect on the world. I feel this way because when a game is this way, everything you do just feels better, there's more motivation to keep playing the game. It just in general provides a better overall experience and leaves a greater sense of satisfaction when all is said and done.
Have you ever played a game where your actions felt meaningful?
There is one thing I don't get from this thread. Why must there be a "meaning" when one plays game ? Why must death has a meaning ? why must pvp has a meaning ? why must quest has meaning ? Is it so far just to have FUN ? yeah I know..killing x number of y mobs is not fun. Running here to there is not fun. I , however, get lots fun interact with others when I do those. For me, the gaming TOGETHRE experience is well enough. I don't really need any other "meaning" in my gaming...but that's just me.
See thats the problem though; for a genre based on playing with many many other people, a lot of players tend to not play with/communicate with anyone at all unless they are forced to. Its odd really.
I mean I like to solo in MMOs. I like to group as well. I enjoy meeting and talking with new people. But if you look at most people who play an MMO these days, you will see a lot of people playing solo. And if you try to talk to them, you almost never get a response (which is fine, for all I know they could be heavily engaged in conversation with their guild or friends...)
But say there is a mob that spawns for a quest. You will have like 30 people standing solo around the mob waiting for it to respawn. You try to group people up to maybe finish the quest faster for everyone, but at least 80% of the people will decline the invite. Its annoying and kinda funny at the same time, because most of those people end up standing there longer than they should waiting for a chance to kill the quest mob.
Hell, maybe devs should just do away with grouping and instead add one of those deli counter 'pick-a-number' machines at spawn points...
But yeah, there is one thing that is true of all MMORPGs, and that is the meaning of the genre, a meaning that seems to be lost with every new game coming out. "Multiplayer" Somehow the second M in MMO has become "Multiple-singleplayer"
Part of the reason is probably a lot of people treat MMO more than just a game. I know some people see it as an achievement of a sort ( something I can't seem to understand. It is the about the same as trophies in console games...I don't get those as well ).
themepark because if the developer makes the style games I like, such as dragon age, then everything I would do in a sandbox is already included only in a slightly more linear fashion.
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
While I agree trhat what I said was simplified and a generalization, this does not mean its innaccurate, for it is my opinion and not fact.
" It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling." Which supports my opinion that, " Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest.(next) " The story is there for you not to figure out, but to read and follow. If we want to use a book analogy, then we can use a "choose your own adventure" book. Either way its a preexisting story that you are put into.
Part of the reason is probably a lot of people treat MMO more than just a game. I know some people see it as an achievement of a sort ( something I can't seem to understand. It is the about the same as trophies in console games...I don't get those as well ).
Aye, people are weird like that, and it is part of human nature to try to 'excel' at something, even if its trivial virtual achievments.
I loot at crap like loot like this: If I happen to get a piece, awesome! If I dont, oh well.
If I can make the piece, even better. Will I strive for getting certain loot? sure. Will I step over other people to get it and then brag about it? Why bother... its a game and the 'item' is really just a collection of sprites/pixels/numbers.
Then again I am the type of person who would rather help someone else get gear/achievements than to have others help me, because I know that I will eventually get it or I might get it while helping others. Even if I already have it, its still fun to help others (I am the guy who would rather run lowbies through content than raid everyday)
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Some interesting ideas here but unfortunately some people seem to have pretty solid rules about what is a theme park and what is a sandbox and a steadfast refusal to accept anything else.
Personally, i don't see why we should be forced to pick one or the other. Developers should try and incorporate more ideas from other sources and games into their products. Themepark rides are fun but after the 20th time on the same roller coaster it starts to lose its appeal not to mention some people losing their lunch. But it doesn't mean I won't ever want to ride it again in the future. Good game design should be about giving people not only a good time but should include giving people more choices including bad ones.
One aspect of character development that I would like a company to implement is this idea of a character being able to do everything that you are not restricted to a specific class. You start off as a mage but decide to become a medic. But, the problem to a certain extent in a game like Eve where you can do this is that it does cause other issues. Ideally, it should be something more along the lines that things you do you are good at and if you stop doing something for a period of time or do it less often then your skill in that drops. So I could start off my career as a backstabber err assassin and become good at hiding and using daggers but then later if I started learning how to heal and did more healing I would become clumsy and have trouble handling my old daggers. I of course could go back and practice with them but then I would be negelecting my casting which would suffer as a result. Same thing could be the case with crafting. If you are a top woodworker but start cooking up potions your skill at other crafts would decline, maybe you might even forget how to do something.
Making permanent impact to a world shared with tens of thousands of other players is a problem but isn't insurmountable. Maybe if you complete a quest the NPC then ignores a random number of players until he is ready for it to be done again or at the very least instead of wanting 10 rats tails he now wants their whiskers. Lots of MMOs already make quest items special and only show up when you do the quest so no reason they couldn't have a list of items that the NPC might want.
They need to spend more time and effort on the game economy. Some people would rather do anything other than craft but many people love it and making the crafting challenging and the products useful to the economy is an important aspect of creating a game that is trying to be a world. This is also one area where you can let player creativity be free. How about an wood worker that learns weapon smithing and makes a rifle that shoots arrows?
Doing all this isn't easy but its no excuse for us to let the developers get away with being lazy. We need to stop fighting amoungst ourselves about this game or that game or features when in reality we need to be focusing on the developers and getting them to look beyond the tried and true.
Part of the reason is probably a lot of people treat MMO more than just a game. I know some people see it as an achievement of a sort ( something I can't seem to understand. It is the about the same as trophies in console games...I don't get those as well ).
Aye, people are weird like that, and it is part of human nature to try to 'excel' at something, even if its trivial virtual achievments.
I loot at crap like loot like this: If I happen to get a piece, awesome! If I dont, oh well.
If I can make the piece, even better. Will I strive for getting certain loot? sure. Will I step over other people to get it and then brag about it? Why bother... its a game and the 'item' is really just a collection of sprites/pixels/numbers.
Then again I am the type of person who would rather help someone else get gear/achievements than to have others help me, because I know that I will eventually get it or I might get it while helping others. Even if I already have it, its still fun to help others (I am the guy who would rather run lowbies through content than raid everyday)
I am the same lol. Most of the time when people ask me to help, I rush to it. When it comes to my own quest or stuff...I just leave it till I feel like it...I guess I get the most enjoyment out of grouping than anything else. For example, I had the most fun in silly raid wipe than a successful raid. Of course, people I often group with usually have the same mindset
I play both, actually. I play Fallen Earth which has a relatively "Sandbox" feel to it, in that you can pretty much go off and do whatever you want and still level in the game.
I play Aion and it's about as themepark as it gets. I play Aion when I don't want to think or explore much; I just want to hit pretty graphics with my pretty avatar and his pretty stick, and hopefully one day after 5 years of gameplay eventually level to the point where I can join PvPvE in the Abyss. With the leveling speed in Aion, good thing I'm not in a rush.
As for "EVE" which most people hold up as an example of a great sandbox game; I can't freaking stand that game. It seems like a pointless exercise in player ganking and number crunching to me; but that's just me. If I want an exercise in math and tedium, I'll pull up an Excel spreadsheet and get some real work done.
There is one thing I don't get from this thread. Why must there be a "meaning" when one plays game ? Why must death has a meaning ? why must pvp has a meaning ? why must quest has meaning ? Is it so far just to have FUN ? yeah I know..killing x number of y mobs is not fun. Running here to there is not fun. I , however, get lots fun interact with others when I do those. For me, the gaming TOGETHRE experience is well enough. I don't really need any other "meaning" in my gaming...but that's just me.
I've never really understood this point of view, but I'll accept that it actually is personal opinion. For me, It's important that what I'm doing feels important to me, like I'm a part of something, or doing something for the greater good, or that my actions have an effect on the world. I feel this way because when a game is this way, everything you do just feels better, there's more motivation to keep playing the game. It just in general provides a better overall experience and leaves a greater sense of satisfaction when all is said and done.
Have you ever played a game where your actions felt meaningful?
I think a lot of people look for games like that, the issue is how they achieve it.
I have never been into the greater good or part of something type, but I like to know my actions have effects on the world, it does make the game more satisfying.
The only way for this to happen for me though is if the developers put it in the game, the world being the expression of an artist where I care about the goings on, or idealy it is, not saying developers don't make lame worlds. When playing games like Eve though, I could get involved in corporation battles and work the economy, but for one those are so mundane and two they are focused around players and players are kind of dumb and it lacks the depth of developer made worlds, so it is not really an environment I even want to influence.
As a side note sandbox games far too often lack the focus of "themeparks" that is themeparks better understand what the game is about, if it is fantasy make it adventurous, don't however get hung up on issues like economy and politics, that detracts from the purity of the experience when I have to be concerned about those issues. They also take up developement time that could be used to improve what I consider to be the core of the game, also the reason why I think SWG ended up just meh.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
While I agree trhat what I said was simplified and a generalization, this does not mean its innaccurate, for it is my opinion and not fact.
" It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling." Which supports my opinion that, " Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest.(next) " The story is there for you not to figure out, but to read and follow. If we want to use a book analogy, then we can use a "choose your own adventure" book. Either way its a preexisting story that you are put into.
Opinions can be innaccurate, they can even be wrong. Someone who has the opinion that the world is flat is both innaccurate and wrong. Now, having said that, let us continue...
Have you read well-written literature? Seriously. Or a good mystery? Heck, even some old 'choose your own adventure' books require you to think about your choices. If you're reading a good book, you ARE thinking. You're connecting the plot points, identifying subtext, infering motive and intent from action, and in the case of a mystery, you're looking for clues.
So yes, the story is VERY much there for you to figure out. Yes you read it. Yes you turn a page. Read "Sound and the Fury" and tell me you're not thinking how to interpret THAT book, lol.
Now granted, we haven't had the literary equivelant of "Sound and the Fury" in the MMO space yet. But that's mainly because of the costs involved in making an MMO that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Now the better written themepark titles do have an engaging story, and often, not always, ask you to think. But I can imagine a quest dialogue that has several 'clues' within its text, and its up to the reader to figure out where to go next. LoTRO flirts with this idea in several quests.
So in the end, I see no evidence to support your thesis.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
While I agree trhat what I said was simplified and a generalization, this does not mean its innaccurate, for it is my opinion and not fact.
" It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling." Which supports my opinion that, " Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest.(next) " The story is there for you not to figure out, but to read and follow. If we want to use a book analogy, then we can use a "choose your own adventure" book. Either way its a preexisting story that you are put into.
Opinions can be innaccurate, they can even be wrong. Someone who has the opinion that the world is flat is both innaccurate and wrong. Now, having said that, let us continue...
Have you read well-written literature? Seriously. Or a good mystery? Heck, even some old 'choose your own adventure' books require you to think about your choices. If you're reading a good book, you ARE thinking. You're connecting the plot points, identifying subtext, infering motive and intent from action, and in the case of a mystery, you're looking for clues.
So yes, the story is VERY much there for you to figure out. Yes you read it. Yes you turn a page. Read "Sound and the Fury" and tell me you're not thinking how to interpret THAT book, lol.
Now granted, we haven't had the literary equivelant of "Sound and the Fury" in the MMO space yet. But that's mainly because of the costs involved in making an MMO that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Now the better written themepark titles do have an engaging story, and often, not always, ask you to think. But I can imagine a quest dialogue that has several 'clues' within its text, and its up to the reader to figure out where to go next. LoTRO flirts with this idea in several quests.
So in the end, I see no evidence to support your thesis.
Opinions arent based on fact opinions are based on thought and insight.. using the analogy of the 'earth is flat' as opinion is innaccurate, because when the people thought the earth was flat it was based on fact, granted, incorrect facts at the time period, but not an opinion.
Fact is based on proveable concepts or science, opinions are based on ones own perpective, so to say absolutely, that one's opinion is wrong, you must have facts to argue your point of view. And you have not done so (in my opinion) therefore we both have debating opinions at the present. Neither of us are right.. or wrong... they are opinions.
Comments
It's funny because Aion and WoW players aren't actually having fun grinding away for epics. It's unfortunate that you and most of the people who play those games are too deluded, ignorant, unexperienced, and ignorant of human psychology to see this.
Where in my post did I say anything about grinding for epics? The people that play these games enjoy EVERYTHING that these games have to offer. Maybe thats all you saw but dont try to speak for everybody because you cant. Bottom line is that if these people are not going to play a game that they do not enjoy so they are having fun.
It's pretty clear that you're an idiot. My favorite part about WoW was repeatedly doing an instance and not getting anything until I had done it over 50 times. Or the part where every quest from the start involved killing 5 of some random monster. It was compelling and interesting and completely immersive. I wish more games would aspire to be like this because it is truly the peak of innovative entertainment.
I am an idiot? Now you have been reduced to name calling. How sad and pathetic. Again you talk abou things that YOU did. Your opinion of a game does not speak for other people that play it. Are you dense or something? What part of this you dont understand?
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
It's funny because Aion and WoW players aren't actually having fun grinding away for epics. It's unfortunate that you and most of the people who play those games are too deluded, ignorant, unexperienced, and ignorant of human psychology to see this.
Where in my post did I say anything about grinding for epics? The people that play these games enjoy EVERYTHING that these games have to offer. Maybe thats all you saw but dont try to speak for everybody because you cant. Bottom line is that if these people are not going to play a game that they do not enjoy so they are having fun.
It's pretty clear that you're an idiot. My favorite part about WoW was repeatedly doing an instance and not getting anything until I had done it over 50 times. Or the part where every quest from the start involved killing 5 of some random monster. It was compelling and interesting and completely immersive. I wish more games would aspire to be like this because it is truly the peak of innovative entertainment.
I am an idiot? Now you have been reduced to name calling. How sad and pathetic. Again you talk abou things that YOU did. Your opinion of a game does not speak for other people that play it. Are you dense or something? What part of this you dont understand?
You make it so obvious that you're a troll. I love how you act as if a majority of the people who play World of Warcraft don't do the kill task quests or run instances. If it's not exploitation to make someone repeat the same content a ton of times before they can get to the next part of the story, then what is? The only purpose for this is so they can squeeze more money from you each month. The fact that they do it so bluntly without even trying to disguise it or make it interesting is what bothers me.
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
A lack of thinking is counter-productive in a video game. The fact is that games are designed around the user interacting with them. If you're into not thinking and being fed a story, you should stick to books or a movie, because gaming is not the proper medium for that. By the very nature of gaming and user interaction the player needs to have to think about what they're doing, that's just the nature of hands on activities.
Sandbox games usually boil down to doing the same thing over and over again which gets tedious pretty quickly. Also, the sandbox games seem dead if they have no NPC interaction at all or very little. Sandbox games can be fun if they're done right, but IMO, none have been done right yet, although EVE maybe has gotten close, although I consider it fairly boring.
My fear is that the debacle of SWG will disuade developers from creating sandbox games based on the false assumption that SWG failed because it was a sandbox game. In reality, the sandboxiness was implemented poorly. Its failure should not indicate a intrinsic failure of the sandbox concept in general.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
There is one thing I don't get from this thread. Why must there be a "meaning" when one plays game ? Why must death has a meaning ? why must pvp has a meaning ? why must quest has meaning ? Is it so far just to have FUN ? yeah I know..killing x number of y mobs is not fun. Running here to there is not fun. I , however, get lots fun interact with others when I do those. For me, the gaming TOGETHRE experience is well enough. I don't really need any other "meaning" in my gaming...but that's just me.
Most peoples like and need to be guided. Thats why most people prefer Theme Park games. Thats why only few choose the freedom in the face of things like Sandbox games, extreme music and extreme sports.
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration
______\m/_____
LordOfDarkDesire
Because the current "sandbox" games make me want to smash my head into the wall? Well, except for EvE.
See thats the problem though; for a genre based on playing with many many other people, a lot of players tend to not play with/communicate with anyone at all unless they are forced to. Its odd really.
I mean I like to solo in MMOs. I like to group as well. I enjoy meeting and talking with new people. But if you look at most people who play an MMO these days, you will see a lot of people playing solo. And if you try to talk to them, you almost never get a response (which is fine, for all I know they could be heavily engaged in conversation with their guild or friends...)
But say there is a mob that spawns for a quest. You will have like 30 people standing solo around the mob waiting for it to respawn. You try to group people up to maybe finish the quest faster for everyone, but at least 80% of the people will decline the invite. Its annoying and kinda funny at the same time, because most of those people end up standing there longer than they should waiting for a chance to kill the quest mob.
Hell, maybe devs should just do away with grouping and instead add one of those deli counter 'pick-a-number' machines at spawn points...
But yeah, there is one thing that is true of all MMORPGs, and that is the meaning of the genre, a meaning that seems to be lost with every new game coming out. "Multiplayer" Somehow the second M in MMO has become "Multiple-singleplayer"
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Some people like themepark MMO's for the same reason that they like to watch films or read a book: they want to be enveloped in a story that unfolds around them, but doesn't mean that they have to be the designers of the story just so they can experience it. People enjoy movies, games and fictional books because they desire escapism. Therefore, such people look on MMO's as a graphical and interactive means to experience a pre-written story. Of course, just because a story is pre-written, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a little variation too. Which adds to the attraction when people can enjoy the story in different ways each time they experience it.
Its true that it has been fairly common that in the past "sandbox" MMO's have been seen as "grindy" and repetitive, probably due to the developers trying a little TOO hard to make their game to be seen as a sandbox game.
However, in my opinion, a themepark style MMO has all the potential to also be sandbox. It's all a matter of providing choice to the player. Of course, the devs also have to weigh up the amount of work put into developing an MMO element which no one may possibly use. But its all in the presentation at the end of the day. Just look at a typical quest system, if you looked at it from a mechanic point of view then its nothing more than a way to take the edge off repeatedly grinding mobs. However, a GOOD quest system is so much more because it weaves a story which envelopes the player. That is the sugar coating.
This is why I'm hoping that the next batch of AAA title MMO's have learned from the likes of WoW, SWG (both Pre and Post NGE), EVE, and Age of Conan (both the positives and the negatives). Because each of these titles has something unique about it, which has the possibility to be combined together could form something quite spectacular. None of the above are perfect. But what they introduced to the market shouldn't be ignored.
Imagine an MMO based on skills not levels (like in Pre-NGE SWG or EVE), with the depth of the AOC 1 - 20 storyline but in a scale that matches the quantity of quests in WoW (both general and role-specific quests). Which involves many factions, each with their own agendas. Now add random mission generators, frequent (and maybe even random) live events hosted by the devs, a means whereby players can create their own scenarios (with the ability to create missions for them) and an interactive combat system (for all classes, not just some). Finally, add in a player driven economy (like EVE) and housing (like in SWG).
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I've never really understood this point of view, but I'll accept that it actually is personal opinion. For me, It's important that what I'm doing feels important to me, like I'm a part of something, or doing something for the greater good, or that my actions have an effect on the world. I feel this way because when a game is this way, everything you do just feels better, there's more motivation to keep playing the game. It just in general provides a better overall experience and leaves a greater sense of satisfaction when all is said and done.
Have you ever played a game where your actions felt meaningful?
See thats the problem though; for a genre based on playing with many many other people, a lot of players tend to not play with/communicate with anyone at all unless they are forced to. Its odd really.
I mean I like to solo in MMOs. I like to group as well. I enjoy meeting and talking with new people. But if you look at most people who play an MMO these days, you will see a lot of people playing solo. And if you try to talk to them, you almost never get a response (which is fine, for all I know they could be heavily engaged in conversation with their guild or friends...)
But say there is a mob that spawns for a quest. You will have like 30 people standing solo around the mob waiting for it to respawn. You try to group people up to maybe finish the quest faster for everyone, but at least 80% of the people will decline the invite. Its annoying and kinda funny at the same time, because most of those people end up standing there longer than they should waiting for a chance to kill the quest mob.
Hell, maybe devs should just do away with grouping and instead add one of those deli counter 'pick-a-number' machines at spawn points...
But yeah, there is one thing that is true of all MMORPGs, and that is the meaning of the genre, a meaning that seems to be lost with every new game coming out. "Multiplayer" Somehow the second M in MMO has become "Multiple-singleplayer"
Part of the reason is probably a lot of people treat MMO more than just a game. I know some people see it as an achievement of a sort ( something I can't seem to understand. It is the about the same as trophies in console games...I don't get those as well ).
I could choose a themepark over a sandbox because the themepark could be more entertaining, and vice versa.
I'm not here to complete my forum PVP dailies.
themepark because if the developer makes the style games I like, such as dragon age, then everything I would do in a sandbox is already included only in a slightly more linear fashion.
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
While I agree trhat what I said was simplified and a generalization, this does not mean its innaccurate, for it is my opinion and not fact.
" It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling." Which supports my opinion that, " Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest.(next) " The story is there for you not to figure out, but to read and follow. If we want to use a book analogy, then we can use a "choose your own adventure" book. Either way its a preexisting story that you are put into.
Aye, people are weird like that, and it is part of human nature to try to 'excel' at something, even if its trivial virtual achievments.
I loot at crap like loot like this: If I happen to get a piece, awesome! If I dont, oh well.
If I can make the piece, even better. Will I strive for getting certain loot? sure. Will I step over other people to get it and then brag about it? Why bother... its a game and the 'item' is really just a collection of sprites/pixels/numbers.
Then again I am the type of person who would rather help someone else get gear/achievements than to have others help me, because I know that I will eventually get it or I might get it while helping others. Even if I already have it, its still fun to help others (I am the guy who would rather run lowbies through content than raid everyday)
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Some interesting ideas here but unfortunately some people seem to have pretty solid rules about what is a theme park and what is a sandbox and a steadfast refusal to accept anything else.
Personally, i don't see why we should be forced to pick one or the other. Developers should try and incorporate more ideas from other sources and games into their products. Themepark rides are fun but after the 20th time on the same roller coaster it starts to lose its appeal not to mention some people losing their lunch. But it doesn't mean I won't ever want to ride it again in the future. Good game design should be about giving people not only a good time but should include giving people more choices including bad ones.
One aspect of character development that I would like a company to implement is this idea of a character being able to do everything that you are not restricted to a specific class. You start off as a mage but decide to become a medic. But, the problem to a certain extent in a game like Eve where you can do this is that it does cause other issues. Ideally, it should be something more along the lines that things you do you are good at and if you stop doing something for a period of time or do it less often then your skill in that drops. So I could start off my career as a backstabber err assassin and become good at hiding and using daggers but then later if I started learning how to heal and did more healing I would become clumsy and have trouble handling my old daggers. I of course could go back and practice with them but then I would be negelecting my casting which would suffer as a result. Same thing could be the case with crafting. If you are a top woodworker but start cooking up potions your skill at other crafts would decline, maybe you might even forget how to do something.
Making permanent impact to a world shared with tens of thousands of other players is a problem but isn't insurmountable. Maybe if you complete a quest the NPC then ignores a random number of players until he is ready for it to be done again or at the very least instead of wanting 10 rats tails he now wants their whiskers. Lots of MMOs already make quest items special and only show up when you do the quest so no reason they couldn't have a list of items that the NPC might want.
They need to spend more time and effort on the game economy. Some people would rather do anything other than craft but many people love it and making the crafting challenging and the products useful to the economy is an important aspect of creating a game that is trying to be a world. This is also one area where you can let player creativity be free. How about an wood worker that learns weapon smithing and makes a rifle that shoots arrows?
Doing all this isn't easy but its no excuse for us to let the developers get away with being lazy. We need to stop fighting amoungst ourselves about this game or that game or features when in reality we need to be focusing on the developers and getting them to look beyond the tried and true.
Because it's not my job to create my own story, quests and content in an MMORPG.
Aye, people are weird like that, and it is part of human nature to try to 'excel' at something, even if its trivial virtual achievments.
I loot at crap like loot like this: If I happen to get a piece, awesome! If I dont, oh well.
If I can make the piece, even better. Will I strive for getting certain loot? sure. Will I step over other people to get it and then brag about it? Why bother... its a game and the 'item' is really just a collection of sprites/pixels/numbers.
Then again I am the type of person who would rather help someone else get gear/achievements than to have others help me, because I know that I will eventually get it or I might get it while helping others. Even if I already have it, its still fun to help others (I am the guy who would rather run lowbies through content than raid everyday)
I am the same lol. Most of the time when people ask me to help, I rush to it. When it comes to my own quest or stuff...I just leave it till I feel like it...I guess I get the most enjoyment out of grouping than anything else. For example, I had the most fun in silly raid wipe than a successful raid. Of course, people I often group with usually have the same mindset
I play both, actually. I play Fallen Earth which has a relatively "Sandbox" feel to it, in that you can pretty much go off and do whatever you want and still level in the game.
I play Aion and it's about as themepark as it gets. I play Aion when I don't want to think or explore much; I just want to hit pretty graphics with my pretty avatar and his pretty stick, and hopefully one day after 5 years of gameplay eventually level to the point where I can join PvPvE in the Abyss. With the leveling speed in Aion, good thing I'm not in a rush.
As for "EVE" which most people hold up as an example of a great sandbox game; I can't freaking stand that game. It seems like a pointless exercise in player ganking and number crunching to me; but that's just me. If I want an exercise in math and tedium, I'll pull up an Excel spreadsheet and get some real work done.
I've never really understood this point of view, but I'll accept that it actually is personal opinion. For me, It's important that what I'm doing feels important to me, like I'm a part of something, or doing something for the greater good, or that my actions have an effect on the world. I feel this way because when a game is this way, everything you do just feels better, there's more motivation to keep playing the game. It just in general provides a better overall experience and leaves a greater sense of satisfaction when all is said and done.
Have you ever played a game where your actions felt meaningful?
I think a lot of people look for games like that, the issue is how they achieve it.
I have never been into the greater good or part of something type, but I like to know my actions have effects on the world, it does make the game more satisfying.
The only way for this to happen for me though is if the developers put it in the game, the world being the expression of an artist where I care about the goings on, or idealy it is, not saying developers don't make lame worlds. When playing games like Eve though, I could get involved in corporation battles and work the economy, but for one those are so mundane and two they are focused around players and players are kind of dumb and it lacks the depth of developer made worlds, so it is not really an environment I even want to influence.
As a side note sandbox games far too often lack the focus of "themeparks" that is themeparks better understand what the game is about, if it is fantasy make it adventurous, don't however get hung up on issues like economy and politics, that detracts from the purity of the experience when I have to be concerned about those issues. They also take up developement time that could be used to improve what I consider to be the core of the game, also the reason why I think SWG ended up just meh.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
While I agree trhat what I said was simplified and a generalization, this does not mean its innaccurate, for it is my opinion and not fact.
" It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling." Which supports my opinion that, " Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest.(next) " The story is there for you not to figure out, but to read and follow. If we want to use a book analogy, then we can use a "choose your own adventure" book. Either way its a preexisting story that you are put into.
Opinions can be innaccurate, they can even be wrong. Someone who has the opinion that the world is flat is both innaccurate and wrong. Now, having said that, let us continue...
Have you read well-written literature? Seriously. Or a good mystery? Heck, even some old 'choose your own adventure' books require you to think about your choices. If you're reading a good book, you ARE thinking. You're connecting the plot points, identifying subtext, infering motive and intent from action, and in the case of a mystery, you're looking for clues.
So yes, the story is VERY much there for you to figure out. Yes you read it. Yes you turn a page. Read "Sound and the Fury" and tell me you're not thinking how to interpret THAT book, lol.
Now granted, we haven't had the literary equivelant of "Sound and the Fury" in the MMO space yet. But that's mainly because of the costs involved in making an MMO that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Now the better written themepark titles do have an engaging story, and often, not always, ask you to think. But I can imagine a quest dialogue that has several 'clues' within its text, and its up to the reader to figure out where to go next. LoTRO flirts with this idea in several quests.
So in the end, I see no evidence to support your thesis.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Some people are chiefs and some people are indians.. Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest. Others are 'take-charge' type folks who want to determine thier own path. It's all about personal preference.. I enjoy both, both are a break from each other when you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either.
That is a rather over-simpified and innaccurate generalization. I'm a take-charge sort of person. I read books because the author is taking me on a journey, and if I'm fortunate, there's a bit of art involved. When I play a themepark MMO, it's not because I don't want to have to 'think too much'. It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling. Themepark MMOs allow me to be part of that story in a way a book cannot. In either medium, I am always thinking.
When I play a sandbox game, it allows me to be more of an 'author' in the story. That is not indicative of 'take-charge' sort of person. If that 'take-charge' sort of person has not a creative bone in his body, he might find a sandbox game boring.
To say that 'cheifs' enjoy sandbox games implies that there's a smaller audience for sandbox games. I don't believe that is true either. A well-crafted Sandbox game, in my opinion, will attract all types.
But a sandbox game can't just be sand in a box. Even children bore of that after awhile. You need buckets, and shovels, and even better a dump truck or tractor. SWG had too few of these tools, or toys, in their sandbox game -- that was one of its major faults.
Fallen Earth was mentioned, and I agree. It is a sandbox game with a lot of toys -- perhaps a hybrid of theme and sandbox, leaning more toward the sandbox end of things.
While I agree trhat what I said was simplified and a generalization, this does not mean its innaccurate, for it is my opinion and not fact.
" It's because I'm interested in the story that the 'author', in this case the developers, are telling." Which supports my opinion that, " Meaning some people prefer to be on a pre-determined path where they dont have to think much on what to do, or do nest.(next) " The story is there for you not to figure out, but to read and follow. If we want to use a book analogy, then we can use a "choose your own adventure" book. Either way its a preexisting story that you are put into.
Opinions can be innaccurate, they can even be wrong. Someone who has the opinion that the world is flat is both innaccurate and wrong. Now, having said that, let us continue...
Have you read well-written literature? Seriously. Or a good mystery? Heck, even some old 'choose your own adventure' books require you to think about your choices. If you're reading a good book, you ARE thinking. You're connecting the plot points, identifying subtext, infering motive and intent from action, and in the case of a mystery, you're looking for clues.
So yes, the story is VERY much there for you to figure out. Yes you read it. Yes you turn a page. Read "Sound and the Fury" and tell me you're not thinking how to interpret THAT book, lol.
Now granted, we haven't had the literary equivelant of "Sound and the Fury" in the MMO space yet. But that's mainly because of the costs involved in making an MMO that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Now the better written themepark titles do have an engaging story, and often, not always, ask you to think. But I can imagine a quest dialogue that has several 'clues' within its text, and its up to the reader to figure out where to go next. LoTRO flirts with this idea in several quests.
So in the end, I see no evidence to support your thesis.
Opinions arent based on fact opinions are based on thought and insight.. using the analogy of the 'earth is flat' as opinion is innaccurate, because when the people thought the earth was flat it was based on fact, granted, incorrect facts at the time period, but not an opinion.
Fact is based on proveable concepts or science, opinions are based on ones own perpective, so to say absolutely, that one's opinion is wrong, you must have facts to argue your point of view. And you have not done so (in my opinion) therefore we both have debating opinions at the present. Neither of us are right.. or wrong... they are opinions.