Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Following the "UO" formula vs. the "EQ" formula - and why no one has gotten it right
BadSpock
Member UncommonPosts: 7,979
Let's start with a very basic definition of what I consider to be the "UO" formula and the "EQ" formula.
UO formula - open world, freedom, un-bound by race/gender/class/faction restrictions, the very definition of "sandbox."
EQ formula - stat based, class and more importantly role based (tank/dps/healer), level and stat progression.
Some common examples of more "modern" games:
UO formula - EvE, Darkfall
EQ formula - WoW, STO, Aion
I'd think it would be obvious to most that the EQ formula has proven thus far to be the vastly more popular of the two. Even looking back to previously popular games, DaoC and FFXI - both EQ formula. SWG in its original format was much more closely associated with the UO formula, though many of the EQ influenced facets were some of the biggest issues early SWG faced (balance between professions being the big one).
And let's not forget the incredibly large Asian MMO market, where nearly every single game ever produced follows the EQ model from Lineage to Aion and everything in between.
Along the way we have seen advancement in both models.
Earth and Beyond, then Star Wars Galaxies were really the first to introduce "content" in the form of quests. SWG had the "Theme Parks" like the Rebel Base and Jabba's Palace that were the first true quest-hubs, a concept WoW then took and mass marketed, refined, and perfected. And as such, we now see it every where.
Both SWG and EvE included randomly generated missions - no more then formula/variable based automatic quest generation.
And now modern EQ formula games like WAR, AoC, STO, and an ever-changing and updating WoW place even further emphasis on quests and class roles. We look forward to the future to games like Star Wars: The Old Republic which as far as we know right now will be entirely class/role/story/quest based!
So what has happened to the UO model?
Some games try to emulate it, most notably Darkfall. But they still can't seem to capture the same magic that UO once had. I dare say that there has been no true sandbox outside of EvE since UO.
But why?
Why has the MMO market all but abandoned its true roots?
Comments
Perhaps more importantly -
What has EvE done to be the only real "sandbox" UO-style MMO around?
And even what has EvE done that limits its growth and expansion to a larger segment of the MMO population?
I think there are a few reasons that more sandbox games have not made been more visible in the industry
1) They are very hard to make and take the vision of a gamer to get the job done. The design comes from a passion to make a game and not just another product based on a formula. Most companies are not willing to take the risk to let their designers have the freedom to create something open ended that cannot be reviewed in comparison to a spreadsheet of marketing analysis.
2) Most sandbox games have made very negative impressions on the market. No one is going to try to emulate failure and almost every sandbox games has been a massive failure or highly public disasster.
3) There are few game designers actually capable of getting the job done. Most designers right now can't even follow to the roadmap already drawn by themepark games and somehow manage to horribly mangle the easier of the two to make.
So you want a game with no content? I am all for sandbox games. They just tend to not have any content whatsoever. I don't pay someone to do their work for them, in regards to "the players make the content".
I want to like EVE, just all of the 3 times I tried it. There was two things to do. Mine, and rat. It was BOOOOOOORING. I fell asleep several times playing it. Well, you say, I could go into lower sec space. Because my noobie butt stands aven a remote chance against the bajillion SP pirate vets that will INSTANTLY kill me when I do.
Also, if if they are not waiting for me, what am I going to do when I get there? Rat and Mine.......oh YAY! I'm not saying content has to be hand fed, but jesus, it should at least be there.
"2) Most sandbox games have made very negative impressions on the market. No one is going to try to emulate failure and almost every sandbox games has been a massive failure or highly public disassetr."
And why do you think this is Daffid011?
I have one answer that is very simple - and it's also the reason EvE is the only fairly prosperous sandbox MMO out there -
FFA PvP
EvE only survives due to High Security space.
And I do agree, mining and mission running are all that is available 90% of the time (just a made up number to emply "most of the time") and I do know from experience it does get rather boring.
Now, what made UO good and a very intelligent design that EvE also shares certain design characteristics with?
No gauge2k3 I do NOT want a game with no content.
Now that MMOs have moved towards the direction of story and quest I think it is a direction that we will never turn back from and I don't consider that a bad thing.
But don't you think it's possible to have a sandbox, open-ended MMO with no true end-game that can still feature exceptional quest and story driven content?
I do.
There are plenty of themepark mmos that have ffa pvp and do just fine, but I'm not entirely sure what you are hinting at.
Games like SWG, Dark and Light, Shadowbane, Horizons, Metaplace etc all left very bad impressions on players and developers alike. Developers see gamers avoiding a certain style of game and players see developers turning out horribly broken sandbox games that make even the worst theme park releases look good in comparison. Even games like vanguard that tried to implement sandbox elements into a themepark game crashed and burned.
Developers are going to emulate games that have been successful and have market appeal. Players are going to shy away from broken games and play functional ones. The best example of a sandbox since UO is eve and that caters to a very niche market of hardcore pvpers, which is a very hard market to attract and retain.
I hope this doesn't sound like I am against sandbox games, because I very much want more open ended free form games like UO, but I don't think that is a reality until someone shows it is a viable market again. It is going to take a breakthrough by some independant designer to show there is life for games like this.
Hopefully fallen earth will be the start of that trend.
The answer is quite simple -
And it's the very reason games like WoW have PvP servers, why EvE has High-Security space, why DaoC was so popular and often revered for its RvR, and why UO was at its very best after the Trammel / Felucca split and the introduction of the factional warfare:
Players want choice.
The majority of players want choice when it comes to PvP, PvE, crafting... creating and customizing their characters, where they go and what they do.
They don't want people to chose for them - be it developers or other players.
PvP is an interesting thing because without rules and without a consensual system, other players can effectively make a choice for you. You can be minding your own business, chosing to PvE and another player can come along and make a choice for you, that right now you are going to PvP.
A very large percentage of players don't like that. You can make it very simple by doing a mix of PvP enabled and PvP disabled servers like WoW does. Or even like UO did after the Trammel split on the Siege Perilous server. Or you can confine PvP to certain areas and/or only after a certain amount of time like DaoC did.
But this extends much further then PvP. Limiting your choice of classes based on race or faction is the developers making a choice for you. Being gated and led from point to point with no room for divergence is the developers making a choice for you.
It's why customization of one's character is so important. Games like WoW really don't have this because they are SO numerical and statistically based, there is a definite "right" answer for every class/talent spec for PvP/PvE as this answer can generally be proven mathematically and the culture/community of WoW feeds this perception.
One thing I greatly miss is the ability to not only show case one's accomplishments in a more meaningful way then simply a number or score on a card, but also to leave a mark on the world.
I think achievement systems are the worst thing to happen to MMORPG's because they tell you what to do instead of letting you create your own goals.
Housing is another MMO convention that has fallen almost completely off the face of most MMOs these days, or is implemented in ways that are simply illogical. The apartments/mog house's of EQ2/FFXI are nothing compared to the instanced neighborhoods of LotRo, but even this still pales in comparison to what one could do in SWG or UO.
Certain limitations and controls need to be put into place to prevent the massive loss of true wilderness and remoteness that we saw in both UO and SWG, as well as the ghost towns and abandoned structures.
But at the same time, housing can be a great way to connect players to a world. The trick here is NOT using an established IP where you are limited too much.
Right now it looks like The Secret World may prove to be the best hope for a game like that which I'm describing, though it is far too early to tell.
-Skill based open advancement system, no racial or factional limitations on character customization.
-Three factions competing for PvP resource control in a seperate world/area then the main PvE game.
-Story and quest based content
...but wil it have housing? good crafting? any good open-world PvE and PvP elements?
Far too much is not known.
But I think it is important to note that a major player in the MMO market is going to be trying to break the EQ mold a bit and take a risk on something closer to the UO model of an open world.
UO worked because it was new and people had little to compare it against. Running around and chatting with people all over the country in 1999? HOW COOOOL! Make and sell things to people...cool. Not so astounding anymore=) Players were VERY forgiving at that time.
Sandboxes survive on players entertaining themselves and most people just have little interest in working in a game. Thats really what it comes down to. What little content there is in a sandbox, is mostly made up of tedious "tasks" and "chores" rather than fun game play and adventure. Crafting widgets, mining, decorating a house, fairly mindless skill training and political RPing don't make for an exciting video game. Most of the time spent playing a sandbox is spent chatting with people when it all comes down to it. Remove the people from a sandbox and you have a VERY boring game. Even with the people its a boring "game". The gamey parts in sandboxes are done far better in themparks. The sandboxey parts in themeparks are done much better in sandboxes, but frankly most people couldn't care less. Without the GAME, there is no fun.
For most people a videogame needs to stand on its own and entertain you. Sandboxes just don't do that. You just exist and run around and do "stuff". The game can't stand on its own without the people there to provide the fun. People are the only thing that makes sandboxes entertaining or even functional. The game complements the players.
People in themeparks enhance the overall experience. The game itself IS the fun, first and foremost. The players complement the video game.
Do you want to rely on other players to provide fun for you? Most people prefer the game to be the main source of entertainment.
Yeah, this is how I feel too.
A good game in the EQ model goes out of its way to steer you to fun and varied activities. But every sandbox I've played has felt like a hollow shell, without much "game".
Game designers control the answers to three important questions about a game:
1. What activities am I asking players to do?
2. Are those activities interesting?
3. Are they interesting for as long as I'm asking players to do them?
It almost feels like sandbox designers ignore these questions entirely even though they are the fundamental questions which determine a player's gameplay experience during a game.
In the case of EVE, (1) players are being driven to rat/mine, (2&3) those activities are afk/sleep-inducingly uninteresting for any length of time, let alone the hours and hours of time investment required to get anywhere.
Part of why the activities are uninteresting is there's no "sweet spot" of challenge, with the vast majority of activities being predetermined (either vastly too easy for your decisions to really matter or impossibly difficult.) Players typically play games to have meaningful interaction, but when things are predetermined that interaction is meaningless. If my decisions aren't going to matter, I'd rather watch a movie or read a book (as these are enjoyable non-interactive experiences.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And some people don't want a game, they want a world to explore and get lost in. Fun is relative. I personally don't need direction to find my way and can make fun out of any situation. Either game style works for me though.
IMO, the things that the Sandbox games get right are:
A) Crafting
These 2 aspects draw a certain sector of the gaming community who love this type of play. They like tracking things in spreadsheets, building and crafting. This brings together a small tight knit community that chat and trade with each other. Which in turn leads to smaller hubs of them gathering in areas conducive to crafting and gathering resources.
It also promotes hunter/gatherer types that can use these side or mini-games of resource harvesting ( through combat or not ). These players can then use those resources to purchace or barter for better gear from the crafting communities.
What the RollerCoaster or ThemePark games get right:
A) Faster progression
C) Rails to "End Game"
These 3 draw the crowds that like the nice and shineys. They do not want to have to DEPEND on others to get what they want or need in the game to advance. For the most part they do not think non-combat types should be determining what is the best gear they can obtain.
It does NOT mean they do not gather in groups or do not associate with other gamers. Their communities that are built are generally centered around combat objectives. Either to be on the leaderboard as the best or for raiding purposes. They build elaborate rules around raids and drops and schedule sessions for such activities as well as leveling lower memebers to get them into the END GAME.
Here is the caveat between the 2. NO DEVELOPER has been able to come up with a game that supports both of these types of players. 5 years ago the fight was PvP or PvE. That point is mute if you do not have some hybrid form of game that supports both types of players above.
The problem with type 2 is they tend to get bored with the game fast if it is too linear or content is chewed through too fast. This generally leads to a quick and painfull death of the game as it spends more and more money on adding content that generally does not help to feed the lust of the masses.
The problem with type 1 is there is generally not enough interest from the non-crafting types to keep them in the game. Without a good PvE or PvP content there is no one to interact with the crafters. Generally leading to players getting bored and a long slow death of the game. Because crafters are generally more apt to stick it out for the detailed crafting in the game.
EVE CAME CLOSE!
What EVE does right is have an area within the gamre where both sides can grow. You get loads of content for crafting and gathering. Loads of content for hunting and combat. Once you get to a good comfort level you can venture out into the "UNKNOW" or 0.0 space.
What keeps EVE from becoming the WoW killer is the main selling point of the game. You do not have to be logged in to advance because advancement is time related not game related. This does not sit well with the majority of the gaming comunity because it is an arbitrary time constraint that cannot be broken. You cannot play more than the next guy and advance faster than him.
It makes the players feel less like they are in control of their game and more like they are just doing inventory and skill management. EVE is a slow game until you get out into 0.0 space. With skill progression being TIME limited you are looking at potentially 2-4 months regardless of play time to get into the "ACTION" as some call it.
The perfect game will take into account various aspects of UO, SWG, and EVE on crafting and harvesting. Then take the concepts behind WoW and EQ and WAR for PvE and PvP concepts. If you can get a good marriage between the 2 concepts you will have the perfect storm that will create a game that will be the WoW killer.
I think the closest to this perfect storm was the DESIGN CONCEPT behind MO. Unfortunately, based upon first hand accounts, they may not be able to pull this off before going bankrupt. I am keeping my fingers crossed and wishing them all the luck in the world that they can do it. I also thank those fanbois willing to pay for an incomplete product because they may help fund the game I want to play in the future.
Until then, I look to find something that will occupy my curiosity for about 6 mo or so. That is usually about as long as most of the latest MMO last with me.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
I think we need a sandbox game that has content.
Quests are right now viewed as ways to get more xp and advance faster, there are few games that give you story without tying some value to it. FFXI has missions and quest chains where you don't get anything for completing them other then the next part of the story.
The value of these adventures is the experience itself.
Imagine a World of Warcraft where the quests don't give any extra XP or rewards - but the mobs give more XP for being killed and have better drop rates, especially for low level gear in the early game. At the same time, crafting is much more intricate and there are hundreds more recipes for all levels of gear and content.
Combine that with increased xp gain for exploration, including a lot more xp-gain points for finding cool little areas.
Now, make the questing more story-oriented with a LOT more lengthy chains and "epic" encounters like WoW has in the Wrath of the Lich King expansion in Northrend, including things like the Battle for the Undercity and the Wrath Gate.
The reward for completing these quests and missions is a cool story with awesome moments and story telling, and as you do these adventures you do battle with interesting foes in order to advance your character and get rewards. The "reward" for doing the quests is the quest itself - not the reward at the end.
Yet at the same time, you could NEVER do a quest and simply grind mobs, craft, grind in parties, run dungeons and explore and still advance your character at the same rate.
So the quests give you some direction if you want/need it, and show you fun and cool things to do, but they are NOT tied to advancement of your character.
Ladies and gentlemen, this would create a sandbox game that also features theme park content.
What would ya'll think of that?
Mix in more sandbox-y elements like skill based advancement or custom defined classes/role based... housing and more meaningful crafting, no artificial restrictions on race/class/gender of your character, and tons of customization in terms of visual look and stats....
You have to remember that players will take the path of least resistance. Which will have most of them complaining that you have to read too much for no xp.
Those that do not want to read will purchase the games user guide from a book store or online and go out to kill the mobs. Then they will complain that it is just a grind to level to the END GAME.
Your concept has no Mention of END GAME in it and that will be a big complaint.
"At the same time, crafting is much more intricate and there are hundreds more recipes for all levels of gear and content." -
How do you expect to accomplish this? In an of itself this has been proven to require a devoted developement team that is comparable to the side that is doing the PvE and PvP content. Meaning to do this properly you would almost need to double the amount of developers used in most games today.
Once of the big problems I have seen in most games released is one side ( crafting or Combat ) is shadowed by the other side. Effectively splitting the gamer base into 2 camps. Crafters and non-crafters. Then you need to break down the non-crafters into PvE and PvP types.
If you do not, the game is likely not to last long. WoW has done the whole appeal to PvE and PvP types and left out the crafting devotees. While it shows that the non-crafter types make up a larger percentage of the player base it definately allienates the crafter population.
In order to beat WoW at its own game you would need to take something like what they have and add in a huge crafting contingent of the likes of SWG, Vanguard, or EQII. Each of which had a valiant attempt at crafting appeal.
So, take WoW PvE and PvP.... Add SWG crafting..... insert it into an IP like WarHammer 2k and you get the next generations WoW killer. ANYTHING less and you get a population that may/may not be able to support the monthly costs and hope you can break even on developement.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
Some games try to emulate it, most notably Darkfall. But they still can't seem to capture the same magic that UO once had. I dare say that there has been no true sandbox outside of EvE since UO.
But why?
Very simple. Because UO has NO MAGIC. It was eclipsed by EQ once EQ came out. I was in UO beta. It was just not a very good GAME. Sandbox is a fail formula without some goals & content for the players. UO has HORRIBLE mechanics (clicking on a rock again and again .. PLEASE ... killing somethign over and over again beat it by a MILE).
Wouldn't the simple solution be making it both? Have people start in areas that are developed and explored. But, leave about 1/4th or even 1/2 of the game world undeveloped. Maybe a few small camps but the rest is wild with random mob spawns and different terrains. And, allow players to develop this area!
While it could go both ways, I'd say that FFXIV holds some promise for being some kind of a themepark-sandbox hybrid.
The developers have even said, that they looked at UO and Elder Scrolls series and took some aspects of them to be implemented in XIV.
Crafting and item gathering are classes similar to combat and magic classes. Crafters can clear the game without having to fight or use a combat class. Character progression is more open ended (mix and match skills from different classes to create your own). There are no limitations as to how many classes you can level on one character, or what class you can use on what race. Crafters can dye the armor they create, and apply custom runes on them.
I doubt they'll remove housing from the sequel, they'll probably make it even better in XIV than it was in XI. No more PS2 limitations.
The core mechanics will probably still be themepark-ish, but many sandbox elements seem to have been added in as well. Hybrid > "pure" sandbox/themepark, imo.
SWG WAS a great sandbox, there were issues that had nothing to do with being a sandbox. The combat was too slow, there were FAR too many bugs that never got fixed, and SOE proved incapable of providing the content that the game needed to sustain and grow beyond the 400K mark.
Darkfall isn't a true sandbox because it doesn't offer players the tools they need to manipulate the virtual world. It does a lot right, but it also relies so heavily on PvP that it comes up short in crafting, economics, and player interaction.
Mortal Online has some hope but they need to get their act together and fix the persistent bugs that have been present throughout beta. The mechanics of the game are solid, the idea is solid, the implementation thus far has been so-so.
Fallen Earth is just missing something, not sure what, it's just missing something. Instead of playing like Fallout it feels more like an older game to me.
I just think that the problem lies in the complexity of the games. They just aren't being sent out into the commercial world as finished products. Large companies aren't going to build niche games any longer which forces us fans of sandbox freedom to rely on Indie developers, and they lack the experience, budgets, support, and often time to finish the game properly.
Most players want what is comfortable, and themepark is comfortable. Personally, I will NEVER play another game that has predetermined classes, lacks a skill-based advancement, has turn-based combat, lacks a viable economy, offers a linear path, holds my hand, or appeals to the masses of mindless drones out there who subscribe to WoW, AoC, WAR, or any other themepark game.
But that's just me...
Tecmo Bowl.
Sandbox games require the player to be creative for them to have fun. The problem is that even the most creative people don't feel creative all the time. I ran into this problem in the last sandbox game I tried to play, Minecraft. When I feel inspired it is awesome, when I don't feel inspired its completely pointless. Themeparks don't have that problem.
As the man Bartles himself suggested...
Create a themepark game world for the introduction and advancement stages of a game
Provide the player content creation tools for expanding the themepark and to provide a creative outlet
Make end-game a sandbox
As Heerobya suggested, players want choice.
Ah, finally, an easy question!
The answer you're looking for is non-consentual pvp which you hinted on earlier. It's the reason people flocked to trammel (and subsequently got bored as attaining gear in UO was already quite simple) and why the WoW pvp servers are fucking ghost towns and they cannot create enough PVE or RP servers to keep up with demand (until just recently, anyway). PVP is rather mediocre when the side's are not really influencible. It's similar to what Tassadar was saying there earlier--if your decisions don't matter one way or another, the thrill is gone for most gankers and all gankees :P. The truly sick people who do enjoy these encounters of 1-sidedness tend to ruin games--that and megafactions whether it's join or die (oh hi shadowbane).
edit: This is in answer to why the UO formula was never right :P just tolerated. Sandbox games have potential, but chrissake lets start with maybe a multiplayer bethesda rpg? heh. Oblivion would've been a fun co-op game
As far as the EQ formula goes, well, WoW did it right to the tune of billions of dollars eh?
Essentially my point in fewer words.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
I think we are begining to see the "end" of the traditional EQ style MMORPG.
WoW is a freak of nature but their success can be contributed to a definable set of characteristics.
The REAL question is, will developers continue to make games where the long-term sustainability over the years is less important then how fast they'll recoup their expenses aka SW:ToR?
Will gamers keep moving from big-hype game #1 to big-hype game #2 with no long-term loyalty? This behavior encourages the EA style of development, WAR / ToR only concerned with recouping expenses and selling boxes with very little thought to the long term sustainability. Hype based marketing and rushed release dates leading to poorly received games past the first few months.
There are a few out there like CCP that are concerned pretty much only with the long term survival and sustainability of their games, but will this catch on?
Instead we see more and more Cryptic's who go for shorter development times and more frequent releases based off of well-known IP's to generate hype and create box sales, with the games going into "maintenance mode" shortly after release.
And the real concern - are we as gamers really looking for a game to play for the next 3-5 years? one to really create a home in and truly become an immersed participate....
Or are we content with flocking from title to title?
There are those games out there that retain their players for a very long time. Games like UO, FFXI, WoW, and EvE. Are those our only true measures of "success" in the MMORPG genre?
Everyone who isn't currently loving the crap out of one of those titles seems to be waiting for the next long-term MMO to come about, one that defies the "make a quick buck and move on" paradigm.
But what kind of game will that be?
Look at those four games I listed above, UO/FFXI/WoW/EvE and tell me what do they have in common?
Well, a good thing is that even though there might be a dozen shitty MMO's to every one "good", long-lasting MMO, you only really need one to last you for years.
I think we'll see at least one such MMO in the next few years, and that should be enough for long time, fortunately.
If it's not one of the developers that made the earlier, long lasting titles, I'm not sure who could do it though. We probably won't see a direct sequel to UO, WoW2 is still years off, I don't see EVE going anywhere or getting a sequel anytime soon..
Gotta love how people try to make their opinions into fact on this forum.
Saying a sandbox has no content is complete nonsense.
Last time i logged into eve It was one of my saturday afternoon power sessions of 6+ hours of me doing nothing but this content that doesn't exist in my game. Sleepers arent created by players, rats arent, missions arent, the probing system isnt something that a player designed, the variety of sites I scann down didn't get placed in the game world by random players 1010201213.
Enough with the nonsense.
Oh as for tagging a entire sub genre "boring" please give it a rest "boring" is completely suggestive and not a fucking fact.
It seems the only content that matters to these people is Quest hub zone progression and if thats the case then I am glad I don't play a game that leads me around a static world like im retarded and can't think for my self.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP