Taking a quick look over all the current AAA mmo titles and the ones set to come out I'd say he was pretty much correct.
The vast majority of todays mmo gamers want instant gratification, simplicity (to the point of stupidity) and the ability to charge things to their (parents) credit cards instead of actually trying to loot it in the game itself.
Actually, just because all MMOs now are in a certain way does not mean that players want it that way, it only tells you that the people paying for making the game want something similar to Wow. That is more about what EA and Activision thinks, not the players. This goes particularly for your statement about paying for loot instead of getting it, that is something EA and SOE love.
You might be right or partly right but until someone with money actually releases something different there really isn't a choice for the players 'cept poorly coded indie games. I hope WoDO and GW2 will change things somewhat.
A lot of replies here seem to be from bitter and/or jaded players who've had unfortunate experiences with open-ended MMOs where anything is possible. In a game like that, of course there will be moments of defeat, that's what makes moments of victory that much more glorious.
A lot of replies here seem to be from bitter and/or jaded players who've had unfortunate experiences with open-ended MMOs where anything is possible. In a game like that, of course there will be moments of defeat, that's what makes moments of victory that much more glorious.
That really depends on what you consider a 'victory'. Many of the 'glorious victories' people want to describe seem more like 'chores' similar to taking out the trash or cleaning the bathroom. So the defeats happen in areas that matter to the player and all the 'victories' are in areas the player could care less about and rather not participate in.
A lot of replies here seem to be from bitter and/or jaded players who've had unfortunate experiences with open-ended MMOs where anything is possible. In a game like that, of course there will be moments of defeat, that's what makes moments of victory that much more glorious.
That really depends on what you consider a 'victory'. Many of the 'glorious victories' people want to describe seem more like 'chores' similar to taking out the trash or cleaning the bathroom. So the defeats happen in areas that matter to the player and all the 'victories' are in areas the player could care less about and rather not participate in.
Moments of victory are subjective/relative to a group or individual and encompasses a myriad of things. It's not something that flashes across your screen in big bold letters, reassuring the player that he actually did accomplish something meaningful.
I agree with some others. The de facto problem is actually players that think their version of a good game is the only version of a game worth playing. They are unable to accept anything less than their own version of utopia and attempt to belittle other people's version of that utopian game.
It's nice when someone actually has some ideas for what they think their perfect game would be. But to go further and claim that everything that isn't their game is the de facto problem with all other games in the genre is ridiculous and insulting.
The amount of resources required to balance that level of freedom would be astronomical. It's not something you could build and charge just 14.95 a month for, and it IS something that a handful of players could ruin the experience of. And putting that kind of reliance on your games community and out of your own hands... well... let's just say you'd be a fool to invest money in a project like that.
Eve is about as close as it's ever gotten, and may be so for quite some time.
There's a few good sandbox titles with alternate worlds that people aren't playing. WURM? Ever heard of it? Great game, throws you back to a real ye olde time. A Tale in the Desert, I never played it but from what I've seen it's a great open ended title. Roma Victor I beta tested and it's basically a year 0 style AD/BC Rome sim that's rather inspired.
These games exist; but here's the real defacto problem with MMOs:
People like direction.
Pretty graphics are good.
Most MMO players hate challenges. (Thus why a lot of housewives and girlfriends got in to WoW)
Solo play in real community games isn't really ever rewarded. Sure you can walk aroung Egypt all day, but if you're not helping discover new land or build a building you're useless.
Given ample space, most humans have no idea what to do. That's why Second Life has became barren.
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
A Tale in the Desert, I never played it but from what I've seen it's a great open ended title
A Tale In the Desert is a complex crafting and building game but has zero combat and no PvP. Thus it only attracts those sandbox players who consider PvP to be unneeded for a sandbox game.
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
All it proves that the people calling themselves 'the vast majority of avid/experienced players' are full of it.
In fact I would say that the average mmorp.com use is quite in favour of player-driven sandbox MMOs and simply oppose the flawed implementations that are being developed or proposed.
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
Don't know if I missed something, but being from those MMORPG era's I can honostly say that sure back then we might have been a majority of gamers playing games in this genre, but it's very clear we are just a minority compared to current MMORPG's gamers.
And yes like the broken record keeps repeating: I wished MMORPG would have evolved more into what we had back then, but since we're now the minority don't think it will happen (apart from some indie developers doing it).
And jaxsundane please re-read might you have time for it my post you replied to to actually reply to my viewpoint and not reply twisting my viewpoint into things I never said, thanks
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
The MMO playerbase changed when the games went from nerd nightclubs to mass appeal. Not the same type of people.
If you want a clear test, ask them how they'd feel about giving up private instances... or quest progression. One side cheers, the other freaks.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
The reason Eve is more or less the only successful sandbox since UO is not because people want handholding and be told exactly what to do, it is because it is the closest to a professional sandboxgame we seen.
Wow would not have many players if it was poorly coded and let's face it, all the different sandboxes everybody have mentioned here are close to pathetic there. Even Eve had it's share of problems.
You can make a really popular sandbox, problem is that you need great programmers for it besides good ideas, you can't take someone with no or little experience and make him a master programmer just like that. If someone like Strain (Blizzard, ANET, Zombie labs) would have coded a sandbox and the game in itself was fun it would sell millions.
You are blaming players for the fact that companies makes their games in the easiest way for them, and even hand holding themepark games usually fails due to crappy coding, pathetic UI and similar problems. It is not the players fault, if someone actually make a well coded and professional sandbox that is fun to play it will sell as good as a similar themepark. I hope that game will be World of darkness online but it will come sooner or later.
It is not sandboxes, themeparks or anything else that sells games, it is competent devs that make a great product. No badly coded game have ever sold well unless possibly because it were the only of it's kind and if so was the case it would have sold tenfold if it was well done.
Would this be like a Civ MMO? Start the first game back in the stone age and each person would start from scratch building up things that would be reflected in the entire game. Players shape creation and move the game forward. When enough players reach that point, the next expac comes out for the next age for players to continue to build off that. Their toons would be decendants from previous ages, etc...
A major problem I see for this would be how would a new person just coming into the game during the renaissance, let's say, be able to go back and expierence the game from the original stone age portion? I guess each server could serve as a different age and then when your toon reaches the end of that age, it gets a free transfer to the next server to carry on...?
Or it would be nice to follow American history through a MMO like the OP said, and how we expanded from the East Coast out West & how that blossomed, etc.... Alternate histories could be a whole other side game. Kind of like the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card.
I'm sure there are a lot more IP's that haven't been tapped yet, because they are way to difficult to make them "fit" into the current MMO models...
The reason Eve is more or less the only successful sandbox since UO is not because people want handholding and be told exactly what to do, it is because it is the closest to a professional sandboxgame we seen.
Wow would not have many players if it was poorly coded and let's face it, all the different sandboxes everybody have mentioned here are close to pathetic there. Even Eve had it's share of problems.
You can make a really popular sandbox, problem is that you need great programmers for it besides good ideas, you can't take someone with no or little experience and make him a master programmer just like that. If someone like Strain (Blizzard, ANET, Zombie labs) would have coded a sandbox and the game in itself was fun it would sell millions.
You are blaming players for the fact that companies makes their games in the easiest way for them, and even hand holding themepark games usually fails due to crappy coding, pathetic UI and similar problems. It is not the players fault, if someone actually make a well coded and professional sandbox that is fun to play it will sell as good as a similar themepark. I hope that game will be World of darkness online but it will come sooner or later.
It is not sandboxes, themeparks or anything else that sells games, it is competent devs that make a great product. No badly coded game have ever sold well unless possibly because it were the only of it's kind and if so was the case it would have sold tenfold if it was well done.
Yes, agreed. Quality of the game is the most important thing. If someone would come along and make a great sandbox, I'd play it. Right now, I play EVE because it is in my opinion a great sandbox. I also play WoW because in my opinion it is a great Themepark. But more importantly, they are both great GAMES.
Quality is what matters. When a developer creates a quality western sandbox, I'll play it. Until then, I'm not going to bitch about every other type of MMORPG and blame the players for playing bad games or whatever the OP is trying to say.
That would require too much time and effort. What devs are looking for now is the fastest way to make money, hence the free to play going wild right now.
Would this be like a Civ MMO? Start the first game back in the stone age and each person would start from scratch building up things that would be reflected in the entire game. Players shape creation and move the game forward. When enough players reach that point, the next expac comes out for the next age for players to continue to build off that. Their toons would be decendants from previous ages, etc...
A major problem I see for this would be how would a new person just coming into the game during the renaissance, let's say, be able to go back and expierence the game from the original stone age portion? I guess each server could serve as a different age and then when your toon reaches the end of that age, it gets a free transfer to the next server to carry on...?
Or it would be nice to follow American history through a MMO like the OP said, and how we expanded from the East Coast out West & how that blossomed, etc.... Alternate histories could be a whole other side game. Kind of like the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card.
I'm sure there are a lot more IP's that haven't been tapped yet, because they are way to difficult to make them "fit" into the current MMO models...
Gutlard Out!
The thing with that is that you must reset the server every time it reaches modern times (or another preset time). And that would tick people off since they would lose the stuff they built.
Or else all servers would reach modern time pretty soon and the entire point of the game would be gone. You could of course make instances but that would take away the sandbox thing.
Sorry, it sounds fun but after a minute I realize that it wont work in a sandbox game. It would work in a themepark where you move forward as you level but since the whole idea is moving forward in time it just wont work. You could make it so it takes year to reach modern times but I have a feeling that would be pretty boring.
That would require too much time and effort. What devs are looking for now is the fastest way to make money, hence the free to play going wild right now.
No, if that would be the case they would not make a MMO, or at least they would cough up something as fast as Cryptic did STO, few companies do that.
I don't think it is to play safe either, several MMOs with rather classical mechanics have done pretty badly the last years.
I think it is just stupidity. The investors don't care about making fun games, they just want to make as much money as Blizzard and try to do something as close to Wow as possible. Too bad that they forgot Blizzards most important thing: Good coding.
MMOs costs loads of money to make and few devs can make a MMO without investors. Investors don't care about fun games, they want to get as much money as possible and since no sandbox besides UO and Eve made any money, and they made a lot less money than Wow they think it is about mechanics.
It isn't. Wow is in many ways a great game, and I mean in technical aspects, like programming, art and similar things. Personally I think the lore is often bad and sometimes even pathetic, the difficulty is far too easy for most players and it have several other problems but from a technical point of view it is still a great game.
The same go for F2P Vs P2P, when the investors see someone making a lot of money in some way they want to do the same. But it is still about making a good game. People want a great game for as little money as possible, that is what truly sells, not certain ways to pay for it.
Quality is the only way to get a successful game. Originality actually helps but quality is more important.
Obviously, it would be the sandbox type with [...] PvP
And let's stress this down ever so well. Let's stress down that the only type of MMO that can aim to be an actual virtual persistant massive world is SANDBOX.
Let's all be aware that the themepark sub-genre will NEVER be a real MMO, but a hybrid single player with feeble anti-social co-operation
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
Naw, DAOC was the best out of all of those IMO.
Don't confuse the protests of a vocal minority as being even remotely in step with the vast majority of the greater MMORPG community.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
Naw, DAOC was the best out of all of those IMO.
Don't confuse the protests of a vocal minority as being even remotely in step with the vast majority of the greater MMORPG community.
And I speak as one of the minority.
I'd take AC Darktide server, Shadowbane and Anarchy Online over DOAC anyday.
Put whatever label you want on a game: themepark, sandbox, sandpark, themebox, cookie-cutter, etc.... I don't care. As long as the game is worth playing...
Actually I think he is being overly optimistic. More like 70% want to be lone gunners going around shooting everyone until they unsubscribe. 28% want to be prostitutes and the last 2% are actually capable of rationale thought.
Would this be like a Civ MMO? Start the first game back in the stone age and each person would start from scratch building up things that would be reflected in the entire game. Players shape creation and move the game forward. When enough players reach that point, the next expac comes out for the next age for players to continue to build off that. Their toons would be decendants from previous ages, etc...
A major problem I see for this would be how would a new person just coming into the game during the renaissance, let's say, be able to go back and expierence the game from the original stone age portion? I guess each server could serve as a different age and then when your toon reaches the end of that age, it gets a free transfer to the next server to carry on...?
Or it would be nice to follow American history through a MMO like the OP said, and how we expanded from the East Coast out West & how that blossomed, etc.... Alternate histories could be a whole other side game. Kind of like the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card.
I'm sure there are a lot more IP's that haven't been tapped yet, because they are way to difficult to make them "fit" into the current MMO models...
Gutlard Out!
The thing with that is that you must reset the server every time it reaches modern times (or another preset time). And that would tick people off since they would lose the stuff they built.
Or else all servers would reach modern time pretty soon and the entire point of the game would be gone. You could of course make instances but that would take away the sandbox thing.
Sorry, it sounds fun but after a minute I realize that it wont work in a sandbox game. It would work in a themepark where you move forward as you level but since the whole idea is moving forward in time it just wont work. You could make it so it takes year to reach modern times but I have a feeling that would be pretty boring.
The American frontier lasted a century. The game wouldn't need to be reset.
It sounds a bit like people are wishing for The Matrix where they can jack in and live another life. The trouble with that is who would want to jack in and be a peon?
In a world without consequences there is no disincentive for someone to misbehave. For example there is no moral pressure against killing in an MMO. In fact there are no morals at all because there isn't social pressure to have any. In real life if you want PvP you join the army or you get in a bar fight and end up in jail. And you've got that perma death thing to deal with where you lose are your phat lootz! In game you just shoot someone and they might be inconvenienced by having to go to the bindstone or lose some loot. Champions of sandbox gaming inevitably get down to "Yeah, we could gank anyone and take their lootz! Its awesome!" Not exactly a great seller for people looking to escape life for a bit rather than enter into another on where they can get picked on with impunity.
That's the inherent problem with sandbox MMOs. Anonymity and lack of social consequences mean people will sink to the lowest common denominator. It takes a lot of effort and planning on the part of developers to present the players with a sandbox environment taht won't degenerate into complete anarchy. The devs in sandbox game have to build in a sort of morality (consequences) for bad behavior into the game to make it more likely that people will buy into an online society rather than an online gankfest. Its much easier and probably cheaper (from a design standpoint) to make a theme park and have everyone be a "hero" in the same story.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
Comments
Actually, just because all MMOs now are in a certain way does not mean that players want it that way, it only tells you that the people paying for making the game want something similar to Wow. That is more about what EA and Activision thinks, not the players. This goes particularly for your statement about paying for loot instead of getting it, that is something EA and SOE love.
You might be right or partly right but until someone with money actually releases something different there really isn't a choice for the players 'cept poorly coded indie games. I hope WoDO and GW2 will change things somewhat.
A lot of replies here seem to be from bitter and/or jaded players who've had unfortunate experiences with open-ended MMOs where anything is possible. In a game like that, of course there will be moments of defeat, that's what makes moments of victory that much more glorious.
That really depends on what you consider a 'victory'. Many of the 'glorious victories' people want to describe seem more like 'chores' similar to taking out the trash or cleaning the bathroom. So the defeats happen in areas that matter to the player and all the 'victories' are in areas the player could care less about and rather not participate in.
Moments of victory are subjective/relative to a group or individual and encompasses a myriad of things. It's not something that flashes across your screen in big bold letters, reassuring the player that he actually did accomplish something meaningful.
I agree with some others. The de facto problem is actually players that think their version of a good game is the only version of a game worth playing. They are unable to accept anything less than their own version of utopia and attempt to belittle other people's version of that utopian game.
It's nice when someone actually has some ideas for what they think their perfect game would be. But to go further and claim that everything that isn't their game is the de facto problem with all other games in the genre is ridiculous and insulting.
The amount of resources required to balance that level of freedom would be astronomical. It's not something you could build and charge just 14.95 a month for, and it IS something that a handful of players could ruin the experience of. And putting that kind of reliance on your games community and out of your own hands... well... let's just say you'd be a fool to invest money in a project like that.
Eve is about as close as it's ever gotten, and may be so for quite some time.
There's a few good sandbox titles with alternate worlds that people aren't playing. WURM? Ever heard of it? Great game, throws you back to a real ye olde time. A Tale in the Desert, I never played it but from what I've seen it's a great open ended title. Roma Victor I beta tested and it's basically a year 0 style AD/BC Rome sim that's rather inspired.
These games exist; but here's the real defacto problem with MMOs:
People like direction.
Pretty graphics are good.
Most MMO players hate challenges. (Thus why a lot of housewives and girlfriends got in to WoW)
Solo play in real community games isn't really ever rewarded. Sure you can walk aroung Egypt all day, but if you're not helping discover new land or build a building you're useless.
Given ample space, most humans have no idea what to do. That's why Second Life has became barren.
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
A Tale In the Desert is a complex crafting and building game but has zero combat and no PvP. Thus it only attracts those sandbox players who consider PvP to be unneeded for a sandbox game.
All it proves that the people calling themselves 'the vast majority of avid/experienced players' are full of it.
In fact I would say that the average mmorp.com use is quite in favour of player-driven sandbox MMOs and simply oppose the flawed implementations that are being developed or proposed.
Don't know if I missed something, but being from those MMORPG era's I can honostly say that sure back then we might have been a majority of gamers playing games in this genre, but it's very clear we are just a minority compared to current MMORPG's gamers.
And yes like the broken record keeps repeating: I wished MMORPG would have evolved more into what we had back then, but since we're now the minority don't think it will happen (apart from some indie developers doing it).
And jaxsundane please re-read might you have time for it my post you replied to to actually reply to my viewpoint and not reply twisting my viewpoint into things I never said, thanks
The MMO playerbase changed when the games went from nerd nightclubs to mass appeal. Not the same type of people.
If you want a clear test, ask them how they'd feel about giving up private instances... or quest progression. One side cheers, the other freaks.
The reason Eve is more or less the only successful sandbox since UO is not because people want handholding and be told exactly what to do, it is because it is the closest to a professional sandboxgame we seen.
Wow would not have many players if it was poorly coded and let's face it, all the different sandboxes everybody have mentioned here are close to pathetic there. Even Eve had it's share of problems.
You can make a really popular sandbox, problem is that you need great programmers for it besides good ideas, you can't take someone with no or little experience and make him a master programmer just like that. If someone like Strain (Blizzard, ANET, Zombie labs) would have coded a sandbox and the game in itself was fun it would sell millions.
You are blaming players for the fact that companies makes their games in the easiest way for them, and even hand holding themepark games usually fails due to crappy coding, pathetic UI and similar problems. It is not the players fault, if someone actually make a well coded and professional sandbox that is fun to play it will sell as good as a similar themepark. I hope that game will be World of darkness online but it will come sooner or later.
It is not sandboxes, themeparks or anything else that sells games, it is competent devs that make a great product. No badly coded game have ever sold well unless possibly because it were the only of it's kind and if so was the case it would have sold tenfold if it was well done.
Would this be like a Civ MMO? Start the first game back in the stone age and each person would start from scratch building up things that would be reflected in the entire game. Players shape creation and move the game forward. When enough players reach that point, the next expac comes out for the next age for players to continue to build off that. Their toons would be decendants from previous ages, etc...
A major problem I see for this would be how would a new person just coming into the game during the renaissance, let's say, be able to go back and expierence the game from the original stone age portion? I guess each server could serve as a different age and then when your toon reaches the end of that age, it gets a free transfer to the next server to carry on...?
Or it would be nice to follow American history through a MMO like the OP said, and how we expanded from the East Coast out West & how that blossomed, etc.... Alternate histories could be a whole other side game. Kind of like the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card.
I'm sure there are a lot more IP's that haven't been tapped yet, because they are way to difficult to make them "fit" into the current MMO models...
Gutlard Out!
What, me worry?
Yes, agreed. Quality of the game is the most important thing. If someone would come along and make a great sandbox, I'd play it. Right now, I play EVE because it is in my opinion a great sandbox. I also play WoW because in my opinion it is a great Themepark. But more importantly, they are both great GAMES.
Quality is what matters. When a developer creates a quality western sandbox, I'll play it. Until then, I'm not going to bitch about every other type of MMORPG and blame the players for playing bad games or whatever the OP is trying to say.
That would require too much time and effort. What devs are looking for now is the fastest way to make money, hence the free to play going wild right now.
The thing with that is that you must reset the server every time it reaches modern times (or another preset time). And that would tick people off since they would lose the stuff they built.
Or else all servers would reach modern time pretty soon and the entire point of the game would be gone. You could of course make instances but that would take away the sandbox thing.
Sorry, it sounds fun but after a minute I realize that it wont work in a sandbox game. It would work in a themepark where you move forward as you level but since the whole idea is moving forward in time it just wont work. You could make it so it takes year to reach modern times but I have a feeling that would be pretty boring.
No, if that would be the case they would not make a MMO, or at least they would cough up something as fast as Cryptic did STO, few companies do that.
I don't think it is to play safe either, several MMOs with rather classical mechanics have done pretty badly the last years.
I think it is just stupidity. The investors don't care about making fun games, they just want to make as much money as Blizzard and try to do something as close to Wow as possible. Too bad that they forgot Blizzards most important thing: Good coding.
MMOs costs loads of money to make and few devs can make a MMO without investors. Investors don't care about fun games, they want to get as much money as possible and since no sandbox besides UO and Eve made any money, and they made a lot less money than Wow they think it is about mechanics.
It isn't. Wow is in many ways a great game, and I mean in technical aspects, like programming, art and similar things. Personally I think the lore is often bad and sometimes even pathetic, the difficulty is far too easy for most players and it have several other problems but from a technical point of view it is still a great game.
The same go for F2P Vs P2P, when the investors see someone making a lot of money in some way they want to do the same. But it is still about making a good game. People want a great game for as little money as possible, that is what truly sells, not certain ways to pay for it.
Quality is the only way to get a successful game. Originality actually helps but quality is more important.
And let's stress this down ever so well. Let's stress down that the only type of MMO that can aim to be an actual virtual persistant massive world is SANDBOX.
Let's all be aware that the themepark sub-genre will NEVER be a real MMO, but a hybrid single player with feeble anti-social co-operation
the best blog of the net
Naw, DAOC was the best out of all of those IMO.
Don't confuse the protests of a vocal minority as being even remotely in step with the vast majority of the greater MMORPG community.
And I speak as one of the minority.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'd take AC Darktide server, Shadowbane and Anarchy Online over DOAC anyday.
Put whatever label you want on a game: themepark, sandbox, sandpark, themebox, cookie-cutter, etc.... I don't care. As long as the game is worth playing...
Gutlard Out!
What, me worry?
Actually I think he is being overly optimistic. More like 70% want to be lone gunners going around shooting everyone until they unsubscribe. 28% want to be prostitutes and the last 2% are actually capable of rationale thought.
The American frontier lasted a century. The game wouldn't need to be reset.
It sounds a bit like people are wishing for The Matrix where they can jack in and live another life. The trouble with that is who would want to jack in and be a peon?
In a world without consequences there is no disincentive for someone to misbehave. For example there is no moral pressure against killing in an MMO. In fact there are no morals at all because there isn't social pressure to have any. In real life if you want PvP you join the army or you get in a bar fight and end up in jail. And you've got that perma death thing to deal with where you lose are your phat lootz! In game you just shoot someone and they might be inconvenienced by having to go to the bindstone or lose some loot. Champions of sandbox gaming inevitably get down to "Yeah, we could gank anyone and take their lootz! Its awesome!" Not exactly a great seller for people looking to escape life for a bit rather than enter into another on where they can get picked on with impunity.
That's the inherent problem with sandbox MMOs. Anonymity and lack of social consequences mean people will sink to the lowest common denominator. It takes a lot of effort and planning on the part of developers to present the players with a sandbox environment taht won't degenerate into complete anarchy. The devs in sandbox game have to build in a sort of morality (consequences) for bad behavior into the game to make it more likely that people will buy into an online society rather than an online gankfest. Its much easier and probably cheaper (from a design standpoint) to make a theme park and have everyone be a "hero" in the same story.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.