Look dude, Mmos didn't all start out the same but they're heading that way. Those of us experienced enough with them to realize this are saying, "Hey, everyone you are forgetting games like UO and even what made some players like EQ much more than WoW.", while the people with no frame of reference are continually bringing up arguments which have little to no bearing on the facts that mmos weren't always the same thing over and over.
Yawn I don't need some history lesson from someone who I've probably been playing MUDs through e-mail longer than you've had internet access. I was there. I played the old school games. That's cool though you can make it seem like your frame of reference is somehow superior even though you cite nothing to back your claims.
Are we going to back to side scrolling games because that's how games started and who didn't absolutely love super mario bros 3?
Yeah, side scrolling games were awesome! What would be so wrong about a slew of new ones being released?
Not saying that all games should trash themselves and re-launch as side-scrollers... But what would be so wrong about having some fracking selection??? There are those of us who are tired of FPS games (yes, I think they are all alike.) and WoW being the only solid game designs.
True. Just because it's hard as hell doesn't mean developers should shy away. It means they need to develop the tools and security features necessary to implement that kinda depth of toolkits.
Like Second Life, that lets you make models, textures, and even custom scripts for everything and even for the environments you make. I'm not going to call Second Life a game though, and I don't think (from personal experience) the developers have enough control on the flow of content outside of removing specifically malicious creations. That's a case of such a mechanic set going awry due to a lack of direction or regulatory features on content.
And too many boobs.
Granted, attempts to make a sequel to UO has failed a few times during development now. Something to be said about striking upon luck.
There's also a reason it's smaller developers tackling this kinda game. Like the point Helth is so adamant about beating over everyone's heads; developing a modern game, especially an MMO, takes a budget.
Sandbox MMOs don't have mass appeal yet, and maybe never. They've always been a niche market, and there's plenty of players content in that niche all ready without the 'massive' tacked onto the games they play.
Indie games are integral as a result. Small games where people with a finite budget can develop upon core game mechanic aspects as a sort of 'proof of concept'. That's what Minecraft 'was' until the subscriber base blew expectations out of the water and became an unplanned financial success for Notch before it's even officially released (went out of alpha and into beta only a bit ago).
Unlike some people's belief, you don't need a huge budget. More importantly you need a solid plan and a method of implementation. For the average Joe that regrettably does turn into a 'need money' problem since they don't tend to have the skill set nor a remarkable design to base anything on.
Individually talented people developing a concept and expanding it far enough to become a viable market option, then using that as a piece in marketing for a 'big budget' is the single best option and chance any one has of developing their own concept into a full fledged anything.
EDIT: Hell you can use EVE as an example of how they built a game from their small concept into the so polarizing title with a loyal fan-base it is today. Funnily enough, I don't like EVE. I can respect the developers and all of their achievements as a studio and with their game however. Regardless of my opinion of it, it's a very damn well built game, and the people that made it showcases very well how important small indie groups and dev teams can be.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3"
yep. it's not the same as Fallout 3.
Also, all of the things you listed about a proper sandbox game are either already in EVE or on the list of features they are adding in one of the gurenteed 2 expansions per year. Yes, including housing and aesthetic modification.
Just didn't want you to get it twisted. Eve is definitely not perfect, but it is for damn sure a sandbox, and any bit of sandbox that it doesn't have now, it will get, because CCP dedicated themselves to an ever progressing, and ever improving ultimate sci-fi simulator. It's only a 'space ship sandbox" in it's current state.
True. Just because it's hard as hell doesn't mean developers should shy away. It means they need to develop the tools and security features necessary to implement that kinda depth of toolkits.
Like Second Life, that lets you make models, textures, and even custom scripts for everything and even for the environments you make. I'm not going to call Second Life a game though, and I don't think (from personal experience) the developers have enough control on the flow of content outside of removing specifically malicious creations. That's a case of such a mechanic set going awry due to a lack of direction or regulatory features on content.
And too many boobs.
Granted, attempts to make a sequel to UO has failed a few times during development now. Something to be said about striking upon luck.
There's also a reason it's smaller developers tackling this kinda game. Like the point Helth is so adamant about beating over everyone's heads; developing a modern game, especially an MMO, takes a budget.
Sandbox MMOs don't have mass appeal yet, and maybe never. They've always been a niche market, and there's plenty of players content in that niche all ready without the 'massive' tacked onto the games they play.
Indie games are integral as a result. Small games where people with a finite budget can develop upon core game mechanic aspects as a sort of 'proof of concept'. That's what Minecraft 'was' until the subscriber base blew expectations out of the water and became an unplanned financial success for Notch before it's even officially released (went out of alpha and into beta only a bit ago).
Unlike some people's belief, you don't need a huge budget. More importantly you need a solid plan and a method of implementation. For the average Joe that regrettably does turn into a 'need money' problem since they don't tend to have the skill set nor a remarkable design to base anything on.
Individually talented people developing a concept and expanding it far enough to become a viable market option, then using that as a piece in marketing for a 'big budget' is the single best option and chance any one has of developing their own concept into a full fledged anything.
There are some big sand box projects out there just not enough of them. Arche Age seems to be trying to emulate a lot of UO's features as well as refining some of what Darkfall introduced (mainly the naval combat). It reeks a little too much of Lineage though which has to be the most unapologetically grindy game ever created. So as of now I'm skeptical about it.
I agree you don't need a big budget with a great idea and those great ideas are out there for the taking but no one has picked up the ball as of yet. Does anyone remember there was actually going to be a UO2 at one point? Just in case anyone browsing this thread missed it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWumht6AuZo links to an early promotional video for UO 2 (I'm sure you've heard about it Deivos but in case others hadn't seen it ;D). Why didn't this game get made! Looks amazing even with the blocky graphics especially considering this was made 10 years ago. Just think about what could be done with modern graphics and computing power.
My hope is that Minecraft, having done so well, will prompt other developers towards a revival of more player created content within their games even if they are predominantly not sand box games. Somehow, in regards to mmos, people seem to think it has to be one way or the other. A possible blending of gameplay mechanics could be the inevitable answer. I'm also hoping Notch comes out with some amazing furture projects beyond MC now that he has a substantial financial foundation to work from.
"Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3"
yep. it's not the same as Fallout 3.
Also, all of the things you listed about a proper sandbox game are either already in EVE or on the list of features they are adding in one of the gurenteed 2 expansions per year. Yes, including housing and aesthetic modification.
Just didn't want you to get it twisted. Eve is definitely not perfect, but it is for damn sure a sandbox, and any bit of sandbox that it doesn't have now, it will get, because CCP dedicated themselves to an ever progressing, and ever improving ultimate sci-fi simulator. It's only a 'space ship sandbox" in it's current state.
CCP is certainly a well run company with what seems to be a clear vision/direction for their game. Soon to be games! I'm not quite as partial to the space atmosphere of Eve but am really hoping they can transition some of what they are doing in Eve into World of Darkness Online. Wish they weren't starting with Masquerade but it is the most popular ><.
"Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3"
yep. it's not the same as Fallout 3.
Also, all of the things you listed about a proper sandbox game are either already in EVE or on the list of features they are adding in one of the gurenteed 2 expansions per year. Yes, including housing and aesthetic modification.
Just didn't want you to get it twisted. Eve is definitely not perfect, but it is for damn sure a sandbox, and any bit of sandbox that it doesn't have now, it will get, because CCP dedicated themselves to an ever progressing, and ever improving ultimate sci-fi simulator. It's only a 'space ship sandbox" in it's current state.
Eh, you're stretching reality rather far there. That's a bit too much of a plug bit for EVE, not really a point on sandbox potential.
For one, they're developing a shooter game that ties in and influences/is influenced by EVE, but that's very different from being able to take a ship into orbit, land on the surface, and deploy an army on foot within the context of EVE. The engine just isn't built for it. There's a reason the shooter is a separate title. As such, EVE is fundamentally incapable of offering all the things I mentioned.
Does that make it not a sandbox? No, it's still a sandbox.
My point of comparing it to Fallout 3 was to specifically show that difference in fundamental capacity. Can you make a land rover or submarine in EVE? No. Can you flip to a first/third person mounted camera and fly your spaceship like a polit? No. Can you combine and redefine the context in which skills/abilities are used so as to allow new options not seen in the game before like, say, transforming our spacecraft into a robot? No.
And multiple of those I believe with certainty will never happen, because neither the engine is built for it, nor is CCP likely willing to deal with the Second Life like fallout of things produced if they let people do so.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I know! So popular that LoTRO is earning how much for Turbine again?
LoTRO went F2P cause DDO went F2P before and made 300% profit for Turbine.
Yeah, and I'm sure LoTRO profits are smaller than all these 'hugely popular sandbox games'! /sarcasm
I have nothing against sandbox games, but the current market is saying 'we want themepark'.
They haven't made a proper sand box game since Eve and for some of us its just not the sand box for us. Other then that they just do not make sand box games in favor of making continually fail theme parks. I've played both LotRO and DDO just to give them a chance and while not horrible they are pretty much more of the same. DDO's reliance on bombarding me with in game sales was a turn off as well. Played LotRO before it went F2P but expect its very similar to DDO having given Turbine multiple chances.
Basically the current market has never seen a sand box game because the vast majority (90-95% is my guess) haven't played UO or Eve. Ryzom and Darkfall both do not count either. I've played both and they aren't very sand box. Darkfall hardly at all, Ryzom you can argue it but way too much digging.
I'm guessing you've never heard of Minecraft nor about its success as well when you said essentially the market doesn't want sand box games!
I didn't realize Minecraft was an MMO.
Sandbox single player games does very well, critically and commercially.
Fallout3/NV, Elder scrolls etc
Sandbox MMO? ehh... not as much as themepark MMOs
You can say 'this is not really a sandbox' all you want but when games with Sandbox elements don't do well while games with theme park element does, what do you think a dev will do?
They are such lazy bums for daring to make money for school for their kids/food/clothes/house! /sarcasm
Fair to note why those single/multi-player sandbox games fare well compared to their mmo counterparts too.
Modability. Any avid player of Minecraft probably learns pretty quickly that you can play with custom textures for anything and everything in the game. Most probably also know about all the gameplay enhancement mods. Then there's the more obscure mod/hacks to replace models and tweak the core gameplay (though those don't tend to be released).
It's the same case with Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many other 'sandbox single/multi players'. Even with Spore, and more so it's galactic adventures expansion, it's about making new things and making new gameplay, especially if you get into some of the mods there.
The ability to adapt the gameplay itself to get what you want out of it is a very important thing to these single player sandboxes. You wouldn't see people with lasers and motorcycles running around a modern city in Oblivion (all real mods) if it weren't for that factor.
MMOs have a hard time with that. Mostly because if they let you legally modify gameplay to fit your preferences alongside all the other tweaking being done you'd be potentially sabotaging the fun of everyone else on a server with unbalanced and buggy mechanics.
Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3 making the player have mind control powers (real mod) and being able to call down an army to have large scale conflicts (real mod). Or making a motorcycle(real mod), hovering chair(real mod), submarine (real mod), etc. Sure you can make a big clan and do clannish stuff, earn money, level up, attack other clans, gank people, and farm resources. Minecraft and even Mount&Blade let you do that thanks to several mods.
Pretty much, thanks to the ability to modify these non-mmo games more freely than MMOs, they contain more longevity for the average player more or less because they let you expand the world as you see fit, re-imagine most anything you use in the game into something entirely different, or even play a different game if you want without actually playing a different game(Like Real Time Settler Mod for Fallout 3).
Mods make these things considerably more varied, considerably larger, and considerably more fun. MMOs can't do that yet, because no one's come up with a safe way of doing so.
I whole-heartedly agree with you, Deivos, about mod-ability adding so much to these sand box type games. That being said, I don't quite agree with not doing something because its hard which is probably a primary reason far less sand box games let alone mmorpgs are ever seeing the light of day.
I'm sure Richard Garriott wasn't thinking about how much of a pain in the ass it would be to make one of the first ever online worlds in gaming when he spear headed the development of UO. It takes bold moves to make really great games and I've seen less and less of that during the past decade.
Of course money is always a factor but it shouldn't be the number one deciding factor in your approach to making a game most especially an mmorpg! These games have become the most in depth and advanced games to date in many respects and to cease making them in high regard but rather solely for profit will eventually lead to monotony and greed fueled design as seen in many of the asian markets mmorpgs.
Morally, should money be the factor? No, absolutely not.
But like the smart individual a few posts up stated, can you approach investors and say "No it's not going to be widely popular, meet your RoI, but it's going to be great for the genre and some of the minority players will be thrilled with it!".
It's just not realistic. You need to find an investor, with the capital ot fund such a project, and an absolute love and passion for the style of game (sandbox I'm guessing) that they are more than willing to fund the project with little expectations on a return on their investment.
You're speaking as if. I.E. as if a well made sand box game will fail and give no return to the investor. You don't know that you're merely putting a spin on what I wrote. Thanks for the bias. It's just not realistic to think that a well made sand box (like Eve) wouldn't garner revenue and support especially if you take into account how many people are looking for just that on these forums alone.
You got me all wrong. I never said a well made anything would fail. I'm saying that it's tough to pitch a sandbox to investors. A lot of EvE's success comes from the fact that it's quite possibly the best sandbox out there, and in most cases, the only one.
Skipping right to the end and posting a reply that I'm sure was done a half a dozen times already. OP described Darkfall, only with more players.
But wait, why doesn't DF have more players? Perhaps because its design caters to a small niche of players?
There are massive MMO's out there, and even DF has had battles of several hundred or more, seriously, what more can one ask for?
Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees.
Darkfall has awful UI, terrible gfx and sound and has an overall "cheap" feel to it. Probably big reasons why not many people play it. I tried it myself but could not get over the clunky combat and terrible sound.
Wouldn't matter a whole lot if it had the fluidity of WOW and the sound from a symphony orchestra, DF's hardcore PVP model, harsh leveling mechanics and sandbox, non questing progression would be a huge turn-off for a majority of the gaming market. I know I personally avoid it for a few of these reasons, avoiding a game for its graphcis/UI are not really good reasons in my book. (Hey, I played EVE)
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
You got me all wrong. I never said a well made anything would fail. I'm saying that it's tough to pitch a sandbox to investors. A lot of EvE's success comes from the fact that it's quite possibly the best sandbox out there, and in most cases, the only one.
Alright, fair enough. While Eve is great for those who enjoy it, and that's wonderful, what you said about it being the only sand box around is true and is my problem. I dislike being a ship pretty much without being able to ever free myself from it or explore planets etc as well I cannot get over my dislike of the time based skill gain. That practically ruins it for me as well as some of what Deivos mentioned regarding how you can interact with the Eve world.
So where are the more terrestrial sand box games that a large niche of the gaming world has been looking for? It is definitely a niche but substantial enough I figure some developer would want to cater to it. As of yet no ones really stepped forward and picked up where UO left off over a decade ago.
Good thread turned into an EVE circle jerk. EVE fanbois infest this site like roaches.
Actually I dislike a lot of aspects of Eve which I stated but I give the company a lot of credit for going ahead and making the game they wanted to make. We need some new games but don't have anything to really reference when it comes to sand box except Eve unfortunately. Any suggestions would be graciously accepted I'm sure.
Good thread turned into an EVE circle jerk. EVE fanbois infest this site like roaches.
Actually I dislike a lot of aspects of Eve which I stated but I give the company a lot of credit for going ahead and making the game they wanted to make. We need some new games but don't have anything to really reference when it comes to sand box except Eve unfortunately. Any suggestions would be graciously accepted I'm sure.
hahah. adorable how when EVE and WOW are refered to in a positive light, people directly turn to fanboi finger pointing, but if someone mentions another game in a positive light, that person is just someone with an opinion.
I know I'm guilty of doing this, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this lol
- back to topic -
So, I think if a new subscription system takes over the $15 a month model, casual games could possibly fill the void that even sandboxers like me have. Some, anyway...
I don't disagree with those that say casual/themepark games are more 'fun' than sandboxers. I know that to the majority of the gamers in the genre now, the features offered in sandboxes aren't as appealing as the instant to near-instant gratification of themeparks. But, I also happen to be a person that enjoys the features in a sanbox game moreso than themeparks, so I usually try to find my enjoyment in smaller niche titles. What I've noticed after years of watching what trends are being followed and created in the market, is that people (in general) are becoming much more open to playing multiple titles to get their fix. I know people have always played multiple games. I just don't remember everyone having multiple accounts to multiple MMO's back in EQ/UO/DAOC/FFXI days. Maybe a couple people, but I personally never met anyone who would have even nurtured the idea of having multiple mmo accounts active AND played.
Lately, there's more and more of us willing to try different things. Maybe if we just had enough well made, niche titles, themepark OR sandbox, but either way, CASUAL in nature to allow the players the opportunity to have more than 1 virtual experience without the $15 p/month on them.
Last summer I was paying for me and my gf's WoW accts, my 2 EvE accts, and Aion all at the same time. That 'ish adds up!
I spent 4 years in EQ. In that time I played some trials for other MMO's, but always went back to EQ before the trial was up. Looking back I do regret missing out on playing AC, SWG and DAoC in there prime. After EQ I went to EQ2 and lasted a few months before trying WoW and only lasting a few months, and ever since this is the pattern which has befallen me, the only exception being VG. I realise now the reason which kept me in EQ for that length of time was the community and the social interaction and respect the community (mostly) had for each other. At the time I left EQ I was fed up of mob camping, but now I miss it like crazy. I miss the fun conversations during downtime. I miss the fact if you acted like an ass you would earn yourself a bad reputation. The aspect I miss the most is the consideration and time the players had for there fellow players.
All of the above has been replaced with quest/instance grinding. Pugging an instance sometimes feels like playing a single player game, just you and a party of NPC's. No one talks and if they did it's usually to complain about something, i.e. to rip the tank and healer a new one. Shoddy behaviour is rampant, i.e. rolling on everything, running off without the party and getting killed and blaming the healer and disbanding after completing there objective etc (some games worse than others). I understand why people only group within there guild.
I still play MMO's because I'm addicted to it (sad I know). When I play a single player game it's not long before I'm itching to get back into a MMO.
Last summer I was paying for me and my gf's WoW accts, my 2 EvE accts, and Aion all at the same time. That 'ish adds up!
I'm in the same boat right now. If I want to run a dungeon or raid, I fire up WoW. If I want to enjoy some PvP, I fire up EVE. I would gladly give all the money I spend on multiple subscriptions to one game if someone would come out with a sandbox like EVE that had some decent group/raid content.
I definitly agree with the OP. I posted something similar like this quite a while ago here: http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/UNH0LYEV1L/092009/4687_How-the-raid-killed-Adventure describing my feelings about how instanced dungeons and raids kill adventrue and the experiences you have in the MMO world. Your definitly right that it limits interactions.
Last summer I was paying for me and my gf's WoW accts, my 2 EvE accts, and Aion all at the same time. That 'ish adds up!
I'm in the same boat right now. If I want to run a dungeon or raid, I fire up WoW. If I want to enjoy some PvP, I fire up EVE. I would gladly give all the money I spend on multiple subscriptions to one game if someone would come out with a sandbox like EVE that had some decent group/raid content.
Yeah, but would you keep playing those two games and more if you didn't have to pay a $15 monthly fee?
Yeah, but would you keep playing those two games and more if you didn't have to pay a $15 monthly fee?
If a game offered me the group/raid content of the same quality and quantity of WoW and the open world sandbox features of EVE, I wouldn't want to play anything else so cost wouldn't be an issue. The monthly cost of MMOs is so rediculously low that it has never been a deciding factor in any game I've played.
Give me a fun game that has the features I enjoy, that isnt buggy, and gets regular updates and I wouldn't care what payment model they choose.
Because the games listed on this site as MMORPGs are mostly not MMORPGs. 95% of them are Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games without the first M (Massively).
Okay while I agree that I personaly do not see them as MMORPG's but there is no denying that they are in fact MMORPG's these day's regardless my personal opinion about them
Before you say NO!, read on.
What do i do in WoW? Log on, apply for a dungeon, make it with 5 players, then go to a raid with 10 players. Then i chat and trade in Orgrimmar, do some 15v15 arenas.
Obviously this is a bad example cause you only speak about what YOU and HOW you play, doesn't say much about the game itself.
Now what do i do in Neverwinter Nights? Log on, go into a dungeon with 5 players, chat in the player hub chat rooms, do some trading, i do some pvp.
Whats the difference? 10 more players? I can play with 10 more players in WoW. Can i call it an MMORPG? For me an MMORPG is where i play with 50+ players at once. I interact with them, i am having conflicts with them. And in todays MMORPGs its not a trend. Trend is to go and play with 5-10 players.
Keep in mind this trend is created by the majority of people playing these games.
Todays so called MMORPGs are normal multiplayer RPGs with normal multiplayer RPG content, which is boring after a couple hundred playing hours. Think about it: Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter, Diablo2? How many hours of gameplay do they have? Definitely not thousands of hours. And WoW, Warhammer online, DnD online? Neither of them have more then a few hundred hours of exciting gametime if you ask me.
I am still waiting for you to give examples towards the games and not examples based on your own playstyle.
The reason? The reason i see lies in instanced dungeons. Instanced dungeons makes gameplay linear, they maximize the player count per adventure, and let everyone access the content. Just like a normal Multiplayer RPG. In a Massively multiplayer RPG sometimes, you cant access the content, because the MASSIVE crowd takes it. In a real MMORPG you need to interact with the MASSIVE crowd if you want to access your content. In a real MMORPG you need to be a part of a MASSIVE community, not just a 5 player quick group which has been put togather for a 15 minute adventure.
While I will agree that I do not feel today's MMORPG are the MMORPG I invisioned, they are still MMORPG's, why is it that mostly new people into this genre speak about these so-called "real" MMORPG's? I say new people cause I can not imagine older gamers using the word "real" + MMORPG. Obviously you can speak about how you would like to see a MMORPG but please stop calling them "real MMORPG's"
Player interaction is 5 times more important then killing a dragon, or looting a sword. Player interaction lenghtens the enjoyment of an adventure by 5 times. Think about it: would you rather play football with another player or with 2 6-6 teams? Which one has more excitement?
If our old school MMORPG where that good why havn't we see them evolve into more instead of what we have today, kinda shows that how we would like our MMORPG to be isn't what the majority seems to want and we all know the majority is what's counts. Which of course is unfortunate for some of use in the minority.
Yes. This post is a blame for all the companies who lie to the players like me. Calling a game an MMORPG is a prestige, its business, its marketing. This is todays most succesful computer gaming genre, but making fool of the costumers like me is not fair.
Ever thought about you yourself lying to yourself?
Please stop calling games like WoW or Age of Conan MMORPGs because they are not MMORPGs. Call them MORPGs and make a site called MORPG.com so the players like me, who are looking for MMORPGS can find them on MMORPG.com.
The games you named first are in fact MMORPG, just not the MMORPG we might have invisioned.
On the other hand, we can start calling Diablo 3 and Call of Duty Black Ops MMORPGS because they are basically the same as WoW, or Aion. You have a place to talk with players (Cities or Chat rooms - you name it) and you have an instance where you can fight.
Now advice me some REAL MMORPGs please. I want player interaction, i want to meet other people while i hunt, i want to be kill stealed, i want to kill the player who kill stealed me, i want to group up to protect myself from kill stealers, i want to sell the loot in the same dungeon where i looted it, but to another group. I want Massively multiplayer feeling.
Seems what you want you can get out most of today's games, you just need to put a little effort into it. I actually thought you wanted more of the old school MMORPG where the game offered you more of a virtual world, but seems you are limited to combat and loot, which almost any MMORPG already offers and the playstyle you describe fits most of today's MMORPG's.
Ps.: For those who are interested, i found a good Blogpost about instances, and their impact on MMORPGS.
I agree with everything in this post, all i have to add is this: The games which have instanced dungeons/pvp/gameplay are NOT deserved to be called MMORPGs. And players are not deserved to be fooled by companies calling their games MMORPGs, because these games doesnt have the MMO gameplay experience. Thats why you are bored with them after a few months.
EDIT: Some replies tells me they missunderstood my intention with this post. I am not saying i hate these games. I love WoW, i love Neverwinter nights, i love Oblivion, Baldur's gate is even one of my favorites. All i say is stop calling WoW an MMORPG, because in its current state it is more Neverwinter nights, its more like a Multiplayer RPG with TONZ of content, then a MASSIVELY Multiplayer Role playing game.
All i say is, if i go to a cinema and i want to watch a horror movie, dont call it a romantic comiedy, because if i want to watch a horror, i will be dissapointed and bored with a romantic comedy.
Lets understand that what defines a genre will be called that way, meaning EQ put the name MMORPG on the map, WoW placed the name on top of the world. As I said from a personal view point I can agree with some of the things you said based on my own personal opinion of my needs and wants from a MMORPG, but that doesn't mean that a genre maximizer like WoW suddenly must stopped being called a MMORPG
Oh and I don't play WoW, did however play it till BC and since then left to never have returned and no desire to return.
Yeah, but would you keep playing those two games and more if you didn't have to pay a $15 monthly fee?
If a game offered me the group/raid content of the same quality and quantity of WoW and the open world sandbox features of EVE, I wouldn't want to play anything else so cost wouldn't be an issue. The monthly cost of MMOs is so rediculously low that it has never been a deciding factor in any game I've played.
Give me a fun game that has the features I enjoy, that isnt buggy, and gets regular updates and I wouldn't care what payment model they choose.
sounds like my kind of game! i think for most serious gamers, its not the cost of the game thats the sticking point, but the game play itself, but a cross between WoW and Eve.. not sure what would come of that, (and no.. not darkfall or mortal or rift) but it would probably be closer to something akin to SWG.. before the fall maybe... or at least the 'good parts' of it..
I didn't read the whole thread, but I'm going to agree with whoever must have said that, neither of the Ms in MMORPG have anything to do with party size, and instanced content has nothing to do with the linearity of a game.
The people of the companies, who do produce online-games, do not understand what we want. They do not feel it, they simply dont have it in them. They are not looking for that thing we want, the thing we already know so well in our hearts and minds, they only care for for money on a short-notice. They will never give us the worlds we demand. They do not understand, that this would fill up their pockets for a very long time with money beyond imagination. Give me the necessary millions of dollars and I will create you a game, where the boundaries between reality and virtual reality will blur.
The people of the companies, who do produce online-games, do not understand what we want. They do not feel it, they simply dont have it in them. They are not looking for that thing we want, the thing we already know so well in our hearts and minds, they only care for for money on a short-notice. They will never give us the worlds we demand. They do not understand, that this would fill up their pockets for a very long time with money beyond imagination. Give me the necessary millions of dollars and I will create you a game, where the boundaries between reality and virtual reality will blur.
I doubt you actually have the drive and the willpower to do that. Besides, while I kind of agree with you, there wouldn't be so many people subscribed to World of Warcraft if they didn't like it (and I'd be one of them).
As for what the original discussion is about, I think that instancizing will be a thing of the past when servers are able to hold more players on a single playing field. But we just don't have the technology yet to make a real MMORPG, and the downside is if we even had that technology, there is a huge possibility that it could just be completely empty. Look at Eve. Boring.
The reason? The reason i see lies in instanced dungeons. Instanced dungeons makes gameplay linear, they maximize the player count per adventure, and let everyone access the content. Just like a normal Multiplayer RPG. In a Massively multiplayer RPG sometimes, you cant access the content, because the MASSIVE crowd takes it. In a real MMORPG you need to interact with the MASSIVE crowd if you want to access your content. In a real MMORPG you need to be a part of a MASSIVE community, not just a 5 player quick group which has been put togather for a 15 minute adventure.
I agree. This is why DAoC was such a good game for both PvE and PvP. I don't like phasing, instancing, and other techniques that turn a massive game into a smaller multiplayer game.
to the OP, the term "massive" or "massively" means that one game can hold tons and tons of people and more online at the same time.... if an instance only supports 5 men, 10 men, 25 men, that doesnt mean the game is not massively multiplayer.... is the server capacity that counts that makes the game massively multiplayer, not the instance.... an instance group is just a party, alone is just soloing, and the game is still massive... unless its a single player or co-op
however,...... i see your point and i agree with you, there should be more activities that involve massive amounts of players as 1 group to interact will all... thats why i like the pvp from Aika online that has 1000 vs 1000 pvp, though i have never seen 2000 players online fighting there... lol
Please use a dictionary and then maybe you could better understand my reply. I'm coming from the stand point that more often then not games have become far more similar to each other than say UO was similar to EQ. The logic behind what I'm saying revolves around the fact that the market for the mmorpg genre is saturated with games with a very similar feel to them. When people say WoW clone they're saying it feels VERY similar to WoW. Developers are doing this because they want to go after the largest market share but that shouldn't have anything to do with making a game that I'm going to want to play. Sure it appeals to the majority but excludes the minorities. Eventually even the majority will become bored of playing such similar titles again and again. Developers aren't necessarily lazy but they are damned terrified of innovation cutting them out of potential profit to the point of stagnation of the genre.
If demands are there someone will make it. It is something called 'free-market'/capitalism'
So far, the demand is just not there.
Like I said from the beginning, 'Devs aren't lazy, they just want to make games that sell so they can have money'. I see nothing wrong with this.
I agree with you both.
That being said. Capitalism sucks, and is not condusive to a progressive society. Only supports fear of innovation, and trampling on your neighbors for profit gain.
Let's start a new economy so we can make good games just for the hell of making good games, not to play tug-o-war with subscription numbers. Who's with me!
Comments
Yeah, side scrolling games were awesome! What would be so wrong about a slew of new ones being released?
Not saying that all games should trash themselves and re-launch as side-scrollers... But what would be so wrong about having some fracking selection??? There are those of us who are tired of FPS games (yes, I think they are all alike.) and WoW being the only solid game designs.
True. Just because it's hard as hell doesn't mean developers should shy away. It means they need to develop the tools and security features necessary to implement that kinda depth of toolkits.
Like Second Life, that lets you make models, textures, and even custom scripts for everything and even for the environments you make. I'm not going to call Second Life a game though, and I don't think (from personal experience) the developers have enough control on the flow of content outside of removing specifically malicious creations. That's a case of such a mechanic set going awry due to a lack of direction or regulatory features on content.
And too many boobs.
Granted, attempts to make a sequel to UO has failed a few times during development now. Something to be said about striking upon luck.
There's also a reason it's smaller developers tackling this kinda game. Like the point Helth is so adamant about beating over everyone's heads; developing a modern game, especially an MMO, takes a budget.
Sandbox MMOs don't have mass appeal yet, and maybe never. They've always been a niche market, and there's plenty of players content in that niche all ready without the 'massive' tacked onto the games they play.
Indie games are integral as a result. Small games where people with a finite budget can develop upon core game mechanic aspects as a sort of 'proof of concept'. That's what Minecraft 'was' until the subscriber base blew expectations out of the water and became an unplanned financial success for Notch before it's even officially released (went out of alpha and into beta only a bit ago).
Unlike some people's belief, you don't need a huge budget. More importantly you need a solid plan and a method of implementation. For the average Joe that regrettably does turn into a 'need money' problem since they don't tend to have the skill set nor a remarkable design to base anything on.
Individually talented people developing a concept and expanding it far enough to become a viable market option, then using that as a piece in marketing for a 'big budget' is the single best option and chance any one has of developing their own concept into a full fledged anything.
EDIT: Hell you can use EVE as an example of how they built a game from their small concept into the so polarizing title with a loyal fan-base it is today. Funnily enough, I don't like EVE. I can respect the developers and all of their achievements as a studio and with their game however. Regardless of my opinion of it, it's a very damn well built game, and the people that made it showcases very well how important small indie groups and dev teams can be.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
@Vahrane:
"Like for example, the fact that people call EVE a 'proper' or 'good' sandbox MMO. That depresses me. The fact that one of the best options available has no ability to modify the mechanics, combat, aesthetics, story, skill progression, abilities, or even build a house to call your own depresses me. Sure you can socket different things into a ship hull to tailor it a bit, that's not the same as in Fallout3"
yep. it's not the same as Fallout 3.
Also, all of the things you listed about a proper sandbox game are either already in EVE or on the list of features they are adding in one of the gurenteed 2 expansions per year. Yes, including housing and aesthetic modification.
Just didn't want you to get it twisted. Eve is definitely not perfect, but it is for damn sure a sandbox, and any bit of sandbox that it doesn't have now, it will get, because CCP dedicated themselves to an ever progressing, and ever improving ultimate sci-fi simulator. It's only a 'space ship sandbox" in it's current state.
There are some big sand box projects out there just not enough of them. Arche Age seems to be trying to emulate a lot of UO's features as well as refining some of what Darkfall introduced (mainly the naval combat). It reeks a little too much of Lineage though which has to be the most unapologetically grindy game ever created. So as of now I'm skeptical about it.
I agree you don't need a big budget with a great idea and those great ideas are out there for the taking but no one has picked up the ball as of yet. Does anyone remember there was actually going to be a UO2 at one point? Just in case anyone browsing this thread missed it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWumht6AuZo links to an early promotional video for UO 2 (I'm sure you've heard about it Deivos but in case others hadn't seen it ;D). Why didn't this game get made! Looks amazing even with the blocky graphics especially considering this was made 10 years ago. Just think about what could be done with modern graphics and computing power.
My hope is that Minecraft, having done so well, will prompt other developers towards a revival of more player created content within their games even if they are predominantly not sand box games. Somehow, in regards to mmos, people seem to think it has to be one way or the other. A possible blending of gameplay mechanics could be the inevitable answer. I'm also hoping Notch comes out with some amazing furture projects beyond MC now that he has a substantial financial foundation to work from.
CCP is certainly a well run company with what seems to be a clear vision/direction for their game. Soon to be games! I'm not quite as partial to the space atmosphere of Eve but am really hoping they can transition some of what they are doing in Eve into World of Darkness Online. Wish they weren't starting with Masquerade but it is the most popular ><.
Eh, you're stretching reality rather far there. That's a bit too much of a plug bit for EVE, not really a point on sandbox potential.
For one, they're developing a shooter game that ties in and influences/is influenced by EVE, but that's very different from being able to take a ship into orbit, land on the surface, and deploy an army on foot within the context of EVE. The engine just isn't built for it. There's a reason the shooter is a separate title. As such, EVE is fundamentally incapable of offering all the things I mentioned.
Does that make it not a sandbox? No, it's still a sandbox.
My point of comparing it to Fallout 3 was to specifically show that difference in fundamental capacity. Can you make a land rover or submarine in EVE? No. Can you flip to a first/third person mounted camera and fly your spaceship like a polit? No. Can you combine and redefine the context in which skills/abilities are used so as to allow new options not seen in the game before like, say, transforming our spacecraft into a robot? No.
And multiple of those I believe with certainty will never happen, because neither the engine is built for it, nor is CCP likely willing to deal with the Second Life like fallout of things produced if they let people do so.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You got me all wrong. I never said a well made anything would fail. I'm saying that it's tough to pitch a sandbox to investors. A lot of EvE's success comes from the fact that it's quite possibly the best sandbox out there, and in most cases, the only one.
Wouldn't matter a whole lot if it had the fluidity of WOW and the sound from a symphony orchestra, DF's hardcore PVP model, harsh leveling mechanics and sandbox, non questing progression would be a huge turn-off for a majority of the gaming market. I know I personally avoid it for a few of these reasons, avoiding a game for its graphcis/UI are not really good reasons in my book. (Hey, I played EVE)
"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
Alright, fair enough. While Eve is great for those who enjoy it, and that's wonderful, what you said about it being the only sand box around is true and is my problem. I dislike being a ship pretty much without being able to ever free myself from it or explore planets etc as well I cannot get over my dislike of the time based skill gain. That practically ruins it for me as well as some of what Deivos mentioned regarding how you can interact with the Eve world.
So where are the more terrestrial sand box games that a large niche of the gaming world has been looking for? It is definitely a niche but substantial enough I figure some developer would want to cater to it. As of yet no ones really stepped forward and picked up where UO left off over a decade ago.
Good thread turned into an EVE circle jerk. EVE fanbois infest this site like roaches.
Actually I dislike a lot of aspects of Eve which I stated but I give the company a lot of credit for going ahead and making the game they wanted to make. We need some new games but don't have anything to really reference when it comes to sand box except Eve unfortunately. Any suggestions would be graciously accepted I'm sure.
hahah. adorable how when EVE and WOW are refered to in a positive light, people directly turn to fanboi finger pointing, but if someone mentions another game in a positive light, that person is just someone with an opinion.
I know I'm guilty of doing this, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this lol
- back to topic -
So, I think if a new subscription system takes over the $15 a month model, casual games could possibly fill the void that even sandboxers like me have. Some, anyway...
I don't disagree with those that say casual/themepark games are more 'fun' than sandboxers. I know that to the majority of the gamers in the genre now, the features offered in sandboxes aren't as appealing as the instant to near-instant gratification of themeparks. But, I also happen to be a person that enjoys the features in a sanbox game moreso than themeparks, so I usually try to find my enjoyment in smaller niche titles. What I've noticed after years of watching what trends are being followed and created in the market, is that people (in general) are becoming much more open to playing multiple titles to get their fix. I know people have always played multiple games. I just don't remember everyone having multiple accounts to multiple MMO's back in EQ/UO/DAOC/FFXI days. Maybe a couple people, but I personally never met anyone who would have even nurtured the idea of having multiple mmo accounts active AND played.
Lately, there's more and more of us willing to try different things. Maybe if we just had enough well made, niche titles, themepark OR sandbox, but either way, CASUAL in nature to allow the players the opportunity to have more than 1 virtual experience without the $15 p/month on them.
Last summer I was paying for me and my gf's WoW accts, my 2 EvE accts, and Aion all at the same time. That 'ish adds up!
I have to agree with the OP.
I spent 4 years in EQ. In that time I played some trials for other MMO's, but always went back to EQ before the trial was up. Looking back I do regret missing out on playing AC, SWG and DAoC in there prime. After EQ I went to EQ2 and lasted a few months before trying WoW and only lasting a few months, and ever since this is the pattern which has befallen me, the only exception being VG. I realise now the reason which kept me in EQ for that length of time was the community and the social interaction and respect the community (mostly) had for each other. At the time I left EQ I was fed up of mob camping, but now I miss it like crazy. I miss the fun conversations during downtime. I miss the fact if you acted like an ass you would earn yourself a bad reputation. The aspect I miss the most is the consideration and time the players had for there fellow players.
All of the above has been replaced with quest/instance grinding. Pugging an instance sometimes feels like playing a single player game, just you and a party of NPC's. No one talks and if they did it's usually to complain about something, i.e. to rip the tank and healer a new one. Shoddy behaviour is rampant, i.e. rolling on everything, running off without the party and getting killed and blaming the healer and disbanding after completing there objective etc (some games worse than others). I understand why people only group within there guild.
I still play MMO's because I'm addicted to it (sad I know). When I play a single player game it's not long before I'm itching to get back into a MMO.
Sorry my mini rant is over.
I'm in the same boat right now. If I want to run a dungeon or raid, I fire up WoW. If I want to enjoy some PvP, I fire up EVE. I would gladly give all the money I spend on multiple subscriptions to one game if someone would come out with a sandbox like EVE that had some decent group/raid content.
I definitly agree with the OP. I posted something similar like this quite a while ago here: http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/UNH0LYEV1L/092009/4687_How-the-raid-killed-Adventure describing my feelings about how instanced dungeons and raids kill adventrue and the experiences you have in the MMO world. Your definitly right that it limits interactions.
Yeah, but would you keep playing those two games and more if you didn't have to pay a $15 monthly fee?
If a game offered me the group/raid content of the same quality and quantity of WoW and the open world sandbox features of EVE, I wouldn't want to play anything else so cost wouldn't be an issue. The monthly cost of MMOs is so rediculously low that it has never been a deciding factor in any game I've played.
Give me a fun game that has the features I enjoy, that isnt buggy, and gets regular updates and I wouldn't care what payment model they choose.
Lets understand that what defines a genre will be called that way, meaning EQ put the name MMORPG on the map, WoW placed the name on top of the world. As I said from a personal view point I can agree with some of the things you said based on my own personal opinion of my needs and wants from a MMORPG, but that doesn't mean that a genre maximizer like WoW suddenly must stopped being called a MMORPG
Oh and I don't play WoW, did however play it till BC and since then left to never have returned and no desire to return.
sounds like my kind of game! i think for most serious gamers, its not the cost of the game thats the sticking point, but the game play itself, but a cross between WoW and Eve.. not sure what would come of that, (and no.. not darkfall or mortal or rift) but it would probably be closer to something akin to SWG.. before the fall maybe... or at least the 'good parts' of it..
I didn't read the whole thread, but I'm going to agree with whoever must have said that, neither of the Ms in MMORPG have anything to do with party size, and instanced content has nothing to do with the linearity of a game.
The people of the companies, who do produce online-games, do not understand what we want. They do not feel it, they simply dont have it in them. They are not looking for that thing we want, the thing we already know so well in our hearts and minds, they only care for for money on a short-notice. They will never give us the worlds we demand. They do not understand, that this would fill up their pockets for a very long time with money beyond imagination. Give me the necessary millions of dollars and I will create you a game, where the boundaries between reality and virtual reality will blur.
I doubt you actually have the drive and the willpower to do that. Besides, while I kind of agree with you, there wouldn't be so many people subscribed to World of Warcraft if they didn't like it (and I'd be one of them).
As for what the original discussion is about, I think that instancizing will be a thing of the past when servers are able to hold more players on a single playing field. But we just don't have the technology yet to make a real MMORPG, and the downside is if we even had that technology, there is a huge possibility that it could just be completely empty. Look at Eve. Boring.
I agree. This is why DAoC was such a good game for both PvE and PvP. I don't like phasing, instancing, and other techniques that turn a massive game into a smaller multiplayer game.
to the OP, the term "massive" or "massively" means that one game can hold tons and tons of people and more online at the same time.... if an instance only supports 5 men, 10 men, 25 men, that doesnt mean the game is not massively multiplayer.... is the server capacity that counts that makes the game massively multiplayer, not the instance.... an instance group is just a party, alone is just soloing, and the game is still massive... unless its a single player or co-op
however,...... i see your point and i agree with you, there should be more activities that involve massive amounts of players as 1 group to interact will all... thats why i like the pvp from Aika online that has 1000 vs 1000 pvp, though i have never seen 2000 players online fighting there... lol
I am with you.