You have a very narrow-minded opinion of what a sandbox is. I think you might just use and change the term the way all the conservative talk-show hosts call and warp their own meaning of conservativism.
To me a sandbox is just that, a sandbox. You can build the world the way you want it, instead of the world already shaped for you. It doesn't need anything besides that, so I think the only thing a real sandbox needs is crafting. Other than that it can be anything you dream of.
You have a very narrow-minded opinion of what a sandbox is. I think you might just use and change the term the way all the conservative talk-show hosts call and warp their own meaning of conservativism.
To me a sandbox is just that, a sandbox. You can build the world the way you want it, instead of the world already shaped for you. It doesn't need anything besides that, so I think the only thing a real sandbox needs is crafting. Other than that it can be anything you dream of.
How can you really shape the world when you aren't allowed to destroy other people's sand castles?
And no, I'm not twisting the meaning of words. I know exactly what a sandbox game is. The only thing that typically makes sandbox MMO standout from the crowd is the meaning associated with world building. If everyone can do everything, say building a house anywhere, without repercussions, then meaning is lost. I'm not saying that you can't have a sandbox game with set in stone factions, but you are moving into that gray area of limiting players ability to shape the world which is the only thing that makes a sandbox game a sandbox game.
Because of this I'm reluctant to call the game I'm theorycrafting (I'm not a programer so I can't say developing) a sandbox until the fist stage is passed (long story).
How can you really shape the world when you aren't allowed to destroy other people's sand castles?
And no, I'm not twisting the meaning of words. I know exactly what a sandbox game is. The only thing that typically makes sandbox MMO standout from the crowd is the meaning associated with world building. If everyone can do everything, say building a house anywhere, without repercussions, then meaning is lost. I'm not saying that you can't have a sandbox game with set in stone factions, but you are moving into that gray area of limiting players ability to shape the world which is the only thing that makes a sandbox game a sandbox game.
Because of this I'm reluctant to call the game I'm theorycrafting (I'm not a programer so I can't say developing) a sandbox until the fist stage is passed (long story).
I have to refer to my first post on this topic and say, "It's called Second Life."
U2 had a concert on Second Life. Is that not meaningful?
Yet I do long for a MMO like you are describing and I do agree with your points, but I also think it is hardcore and will never appeal to the WoW/casual gamer.
EDIT: My dream MMO would be like pre-CU SWG but no Jedi, IP-less, player-made factions, and destructible environments. So I do sympathize with you.
Shaping the world does not depend in any way shape or form on destroying what others built. They are mutually exclusive. To me being able to destroy something has nothing to do with sandbox.
Venge
Edit - and to me the only thing sandbox has going for it that other games don't is being able to affect the game wolrd in some way, it's just arguable how much you have to affect the world in order to be called a sandbox. The meaning is not lost by being able to build anywhere without repercussions, the meaning is in the building itself.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
How can you really shape the world when you aren't allowed to destroy other people's sand castles?
And no, I'm not twisting the meaning of words. I know exactly what a sandbox game is. The only thing that typically makes sandbox MMO standout from the crowd is the meaning associated with world building. If everyone can do everything, say building a house anywhere, without repercussions, then meaning is lost. I'm not saying that you can't have a sandbox game with set in stone factions, but you are moving into that gray area of limiting players ability to shape the world which is the only thing that makes a sandbox game a sandbox game.
Because of this I'm reluctant to call the game I'm theorycrafting (I'm not a programer so I can't say developing) a sandbox until the fist stage is passed (long story).
You could still shape part of the world. I do get your point but it is still a sandbox even if all players or guilds get their own part to shape as they like. After all kids playing in a sandbox rarely got it for themselves and if they beat the other kids to get it all for themselves a grownup will appear.
I am not actually sure what would be most fun but sandboxes needs more than polish, the devs needs to try out different things and one without razing houses is worth trying out as well as many other variations.
Who knows what really is fun until we tried it out.
But it is not just lack of polish that is the problem with sandboxes, themeparks have actually evolved somewhat and added a lot of new features and ideas. Sandboxes will have to rethink themselves as well to become as big.
Many many many wow players not only know but try and even play other games. I'm one of them, and I don't think I'm alone or even in a small group in that.
Venge Sunsoar
I find that most WoW players hate their own game, but they can't find anything better.
This statement is so true in so many ways. thank you
I just that for a sandbox to be successful, one of the first steps to take is deviating from that niche fanbase, as I think free for all PvP, no maps tutorial or direction, and a forced first person perspective really do more to hurt these games than to help them.
I had to answer to this without reading the rest of the posts between here and there.
I agree with your sentiment on content, but who says that those are elements that most Sandbox gamers want? In fact, most don't.
A) Free for all PvP, There are many more who don't want this than do. I never liked that this type of gamer has tried to stake a claim on the genre. Every game that came out with it (Shadowbane, Darkfall, MO) has had the few comments on their boards against free for all PvP, and quickly got hammered, and people just went away rather than continue the abuse.
No Maps, etc., I think a few people took this too far. Some is still good, and I can't help but think that most Sandbox gamers would want some. Just not the super easy "way points" and markers, etc.
C) First person perspective, I've seen many complaints about that. The argument there is heated too. But understand, most of these players want a FPSer, full all out PvP, in an MMO. For the most part, it's the same players that want the FFA PvP that want that perspective, and the rest of us just leave for too many obstacles to what we truly want.
I just that for a sandbox to be successful, one of the first steps to take is deviating from that niche fanbase, as I think free for all PvP, no maps tutorial or direction, and a forced first person perspective really do more to hurt these games than to help them.
I had to answer to this without reading the rest of the posts between here and there.
I agree with your sentiment on content, but who says that those are elements that most Sandbox gamers want? In fact, most don't.
A) Free for all PvP, There are many more who don't want this than do. I never liked that this type of gamer has tried to stake a claim on the genre. Every game that came out with it (Shadowbane, Darkfall, MO) has had the few comments on their boards against free for all PvP, and quickly got hammered, and people just went away rather than continue the abuse.
No Maps, etc., I think a few people took this too far. Some is still good, and I can't help but think that most Sandbox gamers would want some. Just not the super easy "way points" and markers, etc.
C) First person perspective, I've seen many complaints about that. The argument there is heated too. But understand, most of these players want a FPSer, full all out PvP, in an MMO. For the most part, it's the same players that want the FFA PvP that want that perspective, and the rest of us just leave for too many obstacles to what we truly want.
Not only did you just completely agree with that statement, you provided him examples on how he was right.
I just that for a sandbox to be successful, one of the first steps to take is deviating from that niche fanbase, as I think free for all PvP, no maps tutorial or direction, and a forced first person perspective really do more to hurt these games than to help them.
I had to answer to this without reading the rest of the posts between here and there.
I agree with your sentiment on content, but who says that those are elements that most Sandbox gamers want? In fact, most don't.
A) Free for all PvP, There are many more who don't want this than do. I never liked that this type of gamer has tried to stake a claim on the genre. Every game that came out with it (Shadowbane, Darkfall, MO) has had the few comments on their boards against free for all PvP, and quickly got hammered, and people just went away rather than continue the abuse.
No Maps, etc., I think a few people took this too far. Some is still good, and I can't help but think that most Sandbox gamers would want some. Just not the super easy "way points" and markers, etc.
C) First person perspective, I've seen many complaints about that. The argument there is heated too. But understand, most of these players want a FPSer, full all out PvP, in an MMO. For the most part, it's the same players that want the FFA PvP that want that perspective, and the rest of us just leave for too many obstacles to what we truly want.
Not only did you just completely agree with that statement you provided him example on how he was right.
I said I agreed with his sentiment. What I was stating is that those elements aren't what most sandbox gamers want. He left that a little ambiguous, I thought.
A straight up sandbox game will not make it as the OP suggest. A hybrid, sandbox/themepark might. The thing is, the sandbox and themepark would have to have the kinds of toys and enough of themto keep both types of players happy. Is it do-able. Sure...if you have lots of money. Anything is possible with lots of money.
How can you really shape the world when you aren't allowed to destroy other people's sand castles?
And no, I'm not twisting the meaning of words. I know exactly what a sandbox game is. The only thing that typically makes sandbox MMO standout from the crowd is the meaning associated with world building. If everyone can do everything, say building a house anywhere, without repercussions, then meaning is lost. I'm not saying that you can't have a sandbox game with set in stone factions, but you are moving into that gray area of limiting players ability to shape the world which is the only thing that makes a sandbox game a sandbox game.
Because of this I'm reluctant to call the game I'm theorycrafting (I'm not a programer so I can't say developing) a sandbox until the fist stage is passed (long story).
You could still shape part of the world. I do get your point but it is still a sandbox even if all players or guilds get their own part to shape as they like. After all kids playing in a sandbox rarely got it for themselves and if they beat the other kids to get it all for themselves a grownup will appear.
I am not actually sure what would be most fun but sandboxes needs more than polish, the devs needs to try out different things and one without razing houses is worth trying out as well as many other variations.
Who knows what really is fun until we tried it out.
But it is not just lack of polish that is the problem with sandboxes, themeparks have actually evolved somewhat and added a lot of new features and ideas. Sandboxes will have to rethink themselves as well to become as big.
I don't think building is required for a "Sandbox" game. I think that's one element, and that there are others.
There's never been a conclusive meaning to the term "Sandbox", mainly because it was just a loose term tossed out there along with "Themepark".
To me, keeping the terms loose:
Themepark means going from place to place like stations, due to what you need to level/item grind and the way the game world is built to accomplish that. EQ style (where the term originated for MMORPGs), advanced in DAoC, WoW, etc.
Sandbox is the opposite. UO style. Freedom to choose what you are going to do, and where you are going to go.
I agree that Sandbox games will have to look at advances in game play in their own right. I think there are many ways to go here, depending on how the game is built. There's actually a lot of fun things that a good Sandbox can take from WoW and other Themepark games. I think fun is fun, it doesn't really have to be applied to one or the other type of game.
Incidentally, this is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Theories can be proved.
Any game that allows players to add their own content on that scale loses all control of it's theme. I don't think most players playing a Dragon Hunter want to run across giant flying male organs.
Incidentally, this is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Theories can be proved.
Any game that allows players to add their own content on that scale loses all control of it's theme. I don't think most players playing a Dragon Hunter want to run across giant flying male organs.
Epic battle! Grab it by the head and pound it on the ground ... erm ... yea ... lol
Not sure the OP is entirely right, but I think there is a fairly healthy market for a sandbox game. The big issue is that every developer that makes a sandbox MMO automatically assumes it must be open PvP.
Remove the open PvP and you'd get a significant increase in the number of people playing in sandbox MMOs.
sandbox is a really small, but vocally loud, niche. no one cares for them. 50% lol ...
Small relative to WoW, yes. But everything is small compared to WoW.
However, the largest sandbox MMORPG, Eve, has a subscriber base of roughly 350.000 and that is a FFA PvP game.
So if a company would release a good, solid sandbox, which was not FFA PvP but rather controlled PvP, which seems more popular, I bet it would get atleast a subscriber base of 500.000. And that would be among the highest out there, not counting WoW.
But 50%, meaning it would get the 10 million of WoW? Highly unlikely...
I think just reading through a selection of responses shows just how fragmented the 'Want a sandbox MMO' crowd actually is. Are there really several million people just waiting for a sandbox game, that are staying away from WoW yet also ignore all the sandbox game choices actually out there?
Where are these mysterious people, and why are there only just a few of them that reveal themselves, mostly on internet forums?
If its true that WOW dominates the themepark genre, we still dont have a representant for the sandbox genre.
Im calling them "subgenres", because most people refuse the notion that a true MMORPG is sandbox and sandbox only...
Anyway, the point is...
CURRENTLY THERE IS AN EMPTY SPOT FOR THE SANDBOX GENRE.
The company that releases an AAA polished sandbox, with high production value will come and dominate like WOW did its "themepark" genre.
A large segment (perhaps majority) of WoW players couldn't tell you what MMORPG stands for, let alone what a sandbox game is...well, the kind you're talking about anyways. Those folks aren't "MMORPG" gamers...yes, they play an MMORPG, but they don't call it that - they just think they're playing a game with their friends.
Originally posted by Sanity888 Originally posted by xpiher
Originally posted by SuperXero89
I just that for a sandbox to be successful, one of the first steps to take is deviating from that niche fanbase, as I think free for all PvP, no maps tutorial or direction, and a forced first person perspective really do more to hurt these games than to help them.
Sandbox PvE games are boring. Also, first person perspective isn't a requirement see ER and DFO Not PvE, just not free for all PvP.
Very few games can strike that balance where there is enough content both for hardcore and casual PvPers and also for those that don't want PvP at all. Eve made it, you can go on ffa pvp rampage every day or prosper in safe systems, and you will enjoy the game whatever kind of pvp (or no pvp) you like.
It comes from over 7 years of tweaking and it isn't perfect yet. I can't see another game just come up and appeal to everyone. It needs months or years of careful balance tweaking.
You wont pull 50 percent with this generation of gamers. Those who grew up with sandbox have families to attend to and rl jobs to grind. While they might be able to pick up the game for a couple hours here and there, they wont be your target audience.
A sandbox game will need to updated, and the elephant in the room is free looting. FFA pvp is something I feel players can adapt to, but full on free looting is a dinosaur from the distant past and it needs to go if you want to pull in those numbers.
Nearly every person I've talked to in games, forums and rl have always mentioned the free looting as their biggest concern and reason not to dive into that ruleset.
Think of a way to make pvp rewarding without a grind or loot, and you may be on your way to a revolution.
The company that releases an AAA polished sandbox, with high production value will come and dominate like WOW did its "themepark" genre.
Can you link to the stats or research that show there is that level of interest in an online sandbox experience?
50% of the market is a large share, and you make that claim with no exception and complete certainly, so I was curious about your source of data. Note: Your ass is not a reliable source.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think just reading through a selection of responses shows just how fragmented the 'Want a sandbox MMO' crowd actually is. Are there really several million people just waiting for a sandbox game, that are staying away from WoW yet also ignore all the sandbox game choices actually out there?
Where are these mysterious people, and why are there only just a few of them that reveal themselves, mostly on internet forums?
THANK YOU
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
You have a very narrow-minded opinion of what a sandbox is. I think you might just use and change the term the way all the conservative talk-show hosts call and warp their own meaning of conservativism.
To me a sandbox is just that, a sandbox. You can build the world the way you want it, instead of the world already shaped for you. It doesn't need anything besides that, so I think the only thing a real sandbox needs is crafting. Other than that it can be anything you dream of.
How can you really shape the world when you aren't allowed to destroy other people's sand castles?
And no, I'm not twisting the meaning of words. I know exactly what a sandbox game is. The only thing that typically makes sandbox MMO standout from the crowd is the meaning associated with world building. If everyone can do everything, say building a house anywhere, without repercussions, then meaning is lost. I'm not saying that you can't have a sandbox game with set in stone factions, but you are moving into that gray area of limiting players ability to shape the world which is the only thing that makes a sandbox game a sandbox game.
Because of this I'm reluctant to call the game I'm theorycrafting (I'm not a programer so I can't say developing) a sandbox until the fist stage is passed (long story).
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
I have to refer to my first post on this topic and say, "It's called Second Life."
U2 had a concert on Second Life. Is that not meaningful?
Yet I do long for a MMO like you are describing and I do agree with your points, but I also think it is hardcore and will never appeal to the WoW/casual gamer.
EDIT: My dream MMO would be like pre-CU SWG but no Jedi, IP-less, player-made factions, and destructible environments. So I do sympathize with you.
Shaping the world does not depend in any way shape or form on destroying what others built. They are mutually exclusive. To me being able to destroy something has nothing to do with sandbox.
Venge
Edit - and to me the only thing sandbox has going for it that other games don't is being able to affect the game wolrd in some way, it's just arguable how much you have to affect the world in order to be called a sandbox. The meaning is not lost by being able to build anywhere without repercussions, the meaning is in the building itself.
You could still shape part of the world. I do get your point but it is still a sandbox even if all players or guilds get their own part to shape as they like. After all kids playing in a sandbox rarely got it for themselves and if they beat the other kids to get it all for themselves a grownup will appear.
I am not actually sure what would be most fun but sandboxes needs more than polish, the devs needs to try out different things and one without razing houses is worth trying out as well as many other variations.
Who knows what really is fun until we tried it out.
But it is not just lack of polish that is the problem with sandboxes, themeparks have actually evolved somewhat and added a lot of new features and ideas. Sandboxes will have to rethink themselves as well to become as big.
This statement is so true in so many ways. thank you
I had to answer to this without reading the rest of the posts between here and there.
I agree with your sentiment on content, but who says that those are elements that most Sandbox gamers want? In fact, most don't.
A) Free for all PvP, There are many more who don't want this than do. I never liked that this type of gamer has tried to stake a claim on the genre. Every game that came out with it (Shadowbane, Darkfall, MO) has had the few comments on their boards against free for all PvP, and quickly got hammered, and people just went away rather than continue the abuse.
C) First person perspective, I've seen many complaints about that. The argument there is heated too. But understand, most of these players want a FPSer, full all out PvP, in an MMO. For the most part, it's the same players that want the FFA PvP that want that perspective, and the rest of us just leave for too many obstacles to what we truly want.
Once upon a time....
Not only did you just completely agree with that statement, you provided him examples on how he was right.
I said I agreed with his sentiment. What I was stating is that those elements aren't what most sandbox gamers want. He left that a little ambiguous, I thought.
Once upon a time....
Where would the meaning be in a PvE sandbox game? Where would the sandbox be in a factional PvP only game?
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
A straight up sandbox game will not make it as the OP suggest. A hybrid, sandbox/themepark might. The thing is, the sandbox and themepark would have to have the kinds of toys and enough of themto keep both types of players happy. Is it do-able. Sure...if you have lots of money. Anything is possible with lots of money.
/Thread
Incidentally, this is not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Theories can be proved.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
I don't think building is required for a "Sandbox" game. I think that's one element, and that there are others.
There's never been a conclusive meaning to the term "Sandbox", mainly because it was just a loose term tossed out there along with "Themepark".
To me, keeping the terms loose:
Themepark means going from place to place like stations, due to what you need to level/item grind and the way the game world is built to accomplish that. EQ style (where the term originated for MMORPGs), advanced in DAoC, WoW, etc.
Sandbox is the opposite. UO style. Freedom to choose what you are going to do, and where you are going to go.
I agree that Sandbox games will have to look at advances in game play in their own right. I think there are many ways to go here, depending on how the game is built. There's actually a lot of fun things that a good Sandbox can take from WoW and other Themepark games. I think fun is fun, it doesn't really have to be applied to one or the other type of game.
Once upon a time....
Any game that allows players to add their own content on that scale loses all control of it's theme. I don't think most players playing a Dragon Hunter want to run across giant flying male organs.
Once upon a time....
Epic battle! Grab it by the head and pound it on the ground ... erm ... yea ... lol
Not sure the OP is entirely right, but I think there is a fairly healthy market for a sandbox game. The big issue is that every developer that makes a sandbox MMO automatically assumes it must be open PvP.
Remove the open PvP and you'd get a significant increase in the number of people playing in sandbox MMOs.
Small relative to WoW, yes. But everything is small compared to WoW.
However, the largest sandbox MMORPG, Eve, has a subscriber base of roughly 350.000 and that is a FFA PvP game.
So if a company would release a good, solid sandbox, which was not FFA PvP but rather controlled PvP, which seems more popular, I bet it would get atleast a subscriber base of 500.000. And that would be among the highest out there, not counting WoW.
But 50%, meaning it would get the 10 million of WoW? Highly unlikely...
My gaming blog
I think just reading through a selection of responses shows just how fragmented the 'Want a sandbox MMO' crowd actually is. Are there really several million people just waiting for a sandbox game, that are staying away from WoW yet also ignore all the sandbox game choices actually out there?
Where are these mysterious people, and why are there only just a few of them that reveal themselves, mostly on internet forums?
you and what army?
I would bet that the difference between sandbox accounts/players and themepark is not far off evenly split.
Take Second life, in 2008 it had 8 million, and rumors are that its past 20mill now. Not so Niche?
(Runscape, 10mill?)
So I agree with OP that there is space for a AAA sandbox.
Core i5 13600KF, BeQuiet Pure Loop FX 360, 32gb DDR5-6000 XPG, WD SN850 NVMe ,PNY 3090 XLR8, Asus Prime Z790-A, Lian-Li O11 PCMR case (limited ed 1045/2000), 32" LG Ultragear 4k Monitor, Logitech G560 LightSync Sound, Razer Deathadder V2 and Razer Blackwidow V3 Keyboard
A large segment (perhaps majority) of WoW players couldn't tell you what MMORPG stands for, let alone what a sandbox game is...well, the kind you're talking about anyways. Those folks aren't "MMORPG" gamers...yes, they play an MMORPG, but they don't call it that - they just think they're playing a game with their friends.
Edit: because I can't type
Not PvE, just not free for all PvP.
Very few games can strike that balance where there is enough content both for hardcore and casual PvPers and also for those that don't want PvP at all. Eve made it, you can go on ffa pvp rampage every day or prosper in safe systems, and you will enjoy the game whatever kind of pvp (or no pvp) you like.
It comes from over 7 years of tweaking and it isn't perfect yet. I can't see another game just come up and appeal to everyone. It needs months or years of careful balance tweaking.
You wont pull 50 percent with this generation of gamers. Those who grew up with sandbox have families to attend to and rl jobs to grind. While they might be able to pick up the game for a couple hours here and there, they wont be your target audience.
A sandbox game will need to updated, and the elephant in the room is free looting. FFA pvp is something I feel players can adapt to, but full on free looting is a dinosaur from the distant past and it needs to go if you want to pull in those numbers.
Nearly every person I've talked to in games, forums and rl have always mentioned the free looting as their biggest concern and reason not to dive into that ruleset.
Think of a way to make pvp rewarding without a grind or loot, and you may be on your way to a revolution.
Can you link to the stats or research that show there is that level of interest in an online sandbox experience?
50% of the market is a large share, and you make that claim with no exception and complete certainly, so I was curious about your source of data. Note: Your ass is not a reliable source.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
THANK YOU
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre