Sandbox core is about cultivating and maintaining a stable community and economy.
Thempark core is about offering activities and accessability.
Both over varying layers of functionality/gameplay on top of this. End game may or may not be relevant. A lot of confusion comes from the comparison of the layers. And based on this adding extra stuff to either type of game does not change its format as long as the core is maintained. re OP.
I really don't agree, because I think even a Themepark can cultivate a thriving community or economy. I think it simply boils down to a sandbox offers you tools to manipulate the world and/or build on to the world. Themeparks usually don't offer such a thing.
He didn't say that you can't do that in themepark-based MMOs. He simply said that it is a core focus of sandbox-based MMOs.
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
Meh. This whole 'my favorite themepark MMO has all the features that sandbox MMO's have' is kind of a silly argument.
Nice argument for baiting though
Although it also maybe shows a lack of experience/knowledge of MMO's and gameplay in them, or maybe a refusal to acknowledge different types of MMO's and gameplay styles.
Because looking at this thread and others like it, all the arguments that pointed towards the differences have been mentioned. If people still can't acknowledge the differences between games like UO, SWG and EVE and games like WoW or Rift, then it's obviously because people don't want to see the differences, or lack experience with all those MMO's.
You can't differeniate between the two on features alone, it's philosophy that separates them. A sandbox like SWG basically had themepark features, they even called some of them themeparks, (IE: Rebel bases, Imperial bases, Jabba's palace etc...). Most of the features people use to call EVE a sandbox are not sandbox features they're space sim features.
The philosophy of a Themepark MMO is accessability, easy to find goals etc.. The philosophy of a sandbox is to let players build on-to what the devs have created, and call a piece of it their own. It's really this simple a separation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sandbox core is about cultivating and maintaining a stable community and economy.
Thempark core is about offering activities and accessability.
Both over varying layers of functionality/gameplay on top of this. End game may or may not be relevant. A lot of confusion comes from the comparison of the layers. And based on this adding extra stuff to either type of game does not change its format as long as the core is maintained. re OP.
I really don't agree, because I think even a Themepark can cultivate a thriving community or economy. I think it simply boils down to a sandbox offers you tools to manipulate the world and/or build on to the world. Themeparks usually don't offer such a thing.
He didn't say that you can't do that in themepark-based MMOs. He simply said that it is a core focus of sandbox-based MMOs.
again thats not true. Because this rule doesnt apply to Second Life, which is the most Sandbox of them all.
Also most Themepark MMO have group contents that requires community to work together. and I still havnt seen a Themepark MMORPG without a Economy
I know EvE has slowly been growing for the past few years, but has any "sandbox" approached the number of players SWG had? Wasn't it over 500k?
That game did not have FFA pvp that "sandbox" people say is needed. FFA with looting drives people away. That's great, you don't care if people don't like it, yet wonder why these "sandboxes" have such little population.
Personally, the only true sandbox I know of is Second Life. You create whatever you want. And not create the same exact breastplate of +1, or the same house that the next person makes.
The other "sandboxes" are just empty, barren themeparks with a little bit of sandbox with "spongebob shovels, buckets, and pales" so you can create the "spongebob weapon".
You have classless systems for these games. Yet, people will make the same basic "specs". They raise certain skills First and highest, because they are the best. Sure, you have different specs that fit different situations. IE A heavy ranged fighter, a more tankish ship, a back lines magic/healer. That is SOOOOO different then how people use talent trees and follow the same talents with a few variations, Right? The illusion of freedom and choice is quite rampant in these Sandbox themeparks.
I know a big thing people claim is so great for sandboxes themeparks is the community. And while I agree whole-heartedly that every sandbox I've played has a great community, I think there is a fairly obvious reason for that.
As a whole, they have small communities. The players in the game want the game to succeed so much. They want other players to enjoy the game. They blindly ignore any criticism, warrented or not, of their game, and defend it to the death. Even if the game is terrible to most people, they won't leave it. So many like minded individuals helps the community come together.
I quite loved SWG when it first came out. I didn't really get into eve because of how long, boring, and spreadsheetish it looked. I didn't feel like spended months and months to be able to do anything. I'm sure if I knew more people playing, I would have enjoyed it more. But I had fun while I played, for the most part, yet not enough to stick with it.
If they could create a sandbox with actually content in addition to allowing a lot of freedom, that'd be perfect. But that doesn't sound like that is about to happen any time soon.
Sandbox core is about cultivating and maintaining a stable community and economy.
Thempark core is about offering activities and accessability.
Both over varying layers of functionality/gameplay on top of this. End game may or may not be relevant. A lot of confusion comes from the comparison of the layers. And based on this adding extra stuff to either type of game does not change its format as long as the core is maintained. re OP.
I really don't agree, because I think even a Themepark can cultivate a thriving community or economy. I think it simply boils down to a sandbox offers you tools to manipulate the world and/or build on to the world. Themeparks usually don't offer such a thing.
He didn't say that you can't do that in themepark-based MMOs. He simply said that it is a core focus of sandbox-based MMOs.
again thats not true. Because this rule doesnt apply to Second Life, which is the most Sandbox of them all.
You claim that it is false, so I would ask that you back up your claim with links to what you are basing your argument on. Now, I wouldn't ask that of you if I wasn't willing to do the same.
"Second Life is an online virtual world developed by Linden Lab which was launched on June 23, 2003. A number of free client programs called Viewers[1][2] enable Second Life users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore the world (known as the grid), meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another." - Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life
If you click "What is Second Life?" on their site, it takes you to a video description. Here are the first four lines:
Both the Wikipedia entry and the Second Life site itself describe almsot exclusively interaction and trade as the core features of Second Life.
Could you provide links to what you are basing your stance on?
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
Meh. This whole 'my favorite themepark MMO has all the features that sandbox MMO's have' is kind of a silly argument.
Nice argument for baiting though
Although it also maybe shows a lack of experience/knowledge of MMO's and gameplay in them, or maybe a refusal to acknowledge different types of MMO's and gameplay styles.
Because looking at this thread and others like it, all the arguments that pointed towards the differences have been mentioned. If people still can't acknowledge the differences between games like UO, SWG and EVE and games like WoW or Rift, then it's obviously because people don't want to see the differences, or lack experience with all those MMO's.
You can't differeniate between the two on features alone, it's philosophy that separates them. A sandbox like SWG basically had themepark features, they even called some of them themeparks, (IE: Rebel bases, Imperial bases, Jabba's palace etc...). Most of the features people use to call EVE a sandbox are not sandbox features they're space sim features.
The philosophy of a Themepark MMO is accessability, easy to find goals etc.. The philosophy of a sandbox is to let players build on-to what the devs have created, and call a piece of it their own. It's really this simple a separation.
Of course it's design philosophy that makes the difference. However, that exposes other issues, namely pre-WoW MMO's like for example EQ had a philosophy that was nowhere near the accessibility and ease of gameplay in a guided experience that's often associated with themepark MMO's. However, EQ is also not a sandbox MMO like UO was.
Another more recent example would be AA, which I see as being a clear example of a hybrid themepark/sandbox MMORPG.
Originally posted by MMOExposed
again thats not true. Because this rule doesnt apply to Second Life, which is the most Sandbox of them all.
Second Life is sandbox but isn't an MMORPG.
True MMORPG's like UO and SWG and such come closer to Second Life-style of gameplay than MMORPG's like WoW.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Second Life isn't an MMORPG. A game has set rules and limits on players, and makes a challenege with those rules. Second Life is a group of gods that have no limits and can do anything they please.
Second Life isn't an MMORPG. A game has set rules and limits on players, and makes a challenege with those rules. Second Life is a group of gods that have no limits and can do anything they please.
Sounds like the ops team in the last IRC channel I visited.
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
Of course it's design philosophy that makes the difference. However, that exposes other issues, namely pre-WoW MMO's like for example EQ had a philosophy that was nowhere near the accessibility and ease of gameplay in a guided experience that's often associated with themepark MMO's. However, EQ is also not a sandbox MMO like UO was.
Another more recent example would be AA, which I see as being a clear example of a hybrid themepark/sandbox MMORPG.
This is what I was basically being a smart ass about in the last thread. As you're right design philosophy can change. EQ is based on very different principles than the themeparks of today. Just as AA seems to be aiming for a combination of SB and TP style mechanics and philosophy. In the future I doubt there will be much difference between the two as games will borrow from each philosophy and attempt to make original products.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I would generally agree with that as well. The availability of tools that allow for player created content (despit what we discussed that particular thread) does make a game more sandboxy.
The question comes down to specifics. What tools does a game like Eve offer for player created content that, wow doesn't. And don't say housing because that is a given and I allready admit that it is needed and WoW doesn't have it. What besides housing though?
Venge
edit - don't bother mentioning skills either as I allready agree to that. What I want is are there other things besides skills and housing? What more does Eve do that you can't do in WoW?
It allows players to control and actually improve areas of space in 0.0. This gives players a reason to hold territory, defend it against all others, and actively strive to take other peoples space from them in order to control the better resources that their territory may possess. (stations, ore, npc's, moon mines etc).
This results in player forming vast alliances with a political complexity rivaling the real world, with spying, invasions, desperate home defenses and of course, the random gank as you roam through space.
WOW has nothing like this, not even close, and all of this is made possible by the tools CCP provides in EVE.
Edit: In fact, I'd say that if anything really sets most sandboxes apart from themeparks is the ability to control territory, though DAOC was a themepark that managed to emulate this somewhat by encouraging players to take Castles in order to gain control of Darkness falls which was the premier resource source at the time.
But it does. There are areas with towers of keeps you can control (Eastern plaguelands) and I'm told in Lich King expansion (I've never actually played this) there are more player controlled areas like this.
In a PVP realm in Wow there is nothing stopping a guild or players from controlling one particular zone and fighting to keep it (south shore anyway - a major gankfest of just horde killing alliance).
No WoW cannot improve (I allready talked about building) those areas but they can keep them.
The spying, invasions, defense, that can all be done in WoW. It normally isn't but it can be.
And if control territory is what sets them apart what apart all the so-called sandboxes that don't allow that - Istaria for one.
Venge
edit - since those can be done in WoW but the population chooses not to most of the time, does this mean that a major difference between sandbox and themepark is simply choice?
edit - aside from what bladstrom and I allready decided.
The difference is in WoW the Developers decided which areas players can control. In EVE the players decide. Also In WoW the Developers chose the factions for the players. In EVE this is also left totally up to the players. In WoW the players controlled areas are on a timer... once the timer resets the areas are up for grabs again. In EVE a Corp can hold an area for years if they are strong enough. In WoW if you don't want to be a part of the area control system you can wander through without any concern. In EVE if you go into a another Corp's space you better have a damn good reason for being there.
The territory control system in EVE is nothing like what is in WoW.
Second Life isn't an MMORPG. A game has set rules and limits on players, and makes a challenege with those rules. Second Life is a group of gods that have no limits and can do anything they please.
that's a great assessment of second life.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think that to truly call something a sandbox MMO you need to pay attention to some of the following:
Player-based Economy. The fewer things left to NPCs, generally speaking (very generally; good design is key here) the better.
Heavy emphasis on crafting. It's not enough for player-made items to be merely relevant, they need to be central to the game's progression.
No levels combined with scalable content. Levels are those nasty little buggers that like to sneak up on you and pigeon-hole you into content categories.
No classes. Classes are nearly as insidious as levels. When you have classes, you require all manner of class-specific content, quests, gear, etc. Having a sandbox with classes is like having an open field neatly divided by big, immobile fences into much smaller, less open fields.
Finally, you need to give at least *some* thought to player-made content. Whether this takes the form of player housing, player-run areas, etc (again, here be dragons - design, design, design is the mantra for the developers of such content).
Sandbox core is about cultivating and maintaining a stable community and economy.
Thempark core is about offering activities and accessability.
Both over varying layers of functionality/gameplay on top of this. End game may or may not be relevant. A lot of confusion comes from the comparison of the layers. And based on this adding extra stuff to either type of game does not change its format as long as the core is maintained. re OP.
I really don't agree, because I think even a Themepark can cultivate a thriving community or economy. I think it simply boils down to a sandbox offers you tools to manipulate the world and/or build on to the world. Themeparks usually don't offer such a thing.
He didn't say that you can't do that in themepark-based MMOs. He simply said that it is a core focus of sandbox-based MMOs.
again thats not true. Because this rule doesnt apply to Second Life, which is the most Sandbox of them all.
Also most Themepark MMO have group contents that requires community to work together. and I still havnt seen a Themepark MMORPG without a Economy
You original arguement was 'add lots of stuff to an sandbox and it becomes a thempark' I assert that the core of the game is well the core of the game. You can add all the layers you like but if the foundations of the game is concerned with CULTIVATING community then it satisfies some of the core principles that sandbox players want, which is different from the typical themepark player who wants content. Adding lots of tools and widgets to support the community is not the same, simply put, more layers.
'Also most Themepark MMO have group contents that requires community to work together. and I still havnt seen a Themepark MMORPG without a Economy'
is a layer, read the posts.
Your new arguement that Second life is sandbox has got nothing to do with your original theory that adding content to a sandbox to turns it into a themepark.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Both have their goodies. Sandbox could have things such as what you see is what you get, like f.ex. taming an animal that you see before you. And themeparks have fun collaboration pve-wise where there are instances you can get stuff from.
What sandbox need to learn is more pve satisfaction (maybe not instances, but something that shines) and themeparks more what you see is what you get imo.
What sandbox need to learn is more pve satisfaction (maybe not instances, but something that shines) and themeparks more what you see is what you get imo.
I would agree with this, I would love to see a sandbox game ala eve in a fantasy setting, but with good quality questlines (less but higher quality long lines/lore) and instances. The instances should never ever give top end gear or it will mutate into an endgame cycle. Thats why I like the reviews of archage so far, seems to be aiming in this direction, but I am watching the loot from instance discussion closely, but I think the J Song is aware of the issues so I am hopeful.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Destructable terrain, terraforming capabilityies, leveling (land), open skill classesss system is what a sandbox should be. PKing with a law system attached to it would be nice too so everyone just doesn't kill anyone for no reason.
when I started eve, coming from wow everyone told me to do the tutorials. I did one tutorial and decided "I dont want to quest. I can quest in wow. here I want to do my own thing".
so I stopped doing tutorials. dumb idea...but I really really wanted to do my own thing.
I dont oppose to sandboxes having quests, but I'd like them not to be mandatory. in eve, aside for pvp, sometimes I feel like mining for a week straight, other times like ratting, other times just fly around probing...in WoW I never feel like going on mining expeditions for a week. I dont know why.
totally agree, I think questing should be there purely to add depth and storyline and lore and is optional. It should offer no more xp than other avenues such as grinding, crafting etc.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I want to give my opinion on the sandbox vs themepark debate. First lets look at the major western attempts at both.
For themeparks we have,
EQ 1/2
WOW
AOC
WAR
LOTOR
Rift
For sandboxes we have
UO
SWG
EVE
AC
DAOC is somewhere in the middle IMO. As I can't really call it a Themepark, maybe it's something else, it wasn't really a quest hub game?
Maybe I'm missing one or two from either sub-genre, but I think I named off the games with the most recognition.
Now looking at this list, there really isn't a huge number difference between the options that have been available over the years. Not as much as people seem to imply. If anything in recent years counting western indie attempts, there may even be more Sandbox games in the west.
My point with this is, have themeparks run their course? Maybe, at least for a lot of people. However, that doesn't mean the sandbox genre is any more fresh. If anything IMO it's even older and staler, as people like myself had already grown tired of the typcial sandbox design before the Themepark phase took over.
Those who complain about the themepark stagnation seem to only have one alternative, make more sandboxes. The problem with that is; sandboxes may have already run their course as well. What would feel fresh about stepping into a new sandbox? Not much IMO, as I've been there and done that too. I"ve actually spent far more time with the SB sub-genre.
I'm just tired of hearing sandboxes used as the cure-all and end-all of the genre. As they had their chance, and even they had a hard time retaining mass customers over the long haul. It's not like forums were any less hostile towards games back then as they are now.
The answer to cure this stagantion is all new ideas, which as you can guess are hard to come up with. Hybrids are one way to go. However, with that, what elements do you use to add somethiing new into the genre, what would feel new? At this point I really don't have that answer. You also have to keep in mind change things too much and you lose the genre as a whole.
In closing and TLDR, Sandboxes and themeparks are both old ideals, neither is fresh, the genre would be just as stale even if every game that released in the last few years was a sandbox.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Bazharkhan No levels combined with scalable content. Levels are those nasty little buggers that like to sneak up on you and pigeon-hole you into content categories. No classes. Classes are nearly as insidious as levels. When you have classes, you require all manner of class-specific content, quests, gear, etc. Having a sandbox with classes is like having an open field neatly divided by big, immobile fences into much smaller, less open fields.
I don´t disagree with you.
I just wanted to mention that IMO these 2 points are some of the core elements of RPG, I only miss item progression. If I think this further, than this would mean...well...
You make a good point Herodes, and I would love to see levels and classes done well enough to prevent pigeon-holing. I just haven't yet seen enough of it to convince me. Can you think of a way that skill-based progression could work for you and still be enough of an RPG? Give me a blade, a bow, and a spell or two for the dreary wilderness, and I will be a happy gamer.
No one has actually mentioned that indie themepark mmos fail harder than indie sandbox mmos. Look at Alganon f.ex.. Last time I saw there was only 23 players playing it.
Badly made MMO of either Genre will fail, well made well supported MMO of either Genre will succeed.
Themeparks will attract more players but Sandboxes will keep players for a LOT longer.
Anecdotal generalisations that are only true in my opinion .
agree with all points above.
Re the next gen of mmorgs we have 2 choices:
1 A themepark with more themeparky content.
2 A Sandbox with themepark content on top, i.e core community focus but with lots of pve/pvp content layered on top.
For me personally when I think about what I want in a mmorg, I understand that what I am looking for is that virtual world where I can immerse myself utterly in a new world, which is why sandbox appeals. Re Option 1, you can see the dead end this represents, but also how it will attract the next generation of casual players. I like to see it as following:
Start playing mmorgs ------------experienced-----------------------------------played for years
Themepark or sandbox-----------themepark or sandbox---------------------tired of themepark/older
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I prefer Sandbox to themepark to a high extent. More freedom makes it interesting. Yet, MMO space is so empty of creativity right now that I welcome any good MMORPG.
Comments
He didn't say that you can't do that in themepark-based MMOs. He simply said that it is a core focus of sandbox-based MMOs.
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
You can't differeniate between the two on features alone, it's philosophy that separates them. A sandbox like SWG basically had themepark features, they even called some of them themeparks, (IE: Rebel bases, Imperial bases, Jabba's palace etc...). Most of the features people use to call EVE a sandbox are not sandbox features they're space sim features.
The philosophy of a Themepark MMO is accessability, easy to find goals etc.. The philosophy of a sandbox is to let players build on-to what the devs have created, and call a piece of it their own. It's really this simple a separation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
again thats not true. Because this rule doesnt apply to Second Life, which is the most Sandbox of them all.
Also most Themepark MMO have group contents that requires community to work together. and I still havnt seen a Themepark MMORPG without a Economy
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I know EvE has slowly been growing for the past few years, but has any "sandbox" approached the number of players SWG had? Wasn't it over 500k?
That game did not have FFA pvp that "sandbox" people say is needed. FFA with looting drives people away. That's great, you don't care if people don't like it, yet wonder why these "sandboxes" have such little population.
Personally, the only true sandbox I know of is Second Life. You create whatever you want. And not create the same exact breastplate of +1, or the same house that the next person makes.
The other "sandboxes" are just empty, barren themeparks with a little bit of sandbox with "spongebob shovels, buckets, and pales" so you can create the "spongebob weapon".
You have classless systems for these games. Yet, people will make the same basic "specs". They raise certain skills First and highest, because they are the best. Sure, you have different specs that fit different situations. IE A heavy ranged fighter, a more tankish ship, a back lines magic/healer. That is SOOOOO different then how people use talent trees and follow the same talents with a few variations, Right? The illusion of freedom and choice is quite rampant in these Sandbox themeparks.
I know a big thing people claim is so great for sandboxes themeparks is the community. And while I agree whole-heartedly that every sandbox I've played has a great community, I think there is a fairly obvious reason for that.
As a whole, they have small communities. The players in the game want the game to succeed so much. They want other players to enjoy the game. They blindly ignore any criticism, warrented or not, of their game, and defend it to the death. Even if the game is terrible to most people, they won't leave it. So many like minded individuals helps the community come together.
I quite loved SWG when it first came out. I didn't really get into eve because of how long, boring, and spreadsheetish it looked. I didn't feel like spended months and months to be able to do anything. I'm sure if I knew more people playing, I would have enjoyed it more. But I had fun while I played, for the most part, yet not enough to stick with it.
If they could create a sandbox with actually content in addition to allowing a lot of freedom, that'd be perfect. But that doesn't sound like that is about to happen any time soon.
You claim that it is false, so I would ask that you back up your claim with links to what you are basing your argument on. Now, I wouldn't ask that of you if I wasn't willing to do the same.
"Second Life is an online virtual world developed by Linden Lab which was launched on June 23, 2003. A number of free client programs called Viewers[1][2] enable Second Life users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore the world (known as the grid), meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another." - Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life
If you click "What is Second Life?" on their site, it takes you to a video description. Here are the first four lines:
"A place to connect
a place to shop
A place to work
A place to love"
Source: http://secondlife.com/whatis/?lang=en-US
Both the Wikipedia entry and the Second Life site itself describe almsot exclusively interaction and trade as the core features of Second Life.
Could you provide links to what you are basing your stance on?
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
Of course it's design philosophy that makes the difference. However, that exposes other issues, namely pre-WoW MMO's like for example EQ had a philosophy that was nowhere near the accessibility and ease of gameplay in a guided experience that's often associated with themepark MMO's. However, EQ is also not a sandbox MMO like UO was.
Another more recent example would be AA, which I see as being a clear example of a hybrid themepark/sandbox MMORPG.
Second Life is sandbox but isn't an MMORPG.
True MMORPG's like UO and SWG and such come closer to Second Life-style of gameplay than MMORPG's like WoW.
Draw your own conclusions.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Second Life isn't an MMORPG. A game has set rules and limits on players, and makes a challenege with those rules. Second Life is a group of gods that have no limits and can do anything they please.
Sounds like the ops team in the last IRC channel I visited.
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
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The difference is in WoW the Developers decided which areas players can control. In EVE the players decide. Also In WoW the Developers chose the factions for the players. In EVE this is also left totally up to the players. In WoW the players controlled areas are on a timer... once the timer resets the areas are up for grabs again. In EVE a Corp can hold an area for years if they are strong enough. In WoW if you don't want to be a part of the area control system you can wander through without any concern. In EVE if you go into a another Corp's space you better have a damn good reason for being there.
The territory control system in EVE is nothing like what is in WoW.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Yes that is a difference too.
Venge
that's a great assessment of second life.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think that to truly call something a sandbox MMO you need to pay attention to some of the following:
Player-based Economy. The fewer things left to NPCs, generally speaking (very generally; good design is key here) the better.
Heavy emphasis on crafting. It's not enough for player-made items to be merely relevant, they need to be central to the game's progression.
No levels combined with scalable content. Levels are those nasty little buggers that like to sneak up on you and pigeon-hole you into content categories.
No classes. Classes are nearly as insidious as levels. When you have classes, you require all manner of class-specific content, quests, gear, etc. Having a sandbox with classes is like having an open field neatly divided by big, immobile fences into much smaller, less open fields.
Finally, you need to give at least *some* thought to player-made content. Whether this takes the form of player housing, player-run areas, etc (again, here be dragons - design, design, design is the mantra for the developers of such content).
Just my two cents.
Greystaff Legends RPG
You original arguement was 'add lots of stuff to an sandbox and it becomes a thempark' I assert that the core of the game is well the core of the game. You can add all the layers you like but if the foundations of the game is concerned with CULTIVATING community then it satisfies some of the core principles that sandbox players want, which is different from the typical themepark player who wants content. Adding lots of tools and widgets to support the community is not the same, simply put, more layers.
'Also most Themepark MMO have group contents that requires community to work together. and I still havnt seen a Themepark MMORPG without a Economy'
is a layer, read the posts.
Your new arguement that Second life is sandbox has got nothing to do with your original theory that adding content to a sandbox to turns it into a themepark.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Both have their goodies. Sandbox could have things such as what you see is what you get, like f.ex. taming an animal that you see before you. And themeparks have fun collaboration pve-wise where there are instances you can get stuff from.
What sandbox need to learn is more pve satisfaction (maybe not instances, but something that shines) and themeparks more what you see is what you get imo.
I would agree with this, I would love to see a sandbox game ala eve in a fantasy setting, but with good quality questlines (less but higher quality long lines/lore) and instances. The instances should never ever give top end gear or it will mutate into an endgame cycle. Thats why I like the reviews of archage so far, seems to be aiming in this direction, but I am watching the loot from instance discussion closely, but I think the J Song is aware of the issues so I am hopeful.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Destructable terrain, terraforming capabilityies, leveling (land), open skill classesss system is what a sandbox should be. PKing with a law system attached to it would be nice too so everyone just doesn't kill anyone for no reason.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
totally agree, I think questing should be there purely to add depth and storyline and lore and is optional. It should offer no more xp than other avenues such as grinding, crafting etc.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I want to give my opinion on the sandbox vs themepark debate. First lets look at the major western attempts at both.
For themeparks we have,
EQ 1/2
WOW
AOC
WAR
LOTOR
Rift
For sandboxes we have
UO
SWG
EVE
AC
DAOC is somewhere in the middle IMO. As I can't really call it a Themepark, maybe it's something else, it wasn't really a quest hub game?
Maybe I'm missing one or two from either sub-genre, but I think I named off the games with the most recognition.
Now looking at this list, there really isn't a huge number difference between the options that have been available over the years. Not as much as people seem to imply. If anything in recent years counting western indie attempts, there may even be more Sandbox games in the west.
My point with this is, have themeparks run their course? Maybe, at least for a lot of people. However, that doesn't mean the sandbox genre is any more fresh. If anything IMO it's even older and staler, as people like myself had already grown tired of the typcial sandbox design before the Themepark phase took over.
Those who complain about the themepark stagnation seem to only have one alternative, make more sandboxes. The problem with that is; sandboxes may have already run their course as well. What would feel fresh about stepping into a new sandbox? Not much IMO, as I've been there and done that too. I"ve actually spent far more time with the SB sub-genre.
I'm just tired of hearing sandboxes used as the cure-all and end-all of the genre. As they had their chance, and even they had a hard time retaining mass customers over the long haul. It's not like forums were any less hostile towards games back then as they are now.
The answer to cure this stagantion is all new ideas, which as you can guess are hard to come up with. Hybrids are one way to go. However, with that, what elements do you use to add somethiing new into the genre, what would feel new? At this point I really don't have that answer. You also have to keep in mind change things too much and you lose the genre as a whole.
In closing and TLDR, Sandboxes and themeparks are both old ideals, neither is fresh, the genre would be just as stale even if every game that released in the last few years was a sandbox.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I just wanted to mention that IMO these 2 points are some of the core elements of RPG, I only miss item progression.
If I think this further, than this would mean...well...
the less RPG, the more sandbox.
You make a good point Herodes, and I would love to see levels and classes done well enough to prevent pigeon-holing. I just haven't yet seen enough of it to convince me. Can you think of a way that skill-based progression could work for you and still be enough of an RPG? Give me a blade, a bow, and a spell or two for the dreary wilderness, and I will be a happy gamer.
Greystaff Legends RPG
No one has actually mentioned that indie themepark mmos fail harder than indie sandbox mmos. Look at Alganon f.ex.. Last time I saw there was only 23 players playing it.
Badly made MMO of either Genre will fail, well made well supported MMO of either Genre will succeed.
Themeparks will attract more players but Sandboxes will keep players for a LOT longer.
Anecdotal generalisations that are only true in my opinion .
agree with all points above.
Re the next gen of mmorgs we have 2 choices:
1 A themepark with more themeparky content.
2 A Sandbox with themepark content on top, i.e core community focus but with lots of pve/pvp content layered on top.
For me personally when I think about what I want in a mmorg, I understand that what I am looking for is that virtual world where I can immerse myself utterly in a new world, which is why sandbox appeals. Re Option 1, you can see the dead end this represents, but also how it will attract the next generation of casual players. I like to see it as following:
Start playing mmorgs ------------experienced-----------------------------------played for years
Themepark or sandbox-----------themepark or sandbox---------------------tired of themepark/older
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I prefer Sandbox to themepark to a high extent. More freedom makes it interesting. Yet, MMO space is so empty of creativity right now that I welcome any good MMORPG.
TOP MMORPG GAMES