Sadly, I think it has all become academic. Economically, the companies that make MMORPGS have all been moving more along the continuum towards making theme park games and will continue to do so. The reasons:
- the veteran player gaming population, the kind that played D&D and liked RP, is getting older and has less time to play
- the younger gaming population is more impatient and end-result oriented; they want it and want it now as well
- together, these two trends in the gaming population dominate the market
- theme parks are perfect for generating cheap and quick content to feed the maw of gamers wanting a quick fix
- economic pressures/greed make companies take the road less traveled, just like Hollywood movie making
- the road less travelled means not risking investment on open-ended worlds/sandbox games that appeal to smaller market
I mourn this for the simple reason that this means we may never see the full potential of technologies to make virtual game worlds.
The only ray of sun is the demonstrative appeal of quality single player RPG games like Skyrim. The single player platform games will continue to raise the bar on virtual worlds and the MMORPGS will probably feel some of this gravitational pull.
One thought on FFA PVP and sandbox worlds. I am a PVPer and enjoy PVP. I have defended open world FFA PVP many times and even argued that RP needed PVP to be real RP. However, with time I have shifted to the realization this is just not possible. The anonymity of the Internet unleashes too many idiots and the cost in aggravation to other players and to the companies to police the idiots behavior is a negative bar to creation of open world free-choice based games. I think FFA PVP has to be a sacrifice on the altar if you want to ever deploy sandbox worlds. At least until someone actually dreams up player justice systems that work.
Sadly, I think it has all become academic. Economically, the companies that make MMORPGS have all been moving more along the continuum towards making theme park games and will continue to do so. The reasons:
- the veteran player gaming population, the kind that played D&D and liked RP, is getting older and has less time to play
- the younger gaming population is more impatient and end-result oriented; they want it and want it now as well
- together, these two trends in the gaming population dominate the market
- theme parks are perfect for generating cheap and quick content to feed the maw of gamers wanting a quick fix
- economic pressures/greed make companies take the road less traveled, just like Hollywood movie making
- the road less travelled means not risking investment on open-ended worlds/sandbox games that appeal to smaller market
I mourn this for the simple reason that this means we may never see the full potential of technologies to make virtual game worlds.
The only ray of sun is the demonstrative appeal of quality single player RPG games like Skyrim. The single player platform games will continue to raise the bar on virtual worlds and the MMORPGS will probably feel some of this gravitational pull.
One thought on FFA PVP and sandbox worlds. I am a PVPer and enjoy PVP. I have defended open world FFA PVP many times and even argued that RP needed PVP to be real RP. However, with time I have shifted to the realization this is just not possible. The anonymity of the Internet unleashes too many idiots and the cost in aggravation to other players and to the companies to police the idiots behavior is a negative bar to creation of open world free-choice based games. I think FFA PVP has to be a sacrifice on the altar if you want to ever deploy sandbox worlds. At least until someone actually dreams up player justice systems that work.
This is sort of a review of SWTOR that I wrote up and posted on the SWTOR general forums, but I think it fits in nicely with the Sandbox vs Themepark discussion.
Let me start off by saying that I do like SWTOR (at least more than any of the other new MMORPGs out there); and I plan on playing it for awhile. I'd give the game a 8.7 out of 10.
So what do I mean by a theme park? I mean game developers, like Bioware and Blizzard, are less interested in crafting virtual worlds and more interested in creating an experience where players can log on, press a button that automatically groups them up with strangers that they'll probably never talk to again, which then teleports them to some destination (a dungeon, battleground, etc.). Granted, the dungeon finder system hasn't found its way to SWTOR yet, but I'm betting it will eventually (and at least part of the community is asking for it). Further, questing in these theme parks constitutes mindlessly following quest indicators followed by reward collection, followed by using quick travel. Rinse and repeat until you're level capped. To make matters worse, when you die in these theme parks, practically nothing happens. In SWTOR, you lose a bit of durability and are given the option to respawn right where you died!
Before I move on, I'll just list some of the ways that the MMORPG genre has improved in an effort to appear less negative: better graphics, better sound, better UIs, smoother controls, less downtime, and less skill/group role overlap between classes. And in the case of SWTOR, voiced dialogue and conversation options.
That being said, I can't believe how far the MMORPG genre has fallen since Everquest (EQ).
---
The thing that bothers me the most about the newer MMORPGs like SWTOR is the abuse of quick travel, quest indicators, instancing, and matchmaking (dungeon fingers, battlegrounds, etc.), as well as the lenient penalties for dying.
Instancing: Back during the golden age of MMORPGs, there was no such thing as "running dungeons," at least not in the way that MMORPG players do now. Running a dungeon in, Everquest for instance, meant running to a dungeon that was actually part of the static world (noninstanced), and then traversing the dungeon--exploring the dungeon--with a group. And while this went on, you'd more than likely run into other adventurers, who may or may not interact with your group in a negative or positive way. I think this is way more interesting than your group being cut off from the rest of the server population and in-game world by being teleported inside an instance of a dungeon. It's almost as though you and your group had fallen asleep and the dungeon is just a dream.
Instancing is especially a problem in SWTOR because of the way the world was constructed. It almost feels like you're on a train or rollercoaster. There are too many invisible barriers and areas that exist to prevent players from leaving a linear predetermined path. The instancing just adds to the claustrophobic and dead (you don't run across enough players) feeling.
Death penalty: Maybe my view on this subject is skewed from playing too much Diablo II Hardcore and Everquest, but I've always liked a good meaty death penalty. Otherwise, what's the point? Playing a MMORPG with a lenient death penalty is like playing a NES game with Game Genie. Some people may like that (I know my brother enjoyed cheating in NES games), but I don't. Good death penalties make rewards and progression all the sweeter. I'm not saying newer MMORPGs like SWTOR should adopt a permanent death system or anything that crazy, but I do think the penalty for dying should sting a little more than mere durability loss. SWTOR is out already, so I don't expect Bioware to change the penalty for dying. But they could create servers with alternate rule sets. Just a thought.
Quick travel: There's nothing wrong with quick travel per se. But there needs to be some restraint. Too much quick travel makes the world feel small and meaningless. Meaningless in that it is treated as merely an obstacle to your next quest rather than a journey. Personally, I'd like to go back to how EQ did things: having to run or ride to your destination! But I'm probably in the minority in this respect--so I'll just say I don't think players should have the option of teleporting to any discovered hub on their local map every 30 minutes. An easy fix for this would be to just increase the cool down for quick travel (the fleet pass is fine).
Quest indicators: Like the quick travel system, I think this is being abused. It's to the point where 90% of the time you don't even have to read (or listen to) quest text. All you need to do is bring up your map and follow the giant pulsating dots and circles (KILL 5 MONKEYS). I think this sort of thing contributes to the mindlessness of current MMORPGs.
Match making: By match making I mean any button that you can press that will automatically group you up with other players, and then teleport you to some destination. I see this as contra to some of the things that MMORPGs are supposed to be about; namely, community and adventuring. Fortunately, Bioware has decided to leave dungeon finder out of the game, for now. Unfortunately, I think it will inevitably make its way into the game in the future.
---
I anticipate a tsunami of WoW fanboys and MMORPGs noobs that will try to set me straight by propagating the lie that WoW is popular because it has a lenient death penalty, dungeon finder, instanced dungeons, and quest indicators. That's wrong.
WoW didn't have any of the above when it was first released save for a lenient death penalty and instanced dungeons. The rest came later.
The reason why WoW is popular is because:
1. It was developed by a popular company.
2. WoW is based on a popular universe.
3. WoW was released during a time when EQ was in its decline, when people were fed up with SOE's antics.
4. Good controls and UI.
WoW is really just a dumbed down version of EQ with better graphics, UI, and controls.
Almost all game(i'm sure there are some I have not seen or heard of) out and being played right now are theme park games. All of the sandbox games i have ever followed failed miserably.
Such as: Shadowbane, Vanguard, Darkfall I'm sure ther eare many more.
Its sad really because they had solid ideas but jsut did not delivery enough to make them work.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart and the simple fact is no MMO produced in the past 10 years has done anything unique, extraordinary, innovative. They are all the same except for new, shinier graphics but the basic simple primitive mechanics have not changed and will not change until we the money spenders stop buying crap.
There is only one game I know of that I found truly interesting and it had features like:
1) territory ownership
2) super complex player driven economy.
3) Totally skill based development.
4) complex geopolitical social system
5) highly complex trad skill system
6) complex guild structure and control system
7) complex nation alliance system
8) complex territory control and management system
9) quality endgame player crafted gear
10) best of all there were not character lvls.
11) open world pvp only( no BS instanced canned pvp in arenas and BGs)
This game was designed for the hard core gamer the ones who could form communities, motivate its members and work together as a whole more than individuals. I was never able to find a group of people like this and playing the game solo just didn't work for me and the death penalty was to harsh when playing alone.
If the game I am thinking of( can you gues it) was to ever make the jump to a traditional style mmo it would blow everyone away with its amazing qualities.
AMD Phenum II x4 3.6Ghz 975 black edition 8 gig Ram Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
was just wondering do you think fans of sandbox type games have higher expectations or too high expectations from a game? it seems to me that there is a big enough market for a well made sandbox game but there doesnt seem to be one currently. i dont think it would be as big as WoW or SWTOR necessarily but should be big enough to be profitable. when you read these forums i see so many looking for a good sandbox. are they just a vocal minority?
Sadly, I think it has all become academic. Economically, the companies that make MMORPGS have all been moving more along the continuum towards making theme park games and will continue to do so. The reasons:
- the veteran player gaming population, the kind that played D&D and liked RP, is getting older and has less time to play
- the younger gaming population is more impatient and end-result oriented; they want it and want it now as well
- together, these two trends in the gaming population dominate the market
- theme parks are perfect for generating cheap and quick content to feed the maw of gamers wanting a quick fix
- economic pressures/greed make companies take the road less traveled, just like Hollywood movie making
- the road less travelled means not risking investment on open-ended worlds/sandbox games that appeal to smaller market
I mourn this for the simple reason that this means we may never see the full potential of technologies to make virtual game worlds.
The only ray of sun is the demonstrative appeal of quality single player RPG games like Skyrim. The single player platform games will continue to raise the bar on virtual worlds and the MMORPGS will probably feel some of this gravitational pull.
One thought on FFA PVP and sandbox worlds. I am a PVPer and enjoy PVP. I have defended open world FFA PVP many times and even argued that RP needed PVP to be real RP. However, with time I have shifted to the realization this is just not possible. The anonymity of the Internet unleashes too many idiots and the cost in aggravation to other players and to the companies to police the idiots behavior is a negative bar to creation of open world free-choice based games. I think FFA PVP has to be a sacrifice on the altar if you want to ever deploy sandbox worlds. At least until someone actually dreams up player justice systems that work.
My two cents.
older...OLDER ...sonnie just cause I was playing D&D(original) before you wus a sparckle in your daddies eye does not make me OLD even if i do resemble that remark.
AMD Phenum II x4 3.6Ghz 975 black edition 8 gig Ram Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
Sadly, I think it has all become academic. Economically, the companies that make MMORPGS have all been moving more along the continuum towards making theme park games and will continue to do so. The reasons:
- the veteran player gaming population, the kind that played D&D and liked RP, is getting older and has less time to play
- the younger gaming population is more impatient and end-result oriented; they want it and want it now as well
- together, these two trends in the gaming population dominate the market
- theme parks are perfect for generating cheap and quick content to feed the maw of gamers wanting a quick fix
- economic pressures/greed make companies take the road less traveled, just like Hollywood movie making
- the road less travelled means not risking investment on open-ended worlds/sandbox games that appeal to smaller market
I mourn this for the simple reason that this means we may never see the full potential of technologies to make virtual game worlds.
The only ray of sun is the demonstrative appeal of quality single player RPG games like Skyrim. The single player platform games will continue to raise the bar on virtual worlds and the MMORPGS will probably feel some of this gravitational pull.
One thought on FFA PVP and sandbox worlds. I am a PVPer and enjoy PVP. I have defended open world FFA PVP many times and even argued that RP needed PVP to be real RP. However, with time I have shifted to the realization this is just not possible. The anonymity of the Internet unleashes too many idiots and the cost in aggravation to other players and to the companies to police the idiots behavior is a negative bar to creation of open world free-choice based games. I think FFA PVP has to be a sacrifice on the altar if you want to ever deploy sandbox worlds. At least until someone actually dreams up player justice systems that work.
My two cents.
FFAPVP does not have to be a sacrifice in all honesty. When I played WoW I took the identity of a player savior, and I would guard outposts and areas so players could level in peace. I wouldn't kill unless I had to for the safety of my people, and in the end it added for a satisfying experience. Not everyone is evil, there is always a population of do gooders. There just neeeds to be a game that allows for such a thing, and if not a guardsmen.. Maybe a bounty hunter? Why can't players make bounty requests on gankers, or why can't quests on gankers become autogenerated? It would add a sort of circle of life to MMOs, and it would make them in to more of a living breathing experience again.
I anticipate a tsunami of WoW fanboys and MMORPGs noobs that will try to set me straight by propagating the lie that WoW is popular because it has a lenient death penalty, dungeon finder, instanced dungeons, and quest indicators. That's wrong.
WoW didn't have any of the above when it was first released save for a lenient death penalty and instanced dungeons. The rest came later.
The reason why WoW is popular is because:
1. It was developed by a popular company.
2. WoW is based on a popular universe.
3. WoW was released during a time when EQ was in its decline, when people were fed up with SOE's antics.
4. Good controls and UI.
WoW is really just a dumbed down version of EQ with better graphics, UI, and controls.
The real reason why wow went as good as it did isn't because of all these reason it is because the game was released 2 year after Warcraft 3 and the battle.net community support ... If you remember before Battle.net was that muddy black screen you used to play diablo 1 and it kind of sucked. With the implementation of battle.net and WC3 they pretty much laid the groundwork toward a stable community that would jump on WoW without even looking...
Taking for example star wars i am quite sure if they had released some kind of mini game be it a space shooter or a single player game based upon the entry of the storyline (3000 year before the movies) it would've taken a bigger grasp on people.
Sandbox is just a much more fun time for me. Exploration on open worlds and player content is just fun and brings the community together. Notice most theme park games at end game just go stagnate. Only thing many do is raids, warzones, and dailies. Compared to a sandbox where you have untapped areas to have fun and just do what you want to make it more fun.
Theme parks games feel like im being led around like a dog on a leash.
Sandbox games ive never had the pleasure of standing around waiting for new content to be added.
Everyone likes their own thing, mine is a good sandbox, good crafting, good community, player housing for decoration, exploration, and so much more i just dont feel im getting from theme park games.
Hybrids though would be fun, huge open worlds with all the things i like but the story line you get from themeparks.
So what is the definition of a Sandbox and a Theme Park game?
Can you give me games that fit those categories too Please.
sandbox is more open, player content, real world stuff in a game, not tied down to one area or thing to do.
themepark is your more single player console style game, limited exploration, but good story line. Just more limited than a sandbox.
There is more to both but that should be good enough to understand.
Google has a good write up on both. Some like on, or the other, and sometimes both Hybrids are mixing the two, do believe they are colled sandparks here.
There is no comparison, really, for any serious gamer. Any game that a 1st or 2nd grader could jump right into without problems isn't the kind of game I (or the community of gamers with which I associate) have any interest in. To us, they are simply "mouthbreather" games.
If you want to see what players can do with a sandbox, check out these videos:
This simply could not be done in a theme park game like WoW.
And I'm not advocating any specific game, either (I currently don't play a MMOG because I'm utterly disenfranchised and disappointed with the horrible, horrible selection). But, the flexibility and virtually limitless resources provided by the game in those videos is much more attractive than the relentless and stupifying "content" provided by 99.9% of the current MMOG market.
So what is the definition of a Sandbox and a Theme Park game?
Can you give me games that fit those categories too Please.
A sandbox game will never have classes that straight jacket your avatar in a particular development path. So if you see a game has classes it is a themepark game. A sandbox game is usually skill based, where you select the skills you want. They usually don't have character levels, but can if it is still skill based.
A sandbox game will usually have the economy rely on the crafters. Usually the best stuff is made by crafters, not loot drops. You kill a bear and it won't drop a sword of awsomeness. Now you can kill a boss creature to get a rare item the crafters can turn into something unique.
So what is the definition of a Sandbox and a Theme Park game?
Can you give me games that fit those categories too Please.
A sandbox game will never have classes that straight jacket your avatar in a particular development path. So if you see a game has classes it is a themepark game. A sandbox game is usually skill based, where you select the skills you want. They usually don't have character levels, but can if it is still skill based.
A sandbox game will usually have the economy rely on the crafters. Usually the best stuff is made by crafters, not loot drops. You kill a bear and it won't drop a sword of awsomeness. Now you can kill a boss creature to get a rare item the crafters can turn into something unique.
A sandbox game can have classes. Sandbox and themepark is strictly due to the level of freedom an individual is offered and the impact they can make on the world.
Istaria is one of the better sandboxes out there - economy, detailed crafting, housing/city building, things that need to be build/done that impact the world... and it has classes. Yes you can learn mutliple classes but they are still classes.
As opposed to Ryzom which doesn't have classes and for some reason is considered a sandbox despite nearly no economy, only a few styles of armor (you can have multiple and unique stats though), no way to impact the world at all, and every magic style and fighting style work exactly the same way as every other magic and fighting style and crafting is all digging in the dirt. Not very sandboxy IMO.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No you are wrong. A sandbox game cannot have classes. Classes immediately take away choice which a sandbox game needs to be called a sandbox.
Obviously you don't understand what a sandbox is, it is freedom of choice to chose how your avatar develops. Classes immediately restrict such choice.
I personally have never seen a game with classes that is essentially a sandbox. Istaria is NOT a sandbox game although it does have elements of such with it's crafting. It fails the test because it has classes which restrict your avatar.
No you are wrong. A sandbox game cannot have classes. Classes immediately take away choice which a sandbox game needs to be called a sandbox. Obviously you don't understand what a sandbox is, it is freedom of choice to chose how your avatar develops. Classes immediately restrict such choice. I personally have never seen a game with classes that is essentially a sandbox. Istaria is NOT a sandbox game although it does have elements of such with it's crafting. It fails the test because it has classes which restrict your avatar.
I think you can have classes to begin with, so long as the skills you can acquire are not limited, eg start as a fighter and then learn scouting skills or start as a scout and learn fighting skills etc
No you are wrong. A sandbox game cannot have classes. Classes immediately take away choice which a sandbox game needs to be called a sandbox.
Obviously you don't understand what a sandbox is, it is freedom of choice to chose how your avatar develops. Classes immediately restrict such choice.
I personally have never seen a game with classes that is essentially a sandbox. Istaria is NOT a sandbox game although it does have elements of such with it's crafting. It fails the test because it has classes which restrict your avatar.
I think you can have classes to begin with, so long as the skills you can acquire are not limited, eg start as a fighter and then learn scouting skills or start as a scout and learn fighting skills etc
Refminor is righ tand Ozmodan is wrong. You can have classes however you still need freedom of choice which is exactly what Istaria does. It has classes however you can drop learn any class and the skills/abilities of them (many things anyway) stay with you.
So again having classes does not necessarily limit your choice, and therefore do not limit your freedom and so aare not the definiing feature of sandbox and themepark. The definiting features are freedom and impact. If the way the class system is set up limits your freedom it is not or is less of a sandbox, if it does not than it can still be a sandbox.
Istaria is most definately a sandbox. You can learn every skill in the game, every fighting, magic, and craft. It has a more indepth crafting system than probably every game on the market and it is one of the few games out there that actually lets the things you craft have an actual lasting impact on the world. No doubt it is a sandbox. The classes do not restrict your avatar as you can learn everything and so design your character any way you want. Want to be a paladin with mage abilties, and monk dexterity - no problem.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
you can not compare "themepark" and "sandbox" mmos
its total different ballpark
not to mention its even total different ballgame...
in themepark mmos there is generally 3 archetypes of class choice which are DPS/HEAL/Tank in certain cases there can be hybrids..
sandbox gives you freedom from level and class like Ultima Online or pre-cu SWG, where you can mix skills instead of choosing a class...
total different ballgame...
players who are casual and who don't have much time for gaming always goes for "themepark" mmos where they can sit in their major cities and use tools like battleground/warzone/warfront or they can LFG for dungeons etc..
players who are hardcore gamers generally sick of themepark and waiting for the next UO where who plays more gets more cookies..
you can not compare "themepark" and "sandbox" mmos
its total different ballpark
not to mention its even total different ballgame...
in themepark mmos there is generally 3 archetypes of class choice which are DPS/HEAL/Tank in certain cases there can be hybrids..
sandbox gives you freedom from level and class like Ultima Online or pre-cu SWG, where you can mix skills instead of choosing a class...
total different ballgame...
players who are casual and who don't have much time for gaming always goes for "themepark" mmos where they can sit in their major cities and use tools like battleground/warzone/warfront or they can LFG for dungeons etc..
players who are hardcore gamers generally sick of themepark and waiting for the next UO where who plays more gets more cookies..
Are you totally sure that a sandbox cannot have classes and lvls? old SWG had classes. Are you sure you can't have a sandbox with the trinity? Or vice-versa is it possible to have a themepark without lvls and classes?
I'm not sure the definition of sandbox has been set this firmly yet.
What I've also noticed in sandboxes, is that although people don't HAVE to choose a class, they often build a badass tank, healer or dps, and judging from your logo, you might as well.
No you are wrong. A sandbox game cannot have classes. Classes immediately take away choice which a sandbox game needs to be called a sandbox.
Obviously you don't understand what a sandbox is, it is freedom of choice to chose how your avatar develops. Classes immediately restrict such choice.
I personally have never seen a game with classes that is essentially a sandbox. Istaria is NOT a sandbox game although it does have elements of such with it's crafting. It fails the test because it has classes which restrict your avatar.
I think you can have classes to begin with, so long as the skills you can acquire are not limited, eg start as a fighter and then learn scouting skills or start as a scout and learn fighting skills etc
Refminor is righ tand Ozmodan is wrong. You can have classes however you still need freedom of choice which is exactly what Istaria does. It has classes however you can drop learn any class and the skills/abilities of them (many things anyway) stay with you.
So again having classes does not necessarily limit your choice, and therefore do not limit your freedom and so aare not the definiing feature of sandbox and themepark. The definiting features are freedom and impact. If the way the class system is set up limits your freedom it is not or is less of a sandbox, if it does not than it can still be a sandbox.
Istaria is most definately a sandbox. You can learn every skill in the game, every fighting, magic, and craft. It has a more indepth crafting system than probably every game on the market and it is one of the few games out there that actually lets the things you craft have an actual lasting impact on the world. No doubt it is a sandbox. The classes do not restrict your avatar as you can learn everything and so design your character any way you want. Want to be a paladin with mage abilties, and monk dexterity - no problem.
What you are talking about in Istaria is not really classes. I would have to say, it is a suggested skill design that the developers assigned a name to for starting players. I was wrong about Istaria, it is a sandbox. My apologies.
I will refine my rule, you cannot have classes that restrict character development. You are probably correct, any sandbox game would be foolish to not have at least initial class design because so many of today's players would be lost without it, as long as it did not restrict you from learning other skillsets.
Istaria is rather a bad example, it was a game with great potential that due to a bad development staff, never went anywhere.
No you are wrong. A sandbox game cannot have classes. Classes immediately take away choice which a sandbox game needs to be called a sandbox.
Obviously you don't understand what a sandbox is, it is freedom of choice to chose how your avatar develops. Classes immediately restrict such choice.
I personally have never seen a game with classes that is essentially a sandbox. Istaria is NOT a sandbox game although it does have elements of such with it's crafting. It fails the test because it has classes which restrict your avatar.
I think you can have classes to begin with, so long as the skills you can acquire are not limited, eg start as a fighter and then learn scouting skills or start as a scout and learn fighting skills etc
Refminor is righ tand Ozmodan is wrong. You can have classes however you still need freedom of choice which is exactly what Istaria does. It has classes however you can drop learn any class and the skills/abilities of them (many things anyway) stay with you.
So again having classes does not necessarily limit your choice, and therefore do not limit your freedom and so aare not the definiing feature of sandbox and themepark. The definiting features are freedom and impact. If the way the class system is set up limits your freedom it is not or is less of a sandbox, if it does not than it can still be a sandbox.
Istaria is most definately a sandbox. You can learn every skill in the game, every fighting, magic, and craft. It has a more indepth crafting system than probably every game on the market and it is one of the few games out there that actually lets the things you craft have an actual lasting impact on the world. No doubt it is a sandbox. The classes do not restrict your avatar as you can learn everything and so design your character any way you want. Want to be a paladin with mage abilties, and monk dexterity - no problem.
What you are talking about in Istaria is not really classes. I would have to say, it is a suggested skill design that the developers assigned a name to for starting players. I was wrong about Istaria, it is a sandbox. My apologies.
I will refine my rule, you cannot have classes that restrict character development. You are probably correct, any sandbox game would be foolish to not have at least initial class design because so many of today's players would be lost without it, as long as it did not restrict you from learning other skillsets.
Istaria is rather a bad example, it was a game with great potential that due to a bad development staff, never went anywhere.
So old SWG was a themepark because there were classes?
What makes you so sure the definition of sandbox is set that firmly? Where did you find this definition and what makes it more valid than any of the other definitions out there?
you can not compare "themepark" and "sandbox" mmos
its total different ballpark
not to mention its even total different ballgame...
in themepark mmos there is generally 3 archetypes of class choice which are DPS/HEAL/Tank in certain cases there can be hybrids..
sandbox gives you freedom from level and class like Ultima Online or pre-cu SWG, where you can mix skills instead of choosing a class...
total different ballgame...
players who are casual and who don't have much time for gaming always goes for "themepark" mmos where they can sit in their major cities and use tools like battleground/warzone/warfront or they can LFG for dungeons etc..
players who are hardcore gamers generally sick of themepark and waiting for the next UO where who plays more gets more cookies..
Are you totally sure that a sandbox cannot have classes and lvls? old SWG had classes. Are you sure you can't have a sandbox with the trinity? Or vice-versa is it possible to have a themepark without lvls and classes?
I'm not sure the definition of sandbox has been set this firmly yet.
What I've also noticed in sandboxes, is that although people don't HAVE to choose a class, they often build a badass tank, healer or dps, and judging from your logo, you might as well.
Old swg had "Skills" not classes
you had 250 skill points and you basically were able to grind skills.. there was around 34 skills... For example, marksmanship, teras kasi artist, scout, merchant, entertainer, dancer, bounty hunter, commando etc..
You can't have themepark without levels and classes bro.. because if you don't have level and classes than you give players the freedom of mixing skills.. there can be sandbox mmo with themepark mmo features like Tera Online.. But you can't have themepark with sandbox features.. i am 95% sure..
whole point of themepark is there is no freedom in game.. whole point of sandbox is there are no boundries.. i think
Comments
Sadly, I think it has all become academic. Economically, the companies that make MMORPGS have all been moving more along the continuum towards making theme park games and will continue to do so. The reasons:
- the veteran player gaming population, the kind that played D&D and liked RP, is getting older and has less time to play
- the younger gaming population is more impatient and end-result oriented; they want it and want it now as well
- together, these two trends in the gaming population dominate the market
- theme parks are perfect for generating cheap and quick content to feed the maw of gamers wanting a quick fix
- economic pressures/greed make companies take the road less traveled, just like Hollywood movie making
- the road less travelled means not risking investment on open-ended worlds/sandbox games that appeal to smaller market
I mourn this for the simple reason that this means we may never see the full potential of technologies to make virtual game worlds.
The only ray of sun is the demonstrative appeal of quality single player RPG games like Skyrim. The single player platform games will continue to raise the bar on virtual worlds and the MMORPGS will probably feel some of this gravitational pull.
One thought on FFA PVP and sandbox worlds. I am a PVPer and enjoy PVP. I have defended open world FFA PVP many times and even argued that RP needed PVP to be real RP. However, with time I have shifted to the realization this is just not possible. The anonymity of the Internet unleashes too many idiots and the cost in aggravation to other players and to the companies to police the idiots behavior is a negative bar to creation of open world free-choice based games. I think FFA PVP has to be a sacrifice on the altar if you want to ever deploy sandbox worlds. At least until someone actually dreams up player justice systems that work.
My two cents.
I totally agree about ffa pvp.
People: The reason we can't have nice things.
This is sort of a review of SWTOR that I wrote up and posted on the SWTOR general forums, but I think it fits in nicely with the Sandbox vs Themepark discussion.
Let me start off by saying that I do like SWTOR (at least more than any of the other new MMORPGs out there); and I plan on playing it for awhile. I'd give the game a 8.7 out of 10.
So what do I mean by a theme park? I mean game developers, like Bioware and Blizzard, are less interested in crafting virtual worlds and more interested in creating an experience where players can log on, press a button that automatically groups them up with strangers that they'll probably never talk to again, which then teleports them to some destination (a dungeon, battleground, etc.). Granted, the dungeon finder system hasn't found its way to SWTOR yet, but I'm betting it will eventually (and at least part of the community is asking for it). Further, questing in these theme parks constitutes mindlessly following quest indicators followed by reward collection, followed by using quick travel. Rinse and repeat until you're level capped. To make matters worse, when you die in these theme parks, practically nothing happens. In SWTOR, you lose a bit of durability and are given the option to respawn right where you died!
Before I move on, I'll just list some of the ways that the MMORPG genre has improved in an effort to appear less negative: better graphics, better sound, better UIs, smoother controls, less downtime, and less skill/group role overlap between classes. And in the case of SWTOR, voiced dialogue and conversation options.
That being said, I can't believe how far the MMORPG genre has fallen since Everquest (EQ).
---
The thing that bothers me the most about the newer MMORPGs like SWTOR is the abuse of quick travel, quest indicators, instancing, and matchmaking (dungeon fingers, battlegrounds, etc.), as well as the lenient penalties for dying.
Instancing: Back during the golden age of MMORPGs, there was no such thing as "running dungeons," at least not in the way that MMORPG players do now. Running a dungeon in, Everquest for instance, meant running to a dungeon that was actually part of the static world (noninstanced), and then traversing the dungeon--exploring the dungeon--with a group. And while this went on, you'd more than likely run into other adventurers, who may or may not interact with your group in a negative or positive way. I think this is way more interesting than your group being cut off from the rest of the server population and in-game world by being teleported inside an instance of a dungeon. It's almost as though you and your group had fallen asleep and the dungeon is just a dream.
Instancing is especially a problem in SWTOR because of the way the world was constructed. It almost feels like you're on a train or rollercoaster. There are too many invisible barriers and areas that exist to prevent players from leaving a linear predetermined path. The instancing just adds to the claustrophobic and dead (you don't run across enough players) feeling.
Death penalty: Maybe my view on this subject is skewed from playing too much Diablo II Hardcore and Everquest, but I've always liked a good meaty death penalty. Otherwise, what's the point? Playing a MMORPG with a lenient death penalty is like playing a NES game with Game Genie. Some people may like that (I know my brother enjoyed cheating in NES games), but I don't. Good death penalties make rewards and progression all the sweeter. I'm not saying newer MMORPGs like SWTOR should adopt a permanent death system or anything that crazy, but I do think the penalty for dying should sting a little more than mere durability loss. SWTOR is out already, so I don't expect Bioware to change the penalty for dying. But they could create servers with alternate rule sets. Just a thought.
Quick travel: There's nothing wrong with quick travel per se. But there needs to be some restraint. Too much quick travel makes the world feel small and meaningless. Meaningless in that it is treated as merely an obstacle to your next quest rather than a journey. Personally, I'd like to go back to how EQ did things: having to run or ride to your destination! But I'm probably in the minority in this respect--so I'll just say I don't think players should have the option of teleporting to any discovered hub on their local map every 30 minutes. An easy fix for this would be to just increase the cool down for quick travel (the fleet pass is fine).
Quest indicators: Like the quick travel system, I think this is being abused. It's to the point where 90% of the time you don't even have to read (or listen to) quest text. All you need to do is bring up your map and follow the giant pulsating dots and circles (KILL 5 MONKEYS). I think this sort of thing contributes to the mindlessness of current MMORPGs.
Match making: By match making I mean any button that you can press that will automatically group you up with other players, and then teleport you to some destination. I see this as contra to some of the things that MMORPGs are supposed to be about; namely, community and adventuring. Fortunately, Bioware has decided to leave dungeon finder out of the game, for now. Unfortunately, I think it will inevitably make its way into the game in the future.
---
I anticipate a tsunami of WoW fanboys and MMORPGs noobs that will try to set me straight by propagating the lie that WoW is popular because it has a lenient death penalty, dungeon finder, instanced dungeons, and quest indicators. That's wrong.
WoW didn't have any of the above when it was first released save for a lenient death penalty and instanced dungeons. The rest came later.
The reason why WoW is popular is because:
1. It was developed by a popular company.
2. WoW is based on a popular universe.
3. WoW was released during a time when EQ was in its decline, when people were fed up with SOE's antics.
4. Good controls and UI.
WoW is really just a dumbed down version of EQ with better graphics, UI, and controls.
Almost all game(i'm sure there are some I have not seen or heard of) out and being played right now are theme park games. All of the sandbox games i have ever followed failed miserably.
Such as: Shadowbane, Vanguard, Darkfall I'm sure ther eare many more.
Its sad really because they had solid ideas but jsut did not delivery enough to make them work.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart and the simple fact is no MMO produced in the past 10 years has done anything unique, extraordinary, innovative. They are all the same except for new, shinier graphics but the basic simple primitive mechanics have not changed and will not change until we the money spenders stop buying crap.
There is only one game I know of that I found truly interesting and it had features like:
1) territory ownership
2) super complex player driven economy.
3) Totally skill based development.
4) complex geopolitical social system
5) highly complex trad skill system
6) complex guild structure and control system
7) complex nation alliance system
8) complex territory control and management system
9) quality endgame player crafted gear
10) best of all there were not character lvls.
11) open world pvp only( no BS instanced canned pvp in arenas and BGs)
This game was designed for the hard core gamer the ones who could form communities, motivate its members and work together as a whole more than individuals. I was never able to find a group of people like this and playing the game solo just didn't work for me and the death penalty was to harsh when playing alone.
If the game I am thinking of( can you gues it) was to ever make the jump to a traditional style mmo it would blow everyone away with its amazing qualities.
AMD Phenum II x4 3.6Ghz 975 black edition
8 gig Ram
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
was just wondering do you think fans of sandbox type games have higher expectations or too high expectations from a game? it seems to me that there is a big enough market for a well made sandbox game but there doesnt seem to be one currently. i dont think it would be as big as WoW or SWTOR necessarily but should be big enough to be profitable. when you read these forums i see so many looking for a good sandbox. are they just a vocal minority?
older...OLDER ...sonnie just cause I was playing D&D(original) before you wus a sparckle in your daddies eye does not make me OLD even if i do resemble that remark.
AMD Phenum II x4 3.6Ghz 975 black edition
8 gig Ram
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
FFAPVP does not have to be a sacrifice in all honesty. When I played WoW I took the identity of a player savior, and I would guard outposts and areas so players could level in peace. I wouldn't kill unless I had to for the safety of my people, and in the end it added for a satisfying experience. Not everyone is evil, there is always a population of do gooders. There just neeeds to be a game that allows for such a thing, and if not a guardsmen.. Maybe a bounty hunter? Why can't players make bounty requests on gankers, or why can't quests on gankers become autogenerated? It would add a sort of circle of life to MMOs, and it would make them in to more of a living breathing experience again.
The real reason why wow went as good as it did isn't because of all these reason it is because the game was released 2 year after Warcraft 3 and the battle.net community support ... If you remember before Battle.net was that muddy black screen you used to play diablo 1 and it kind of sucked. With the implementation of battle.net and WC3 they pretty much laid the groundwork toward a stable community that would jump on WoW without even looking...
Taking for example star wars i am quite sure if they had released some kind of mini game be it a space shooter or a single player game based upon the entry of the storyline (3000 year before the movies) it would've taken a bigger grasp on people.
"you used to play diablo 1 and it kind of sucked"
BUUUURN THE HERETIC!!!!1!!1!!11!1!eleven
Sandbox is just a much more fun time for me. Exploration on open worlds and player content is just fun and brings the community together. Notice most theme park games at end game just go stagnate. Only thing many do is raids, warzones, and dailies. Compared to a sandbox where you have untapped areas to have fun and just do what you want to make it more fun.
Theme parks games feel like im being led around like a dog on a leash.
Sandbox games ive never had the pleasure of standing around waiting for new content to be added.
Everyone likes their own thing, mine is a good sandbox, good crafting, good community, player housing for decoration, exploration, and so much more i just dont feel im getting from theme park games.
Hybrids though would be fun, huge open worlds with all the things i like but the story line you get from themeparks.
Noob question:
So what is the definition of a Sandbox and a Theme Park game?
Can you give me games that fit those categories too Please.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
sandbox is more open, player content, real world stuff in a game, not tied down to one area or thing to do.
themepark is your more single player console style game, limited exploration, but good story line. Just more limited than a sandbox.
There is more to both but that should be good enough to understand.
Google has a good write up on both. Some like on, or the other, and sometimes both
Hybrids are mixing the two, do believe they are colled sandparks here.
I prefer sandboxes but recently no big dev had the balls to make one
So the only hope for a sandbox is archeage
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
there are a couple coming soon. But it all depends if they stick to their guns or turn it into another wow clone.
The repopulation is said to be like SWG and should be out this year
And i agree archeage looks so nice, it better stay true lol
And i think one more but forgot the name.
We have a chance for a sandbox soon, i hope.
Sandbox > Theme Park
End of story.
There is no comparison, really, for any serious gamer. Any game that a 1st or 2nd grader could jump right into without problems isn't the kind of game I (or the community of gamers with which I associate) have any interest in. To us, they are simply "mouthbreather" games.
If you want to see what players can do with a sandbox, check out these videos:
The Lost Brotherhood: Episode I
The Lost Brotherhood: Episode II
This simply could not be done in a theme park game like WoW.
And I'm not advocating any specific game, either (I currently don't play a MMOG because I'm utterly disenfranchised and disappointed with the horrible, horrible selection). But, the flexibility and virtually limitless resources provided by the game in those videos is much more attractive than the relentless and stupifying "content" provided by 99.9% of the current MMOG market.
A sandbox game will never have classes that straight jacket your avatar in a particular development path. So if you see a game has classes it is a themepark game. A sandbox game is usually skill based, where you select the skills you want. They usually don't have character levels, but can if it is still skill based.
A sandbox game will usually have the economy rely on the crafters. Usually the best stuff is made by crafters, not loot drops. You kill a bear and it won't drop a sword of awsomeness. Now you can kill a boss creature to get a rare item the crafters can turn into something unique.
A sandbox game can have classes. Sandbox and themepark is strictly due to the level of freedom an individual is offered and the impact they can make on the world.
Istaria is one of the better sandboxes out there - economy, detailed crafting, housing/city building, things that need to be build/done that impact the world... and it has classes. Yes you can learn mutliple classes but they are still classes.
As opposed to Ryzom which doesn't have classes and for some reason is considered a sandbox despite nearly no economy, only a few styles of armor (you can have multiple and unique stats though), no way to impact the world at all, and every magic style and fighting style work exactly the same way as every other magic and fighting style and crafting is all digging in the dirt. Not very sandboxy IMO.
No you are wrong. A sandbox game cannot have classes. Classes immediately take away choice which a sandbox game needs to be called a sandbox.
Obviously you don't understand what a sandbox is, it is freedom of choice to chose how your avatar develops. Classes immediately restrict such choice.
I personally have never seen a game with classes that is essentially a sandbox. Istaria is NOT a sandbox game although it does have elements of such with it's crafting. It fails the test because it has classes which restrict your avatar.
I think you can have classes to begin with, so long as the skills you can acquire are not limited, eg start as a fighter and then learn scouting skills or start as a scout and learn fighting skills etcRefminor is righ tand Ozmodan is wrong. You can have classes however you still need freedom of choice which is exactly what Istaria does. It has classes however you can drop learn any class and the skills/abilities of them (many things anyway) stay with you.
So again having classes does not necessarily limit your choice, and therefore do not limit your freedom and so aare not the definiing feature of sandbox and themepark. The definiting features are freedom and impact. If the way the class system is set up limits your freedom it is not or is less of a sandbox, if it does not than it can still be a sandbox.
Istaria is most definately a sandbox. You can learn every skill in the game, every fighting, magic, and craft. It has a more indepth crafting system than probably every game on the market and it is one of the few games out there that actually lets the things you craft have an actual lasting impact on the world. No doubt it is a sandbox. The classes do not restrict your avatar as you can learn everything and so design your character any way you want. Want to be a paladin with mage abilties, and monk dexterity - no problem.
you can not compare "themepark" and "sandbox" mmos
its total different ballpark
not to mention its even total different ballgame...
in themepark mmos there is generally 3 archetypes of class choice which are DPS/HEAL/Tank in certain cases there can be hybrids..
sandbox gives you freedom from level and class like Ultima Online or pre-cu SWG, where you can mix skills instead of choosing a class...
total different ballgame...
players who are casual and who don't have much time for gaming always goes for "themepark" mmos where they can sit in their major cities and use tools like battleground/warzone/warfront or they can LFG for dungeons etc..
players who are hardcore gamers generally sick of themepark and waiting for the next UO where who plays more gets more cookies..
Are you totally sure that a sandbox cannot have classes and lvls? old SWG had classes. Are you sure you can't have a sandbox with the trinity? Or vice-versa is it possible to have a themepark without lvls and classes?
I'm not sure the definition of sandbox has been set this firmly yet.
What I've also noticed in sandboxes, is that although people don't HAVE to choose a class, they often build a badass tank, healer or dps, and judging from your logo, you might as well.
What you are talking about in Istaria is not really classes. I would have to say, it is a suggested skill design that the developers assigned a name to for starting players. I was wrong about Istaria, it is a sandbox. My apologies.
I will refine my rule, you cannot have classes that restrict character development. You are probably correct, any sandbox game would be foolish to not have at least initial class design because so many of today's players would be lost without it, as long as it did not restrict you from learning other skillsets.
Istaria is rather a bad example, it was a game with great potential that due to a bad development staff, never went anywhere.
So old SWG was a themepark because there were classes?
What makes you so sure the definition of sandbox is set that firmly? Where did you find this definition and what makes it more valid than any of the other definitions out there?
Old swg had "Skills" not classes
you had 250 skill points and you basically were able to grind skills.. there was around 34 skills... For example, marksmanship, teras kasi artist, scout, merchant, entertainer, dancer, bounty hunter, commando etc..
You can't have themepark without levels and classes bro.. because if you don't have level and classes than you give players the freedom of mixing skills.. there can be sandbox mmo with themepark mmo features like Tera Online.. But you can't have themepark with sandbox features.. i am 95% sure..
whole point of themepark is there is no freedom in game.. whole point of sandbox is there are no boundries.. i think