I agree with the sentiment and its not just Skyrim, its the last 3 elder scrlls game & the fallout 3 as well. People log alot of hours in those games & a big part of that is the replayability and unending nature of the games being in an open world.
That said Skyrim is far too easy and I think its easy because of the continued dumbing down we are seeing in all games. As such its not an example I would use readily as a good formula to replicate.
I just don't get where people are saying that Skyrim is a sandbox. It's not. It's pure themepark. It is full of quests. True, you don't have to do them in order, but there is a main storyline that you have to go through eventually. The hallmark of a sandbox is that there is *NOTHING* you have to do, *NO* story, *NO* quests, etc. You just run around in a world doing what you want to do.
Skyrim isn't that game. It's a great, fun game, I love playing it, but it's not a sandbox in any way, shape or form.
There hasnt been a true sandbox MMO in a long long time, however there are some good hybrids and I think Hybrid is actually slightly better than pure sandbox personally. I like some quests but big open worlds to explore and plenty of non quest things to do and see.
As far as single player goes Mount & Blade Warband is marketted as a big Sandbox and yet it has quests you can fullfill to advance your level & standing in the provinces. On the MMO side Fallen Earth is labelled as a sandbox too and yet it also has some quests but lets you do whatever you like really.
You are right in saying Skyrim is not a pure Sandbox but really those days are over, beyond the odd indie title here and there.
well lets see what both what skyrim offers and how it's gemeplay mechanics compare to the most used defnitions of sandbox and themepark MMOs
-first of all skyrim has aleveling system that uses skillpointsin order to improve your character, with the skillpoints being the main driving force behind the power of your character
-you can go almost everywhere regardless of level
-the game has a main quest for you to follow, each town you come into has a town quest and there are sidequest
-crafting consist of colecting materials and making the item in ashort animation
-your crafted items have no impact on the economy
-you selling stuff to a merchant has no effect on the ecenomy
-you are provided a house and can "decorate"it (aka make it not look like shit)
-there are no player made quest (and I don't count mods, here I am talking about stuff you can do with ingame tools)
-the quest and the decisions you make in them have almost no impact on the game world
now tell me, does this sound like the "build your castle, craft stuff, create a economy, influence the world and do politics" sandbox fans here want, or does it sound much more similar to a themepark? just one where you get to pick the rides in any order you want?
well lets see what both what skyrim offers and how it's gemeplay mechanics compare to the most used defnitions of sandbox and themepark MMOs
-first of all skyrim has aleveling system that uses skillpointsin order to improve your character, with the skillpoints being the main driving force behind the power of your character
-you can go almost everywhere regardless of level
-the game has a main quest for you to follow, each town you come into has a town quest and there are sidequest
-crafting consist of colecting materials and making the item in ashort animation
-your crafted items have no impact on the economy
-you selling stuff to a merchant has no effect on the ecenomy
-you are provided a house and can "decorate"it (aka make it not look like shit)
-there are no player made quest (and I don't count mods, here I am talking about stuff you can do with ingame tools)
-the quest and the decisions you make in them have almost no impact on the game world
now tell me, does this sound like the "build your castle, craft stuff, create a economy, influence the world and do politics" sandbox fans here want, or does it sound much more similar to a themepark? just one where you get to pick the rides in any order you want?
This.
Originally posted by TheCrow2k
I agree with the sentiment and its not just Skyrim, its the last 3 elder scrlls game & the fallout 3 as well. People log alot of hours in those games & a big part of that is the replayability and unending nature of the games being in an open world.
That said Skyrim is far too easy and I think its easy because of the continued dumbing down we are seeing in all games. As such its not an example I would use readily as a good formula to replicate.
rofl, how is it any easier than oblivion or morrowind? morrowind was incredibley easy, and it had boring combat.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
1.) I have to be honest, I don't consider Skyrim as a sandbox game--I consider it to be an open-ended and open-world game.
2.) I do agree both Minecraft and Skyrim rocks.
3.) I think that the pure concept of Sandbox will not work as an mmorpg because the idea behind a sandbox is that YOU are in control of it. If you add other people, it means every other person will have the same freedom as yours, but we all know that everybody having the same amount of freedom will not work properly work in an mmo. Sure, we can technically create a game that everyone has a freedom to do anything, but the anonymity and lack of proper behavior online will just destroy the game.
4.) I see a sandbox mmo[-lite] working like either of the following:
a. Add a set of rules. Just like in real life, we are free to do anything we want, but the presence of rules both natural (physics) and cultural/social (laws. traditions, and cultures) essentially controls the masses from killing, stealing, and raping each other.
b. Use the Minecraft/NWN style of multiplayer gameplay where people are free to set-up their own servers--the original makers of the server are still in a sandbox since they dictate the rules of the server, while players will get to choose their preferred servers upon the rules set by any given server.
On the other hand, I've had this mmo in my mind for a long time. What if it's a themepark in terms of gameplay, but then players are allowed also to create their own dungeons or worlds or etc.
I got this inspiration from both Inception (the 'maze' creation) and Bleach (the inside world of Ichigo). What if part of the game's story is a creation mechanic such as those featured in Inception and Bleach. Essentially the game is a themepark, but because of the story, players are allowed to create a dungeon/world/map that people can access by going inside their 'brains' or 'souls' or whatnot.
All it needs I guess is finding the proper way to implement your desired game mechanic.
Wrong. Minecraft and skyrim showed that sandbox games work. Not mmo sandbox. Have you even gone to a terraria/minecraft public server? Its a hellhole. The fact that theyre not mmos is exactly what makes their sandboxiness good. Minecraft woth friends = fun. With public server =crap most of the time.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
How do you make a minecraft style MMO without griefing or serious moderation? You and your guild finish building this great castle and you log in the next day to find out it's been replaced with a giant Ass.
I think a sandpark or sandbox/themepark hybrid MMO is actually the best way to go, an MMO that can combine both the best advantages and merits of themepark MMO's and of sandbox MMO's successfully, should have a bigger chance of mainstream success and healthy retention. So far, it looks like Arche Age is the first that goes into that direction.
The OP misses the point entirely while trying to say sandbox mmos have a larger audience. The reason why sandbox mmos almost never works is because of the players. There have been only 2 successful sandbox mmos (IMHO) and those are EVE and SWG back in its hayday. Those 2 have sandbox features, but also rules limiting the amount of freedom one person can have.
There are tons of sandbox mmos if you open your eyes, MO, darkfall, eve, dawntide, and others. The reason why most of these games fail (outside of coding and quality) is because there are many more variables while balancing gameplay between freedom and rulesets. SOme place no rules and discourages players, others dont balance the rules so the playerbase circumvents it or prevents others from enjoying their game.
The only sandbox (which i think eve online does splendidly) is balance all the above. Sure there might be a ship that may be over powered or the flavor of the month, but the playerbase is given chances to op out of said encounters. For example, in eve if say the dramial was overpowered, you could use your radar to scout your ships, cloaks, etc to avoid the contact if wanted. Miners dont want to get shot at while mining, they can stay in hi sec, or beef up their tank to withstand a suicide strike. They have numerous ways to counter this.
Most other sandboxes do not, if you get ganked say in MO while mining, you get ganked, period. There is no real evasion process. The variables just arent there. SciFi game like eve, where cloaking, radar use, etc work perfect in sandbox games....but how would you translate that to a realistic fantasy (yes i know its an oxymoron but deal with it :P )? Its a bit harder.
If you make a sandbox game that is noob friendly, has a degree of freedom, and rulesets to add a multitude of ways with dealing with a scenario which is not gamechanging or gives a person an advantage, you would have something....but the variables are much harder to predict when you add more and more freedom. If you are even missing 1 of the above, it becomes discouraging all those who are say casual or play within a certain playstyle, and then you start losing customers.
Also skyrim would be a horrible example....imagine if you killed one of the quest giver npcs. 1 jackass could ruin the entire game or questline for the entire playerbase. There are always a few people like those mentioned above. I would predict all quest givers or vital npcs would be dead within a week.
Hybrid mmos would be ideal....but than the point of the thread would be moot, as the op is obviously a die hard sandbox guy.
ANd dont get me wrong, my favorite games are eve and old swg, but i understand very well there is a limited market for sandboxes....you first off need a lot of patience But, i also love themeparks. I like games where the Devs have put in the effort and made a quality game, rather than sticking to the "omg themeparks suxorz". There are plenty of good games for people to enjoy.
Yah... Sandbox mmo would work if the community is good. But its not so multiplayer sandbox is the best option atm. Just give ppl the tools to make a large server if they want (1000ish clients?) and there problem solved
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Except the sandbox mmorpg market is a niche market. It's also a small market. Minecraft and Terraria have a very different feel from mmorpg and Skyrim is way different. The million+ people who would play Minecraft or Skyrim are not a million+ people who would play a sandbox mmorpg where the nine hours of work they put into building a skull mountain with smokestacks and lava eye sockets gets wasted because it gets destroyed or taken over by a random group of @sshats.
2 things.
1- The Sandbox market is not as small or niche as you assume. If you add up all the people that play Sandbox MMOs now (EvE, UO, DF, MO, WURM, Xsyon, Dawntide, Minecraft, SWG:Emu) and all the people interested in a Sandbox MMO, but play Themeparks, you would easily get 1-2+ Million. No its not WoW numbers, but it isnt small or niche either.
2- Why do people (and Developers) always assume Sandbox must include FFA PvP?
If a Sandbox MMO came out with Consensual PvP (Duels/Guildwars) you dont think it would do well?
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want. And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.
But take that to mmorpg. How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved. Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that).
exactly, in a MMO you have to adjust player-level to content to reach the same goal (freedom, resuability) like skyrim reached with adjusting mob-level to the one and only player. and then you have dynamic scaling content which covers the fact that the same mob-encounter (event) is attacked by just 1 player or by dozens of players.
we will see how that works. but at least they try to change some fundamental design patterns of todays MMOs. this alone is interesting enough, that i will try this game for sure.
btw, there are a lot of other differences between Skyrim and a standard theme-park, regardless if single-player or MMO, e.g. a pretty open skill system. but it is correct, that Skyrim is more of a sandpark than sandbox. Skyrim aka Elder Scrolls 5 is also less sanboxish than Morrowind aka Elder Scrolls 3. but its much less of a theme-park like Dragon Age 2 or Gothic 4 with rigid rails and skillsystem.
2- Why do people (and Developers) always assume Sandbox must include FFA PvP?
If a Sandbox MMO came out with Consensual PvP (Duels/Guildwars) you dont think it would do well?
i guess, EVE does it right. there is the huge Empire, where you can usually do your PVE-stuff without getting ganked, if you are not doing stupid things, like reacting to provcations or haulering goods worth billions without guards. however i can imagine a sandbox with huge safe-zones like the EVE Empire, where PvP is forbidden at all.
BUT, i am also convinced, that a good sandbox has to have huge free pvp-zones to enable territorial pvp, which is one of the most interesting tools. also a lot of PvE-players try PvP, if bored by missions. many PVE-Players just got a wrong imaginatipn, how good pvp could look like. if they find a guild assisting them, approachig pvp step by step, they will often enjoy it. if you have no huge safe biotop for PvE, you will not get enough recruits for your PvP guild. look at all these deserted pvp-ffa games like MO or DF. EVE made it right, trying to find a co-existance of pvp and pve in one world. there are other obstacles in EVE, but the approach to combine pve and pvp is fully correct, imho.
I always found it funny when people try to find the reason that sandbox MMORPGs aren't more popular. IMO, it's extremely obvious, and has very little to do with the "sandboxness" of current "unpopular" MMORPGs, and a lot to do with everything else about them. Just to prove my point here, let's look at the current stock of sandbox offerings:
UO: Still going, but it's old...like real old. Also, it had TONS of problems at both the design and implementation level even back when it was popular. It also was never really that polished.
Eve: Hey some people like this one, but let's be honest, it's only going to appeal to a very small amount of people. The gameplay in Eve is extremely dissimilar from most MMORPGs. It's more about flying around in a spaceship and mining or whatever to make money. And the combat feels like you're just watching your spaceship fight. Also, to be successful at Eve you really have to be good at spreadsheets. That fact alone, will turn a lot of people off.
SWG: Dead now, but I never thought it was a very good game even when it was around. I played the beta and got turned off by the empty worlds, extremely long travel times, and boring combat. I just can't stand it when a guy with a gun stands straight upright and gets shot at like he's fighting in the 18th century or something. It also got pretty poor reviews.
Darkfall: An indie game with tons of problems that almost never even saw the light of day. It's extremely grindy, hardcore by design, has a very clunky UI, and has a huge empty world without much in it. TBH, I'm amazed it's still doing as well as it is.
Mortal Online: Like Darkfall but much, much worse.
This list could go on...but you get the idea.
People don't like sandbox MMORPGs because the current offerings are either extremely niche or just plain bad. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are sandboxes.
There was never a big "showdown" between a AAA sandbox and a AAA themepark that decided the fate of the industry and showed that people actually prefer themeparks. In fact, if there was a big showdown it would have been between EQ2 and WoW, and they were both themeparks.
Sandbox gameplay does not equal FFA-PvP and full loot PvP.
The moment developers and gamers alike understand this very simple fact, the better off the industry will be.
Sandbox gameplay is about offering players choice and freedom. FFA-PvP and full loot PvP is no more player freedom than murdering and theft is considered freedom in reality. Rather, choice and freedom is about giving players the choice of how to develop there character and how to play the game. The freedom to set their own goals and go about playing the game their own way, whether it be through combat, crafting, exploring, or the more social aspects.
There is very much a market for sandbox MMOs, the problem is that most people can't seem to shake the perception that sandbox MMOs have to include PvP anarchy... rather this association needs to dissapear in order for sandbox MMOs to be successful.
The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want. And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.
But take that to mmorpg. How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved. Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that).
exactly, in a MMO you have to adjust player-level to content to reach the same goal (freedom, resuability) like skyrim reached with adjusting mob-level to the one and only player. and then you have dynamic scaling content which covers the fact that the same mob-encounter (event) is attacked by just 1 player or by dozens of players.
we will see how that works. but at least they try to change some fundamental design patterns of todays MMOs. this alone is interesting enough, that i will try this game for sure.
...
Level scaling presents a different problem though... which is that it makes progression feel pointless. Why bother grinding to max things out when whatever you fight scales along with you? That was Oblivion's problem. Skyrim's scaling is more deviation of level scaling rather than an absolute one for one scaling. Meaning that certain areas are always meant to be a bit easier, some always meant to be a bit harder, but certain areas still have a hard cap of how easier or how hard they could be modified to, which preserved a sense meaning to leveling in the game.
The answer in regards to MMOs is much more simple than you think though...
Make the power curve associated to leveling more linear.
It worked great in Ultima Online. Honestly I've not seen an MMO that's even come close to as well balanced as UO was. You didn't have to be maxed out skills to participate in fighting 'end game' mobs, but you did have to have a decent skill level. But it still preserved because being higher skill meant you could take on harder mobs, but not being maxed out didn't preclude you from participating in a group against said mobs, and also being higher skill than something also didn't mean you could plow through a mob of things without worry.
Themepark MMOs have a bad habit of using extreme power to level scaling. WoW is a good example of this, where being merely 5 levels above a certain area or dungeon effectively means you can plow through it, even dungeons that were meant for five people at appropriate level.
The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want. And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.
But take that to mmorpg. How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved. Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that).
exactly, in a MMO you have to adjust player-level to content to reach the same goal (freedom, resuability) like skyrim reached with adjusting mob-level to the one and only player. and then you have dynamic scaling content which covers the fact that the same mob-encounter (event) is attacked by just 1 player or by dozens of players.
we will see how that works. but at least they try to change some fundamental design patterns of todays MMOs. this alone is interesting enough, that i will try this game for sure.
...
Level scaling presents a different problem though... which is that it makes progression feel pointless.
in GW2 content scales just in a small range. so you must level up, in order to explore new content. however you may go with a high-level friend, which automatically scales you up for this group. the other way around, if a L80 player goes back to a L5 boss mob, he will scale down to something about L6-7. levels are indeed looking a bit meaningless. and after all, there is no endgame, everything can be used for endgame based on this scaling model. but thats fine for me, if it works correctly.
I am somewhat unsure why Guildwars bothered with leveling at all. I presume it was to give some indicator that a player was effective at all aspects of the game. Ie even if you started out max level you still may not be able to do much because you don't understand game systems. So at level 20 they think you are sufficiently educated to take off the training wheels.
In any case I think it would be interesting to see a game with guild wars style play and no levels or classes. Just get 200 points and go. Although I think having more points would be good in that case so that you can cross class in different ways.
For instance I may want an elementalist with both soul reaping and energy storage and fire magic. Or a necromancer with both spawning power and soul reaping with a mix of communing and death magic skills.
It didn't require any proof, it's the size of the playerbase interested in it that will make the developers minds up though.
I have yet to see a sandbox done in a way that was financially a huge success (Besides EVE) if Skyrim & Minecraft gain a huge influx once "MMO like" features are introduced & it gains a steady population it would be a crossover that could open the path to the money needed to develop a big-budget sandbox title.
I'm holding out a small hope that Blizzard are going sandbox with Titan, I doubt it, but it would be a bold move for them & represent a new direction (instead of taking pre-existing successful formulas & polishing them) it would represent some actual risk-taking & I think if this genre needs something right now it's for someone with the big pockets to take a big risk again.
Am I the only one who finds it frightening and sad that some people actually say that sandbox is more suited to single-player games while mmorpgs are all about tightly controlled experiences?
Jeez... The whole point of online gaming is that you play with other people... who provide content for you to at least some degree, if onlly to /dance in quest hubs. Sandbox or player-generated content is THE thing that differentiates mmos from single-player games. How did the things get so screwed and topsy turvy in the past 10 years?
Am I the only one who finds it frightening and sad that some people actually say that sandbox is more suited to single-player games while mmorpgs are all about tightly controlled experiences?
Jeez... The whole point of online gaming is that you play with other people... who provide content for you to at least some degree, if onlly to /dance in quest hubs. Sandbox or player-generated content is THE thing that differentiates mmos from single-player games. How did the things get so screwed and topsy turvy in the past 10 years?
This is just ridiculous.
God only knows my friend. We shall fix it however.
What Minecraft and Skyrim have done is prove people like and will play a sandbox MMO, the game doesn't have to be linear like what themeparks are. I find the story elements of themeparks to be completly irrelevant to how that game is designed. If you notice you speak to lots of NPCs out in the open and it locks you into a cutscene and no one can see what is happening in your cutscene unless they're grouped. It has no impact on the world and doesn't get in anyones way other than your character standing still with a speach bubble above your head. No one likes this.
I see no reason why you couldn't have a game in the format of Minecraft or Skyrim, but in MMO form. The only difference in design would be instead of a typical MMO being one linear line, you could go to any planet, solar system or area of a world you want at any time and do the content you want. This would mean that no area ever goes unplayed as people will always choose to do different content at different stages of their character progression. This would mean I could group with my friend if I've been playing for two years and he has only just started. It isn't even like you need to have quest stories because you, the player could easily create their own story, like what is done in a non linear game like what GTA or Skyrim has.
The great thing I find about Minecraft and Skyrum, is everything is optional and you can do any quests you want or build anything you want, which could easily be done in a sandbox game. There is no reason for the game to be so linear what so ever because the story has no impact on the world. You'll constantly go into a phase and do content that would massively change the world and yet you run out and everything is the same. A lot of the time you've cleared out all the Mobs and that faction is sposed to be gone after the cutscene and you have to run back through them, killing them all again lol.
To me it just proves that the myth that themeparks are what people want is a lie.
Selective observation at its finest. One, Skyrim is not an MMO, you cannot draw the potential success or failure of an MMO based on the experiences you have for in a single-player game. That would be like me saying people love Mario, so of course everyone would love an MMO where you jump over pits and onto enemies. I'm sure there's someone who wants to chime in about now and say "I'd love that," but fight the urge to miss the point, please.
Two, the success of Minecraft isn't just based on the fact that it's a sandbox. There are a lot of sandbox games and nearly all of them are dead, dying or haven't come to be yet and are hoping for the best. Minecraft is unique in its atmosphere and gameplay mechanics, it has found a way to "own" the genre rather than simply plop people in a barren wasteland and tell them to make something out of it (*cough* Xyson *cough*). Just because Minecraft did it doesn't mean someone else will be able to mimic that success, several have already tried and failed miserably.
You're going to need more than a single-player RPG and a niche MMO to prove "that themeparks are what people want is a lie."
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Comments
I agree with the sentiment and its not just Skyrim, its the last 3 elder scrlls game & the fallout 3 as well. People log alot of hours in those games & a big part of that is the replayability and unending nature of the games being in an open world.
That said Skyrim is far too easy and I think its easy because of the continued dumbing down we are seeing in all games. As such its not an example I would use readily as a good formula to replicate.
There hasnt been a true sandbox MMO in a long long time, however there are some good hybrids and I think Hybrid is actually slightly better than pure sandbox personally. I like some quests but big open worlds to explore and plenty of non quest things to do and see.
As far as single player goes Mount & Blade Warband is marketted as a big Sandbox and yet it has quests you can fullfill to advance your level & standing in the provinces. On the MMO side Fallen Earth is labelled as a sandbox too and yet it also has some quests but lets you do whatever you like really.
You are right in saying Skyrim is not a pure Sandbox but really those days are over, beyond the odd indie title here and there.
well lets see what both what skyrim offers and how it's gemeplay mechanics compare to the most used defnitions of sandbox and themepark MMOs
-first of all skyrim has aleveling system that uses skillpointsin order to improve your character, with the skillpoints being the main driving force behind the power of your character
-you can go almost everywhere regardless of level
-the game has a main quest for you to follow, each town you come into has a town quest and there are sidequest
-crafting consist of colecting materials and making the item in ashort animation
-your crafted items have no impact on the economy
-you selling stuff to a merchant has no effect on the ecenomy
-you are provided a house and can "decorate"it (aka make it not look like shit)
-there are no player made quest (and I don't count mods, here I am talking about stuff you can do with ingame tools)
-the quest and the decisions you make in them have almost no impact on the game world
now tell me, does this sound like the "build your castle, craft stuff, create a economy, influence the world and do politics" sandbox fans here want, or does it sound much more similar to a themepark? just one where you get to pick the rides in any order you want?
This.
rofl, how is it any easier than oblivion or morrowind? morrowind was incredibley easy, and it had boring combat.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
1.) I have to be honest, I don't consider Skyrim as a sandbox game--I consider it to be an open-ended and open-world game.
2.) I do agree both Minecraft and Skyrim rocks.
3.) I think that the pure concept of Sandbox will not work as an mmorpg because the idea behind a sandbox is that YOU are in control of it. If you add other people, it means every other person will have the same freedom as yours, but we all know that everybody having the same amount of freedom will not work properly work in an mmo. Sure, we can technically create a game that everyone has a freedom to do anything, but the anonymity and lack of proper behavior online will just destroy the game.
4.) I see a sandbox mmo[-lite] working like either of the following:
a. Add a set of rules. Just like in real life, we are free to do anything we want, but the presence of rules both natural (physics) and cultural/social (laws. traditions, and cultures) essentially controls the masses from killing, stealing, and raping each other.
b. Use the Minecraft/NWN style of multiplayer gameplay where people are free to set-up their own servers--the original makers of the server are still in a sandbox since they dictate the rules of the server, while players will get to choose their preferred servers upon the rules set by any given server.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, I've had this mmo in my mind for a long time. What if it's a themepark in terms of gameplay, but then players are allowed also to create their own dungeons or worlds or etc.
I got this inspiration from both Inception (the 'maze' creation) and Bleach (the inside world of Ichigo). What if part of the game's story is a creation mechanic such as those featured in Inception and Bleach. Essentially the game is a themepark, but because of the story, players are allowed to create a dungeon/world/map that people can access by going inside their 'brains' or 'souls' or whatnot.
All it needs I guess is finding the proper way to implement your desired game mechanic.
My Blog About Hellgate Global, an ARPG/FPS hybrid MMO:
http://kashiewannaplay.wordpress.com/
Hellgate Global Official Fan Blog
http://t3funhellgate.wordpress.com/
Currently Playing: Hellgate Global, LoL, Skyrim, Morrowind
Recently Played: Cardmon Hero, Cabal, Oblivion
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
How do you make a minecraft style MMO without griefing or serious moderation? You and your guild finish building this great castle and you log in the next day to find out it's been replaced with a giant Ass.
Another one is releasing as well. It mainly has minecraft visuals though. Add a bit of zelda as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4s2jdV7_dA&feature=g-logo&context=G2f2e5cfFOAAAAAAAPAA
The OP misses the point entirely while trying to say sandbox mmos have a larger audience. The reason why sandbox mmos almost never works is because of the players. There have been only 2 successful sandbox mmos (IMHO) and those are EVE and SWG back in its hayday. Those 2 have sandbox features, but also rules limiting the amount of freedom one person can have.
There are tons of sandbox mmos if you open your eyes, MO, darkfall, eve, dawntide, and others. The reason why most of these games fail (outside of coding and quality) is because there are many more variables while balancing gameplay between freedom and rulesets. SOme place no rules and discourages players, others dont balance the rules so the playerbase circumvents it or prevents others from enjoying their game.
The only sandbox (which i think eve online does splendidly) is balance all the above. Sure there might be a ship that may be over powered or the flavor of the month, but the playerbase is given chances to op out of said encounters. For example, in eve if say the dramial was overpowered, you could use your radar to scout your ships, cloaks, etc to avoid the contact if wanted. Miners dont want to get shot at while mining, they can stay in hi sec, or beef up their tank to withstand a suicide strike. They have numerous ways to counter this.
Most other sandboxes do not, if you get ganked say in MO while mining, you get ganked, period. There is no real evasion process. The variables just arent there. SciFi game like eve, where cloaking, radar use, etc work perfect in sandbox games....but how would you translate that to a realistic fantasy (yes i know its an oxymoron but deal with it :P )? Its a bit harder.
If you make a sandbox game that is noob friendly, has a degree of freedom, and rulesets to add a multitude of ways with dealing with a scenario which is not gamechanging or gives a person an advantage, you would have something....but the variables are much harder to predict when you add more and more freedom. If you are even missing 1 of the above, it becomes discouraging all those who are say casual or play within a certain playstyle, and then you start losing customers.
Also skyrim would be a horrible example....imagine if you killed one of the quest giver npcs. 1 jackass could ruin the entire game or questline for the entire playerbase. There are always a few people like those mentioned above. I would predict all quest givers or vital npcs would be dead within a week.
Hybrid mmos would be ideal....but than the point of the thread would be moot, as the op is obviously a die hard sandbox guy.
ANd dont get me wrong, my favorite games are eve and old swg, but i understand very well there is a limited market for sandboxes....you first off need a lot of patience
But, i also love themeparks. I like games where the Devs have put in the effort and made a quality game, rather than sticking to the "omg themeparks suxorz". There are plenty of good games for people to enjoy.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
2 things.
1- The Sandbox market is not as small or niche as you assume. If you add up all the people that play Sandbox MMOs now (EvE, UO, DF, MO, WURM, Xsyon, Dawntide, Minecraft, SWG:Emu) and all the people interested in a Sandbox MMO, but play Themeparks, you would easily get 1-2+ Million. No its not WoW numbers, but it isnt small or niche either.
2- Why do people (and Developers) always assume Sandbox must include FFA PvP?
If a Sandbox MMO came out with Consensual PvP (Duels/Guildwars) you dont think it would do well?
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
exactly, in a MMO you have to adjust player-level to content to reach the same goal (freedom, resuability) like skyrim reached with adjusting mob-level to the one and only player. and then you have dynamic scaling content which covers the fact that the same mob-encounter (event) is attacked by just 1 player or by dozens of players.
we will see how that works. but at least they try to change some fundamental design patterns of todays MMOs. this alone is interesting enough, that i will try this game for sure.
btw, there are a lot of other differences between Skyrim and a standard theme-park, regardless if single-player or MMO, e.g. a pretty open skill system. but it is correct, that Skyrim is more of a sandpark than sandbox. Skyrim aka Elder Scrolls 5 is also less sanboxish than Morrowind aka Elder Scrolls 3. but its much less of a theme-park like Dragon Age 2 or Gothic 4 with rigid rails and skillsystem.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
i guess, EVE does it right. there is the huge Empire, where you can usually do your PVE-stuff without getting ganked, if you are not doing stupid things, like reacting to provcations or haulering goods worth billions without guards. however i can imagine a sandbox with huge safe-zones like the EVE Empire, where PvP is forbidden at all.
BUT, i am also convinced, that a good sandbox has to have huge free pvp-zones to enable territorial pvp, which is one of the most interesting tools. also a lot of PvE-players try PvP, if bored by missions. many PVE-Players just got a wrong imaginatipn, how good pvp could look like. if they find a guild assisting them, approachig pvp step by step, they will often enjoy it. if you have no huge safe biotop for PvE, you will not get enough recruits for your PvP guild. look at all these deserted pvp-ffa games like MO or DF. EVE made it right, trying to find a co-existance of pvp and pve in one world. there are other obstacles in EVE, but the approach to combine pve and pvp is fully correct, imho.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
I always found it funny when people try to find the reason that sandbox MMORPGs aren't more popular. IMO, it's extremely obvious, and has very little to do with the "sandboxness" of current "unpopular" MMORPGs, and a lot to do with everything else about them. Just to prove my point here, let's look at the current stock of sandbox offerings:
UO: Still going, but it's old...like real old. Also, it had TONS of problems at both the design and implementation level even back when it was popular. It also was never really that polished.
Eve: Hey some people like this one, but let's be honest, it's only going to appeal to a very small amount of people. The gameplay in Eve is extremely dissimilar from most MMORPGs. It's more about flying around in a spaceship and mining or whatever to make money. And the combat feels like you're just watching your spaceship fight. Also, to be successful at Eve you really have to be good at spreadsheets. That fact alone, will turn a lot of people off.
SWG: Dead now, but I never thought it was a very good game even when it was around. I played the beta and got turned off by the empty worlds, extremely long travel times, and boring combat. I just can't stand it when a guy with a gun stands straight upright and gets shot at like he's fighting in the 18th century or something. It also got pretty poor reviews.
Darkfall: An indie game with tons of problems that almost never even saw the light of day. It's extremely grindy, hardcore by design, has a very clunky UI, and has a huge empty world without much in it. TBH, I'm amazed it's still doing as well as it is.
Mortal Online: Like Darkfall but much, much worse.
This list could go on...but you get the idea.
People don't like sandbox MMORPGs because the current offerings are either extremely niche or just plain bad. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are sandboxes.
There was never a big "showdown" between a AAA sandbox and a AAA themepark that decided the fate of the industry and showed that people actually prefer themeparks. In fact, if there was a big showdown it would have been between EQ2 and WoW, and they were both themeparks.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Sandbox gameplay does not equal FFA-PvP and full loot PvP.
The moment developers and gamers alike understand this very simple fact, the better off the industry will be.
Sandbox gameplay is about offering players choice and freedom. FFA-PvP and full loot PvP is no more player freedom than murdering and theft is considered freedom in reality. Rather, choice and freedom is about giving players the choice of how to develop there character and how to play the game. The freedom to set their own goals and go about playing the game their own way, whether it be through combat, crafting, exploring, or the more social aspects.
There is very much a market for sandbox MMOs, the problem is that most people can't seem to shake the perception that sandbox MMOs have to include PvP anarchy... rather this association needs to dissapear in order for sandbox MMOs to be successful.
Level scaling presents a different problem though... which is that it makes progression feel pointless. Why bother grinding to max things out when whatever you fight scales along with you? That was Oblivion's problem. Skyrim's scaling is more deviation of level scaling rather than an absolute one for one scaling. Meaning that certain areas are always meant to be a bit easier, some always meant to be a bit harder, but certain areas still have a hard cap of how easier or how hard they could be modified to, which preserved a sense meaning to leveling in the game.
The answer in regards to MMOs is much more simple than you think though...
Make the power curve associated to leveling more linear.
It worked great in Ultima Online. Honestly I've not seen an MMO that's even come close to as well balanced as UO was. You didn't have to be maxed out skills to participate in fighting 'end game' mobs, but you did have to have a decent skill level. But it still preserved because being higher skill meant you could take on harder mobs, but not being maxed out didn't preclude you from participating in a group against said mobs, and also being higher skill than something also didn't mean you could plow through a mob of things without worry.
Themepark MMOs have a bad habit of using extreme power to level scaling. WoW is a good example of this, where being merely 5 levels above a certain area or dungeon effectively means you can plow through it, even dungeons that were meant for five people at appropriate level.
in GW2 content scales just in a small range. so you must level up, in order to explore new content. however you may go with a high-level friend, which automatically scales you up for this group. the other way around, if a L80 player goes back to a L5 boss mob, he will scale down to something about L6-7. levels are indeed looking a bit meaningless. and after all, there is no endgame, everything can be used for endgame based on this scaling model. but thats fine for me, if it works correctly.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
I am somewhat unsure why Guildwars bothered with leveling at all. I presume it was to give some indicator that a player was effective at all aspects of the game. Ie even if you started out max level you still may not be able to do much because you don't understand game systems. So at level 20 they think you are sufficiently educated to take off the training wheels.
In any case I think it would be interesting to see a game with guild wars style play and no levels or classes. Just get 200 points and go. Although I think having more points would be good in that case so that you can cross class in different ways.
For instance I may want an elementalist with both soul reaping and energy storage and fire magic. Or a necromancer with both spawning power and soul reaping with a mix of communing and death magic skills.
Skyrim and Minecraft have proven that people do like open-world/sandbox MMO...
It didn't require any proof, it's the size of the playerbase interested in it that will make the developers minds up though.
I have yet to see a sandbox done in a way that was financially a huge success (Besides EVE) if Skyrim & Minecraft gain a huge influx once "MMO like" features are introduced & it gains a steady population it would be a crossover that could open the path to the money needed to develop a big-budget sandbox title.
I'm holding out a small hope that Blizzard are going sandbox with Titan, I doubt it, but it would be a bold move for them & represent a new direction (instead of taking pre-existing successful formulas & polishing them) it would represent some actual risk-taking & I think if this genre needs something right now it's for someone with the big pockets to take a big risk again.
Yes, I wouldn't say Skyrim is exactly a sandbox, but it is an open-world game with many many possibilities and surprises.
I suspect quite a number of people asking for a sandbox are first and foremost asking for those things.
Am I the only one who finds it frightening and sad that some people actually say that sandbox is more suited to single-player games while mmorpgs are all about tightly controlled experiences?
Jeez... The whole point of online gaming is that you play with other people... who provide content for you to at least some degree, if onlly to /dance in quest hubs. Sandbox or player-generated content is THE thing that differentiates mmos from single-player games. How did the things get so screwed and topsy turvy in the past 10 years?
This is just ridiculous.
God only knows my friend. We shall fix it however.
Niche games are niche?
Pearls of wisdom, thanks sparky.
Selective observation at its finest. One, Skyrim is not an MMO, you cannot draw the potential success or failure of an MMO based on the experiences you have for in a single-player game. That would be like me saying people love Mario, so of course everyone would love an MMO where you jump over pits and onto enemies. I'm sure there's someone who wants to chime in about now and say "I'd love that," but fight the urge to miss the point, please.
Two, the success of Minecraft isn't just based on the fact that it's a sandbox. There are a lot of sandbox games and nearly all of them are dead, dying or haven't come to be yet and are hoping for the best. Minecraft is unique in its atmosphere and gameplay mechanics, it has found a way to "own" the genre rather than simply plop people in a barren wasteland and tell them to make something out of it (*cough* Xyson *cough*). Just because Minecraft did it doesn't mean someone else will be able to mimic that success, several have already tried and failed miserably.
You're going to need more than a single-player RPG and a niche MMO to prove "that themeparks are what people want is a lie."
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."