Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.
Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.
Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games. I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES. I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit. The entire genre is getting stupid. Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit. And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun.
All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.
I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.
"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...
Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.
Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.
Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games. I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES. I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit. The entire genre is getting stupid. Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit. And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun.
All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games.
As I posted above, that's only 30% of the gamers who tried WoW. WoW had what, 12M+ players? That means there's 28M+ gamers out there who might just want a real Sandbox game and aren't worried about having their hands held, like this poster.
Edit to add: Even if a AAA Sandbox only kept 30% of that 28 Million, they'd have 8,400,000 subs. Sounds like it's worth the risk to me.
Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.
Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.
Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games. I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES. I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit. The entire genre is getting stupid. Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit. And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun.
All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games.
No. It *is* fun. Just look at Diablo 3. Sold 6.3M in a week. I found it ultra fun.
Essentially, it is nothing but kill 1000000 mobs and people LOVE it. It does not pretend to be anything else, unlike MMO. It is pure and simple. Kill and get loot.
Now, the combat mechanics are pretty deep and interesting, but still it is about KILL and LOOT.
Wrong. The reason the games don't stick is because they're shit.
It doesn't matter whether the game is a themepark, sandbox, or whatever it is you sensationalist fucks try to categorize MMOs as - we just want a game that isn't terrible.
I actually agree with this guy.
I think most people just want a good game, and could care less about the stupid themepark/sandbox semantics.
Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.
I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.
"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.
Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.
I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.
"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.
Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.
I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.
But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.
My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.
I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.
"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...
Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.
Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.
Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games. I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES. I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit. The entire genre is getting stupid. Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit. And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun.
All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games.
As I posted above, that's only 30% of the gamers who tried WoW. WoW had what, 12M+ players? That means there's 28M+ gamers out there who might just want a real Sandbox game and aren't worried about having their hands held, like this poster.
Edit to add: Even if a AAA Sandbox only kept 30% of that 28 Million, they'd have 8,400,000 subs. Sounds like it's worth the risk to me.
The REALLY frightening thought is that those 28M+ gamers may not have gotten past L10 in WOW because they found it too difficult ! o.0
Wrong. The reason the games don't stick is because they're shit.
It doesn't matter whether the game is a themepark, sandbox, or whatever it is you sensationalist fucks try to categorize MMOs as - we just want a game that isn't terrible.
I actually agree with this guy.
I think most people just want a good game, and could care less about the stupid themepark/sandbox semantics.
Werd.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
it's not sandboxes I hate, it's the people that play sandboxes I hate. Maybe someday they will figure out a system that doesn't condone griefing, and then I'll be interested to play. Until then, I'm going to enjoy the fact that these people always end up whining that there isn't a AAA title for them.
Look in my sig, I have the worlds smallest violin playing for al the homeless sandboxers.
Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.
I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.
"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.
Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.
I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.
But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.
My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
You have no idea what those leftover players want or why they quit. You're merely guessing.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Amaranthar Originally posted by AxehiltOriginally posted by AmarantharConsidering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming. "Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.174642-Only-30-Percent-of-WoW-Players-Get-Past-Level-10
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.
But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.
My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous.
If publishers, developers and investors thought there was a chance to make any significant amount of money on a sandbox, there would be more of them in development by larger studios.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No. It *is* fun. Just look at Diablo 3. Sold 6.3M in a week. I found it ultra fun.
D3 is a shell of it's former D2 glory, give it four months, you'll see what i mean, the problem is there's not enough replayable content. the randomizer is either broken or they just didn't care enough about it to make it work properly. That's what made D2 great was the replayability.
Oh and everyone on this website should know from a very recent experience in the mmo world that huge initial sales =/= quality in the slightest.
Originally posted by AmarantharConsidering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming. "Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.174642-Only-30-Percent-of-WoW-Players-Get-Past-Level-10
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.
I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.
But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.
My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous.
If publishers, developers and investors thought there was a chance to make any significant amount of money on a sandbox, there would be more of them in development by larger studios.
I'm a little less inclined than you to believe in the pure genius of today's publishers, developers, and investors.
it's not sandboxes I hate, it's the people that play sandboxes I hate. Maybe someday they will figure out a system that doesn't condone griefing, and then I'll be interested to play. Until then, I'm going to enjoy the fact that these people always end up whining that there isn't a AAA title for them.
Look in my sig, I have the worlds smallest violin playing for al the homeless sandboxers.
Awfully sorry, but that means that you have played very few sandboxes, if any at all. Sure, there are PvP sandboxes, but there are also no-PvP sandboxes.
And please be careful with what people you hate. I only play sandboxes, why do you hate me?
(And I have disabled to display signatures anyway.)
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Originally posted by Amaranthar Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by AmarantharOriginally posted by AxehiltOriginally posted by AmarantharConsidering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming. "Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.174642-Only-30-Percent-of-WoW-Players-Get-Past-Level-10
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox. There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous. If publishers, developers and investors thought there was a chance to make any significant amount of money on a sandbox, there would be more of them in development by larger studios. I'm a little less inclined than you to believe in the pure genius of today's publishers, developers, and investors.
I'm not sure why looking at the past requires genius level intellect. There's no evidence that a sandbox mmorpg would make any money. There's plenty of evidence that sandbox style MMORPG will lose lots of money while taking five years or more to get going. No investor is going to look at the past 10 years and think to themselves, "A sandbox game is the answer!"
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
it's not sandboxes I hate, it's the people that play sandboxes I hate. Maybe someday they will figure out a system that doesn't condone griefing, and then I'll be interested to play. Until then, I'm going to enjoy the fact that these people always end up whining that there isn't a AAA title for them.
Look in my sig, I have the worlds smallest violin playing for al the homeless sandboxers.
Awfully sorry, but that means that you have played very few sandboxes, if any at all. Sure, there are PvP sandboxes, but there are also no-PvP sandboxes.
And please be careful with what people you hate. I only play sandboxes, why do you hate me?
(And I have disabled to display signatures anyway.)
you're right, my sandbox experience is extremely limited. As for hating sandbox players, the only players that ever had the chance to make an impression on me were the ones who wanted to grief me. Anybody else was essentially non-existant in my game world, probably because they were enjoying doing their own thing. However, being schooled on FFA-PvP while you're still trying to figure out how the game even works just leads me to a quick uninstall.
If the game mechanics fostered a good community, there would be a large enough playerbase to warrant a AAA title, but because the mechanics that these people want such as FFA-PvP, there are too many people like myself, who will not take part.
See, I would like to play a sandbox, if it had mechanics to stop griefing. If I could make my own sandbox, there would be clearly defined faction areas, with NPC guards around major areas and roaming into wildnerness near cities and towns. FFA-PvP sure, but if you killed your own faction the guards would turn hostile to you. If you were killed by a guard it was permadeath. Then you wouldn't have people pretending to help you get started just to lead you out of town to kill you.
So sure, there might be decent people that play sandboxes, but because of the pricks I've had the opportunity to meet, I still treasure the fact they have no AAA game to call home.
Originally posted by Terrorizor Originally posted by LarsaOriginally posted by Terrorizorit's not sandboxes I hate, it's the people that play sandboxes I hate. Maybe someday they will figure out a system that doesn't condone griefing, and then I'll be interested to play. Until then, I'm going to enjoy the fact that these people always end up whining that there isn't a AAA title for them.Look in my sig, I have the worlds smallest violin playing for al the homeless sandboxers.
Awfully sorry, but that means that you have played very few sandboxes, if any at all. Sure, there are PvP sandboxes, but there are also no-PvP sandboxes.And please be careful with what people you hate. I only play sandboxes, why do you hate me?(And I have disabled to display signatures anyway.)you're right, my sandbox experience is extremely limited. As for hating sandbox players, the only players that ever had the chance to make an impression on me were the ones who wanted to grief me. Anybody else was essentially non-existant in my game world, probably because they were enjoying doing their own thing. However, being schooled on FFA-PvP while you're still trying to figure out how the game even works just leads me to a quick uninstall.
If the game mechanics fostered a good community, there would be a large enough playerbase to warrant a AAA title, but because the mechanics that these people want such as FFA-PvP, there are too many people like myself, who will not take part.
See, I would like to play a sandbox, if it had mechanics to stop griefing. If I could make my own sandbox, there would be clearly defined faction areas, with NPC guards around major areas and roaming into wildnerness near cities and towns. FFA-PvP sure, but if you killed your own faction the guards would turn hostile to you. If you were killed by a guard it was permadeath. Then you wouldn't have people pretending to help you get started just to lead you out of town to kill you.
So sure, there might be decent people that play sandboxes, but because of the pricks I've had the opportunity to meet, I still treasure the fact they have no AAA game to call home.
That sounds a lot like how you can setup Minecraft servers. You are much more limited in the number of people you can play with at the same time though. The largest server I've played on had 200 people on it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by AmarantharConsidering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming. "Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.174642-Only-30-Percent-of-WoW-Players-Get-Past-Level-10
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.
I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous. If publishers, developers and investors thought there was a chance to make any significant amount of money on a sandbox, there would be more of them in development by larger studios.
I'm a little less inclined than you to believe in the pure genius of today's publishers, developers, and investors.
I'm not sure why looking at the past requires genius level intellect. There's no evidence that a sandbox mmorpg would make any money. There's plenty of evidence that sandbox style MMORPG will lose lots of money while taking five years or more to get going. No investor is going to look at the past 10 years and think to themselves, "A sandbox game is the answer!"
There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous.
And depending on the answer to the first question, that target in the dark might be the size of a pin.
The type of sandbox which would be widely appealing looks nothing like the sandboxes the MMORPG industry has ever produced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why is this idea that one can only play a game at a time, that a game needs to have massive amounts of stuff to do, to keep you playing that game 4+ hours per day, so ingrained in people?
That is only true for a game that wants to charge you a monthly fee.
Sandbox MMOPGs plot is simple (not criticizing it, something can be simple in essence and still be very deep and engaging):
- it is hard for you to get/make things;
- that makes you feel attached;
- that makes you feel protective,
- you fight other players to get more resources to make more things,
- you join other players to get those resources and to protect your own resources/things.
- you have a society in a different setting.
This appeal to some players, but for those that play games to distance themselves of the real world, why on earth will they go create another world that works basically just like the real world?
(Also did you notice I just described DayZ without the grinding and building stuff and that DayZ seems quite popular?)
Theme parks can be fun - just remove all the silly grind and time wasting mechanics that only exist to make you pay a monthly fee. Remove the virtual society creation aspect of it by allowing players to just have fun with other players. Remove the silly monthly fee. Allow players to go on and off the game as they like without being utterly left behind.
So no, for some of the players that are weary of current theme park MMOs, sandbox isn't the solution, better/different kinds of theme parks are.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I think issue is more in the way how the two games have become more and more extreme versions of themselves.
Many theme park games have become nothing more than guided tours through the world, with no ability to do anything other than follow the path as layed out for you. Its become less theme park, and more single ride.
The flip side is that many sandboxes have really become nothing more than detailed playing boards designed for you to have combat on. There are generally no quests, no lore, nothing there but something pretty to attacke people beside/on.
Its almost like these genres have become charactchers of themselves.
To me, the best way to fix this is to give us the TRAPPINGS of a theme park, and the ACTIVITIES of a sandbox. However, this is going to require some paradigm shifts in thinking about content, and what "freedom" really means in the name of the game.
Probably the best comment I have read on here in a long time. The theme parks are not even theme parks anymore. Games like TOR are more like interactive movies. Instead of actors you have players but they are still going through the motions of the script and when the script is over the game is over.
To give an example of what you say. Many wrongly say Everquest 1 was a sandbox but it was really a Theme Park with choice. It had quests, goals for players, and both leveling and gear progressions but there was no single way to get from point A to B. It wasn't all on rails like today's single storyline MMOs.
Why is this idea that one can only play a game at a time, that a game needs to have massive amounts of stuff to do, to keep you playing that game 4+ hours per day, so ingrained in people?
That is only true for a game that wants to charge you a monthly fee.
Sandbox MMOPGs plot is simple (not criticizing it, something can be simple in essence and still be very deep and engaging):
- it is hard for you to get/make things;
- that makes you feel attached;
- that makes you feel protective,
- you fight other players to get more resources to make more things,
- you join other players to get those resources and to protect your own resources/things.
- you have a society in a different setting.
This appeal to some players, but for those that play games to distance themselves of the real world, why on earth will they go create another world that works basically just like the real world?
(Also did you notice I just described DayZ without the grinding and building stuff and that DayZ seems quite popular?)
Theme parks can be fun - just remove all the silly grind and time wasting mechanics that only exist to make you pay a monthly fee. Remove the virtual society creation aspect of it by allowing players to just have fun with other players. Remove the silly monthly fee. Allow players to go on and off the game as they like without being utterly left behind.
So no, for some of the players that are weary of current theme park MMOs, sandbox isn't the solution, better/different kinds of theme parks are.
A) it is quite naive to have the perception that games work "basically" like the real world, i dont remember the last time i found a gold deposit in the middle of the road or when i was able to carry 20 sets of steel plate armor to the local grocery store (and get payed for them instead of being taken away to a padded cell), the appeal is that you can do things which you cannot or would not do in the real world in a much simpler environment.
"remove xyz", if you go as far as you are suggesting, would it not be much simpler, if YOU would play TF2 instead of mmos? There are even trade and "hang out" servers where people just sit and trade or talk all day. And its free!
C) the "left behind" thing has several reasons, hardly any of them is the fault of people who want "many things to do", "we" want many things to do, OTHER people want to be the best, are competitive, want to have too exclusive content, AND finish the game/datadisk/progression too fast, creating a system where anyone quitting just for a few days is left behind. Even in old wow, "endgame content" started around lv55.
Why is this idea that one can only play a game at a time, that a game needs to have massive amounts of stuff to do, to keep you playing that game 4+ hours per day, so ingrained in people?
That is only true for a game that wants to charge you a monthly fee.
Sandbox MMOPGs plot is simple (not criticizing it, something can be simple in essence and still be very deep and engaging):
- it is hard for you to get/make things;
- that makes you feel attached;
- that makes you feel protective,
- you fight other players to get more resources to make more things,
- you join other players to get those resources and to protect your own resources/things.
- you have a society in a different setting.
This appeal to some players, but for those that play games to distance themselves of the real world, why on earth will they go create another world that works basically just like the real world?
(Also did you notice I just described DayZ without the grinding and building stuff and that DayZ seems quite popular?)
Theme parks can be fun - just remove all the silly grind and time wasting mechanics that only exist to make you pay a monthly fee. Remove the virtual society creation aspect of it by allowing players to just have fun with other players. Remove the silly monthly fee. Allow players to go on and off the game as they like without being utterly left behind.
So no, for some of the players that are weary of current theme park MMOs, sandbox isn't the solution, better/different kinds of theme parks are.
A) it is quite naive to have the perception that games work "basically" like the real world, i dont remember the last time i found a gold deposit in the middle of the road or when i was able to carry 20 sets of steel plate armor to the local grocery store (and get payed for them instead of being taken away to a padded cell), the appeal is that you can do things which you cannot or would not do in the real world in a much simpler environment.
"remove xyz", if you go as far as you are suggesting, would it not be much simpler, if YOU would play TF2 instead of mmos? There are even trade and "hang out" servers where people just sit and trade or talk all day. And its free!
C) the "left behind" thing has several reasons, hardly any of them is the fault of people who want "many things to do", "we" want many things to do, OTHER people want to be the best, are competitive, want to have too exclusive content, AND finish the game/datadisk/progression too fast, creating a system where anyone quitting just for a few days is left behind. Even in old wow, "endgame content" started around lv55.
Flame on!
Let me start by the end.
"Flame on!"
The internet, unfortunately, really is a hostile place.
We are always expecting to be attacked, although I'm interpreting your ":)" as a sign you really don't want to be hostile but are affraid I or others will jump on you.
If I'm here it is because I like to discuss different opinions (although it is easy to enter "if I could only bash that guy head until he understand" mood).
If we play a multiplayer online game it is because we like to play games with people. If we are in a certain game then maybe it is because that game attract us. But it doesn't say anything about what kind of people we wish to play with.
Now going to your points.
A) I meant the social interaction of the game. I don't want a rigid social structure where other players can determin aspects of my game nor do I want to determin how other players play their game. I want a game where different ways of playing it aren't absurdly more efficient than others way of playing it.
Why should be farming a few mobs alone be more efficient than go and do something else with a friend?
Why should a player that dedicates himself to trade be able to amass much more than a player that is going out doing quests and exploring the world?
Why should a player that raids get better items and have tougher challanges than one that goes explore the world?
This one is fun especially considering what you wrote on your C). If you want a competitive game why don't you play straight PvP to prove that you are the best instead of using PvE as aproxy competition? Wouldn't that be so much better and hopefully balanced?
The answer is because different people like different things and just because no one did a MMORPG that gets rid of "xzy" it doesn't mean it can't be done. Otherwise we will be stuck on WoW clones.
C) The mythic "end game". Basically what allows devs to make you waste time and money on boring content simply because they are promising fun, epic content is just after that corner.. "You finished those 6 months of levelling. Congratulations! Now you get the fun game! PS: For every new bit of fun game you will have to spend a few weeks repeating the previous fun content, we don't want you to have an overdose of fun content.:)"
Or if what you actually like is the levelling experience it just means the game is over and now there is a new game...
Because of and C) I'll be playing GW2
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous.
And depending on the answer to the first question, that target in the dark might be the size of a pin.
The type of sandbox which would be widely appealing looks nothing like the sandboxes the MMORPG industry has ever produced.
"And depending on the answer to the first question, that target in the dark might be the size of a pin."
I think that's only true for those who don't have an idea, a plan, that they can see and execute. But I also think that would take a rarer quality than most people have. This isn't different than anything else. The quality of "vision" just isn't a widely dispersed one.
"The type of sandbox which would be widely appealing looks nothing like the sandboxes the MMORPG industry has ever produced."
I agree. I also think you could say "looks nothing like any MMORPG ever produced". But I also think you'd be able to see the birth of ideas from many games already made, both Sandbox and Themepark. Worldly interaction from UO, End Game dungeons from The better Themeparks, things like that.
I've always wanted to see worldly interaction greatly enhanced. I think the simple act of pulling levers, and all the other things a player can "use" in a game world, adds a lot to the experience. And having this feature in a game widely used also adds the ability to use that interaction hidden in the world to create secrets waiting for discovery. Even knowledge of such secrets become an asset to players who have it.
I've mentioned before that I want to see the End Game dungeon designs made into a Dungeon AI system, where whatever MOBs take up a dungeon pick up this AI, based on their own qualities and AI. These AI's would instruct "like" MOBs on how they set up and react inside a dungeon with this "like AI".
Lets say you have 5 basic Dungeon AI's. These being based on Themepark End Game ideas, but changed to "here is 'A', here is 'B' tags, and these tags are applied into different dungeons in different locations.
Then design dungeons that are built for any number of those AI's, some might have all 5 built into them, some might have some, some might not have any for those purely Respawn for hack and slash avtivities.
Then build the AI's of MOBs where it makes sense, and makes use of one or more of these Dungeon AI's.
So, intelligent and social tribal MOBs, intelligent but solo NPCs, both those with merely animal intelligense, would each have their own version of AI as well as a "like" Dungeon AI.
Then add special cases. Cult affiliations, birth/spawn dens, whatever might add to any dungeon.
Variables can be added, so that content 'A' might be placed "here" or "over there".
The objective is to allow dungeons to change. While they physically don't change, the contents can so as to keep the game more fresh. It's not just the MOBs currently present, it's also how they set up and defend their warren.
This allows for several things that I feels would add not only to game play, but to worldliness in the perception of the players. The immersion.
Players could be allowed to clear dungeons, and then that dungeon can be taken over by a new MOB set and be different.
Knowledge of particular dungeons comes into play. That hallway not only seems like it would have been a great place for traps, it might be this time. Or traps might be placed in that tunnel over there. Large rooms and caverns at the end of the dungeon would be where the ultimate goal is, most likely but not always. There might be multiple such places, and any one or more might have that ultimate goal content, depending on the MOBs AI as well as their size and strength. Secret doors and passages known become an asset. Knowlegde of special cases (an altar of a cult that the current residents belong to, or pools for MOBs that are amphibious) would be valuable for a player organized raid.
These things could be used by GM's doing in-game events. They could add a powerfull leader to an existing dungeon, and beef up some of the encounters along the way, and add event rewards or knowledge of the mystery of what's going on.
Comments
Doesn't make sense to me, I know what I want in games. I know that I DON'T WANT TO F*ING KILL 10 WOLVES. I don't want to do the same boring thing over and over again to try and get some virtual fish biscuit. The entire genre is getting stupid. Too many people have been brainwashed by WoW clones into thinking that they need to be told what to do to get their fish biscuit. And somewhere along the way someone tricked them into thinking that was fun.
All we can do is keep our wallets shut and our forum criticism NEGATIVE so that these WoW clone social experiments die off and developers start making good games.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
As I posted above, that's only 30% of the gamers who tried WoW. WoW had what, 12M+ players? That means there's 28M+ gamers out there who might just want a real Sandbox game and aren't worried about having their hands held, like this poster.
Edit to add: Even if a AAA Sandbox only kept 30% of that 28 Million, they'd have 8,400,000 subs. Sounds like it's worth the risk to me.
Once upon a time....
No. It *is* fun. Just look at Diablo 3. Sold 6.3M in a week. I found it ultra fun.
Essentially, it is nothing but kill 1000000 mobs and people LOVE it. It does not pretend to be anything else, unlike MMO. It is pure and simple. Kill and get loot.
Now, the combat mechanics are pretty deep and interesting, but still it is about KILL and LOOT.
Relax
Archeage is coming ftw
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months
I actually agree with this guy.
I think most people just want a good game, and could care less about the stupid themepark/sandbox semantics.
Well that's just a fact of gaming in general. And not just MMORPGs or a new vs. old thing either. I'm confident UO didn't see greater than 30% retention at the same time investment. Probably substantially less actually.
Research a bit more into retention and analytics and you'll see begin to understand how rare it is for games to retain players past the first week. Even really good ones.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.
But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.
My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
Once upon a time....
The REALLY frightening thought is that those 28M+ gamers may not have gotten past L10 in WOW because they found it too difficult ! o.0
Werd.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
it's not sandboxes I hate, it's the people that play sandboxes I hate. Maybe someday they will figure out a system that doesn't condone griefing, and then I'll be interested to play. Until then, I'm going to enjoy the fact that these people always end up whining that there isn't a AAA title for them.
Look in my sig, I have the worlds smallest violin playing for al the homeless sandboxers.
You have no idea what those leftover players want or why they quit. You're merely guessing.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition.
But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of.
My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous.
If publishers, developers and investors thought there was a chance to make any significant amount of money on a sandbox, there would be more of them in development by larger studios.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
D3 is a shell of it's former D2 glory, give it four months, you'll see what i mean, the problem is there's not enough replayable content. the randomizer is either broken or they just didn't care enough about it to make it work properly. That's what made D2 great was the replayability.
Oh and everyone on this website should know from a very recent experience in the mmo world that huge initial sales =/= quality in the slightest.
I'm a little less inclined than you to believe in the pure genius of today's publishers, developers, and investors.
Once upon a time....
Awfully sorry, but that means that you have played very few sandboxes, if any at all. Sure, there are PvP sandboxes, but there are also no-PvP sandboxes.
And please be careful with what people you hate. I only play sandboxes, why do you hate me?
(And I have disabled to display signatures anyway.)
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
I know it's just a fact. And I'd strongly agree that UO had a far lesser retention rate, going with 30% as a standard "closing rate" (this is in almost every industry as a general goal and indication of success) and subtracting for the rampant PKing, even when they had no competition. But none of that means that there aren't a load of players out there looking for something else, so that's the reason I added that bit about 30% of those who left as a possibility for a Sandbox AAA project in the other post. Even if they only kept half that number (a 15% retention), that's over 4 million subscribers. Even half of that would beat every MMO to release since WoW, as far as I can think of. My point wasn't that WoW failed. I've always contended that they did a fantastic job for a Themeaprk, and sometimes said that the timing was right for the genre. My point was that there are masses out there who actually paid for the game and weren't satisfied. And that's an open door to other types of MMOs, primarily Sandbox.
There are lots and lots of problems with developing a sandbox. The number one problem is, "What is a sandbox?" The second being, "Which sandbox crowd do you go after?" It would be like trying to hit a target, in the dark, and the target is both moving and knows you're shooting at it. Calling it a gamble would be generous. If publishers, developers and investors thought there was a chance to make any significant amount of money on a sandbox, there would be more of them in development by larger studios.
I'm a little less inclined than you to believe in the pure genius of today's publishers, developers, and investors.
I'm not sure why looking at the past requires genius level intellect. There's no evidence that a sandbox mmorpg would make any money. There's plenty of evidence that sandbox style MMORPG will lose lots of money while taking five years or more to get going. No investor is going to look at the past 10 years and think to themselves, "A sandbox game is the answer!"
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
you're right, my sandbox experience is extremely limited. As for hating sandbox players, the only players that ever had the chance to make an impression on me were the ones who wanted to grief me. Anybody else was essentially non-existant in my game world, probably because they were enjoying doing their own thing. However, being schooled on FFA-PvP while you're still trying to figure out how the game even works just leads me to a quick uninstall.
If the game mechanics fostered a good community, there would be a large enough playerbase to warrant a AAA title, but because the mechanics that these people want such as FFA-PvP, there are too many people like myself, who will not take part.
See, I would like to play a sandbox, if it had mechanics to stop griefing. If I could make my own sandbox, there would be clearly defined faction areas, with NPC guards around major areas and roaming into wildnerness near cities and towns. FFA-PvP sure, but if you killed your own faction the guards would turn hostile to you. If you were killed by a guard it was permadeath. Then you wouldn't have people pretending to help you get started just to lead you out of town to kill you.
So sure, there might be decent people that play sandboxes, but because of the pricks I've had the opportunity to meet, I still treasure the fact they have no AAA game to call home.
you're right, my sandbox experience is extremely limited. As for hating sandbox players, the only players that ever had the chance to make an impression on me were the ones who wanted to grief me. Anybody else was essentially non-existant in my game world, probably because they were enjoying doing their own thing. However, being schooled on FFA-PvP while you're still trying to figure out how the game even works just leads me to a quick uninstall.
If the game mechanics fostered a good community, there would be a large enough playerbase to warrant a AAA title, but because the mechanics that these people want such as FFA-PvP, there are too many people like myself, who will not take part.
See, I would like to play a sandbox, if it had mechanics to stop griefing. If I could make my own sandbox, there would be clearly defined faction areas, with NPC guards around major areas and roaming into wildnerness near cities and towns. FFA-PvP sure, but if you killed your own faction the guards would turn hostile to you. If you were killed by a guard it was permadeath. Then you wouldn't have people pretending to help you get started just to lead you out of town to kill you.
So sure, there might be decent people that play sandboxes, but because of the pricks I've had the opportunity to meet, I still treasure the fact they have no AAA game to call home.
That sounds a lot like how you can setup Minecraft servers. You are much more limited in the number of people you can play with at the same time though. The largest server I've played on had 200 people on it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That simple, eh? Pure genius.
Once upon a time....
And depending on the answer to the first question, that target in the dark might be the size of a pin.
The type of sandbox which would be widely appealing looks nothing like the sandboxes the MMORPG industry has ever produced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why is this idea that one can only play a game at a time, that a game needs to have massive amounts of stuff to do, to keep you playing that game 4+ hours per day, so ingrained in people?
That is only true for a game that wants to charge you a monthly fee.
Sandbox MMOPGs plot is simple (not criticizing it, something can be simple in essence and still be very deep and engaging):
- it is hard for you to get/make things;
- that makes you feel attached;
- that makes you feel protective,
- you fight other players to get more resources to make more things,
- you join other players to get those resources and to protect your own resources/things.
- you have a society in a different setting.
This appeal to some players, but for those that play games to distance themselves of the real world, why on earth will they go create another world that works basically just like the real world?
(Also did you notice I just described DayZ without the grinding and building stuff and that DayZ seems quite popular?)
Theme parks can be fun - just remove all the silly grind and time wasting mechanics that only exist to make you pay a monthly fee. Remove the virtual society creation aspect of it by allowing players to just have fun with other players. Remove the silly monthly fee. Allow players to go on and off the game as they like without being utterly left behind.
So no, for some of the players that are weary of current theme park MMOs, sandbox isn't the solution, better/different kinds of theme parks are.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Probably the best comment I have read on here in a long time. The theme parks are not even theme parks anymore. Games like TOR are more like interactive movies. Instead of actors you have players but they are still going through the motions of the script and when the script is over the game is over.
To give an example of what you say. Many wrongly say Everquest 1 was a sandbox but it was really a Theme Park with choice. It had quests, goals for players, and both leveling and gear progressions but there was no single way to get from point A to B. It wasn't all on rails like today's single storyline MMOs.
A) it is quite naive to have the perception that games work "basically" like the real world, i dont remember the last time i found a gold deposit in the middle of the road or when i was able to carry 20 sets of steel plate armor to the local grocery store (and get payed for them instead of being taken away to a padded cell), the appeal is that you can do things which you cannot or would not do in the real world in a much simpler environment.
C) the "left behind" thing has several reasons, hardly any of them is the fault of people who want "many things to do", "we" want many things to do, OTHER people want to be the best, are competitive, want to have too exclusive content, AND finish the game/datadisk/progression too fast, creating a system where anyone quitting just for a few days is left behind. Even in old wow, "endgame content" started around lv55.
Flame on!
Let me start by the end.
This one is fun especially considering what you wrote on your C).
"Flame on!"
The internet, unfortunately, really is a hostile place.
We are always expecting to be attacked, although I'm interpreting your ":)" as a sign you really don't want to be hostile but are affraid I or others will jump on you.
If I'm here it is because I like to discuss different opinions (although it is easy to enter "if I could only bash that guy head until he understand" mood).
If we play a multiplayer online game it is because we like to play games with people. If we are in a certain game then maybe it is because that game attract us. But it doesn't say anything about what kind of people we wish to play with.
Now going to your points.
A) I meant the social interaction of the game. I don't want a rigid social structure where other players can determin aspects of my game nor do I want to determin how other players play their game. I want a game where different ways of playing it aren't absurdly more efficient than others way of playing it.
Why should be farming a few mobs alone be more efficient than go and do something else with a friend?
Why should a player that dedicates himself to trade be able to amass much more than a player that is going out doing quests and exploring the world?
Why should a player that raids get better items and have tougher challanges than one that goes explore the world?
If you want a competitive game why don't you play straight PvP to prove that you are the best instead of using PvE as aproxy competition?
Wouldn't that be so much better and hopefully balanced?
The answer is because different people like different things and just because no one did a MMORPG that gets rid of "xzy" it doesn't mean it can't be done. Otherwise we will be stuck on WoW clones.
C) The mythic "end game". Basically what allows devs to make you waste time and money on boring content simply because they are promising fun, epic content is just after that corner.. "You finished those 6 months of levelling. Congratulations! Now you get the fun game! PS: For every new bit of fun game you will have to spend a few weeks repeating the previous fun content, we don't want you to have an overdose of fun content.:)"
Or if what you actually like is the levelling experience it just means the game is over and now there is a new game...
and C) I'll be playing GW2
Because of
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
"And depending on the answer to the first question, that target in the dark might be the size of a pin."
I think that's only true for those who don't have an idea, a plan, that they can see and execute. But I also think that would take a rarer quality than most people have. This isn't different than anything else. The quality of "vision" just isn't a widely dispersed one.
"The type of sandbox which would be widely appealing looks nothing like the sandboxes the MMORPG industry has ever produced."
I agree. I also think you could say "looks nothing like any MMORPG ever produced". But I also think you'd be able to see the birth of ideas from many games already made, both Sandbox and Themepark. Worldly interaction from UO, End Game dungeons from The better Themeparks, things like that.
I've always wanted to see worldly interaction greatly enhanced. I think the simple act of pulling levers, and all the other things a player can "use" in a game world, adds a lot to the experience. And having this feature in a game widely used also adds the ability to use that interaction hidden in the world to create secrets waiting for discovery. Even knowledge of such secrets become an asset to players who have it.
I've mentioned before that I want to see the End Game dungeon designs made into a Dungeon AI system, where whatever MOBs take up a dungeon pick up this AI, based on their own qualities and AI. These AI's would instruct "like" MOBs on how they set up and react inside a dungeon with this "like AI".
Once upon a time....