Originally posted by Gaia_HunterWhy 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?
I don't think that it's making much sense to link Sandbox MMORPGs to the reality, just because sandbox mmorpgs often implement a more sophisticated economic and polical system instead of taking the player by the hand and pushing him around while handing out constant rewards. You won't be able to easily become a politican in real life, you won't be allowed to kill other humans because you want some resources, you won't be able to become the bad guy criminal in real life without going to prison, you won't be able to become a master crafter there, you won't be filthy rich, you won't become a war lord - or whatever you go for.
I would compare the Sandbox type of game to LEGO where Themeparks are more like Playmobile. First focusses on giving the player tools into the hand to create their own idea of entertainment, even though sometimes it can be annoying/tedious to search for that missing LEGO stone or to need several tries until you got something right. Second focusses on providing a player with a finished theme, less freedom but also less work.
Another comparisson would be creating a film (sandbox) vs acting in a film (themepark). You still got some freedom as a actor, but in the end the director will tell you what you gonna do. Of course creating a film will give you your own set of rules, but at least it's rules you can act freely in.
Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter 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.
Did you just remove all RPG elements from MMORPGs?
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.
The entire game seems to come alive.
I'd love to just once see a visionary new change presented that isn't just another retread of grouping to fight monsters on your path to bigger groups to fight boss monsters.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I would not blame developers too much. In most cases, they are giving what the majority of the customer base wants.
Most people - and I don't say this negatively, just as a fact - are conditioned to be passive recipients of entertainment. Television, movies, amusement parks, etc. don't ask a whole lot of their customers except to sit back, relax and enjoy. That is because most people have enough stress in daily life. They don't want to come home and log into another stressful environment.
Many of the "hard core" who enjoy sandbox and especially FFA PVP have either: a) a lot more time on their hands or; b) more of a tolerance for or desire for constant conflict.
The solution I think - and this has been said elsewhere - is to decouple sandbox from FFA PVP. There are a TON more people who would enjoy sandbox if they could get some relief from the FFA PVP crowd. But because the two are inextricably entwined in many people's minds, sandbox has become another word for gankfest to many.
There are ways of doing this, mainly through creating a political system that makes conflict meaningful. Eve Online does a good job of making a game that people who don't want to always PVP can enjoy. Other MMO should look to their example.
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.
The entire game seems to come alive.
I'd love to just once see a visionary new change presented that isn't just another retread of grouping to fight monsters on your path to bigger groups to fight boss monsters.
Is that a yae or a nae? If a nae, what would you suggest? It does make sense that groups of MOBs have more powerfull leaders. But I've also always maintained that a good game doesn't have large power gaps, so that players as a whole can play together and not be divided. This idea I've presented, it holds that narrower power gap too, so that raiding dungeons is much more open to anyone who wants to participate.
I'd also add in that dungeon inhabitants should leave their homes to do some raiding themselves, giving more weight in a worldly way, more reason, to organize and clear a dungeon.
Edit to add what should be obvious, this sort of thing can be going on in mutiple parts of a huge world dispersed with players, all at the same time, changing based on what players do as well as what changes inside of dungeons as time goes on. Call in help from farther away on a need basis. And once it's running little GM support would be required. No "new content creation", it's happeing on it's own.
"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.
For the first bit, you implied I was wrong and then proceeded to explain how I was right. "Depending on the idea/plan" and "Depending on the answer to the first question" are exactly the same thing.
As for the second bit, I largely agree. Although let's not pretend your ideas for dynamic dungeon content are sandbox, because they're definitely themepark in nature. Not sure the entire game would "seem to come alive" just by having Diablo-esque dynamic content, but it will certainly surprise the player more which is good.
One thing I disagree on though, is "intelligent" AI. It's proven time and again that players dislike that type of AI. AI is meant to be a fun puzzle; an interesting challenge. It can appear smart, but if the underlying logic isn't a puzzle the game won't be fun. Appearing smart is as simple as Half-Life 1 or F.E.A.R's method of having the AI say the right voiceover at the right moment -- the AI in those games isn't actually that amazing, but because they say the right thing at the right time players often cited these two games as having fantastic AI.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm seeing a lot of talk lately about people who are concerned about the lack of content, and/or lackluster replayability in these new games a few short months after they come out. ...
What say you?
Very well said, about sums up what the last year or so brought to the market. And why I am loyal to EVE Online since 2005.
But the whole gaming industry is in the same state. Anywhere you look, the games are stuffed with quicktime events, cinematic sequencis or railroaded events. Very little is left for the player to actualy change or create. There are invisible walls put around the prefered path so you cannot get out of the script.
I guess it will change over time, once investments into games start bringing in less and less return.
I'm seeing a lot of talk lately about people who are concerned about the lack of content, and/or lackluster replayability in these new games a few short months after they come out. The problem these developers are having is a simple one. It's called "theme park". The issue is that since they create their worlds to hand deliver an experience (theme park rides, quests, instances), they can't possibly give people enough content to make them happy.
What say you?
Yes, content locusts are lacking content. That's what they are. Any amount of content you give them, they'll devour it. Then they'll whine there's no more content.
The rest of us are casually still getting to max level and enjyoing our time.
It has nothing to do with "themepark". Most games have limited content, that's normal. Thing is, there are people who live to destroy content and for some reason they think they should be pandered to.
I'm all for sandboxes but I do not believe anyone has yet made a non-PvP sandbox, and I consider PvP sandboxes a curse on the sandbox genre. Making your target audience the worst of the worst of gankers, griefers, DII Pkers, teabaggers is not a good idea and then people wonder why those games do not appeal to most people who are really interested in making a campfire but without getting ganked all day.
I don't think anyone should waste time/resources to pander to content locusts, though. Make a sandbox because that's the kind of experience you want to deliver.
"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.
For the first bit, you implied I was wrong and then proceeded to explain how I was right. "Depending on the idea/plan" and "Depending on the answer to the first question" are exactly the same thing.
As for the second bit, I largely agree. Although let's not pretend your ideas for dynamic dungeon content are sandbox, because they're definitely themepark in nature. Not sure the entire game would "seem to come alive" just by having Diablo-esque dynamic content, but it will certainly surprise the player more which is good.
One thing I disagree on though, is "intelligent" AI. It's proven time and again that players dislike that type of AI. AI is meant to be a fun puzzle; an interesting challenge. It can appear smart, but if the underlying logic isn't a puzzle the game won't be fun. Appearing smart is as simple as Half-Life 1 or F.E.A.R's method of having the AI say the right voiceover at the right moment -- the AI in those games isn't actually that amazing, but because they say the right thing at the right time players often cited these two games as having fantastic AI.
Ok, first point taken.
On your second point, I don't think it's either Sandbox or Themepark. I think the terms "worldly" and "more realistic" comes to mind more than either of the others. And this idea could be placed in either a Sandbox or a Themepark based game. I do think it makes a world come alive, changes and surprise in a way that fits halp with that. But also, it's in "story" that's ever changing and not scripted, at least in a hard way or obvious way. Never played Diablo, so....
Thirdly, by "intelligent AI", I meant AI designed for intelligent critters, which should be different than for instict driven animals/monsters. But since you brought it up, yeah, AI that's actually a puzzle sounds good. I never thought of it in those terms, but the general idea applies. So in a system like this, there are options 'A', 'B', etc., that's sort of a puzzle to work out ahead of time for players who have knowledge of a particular dungeon. They get to help devise strategy. Think of the Leroy Jenkin's scene where the raid leader is giving instructions. Now he's asking, "ok, what do we have?" And players who know get to say "this, that, and don't forget the other thing". Yet, with a little randomness, it's not set in stone and can visit the player raiders with a few surprises to overcome on the spot.
Edit to add: That last part you said, it's all enhanced by the little tricks of the mind, isn't it? If players don't notice, or can't see, the slight of hand... it's like magic.
When sandboxes stop trying pawn off players griefing players, no matter how creatively, as content, I'll start taking them seriously. Players don't generate content, we consume it.
Give me an open world that can live and evolve without players in it, and I'll be among the first to take up residence.
I'm seeing a lot of talk lately about people who are concerned about the lack of content, and/or lackluster replayability in these new games a few short months after they come out. The problem these developers are having is a simple one. It's called "theme park". The issue is that since they create their worlds to hand deliver an experience (theme park rides, quests, instances), they can't possibly give people enough content to make them happy.
What say you?
Yes, content locusts are lacking content. That's what they are. Any amount of content you give them, they'll devour it. Then they'll whine there's no more content.
The rest of us are casually still getting to max level and enjyoing our time.
It has nothing to do with "themepark". Most games have limited content, that's normal. Thing is, there are people who live to destroy content and for some reason they think they should be pandered to.
I'm all for sandboxes but I do not believe anyone has yet made a non-PvP sandbox, and I consider PvP sandboxes a curse on the sandbox genre. Making your target audience the worst of the worst of gankers, griefers, DII Pkers, teabaggers is not a good idea and then people wonder why those games do not appeal to most people who are really interested in making a campfire but without getting ganked all day.
I don't think anyone should waste time/resources to pander to content locusts, though. Make a sandbox because that's the kind of experience you want to deliver.
There is *NOTHING* you can do about "concent locusts". The problem is though that more and more games are releasing with limited content anyway, and even if you aren't 'hardcore', you burn through it all in 1-3 months and then start asking for more.
This is besides the fact that you are missing the clear point that gamers are evolving while most games aren't. You can't keep creating the same themepark games for a decade and expect everyone to be thrilled about it. I think your ideas about "content locusts" only demonstrater your failure to see this fact. If the content wasn't spoon-fed to everyone and the player was more free to create their own adventures, then the problems with finite content dwindle. What I'm hearing is that you are blaming gamers, which is my opinion is completely ludicrous. I'm not talking about people who play through an entire MMO inside of a couple days because they want to scream 'First!' on the internet.
I don't know why this thread needed to devolve into "sandbox vs. themepark" again, when I clearly stated that what we need to do is start taking some design ideas and functions from sandboxes and put them into themeparks in order to help with the finite content problem. Games companies have used arena PvP concept as a way to help with this problem, but unfortunately most PvP falls far short, and only takes into account people who care about PvP. There are other options.
The issue is there is no open-ended replayability in a game that holds your hand through all of the content, right to the end. What is needed is content that the player experiences on their own terms, and this includes some more *optional* open-world explorable type zones with dungeons, enemey bases, points of interest, etc. There could also be optional deeper crafting, optional social features, and other features that have gone MIA from modern themeparks. People who don't want this content can ignore it. I have a feeling more people would enjoy it than anyone thinks.
I'm not suggesting the whole industry start making sandboxes. I'm suggesting that themeparks are clearly leaving a lot to be desired, and that there are lessons to be learned from other more complex games from the past, including older themeparks. It doesn't have to be an oldschool grind fest.
What's weird about talking to some of you people on this site is that you remind me of my 90 year old grandma. She doesn't like change. You are so stuck in a gaming rut that you can only see one type of game in your head now.
I suggest everyone reads the PC Gamer article on 'Day Z' and start thinking more about emergent gameplay. In fact, there is a thread here about the game which includes a link to the article I mentioned:
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Originally posted by MindTrigger There is *NOTHING* you can do about "concent locusts". The problem is though that more and more games are releasing with limited content anyway, and even if you aren't 'hardcore', you burn through it all in 1-3 months and then start asking for more.I don't know why this thread needed to devolve into "sandbox vs themepark" again, when I clearly stated that what we need to do is start taking some design ideas and functions from sandboxes and put them into themeparks in order to help with the finite content problem.The issue is there is no open-ended replayability in a game that holds your hand through all of the content, right to the end. What is needed is content that the player experiences on their own terms, and this includes some more *optional* open-world explorable type zones with dungeons, enemey bases, points of interest, etc. There couls also be optional deeper crafting, optional social features, and other features that have gone MIA from modern themeparks.I'm not suggesting the whole industry start making sandboxes. I'm suggesting that themeparks are clearly leaving a lot to be desired, and that there are a lot of lessons to be learned from other more complex games from the past. It doesn't have to be an oldschool grind fest. What's weird about talking to some of you people on this site is that you remind me of my 90 year old grandma. You are so stuck in a gaming rut that you can only see one type of game in your head now.I suggest everyone reads the PC Gamer article on 'Day Z' and start thinking more about emergent gameplay. In fact, there is a thread here about the game which includes a link to the article I mentioned:http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/351384/page/1
Welcome to MMORPG.com?
It seems like developers are looking to add one thing to the standard theme park formula. I would personally like to see more content similar to the way some aspects of Farmville, Minecraft, Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing play.
If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
Also, instead of a big mish-mash of quest lines and quest hubs, let each player pick One Quest at a time. The One Quest may have side quests but they will all be related to the One Quest the player is working to complete. Developers should take this from games like Half-Life/Half-Life 2.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't know why this thread needed to devolve into "sandbox vs. themepark" again, when I clearly stated that what we need to do is start taking some design ideas and functions from sandboxes and put them into themeparks in order to help with the finite content problem.
If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
WOW is doing it. You will get your farmville mini-game in MOP.
Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature.
On your second point, I don't think it's either Sandbox or Themepark. I think the terms "worldly" and "more realistic" comes to mind more than either of the others. And this idea could be placed in either a Sandbox or a Themepark based game. I do think it makes a world come alive, changes and surprise in a way that fits halp with that. But also, it's in "story" that's ever changing and not scripted, at least in a hard way or obvious way. Never played Diablo, so....
Thirdly, by "intelligent AI", I meant AI designed for intelligent critters, which should be different than for instict driven animals/monsters. But since you brought it up, yeah, AI that's actually a puzzle sounds good. I never thought of it in those terms, but the general idea applies. So in a system like this, there are options 'A', 'B', etc., that's sort of a puzzle to work out ahead of time for players who have knowledge of a particular dungeon. They get to help devise strategy. Think of the Leroy Jenkin's scene where the raid leader is giving instructions. Now he's asking, "ok, what do we have?" And players who know get to say "this, that, and don't forget the other thing". Yet, with a little randomness, it's not set in stone and can visit the player raiders with a few surprises to overcome on the spot.
Edit to add: That last part you said, it's all enhanced by the little tricks of the mind, isn't it? If players don't notice, or can't see, the slight of hand... it's like magic.
A feature is either sandbox or themepark. Sand (player-driven; player-authored) or a Ride (dev-driven; dev-authored.)
You've described a fun ride with no significant player inputs, so the feature you're talking about is undeniably a themepark one.
Sandboxes can contain themepark features. It doesn't make the themepark feature a sandbox one (or a neutral one.) It doesn't make the sandbox a themepark (unless the majority of features are themepark features.)
Good AI has always been a puzzle. That's what threat-based AI is: a puzzle. One of many minigames working in conjunction with all the other minigames (you have your rotation puzzle, the mob's abilities puzzle, and perhaps an environment puzzle as well.)
Players certainly want a different puzzle with any new game, and changing the AI puzzle is one way to achieve that (although threat-based AI is still going to work perfectly fine if all the other puzzles are sufficiently different.)
Sure tricks of the mind are part of it. The player's perception of the game is the game. So if the player perceives something as smart, it is smart (even if it's not really smart.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is *NOTHING* you can do about "concent locusts". The problem is though that more and more games are releasing with limited content anyway, and even if you aren't 'hardcore', you burn through it all in 1-3 months and then start asking for more.
Yeah, so ignore that completely worthless part of the playerbase.
1-3 months is pretty good amount of content in my book. WoW always looked like a huge game for me world-wise, and then you get all the instances and raids that would take forever to do. I never felt that WoW's content cycle was too slow or anything.
I don't know what games you speak of. The most recent game to get invaded by content locusts is Diablo III. I'm nowhere near Inferno. There are short games out there, but that doesn't apply to the games I've seen content locusts whine about.
Heck, Diablo I is a pretty damn short game you can finish in 3 days of slow playing. Nobody complained. This is something else.
This is besides the fact that you are missing the clear point that gamers are evolving while most games aren't. You can't keep creating the same themepark games for a decade and expect everyone to be thrilled about it. I think you ideas about "content locusts" only demonstrate your failure to see this fact. If the content wasn't spoon-fed to everyone and the player was more free to create their own adventures, then the problems with finite content dwindle.
Yes, you shouldn't clone games, but then again gamers willingly play cloned games (how many people play CoD?).
This has nothing to do with "content" though. You are implying we should feed content locusts. I'm saying content locusts should be completely ignored because they will devour ANY amount of content out there very, very fast. They're a waste of development resources because they do not exist to enjoy games. They exist to power through them, min-max to oblivion, and then shit on the rest of the playerbase and call them noobs.
Content locusts are not what we should be observing game length on.
I am really not sure why my understanding is somehow inferior to yours and how if I disagree with you I must be "failing to see" some fact.
I also do not appreciate your attempts to basically insult a gamer who likes driven games. "spoon-fed" wtf? Can't you speak like a normal person? Most games I've ever played were driven. Most games end. That was never an issue for me or anyone I know. Sandbox is a different idea. There's nothing wrong with that idea. But there's nothing superior about it (especially considering how difficult a sandbox is to create. You are saying that like it's something easy). People shouldn't rush to it to feed content locusts.
I don't know why this thread needed to devolve into "sandbox vs themepark" again, when I clearly stated that what we need to do is start taking some design ideas and functions from sandboxes and put them into themeparks in order to help with the finite content problem.
Because you're concentrating on the "finite content" problem which is not a problem. Well-done themeparks have plenty of content. Never once when I played a themepark was my complaint "I don't have enough stuff to do". It was always "this is boring", "this doesn't matter", "I shouldn't be doing this".
The issue is there is no open-ended replayability in a game that holds your hand through all of the content, right to the end. What is needed is content that the player experiences on their own terms, and this includes some more *optional* open-world explorable type zones with dungeons, enemey bases, points of interest, etc. There couls also be optional deeper crafting, optional social features, and other features that have gone MIA from modern themeparks.
You are basically asking for every game to become a sandbox.
I'm not suggesting the whole industry start making sandboxes. I'm suggesting that themeparks are clearly leaving a lot to be desired, and that there are a lot of lessons to be learned from other more complex games from the past. It doesn't have to be an oldschool grind fest.
Themeparks are leaving a lot to be desired because they're badly designed. That's it. That's all. There's nothing mysterious about it. Themeparks, since WoW, have bad designers. Bad ideas. Bad visuals. Bad systems. Bad balance.
I suggest everyone reads the PC Gamer article on 'Day Z' and start thinking more about emergent gameplay. In fact, there is a thread here about the game which includes a link to the article I mentioned:
DayZ, the PvP sandbox made around ganking, specifically the kind of sandbox that I have no intent to play, ever?
You do realize some people HATE that kind of gameplay, don't you?
Did it ever occur to you that some people LIKE driven stuff? That some people don't mind having something to do the moment they load up the game, instead of trying to care about a world they just entered without something to hold on to?
Themeparks could benefit from adding sandbox. But if you are worried about too little content in games that are fucking flabbergastingly huge, you are really centering on the wrong problem. You're probably one of those content locusts I'm talking about. You have to understand that many players out there can't, don't want to, won't play like you do. I have a friend who is so busy with his job he can barely play a few hours a week of Diablo III. I myself generally perceive it as abnormal to burn too many hours on a video game per day. I will not be max level any time soon. I will not be an expert in every system of the game. I will be behind, always behind, the playerbase. I can't do EVE. I can't do Darkfall. I can't do DayZ. They move too fast for me, way too fast. I can't even catch up to people who raid in WoW, that's why I stick to the world part and have fun in there, but sandboxes take the world part away and just put in a bunch of PvP people who are much better at the game and are all out to kill me. Explain to me what is fun in that?
It's why I avoided Xsyson, even though I love being able to chop a tree and build a house. But you can't do shit in that game without some huge ass clan and watching your back all day.
There is *NOTHING* you can do about "concent locusts". The problem is though that more and more games are releasing with limited content anyway, and even if you aren't 'hardcore', you burn through it all in 1-3 months and then start asking for more.
Yeah, so ignore that completely worthless part of the playerbase.
1-3 months is pretty good amount of content in my book. WoW always looked like a huge game for me world-wise, and then you get all the instances and raids that would take forever to do. I never felt that WoW's content cycle was too slow or anything.
I don't know what games you speak of. The most recent game to get invaded by content locusts is Diablo III. I'm nowhere near Inferno. There are short games out there, but that doesn't apply to the games I've seen content locusts whine about.
Heck, Diablo I is a pretty damn short game you can finish in 3 days of slow playing. Nobody complained. This is something else.
This is besides the fact that you are missing the clear point that gamers are evolving while most games aren't. You can't keep creating the same themepark games for a decade and expect everyone to be thrilled about it. I think you ideas about "content locusts" only demonstrate your failure to see this fact. If the content wasn't spoon-fed to everyone and the player was more free to create their own adventures, then the problems with finite content dwindle.
Yes, you shouldn't clone games, but then again gamers willingly play cloned games (how many people play CoD?).
This has nothing to do with "content" though. You are implying we should feed content locusts. I'm saying content locusts should be completely ignored because they will devour ANY amount of content out there very, very fast. They're a waste of development resources because they do not exist to enjoy games. They exist to power through them, min-max to oblivion, and then shit on the rest of the playerbase and call them noobs.
Content locusts are not what we should be observing game length on.
I am really not sure why my understanding is somehow inferior to yours and how if I disagree with you I must be "failing to see" some fact.
I also do not appreciate your attempts to basically insult a gamer who likes driven games. "spoon-fed" wtf? Can't you speak like a normal person? Most games I've ever played were driven. Most games end. That was never an issue for me or anyone I know. Sandbox is a different idea. There's nothing wrong with that idea. But there's nothing superior about it (especially considering how difficult a sandbox is to create. You are saying that like it's something easy). People shouldn't rush to it to feed content locusts.
I don't know why this thread needed to devolve into "sandbox vs themepark" again, when I clearly stated that what we need to do is start taking some design ideas and functions from sandboxes and put them into themeparks in order to help with the finite content problem.
Because you're concentrating on the "finite content" problem which is not a problem. Well-done themeparks have plenty of content. Never once when I played a themepark was my complaint "I don't have enough stuff to do". It was always "this is boring", "this doesn't matter", "I shouldn't be doing this".
The issue is there is no open-ended replayability in a game that holds your hand through all of the content, right to the end. What is needed is content that the player experiences on their own terms, and this includes some more *optional* open-world explorable type zones with dungeons, enemey bases, points of interest, etc. There couls also be optional deeper crafting, optional social features, and other features that have gone MIA from modern themeparks.
You are basically asking for every game to become a sandbox.
I'm not suggesting the whole industry start making sandboxes. I'm suggesting that themeparks are clearly leaving a lot to be desired, and that there are a lot of lessons to be learned from other more complex games from the past. It doesn't have to be an oldschool grind fest.
Themeparks are leaving a lot to be desired because they're badly designed. That's it. That's all. There's nothing mysterious about it. Themeparks, since WoW, have bad designers. Bad ideas. Bad visuals. Bad systems. Bad balance.
I suggest everyone reads the PC Gamer article on 'Day Z' and start thinking more about emergent gameplay. In fact, there is a thread here about the game which includes a link to the article I mentioned:
DayZ, the PvP sandbox made around ganking, specifically the kind of sandbox that I have no intent to play, ever?
You do realize some people HATE that kind of gameplay, don't you?
Did it ever occur to you that some people LIKE driven stuff? That some people don't mind having something to do the moment they load up the game, instead of trying to care about a world they just entered without something to hold on to?
Themeparks could benefit from adding sandbox. But if you are worried about too little content in games that are fucking flabbergastingly huge, you are really centering on the wrong problem. You're probably one of those content locusts I'm talking about. You have to understand that many players out there can't, don't want to, won't play like you do. I have a friend who is so busy with his job he can barely play a few hours a week of Diablo III. I myself generally perceive it as abnormal to burn too many hours on a video game per day. I will not be max level any time soon. I will not be an expert in every system of the game. I will be behind, always behind, the playerbase. I can't do EVE. I can't do Darkfall. I can't do DayZ. They move too fast for me, way too fast. I can't even catch up to people who raid in WoW, that's why I stick to the world part and have fun in there, but sandboxes take the world part away and just put in a bunch of PvP people who are much better at the game and are all out to kill me. Explain to me what is fun in that?
It's why I avoided Xsyson, even though I love being able to chop a tree and build a house. But you can't do shit in that game without some huge ass clan and watching your back all day.
According to your comments, you are perfectly happy with the status quo. Have at it. Many of us are ready to move on. Good luck to you, and we'll see you when you get bored like we have.
I do understand not everyone plays like I want to. There will always be a market for mouth-breather simple hand holding MMO games. The things is though, is that there is a growing segment of players who want more now. 7+ years of the same rehashed design is not just getting old, it's dead. Guild Wars 2 is proving that, and it's not even that big of a departure.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
If you want a great steak, you don't just throw it on a fire. People don't say, "I don't care about the stupid semantics", they say "medium rare".
Sometimes I just want a goddamn steak.
You're in luck. There is plenty of over-cooked steak (games) out there for you now. You should be in heaven.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
According to your comments, you are perfectly happy with the status quo. Have at it. Many of us are ready to move on. Good luck to you, and we'll see you when you get bored like we have.
I do understand not everyone plays like I want to. There will always be a market for mouth-breather simple hand holding MMO games. The things is though, is that there is a growing segment of players who want more now. 7+ years of the same rehashed design is not just getting old, it's dead. Guild Wars 2 is proving that.
This is not correct. You are just trying to polarize the playerbase, devide it into apparently dumb "mouth breather" people like myself who want everything "spoon fed", and awesome smart people like you who love sadnboxes. Listen to yourself. You're not interested in a discussion.
GW2 was designed for me. The dumb mouth breather who wants everything spoon fed you just mentioned. You just don't realize that. You don't see what's going on at all, do you? You're too centered on yourself.
You should figure out wtf is that you're trying to say already.
Originally posted by MindTrigger
You're in luck. There is plenty of over-cooked steak (games) out there for you now. You should be in heaven.
You would do much better without your patronizing attitude.
On your second point, I don't think it's either Sandbox or Themepark. I think the terms "worldly" and "more realistic" comes to mind more than either of the others. And this idea could be placed in either a Sandbox or a Themepark based game. I do think it makes a world come alive, changes and surprise in a way that fits halp with that. But also, it's in "story" that's ever changing and not scripted, at least in a hard way or obvious way. Never played Diablo, so....
Thirdly, by "intelligent AI", I meant AI designed for intelligent critters, which should be different than for instict driven animals/monsters. But since you brought it up, yeah, AI that's actually a puzzle sounds good. I never thought of it in those terms, but the general idea applies. So in a system like this, there are options 'A', 'B', etc., that's sort of a puzzle to work out ahead of time for players who have knowledge of a particular dungeon. They get to help devise strategy. Think of the Leroy Jenkin's scene where the raid leader is giving instructions. Now he's asking, "ok, what do we have?" And players who know get to say "this, that, and don't forget the other thing". Yet, with a little randomness, it's not set in stone and can visit the player raiders with a few surprises to overcome on the spot.
Edit to add: That last part you said, it's all enhanced by the little tricks of the mind, isn't it? If players don't notice, or can't see, the slight of hand... it's like magic.
A feature is either sandbox or themepark. Sand (player-driven; player-authored) or a Ride (dev-driven; dev-authored.)
You've described a fun ride with no significant player inputs, so the feature you're talking about is undeniably a themepark one.
Sandboxes can contain themepark features. It doesn't make the themepark feature a sandbox one (or a neutral one.) It doesn't make the sandbox a themepark (unless the majority of features are themepark features.)
Good AI has always been a puzzle. That's what threat-based AI is: a puzzle. One of many minigames working in conjunction with all the other minigames (you have your rotation puzzle, the mob's abilities puzzle, and perhaps an environment puzzle as well.)
Players certainly want a different puzzle with any new game, and changing the AI puzzle is one way to achieve that (although threat-based AI is still going to work perfectly fine if all the other puzzles are sufficiently different.)
Sure tricks of the mind are part of it. The player's perception of the game is the game. So if the player perceives something as smart, it is smart (even if it's not really smart.)
I don't agree. Is bashing a MOB Sandbox or Themepark?
But really, I don't want to devolve an otherwise fine conversation into this argument.
Hmm, i wanted to reply to your points specifically, but then i realized, that you are not really arguing against mmos with sandbox elements, but eve (or a game similar to it), you even seem to agree with my point C (and are completely missing point , in a way
And i think those games have enough players to defend them.
Comments
I don't think that it's making much sense to link Sandbox MMORPGs to the reality, just because sandbox mmorpgs often implement a more sophisticated economic and polical system instead of taking the player by the hand and pushing him around while handing out constant rewards. You won't be able to easily become a politican in real life, you won't be allowed to kill other humans because you want some resources, you won't be able to become the bad guy criminal in real life without going to prison, you won't be able to become a master crafter there, you won't be filthy rich, you won't become a war lord - or whatever you go for.
I would compare the Sandbox type of game to LEGO where Themeparks are more like Playmobile. First focusses on giving the player tools into the hand to create their own idea of entertainment, even though sometimes it can be annoying/tedious to search for that missing LEGO stone or to need several tries until you got something right. Second focusses on providing a player with a finished theme, less freedom but also less work.
Another comparisson would be creating a film (sandbox) vs acting in a film (themepark). You still got some freedom as a actor, but in the end the director will tell you what you gonna do. Of course creating a film will give you your own set of rules, but at least it's rules you can act freely in.
Did you just remove all RPG elements from MMORPGs?
I'd love to just once see a visionary new change presented that isn't just another retread of grouping to fight monsters on your path to bigger groups to fight boss monsters.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I would not blame developers too much. In most cases, they are giving what the majority of the customer base wants.
Most people - and I don't say this negatively, just as a fact - are conditioned to be passive recipients of entertainment. Television, movies, amusement parks, etc. don't ask a whole lot of their customers except to sit back, relax and enjoy. That is because most people have enough stress in daily life. They don't want to come home and log into another stressful environment.
Many of the "hard core" who enjoy sandbox and especially FFA PVP have either: a) a lot more time on their hands or; b) more of a tolerance for or desire for constant conflict.
The solution I think - and this has been said elsewhere - is to decouple sandbox from FFA PVP. There are a TON more people who would enjoy sandbox if they could get some relief from the FFA PVP crowd. But because the two are inextricably entwined in many people's minds, sandbox has become another word for gankfest to many.
There are ways of doing this, mainly through creating a political system that makes conflict meaningful. Eve Online does a good job of making a game that people who don't want to always PVP can enjoy. Other MMO should look to their example.
Is that a yae or a nae? If a nae, what would you suggest? It does make sense that groups of MOBs have more powerfull leaders. But I've also always maintained that a good game doesn't have large power gaps, so that players as a whole can play together and not be divided. This idea I've presented, it holds that narrower power gap too, so that raiding dungeons is much more open to anyone who wants to participate.
I'd also add in that dungeon inhabitants should leave their homes to do some raiding themselves, giving more weight in a worldly way, more reason, to organize and clear a dungeon.
Edit to add what should be obvious, this sort of thing can be going on in mutiple parts of a huge world dispersed with players, all at the same time, changing based on what players do as well as what changes inside of dungeons as time goes on. Call in help from farther away on a need basis. And once it's running little GM support would be required. No "new content creation", it's happeing on it's own.
Once upon a time....
For the first bit, you implied I was wrong and then proceeded to explain how I was right. "Depending on the idea/plan" and "Depending on the answer to the first question" are exactly the same thing.
As for the second bit, I largely agree. Although let's not pretend your ideas for dynamic dungeon content are sandbox, because they're definitely themepark in nature. Not sure the entire game would "seem to come alive" just by having Diablo-esque dynamic content, but it will certainly surprise the player more which is good.
One thing I disagree on though, is "intelligent" AI. It's proven time and again that players dislike that type of AI. AI is meant to be a fun puzzle; an interesting challenge. It can appear smart, but if the underlying logic isn't a puzzle the game won't be fun. Appearing smart is as simple as Half-Life 1 or F.E.A.R's method of having the AI say the right voiceover at the right moment -- the AI in those games isn't actually that amazing, but because they say the right thing at the right time players often cited these two games as having fantastic AI.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Very well said, about sums up what the last year or so brought to the market. And why I am loyal to EVE Online since 2005.
But the whole gaming industry is in the same state. Anywhere you look, the games are stuffed with quicktime events, cinematic sequencis or railroaded events. Very little is left for the player to actualy change or create. There are invisible walls put around the prefered path so you cannot get out of the script.
I guess it will change over time, once investments into games start bringing in less and less return.
Yes, content locusts are lacking content. That's what they are. Any amount of content you give them, they'll devour it. Then they'll whine there's no more content.
The rest of us are casually still getting to max level and enjyoing our time.
It has nothing to do with "themepark". Most games have limited content, that's normal. Thing is, there are people who live to destroy content and for some reason they think they should be pandered to.
I'm all for sandboxes but I do not believe anyone has yet made a non-PvP sandbox, and I consider PvP sandboxes a curse on the sandbox genre. Making your target audience the worst of the worst of gankers, griefers, DII Pkers, teabaggers is not a good idea and then people wonder why those games do not appeal to most people who are really interested in making a campfire but without getting ganked all day.
I don't think anyone should waste time/resources to pander to content locusts, though. Make a sandbox because that's the kind of experience you want to deliver.
This. A thousand times this.
Ok, first point taken.
On your second point, I don't think it's either Sandbox or Themepark. I think the terms "worldly" and "more realistic" comes to mind more than either of the others. And this idea could be placed in either a Sandbox or a Themepark based game. I do think it makes a world come alive, changes and surprise in a way that fits halp with that. But also, it's in "story" that's ever changing and not scripted, at least in a hard way or obvious way. Never played Diablo, so....
Thirdly, by "intelligent AI", I meant AI designed for intelligent critters, which should be different than for instict driven animals/monsters. But since you brought it up, yeah, AI that's actually a puzzle sounds good. I never thought of it in those terms, but the general idea applies. So in a system like this, there are options 'A', 'B', etc., that's sort of a puzzle to work out ahead of time for players who have knowledge of a particular dungeon. They get to help devise strategy. Think of the Leroy Jenkin's scene where the raid leader is giving instructions. Now he's asking, "ok, what do we have?" And players who know get to say "this, that, and don't forget the other thing". Yet, with a little randomness, it's not set in stone and can visit the player raiders with a few surprises to overcome on the spot.
Edit to add: That last part you said, it's all enhanced by the little tricks of the mind, isn't it? If players don't notice, or can't see, the slight of hand... it's like magic.
Once upon a time....
When sandboxes stop trying pawn off players griefing players, no matter how creatively, as content, I'll start taking them seriously. Players don't generate content, we consume it.
Give me an open world that can live and evolve without players in it, and I'll be among the first to take up residence.
There is *NOTHING* you can do about "concent locusts". The problem is though that more and more games are releasing with limited content anyway, and even if you aren't 'hardcore', you burn through it all in 1-3 months and then start asking for more.
This is besides the fact that you are missing the clear point that gamers are evolving while most games aren't. You can't keep creating the same themepark games for a decade and expect everyone to be thrilled about it. I think your ideas about "content locusts" only demonstrater your failure to see this fact. If the content wasn't spoon-fed to everyone and the player was more free to create their own adventures, then the problems with finite content dwindle. What I'm hearing is that you are blaming gamers, which is my opinion is completely ludicrous. I'm not talking about people who play through an entire MMO inside of a couple days because they want to scream 'First!' on the internet.
I don't know why this thread needed to devolve into "sandbox vs. themepark" again, when I clearly stated that what we need to do is start taking some design ideas and functions from sandboxes and put them into themeparks in order to help with the finite content problem. Games companies have used arena PvP concept as a way to help with this problem, but unfortunately most PvP falls far short, and only takes into account people who care about PvP. There are other options.
The issue is there is no open-ended replayability in a game that holds your hand through all of the content, right to the end. What is needed is content that the player experiences on their own terms, and this includes some more *optional* open-world explorable type zones with dungeons, enemey bases, points of interest, etc. There could also be optional deeper crafting, optional social features, and other features that have gone MIA from modern themeparks. People who don't want this content can ignore it. I have a feeling more people would enjoy it than anyone thinks.
I'm not suggesting the whole industry start making sandboxes. I'm suggesting that themeparks are clearly leaving a lot to be desired, and that there are lessons to be learned from other more complex games from the past, including older themeparks. It doesn't have to be an oldschool grind fest.
What's weird about talking to some of you people on this site is that you remind me of my 90 year old grandma. She doesn't like change. You are so stuck in a gaming rut that you can only see one type of game in your head now.
I suggest everyone reads the PC Gamer article on 'Day Z' and start thinking more about emergent gameplay. In fact, there is a thread here about the game which includes a link to the article I mentioned:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/351384/page/1
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
If you want a great steak, you don't just throw it on a fire. People don't say, "I don't care about the stupid semantics", they say "medium rare".
Once upon a time....
Welcome to MMORPG.com?
It seems like developers are looking to add one thing to the standard theme park formula. I would personally like to see more content similar to the way some aspects of Farmville, Minecraft, Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing play.
If you're going to add one thing, add something that gives people a feeling of personal ownership. Let players manage a small section of the landscape to do with as they will, farming necessary things or building ridiculous houses. Allow players to have a hand in managing NPC villages...making them successful and prolific, or miserable and rebellious. Let players start farms to breed animals that give you something relevant when you milk them or kill them. Do all of this without losing the general progression model and quest based stories.
Also, instead of a big mish-mash of quest lines and quest hubs, let each player pick One Quest at a time. The One Quest may have side quests but they will all be related to the One Quest the player is working to complete. Developers should take this from games like Half-Life/Half-Life 2.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You brought it up. Hehe
Once upon a time....
WOW is doing it. You will get your farmville mini-game in MOP.
Personally i don't care. I don't play MMORPGs to farm but more power to those who want the feature.
A feature is either sandbox or themepark. Sand (player-driven; player-authored) or a Ride (dev-driven; dev-authored.)
You've described a fun ride with no significant player inputs, so the feature you're talking about is undeniably a themepark one.
Sandboxes can contain themepark features. It doesn't make the themepark feature a sandbox one (or a neutral one.) It doesn't make the sandbox a themepark (unless the majority of features are themepark features.)
Good AI has always been a puzzle. That's what threat-based AI is: a puzzle. One of many minigames working in conjunction with all the other minigames (you have your rotation puzzle, the mob's abilities puzzle, and perhaps an environment puzzle as well.)
Players certainly want a different puzzle with any new game, and changing the AI puzzle is one way to achieve that (although threat-based AI is still going to work perfectly fine if all the other puzzles are sufficiently different.)
Sure tricks of the mind are part of it. The player's perception of the game is the game. So if the player perceives something as smart, it is smart (even if it's not really smart.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
According to your comments, you are perfectly happy with the status quo. Have at it. Many of us are ready to move on. Good luck to you, and we'll see you when you get bored like we have.
I do understand not everyone plays like I want to. There will always be a market for mouth-breather simple hand holding MMO games. The things is though, is that there is a growing segment of players who want more now. 7+ years of the same rehashed design is not just getting old, it's dead. Guild Wars 2 is proving that, and it's not even that big of a departure.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Sometimes I just want a goddamn steak.
You're in luck. There is plenty of over-cooked steak (games) out there for you now. You should be in heaven.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
This is not correct. You are just trying to polarize the playerbase, devide it into apparently dumb "mouth breather" people like myself who want everything "spoon fed", and awesome smart people like you who love sadnboxes. Listen to yourself. You're not interested in a discussion.
GW2 was designed for me. The dumb mouth breather who wants everything spoon fed you just mentioned. You just don't realize that. You don't see what's going on at all, do you? You're too centered on yourself.
You should figure out wtf is that you're trying to say already.
You would do much better without your patronizing attitude.
I don't agree. Is bashing a MOB Sandbox or Themepark?
But really, I don't want to devolve an otherwise fine conversation into this argument.
Once upon a time....
The OP seems to be mostly concerned with calling anyone who likes themepark features an idiot, so I'm not sure if there's any hope for this thread...
Here ya go. You didn't specify, so I didn't bother cooking it.
And in case you don't know, that's chunks of lab grown meat for the less discerning customer like yourself.
(I just couldn't resist, heh)
Once upon a time....
Hmm, i wanted to reply to your points specifically, but then i realized, that you are not really arguing against mmos with sandbox elements, but eve (or a game similar to it), you even seem to agree with my point C (and are completely missing point
, in a way 
And i think those games have enough players to defend them.
Flame on!