Theme park, it is what is being served because it is the quick, easier and less complex thing to do. I personally would prefer to subecribe to a sandbox mmo that was fun for several years rather than keep buying theme park mmos which turn to crap within 3-6 months.
This actually isn't true. A sandbox is predominantly just a tool, which isn't that hard to create.
A fun themepark is much harder to create and requires a lot more effort.
Much like the analogy each is based on ("Here's your sandbox, kid" vs. "I've constructed this amazing rollercoaster for you. It cost $25 million to build.")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ehug: I never understood the constant complaints about PKs or griefers, they don't affect my game play much. Sure, they can temporarily lock me out from a small area or similar, but what keeps you from doing something else or (what I usually do) finding help to take sweet revenge?
Irus: PKers/griefers pretty much directly influence gameplay, IMO. They limit how you play, what you can do, where can you do it, how can you do it. If being at war in EVE means I'm stuck in a station. If low sec pirates mean I can't go to low sec. Explain to me how that doesn't limit me.
Yes they can affect your play, but I personally never felt limited by it. Yes you can run into situations that might not be fun at first, but I don't see what keeps you from making the best out of it. If you are at clan war, call your clanies to bail you out. If you have a ganker group keeping you in safe zone, bring some friends and free the village. I don't see how that limits you any more then you not being able to solo a raid boss or similar. There are elements that only work in groups or with a minimum level or with decent gear or whatever. Yes players can affect you, but they don't affect you more then other elements. If you don't like the human element, then instanciated PVE games are your friend.
Irus:And why should I particularly care about revenge? I think this shows immediately those games appeal to people who are into such player dynamics. I'm not. I don't care for killing players for no reason or enacting revenge. Even if I did want to enact revenge, I probably wouldn't be able to. Chances are, the guy who killed me is a skilled pirate in a Dramiel while I can barely afford a Rifter.
If you don't like to directly compete like you would in a tennis, soccer or chess match, because you don't find it enjoyable, that's okay. Personally I prefer that kind of competition because I feel that PVE usually is too easy and repetive,
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
Irus:I'm not aware of any diminished PvP or PvE sandboxes at the moment. EVE is probably the closest to a diminished PvP game atm, and you know how PvP driven that game is.
The market for sandboxes is really in a sad state right now, but hopefully Archage will bring us salvation (;
Irus: Furthermore, I do not recall saying someone was forcing me to play a PvP sandbox. There was just a poster here who seemed to imply every themepark should be a sandbox, which to me means a PvP sandbox. I was trying to explain why that gameplay doesn't appeal to a lot of people.
You sounded like Sandbox games are directly bound to players griefing other players. Might have misunderstood that long sentence if you didn't try to say that.
I'm referring to the mechanics of the game, which transcend whatever skin and story you stick on it. Zombies were easy to implement in the Arma engine, and it's a concept people get. There is plenty of room to play with emergent gameplay outside of zombie survivial. That's cool if this game isn't your gig. I'm not trying to make it so. I'm saying some of these concepts can be added to themeparks to enhance them. What actual features are used and how they are changed to fit a themepark is a discussion for another thread.
Some concepts can be added, yes. I'm waiting for a game to integrate them outside of a PvP paradigm.
How would you add these concepts to a themepark? Sandboxes are frequently balanced around needing tons of people and time to get something done. Which shafts anyone who has little time.
Ask yourself this: what can be done to themeparks to make them better? I think they are inherently limited, because really all you can do to them, just like Disneyland, is add more themepark content. More quests, more instances, a new zone, etc. Guild Wars 2 is shaking up some of the finer mechanics, but at the end of the day it's still a fairly simple and fun themepark.
I generally do not think up design skits with "it's a themepark" or "it's a sandbox" in mind, but I have plenty of ideas. I doubt you'd want to read my wall of text with them.
I think our disconnect here is more of a "PvP vs PvE" one.
And it would be really nice if you cut it with the Disneyland analogies. I relaly do not perceive themeparks from that perspective at all, maybe that is the issue.
I perceive themeparks as gaves with the average, non-hardcore (w/e that means) user in mind.
A themepark doesn't make you write macros to pick up items and do other basic tasks. It doesn't make you deal with hyper-unintuitive controls and environments when you open the game (think the recent MO thread). A themepark provides you with a tutorial. A themepark gives you some stuff to do so you are not wondering aimlessly trying to make yourself interested in uninteresting drama. In a themepark, most participants can have fun, not the select few who are in the biggest baddest corp with the best PvP players. A themepark is not against casuals, "carebears", and designed with attacking them in mind. You can accomplish something in a short time in a themepark. You don't need to study tons of papers and websites and wikis to perform in a themepark.
Themeparks are cut in such a way that you have cross-repeated pseudo-instanced content that allows individual players to do what they do in other games that are not MMO's (feel like heroes), except now they can do it with friends, across the world, in large guilds, etc. Sandboxes are specifically cut in a more capitalist manner where winner takes all and everyone else is a grunt.
If you know of a different way to design a sandbox I'd like to hear it.
As I have mentioned before, I have been a hardcore FPS clan match gamer since the mid- 90's. I had no idea how much fun I would have crafting, interacting socially and playing in sandbox games until I stumbled upon it. To assume that people who have never played with any sandbox features simply don't want to, is ludicrous. A lot of gamers have never had the opportunity to try it, and the only offerings there have been in recent years are broken, under-budget indy developers.
I don't remember saying that. I just said that I did not really enjoy the sandbox games I've played in the past. Darkfall, EVE, Planetside. People can enjoy it, but I think it's a very specific type of people. DayZ, I'm assuming, is the same.
Anyway, as I have told you ad nauseum, I know the changes I am proposing are not for everyone. This entire thread is for people who are sick and tired of the status quo, not for people who are perfectly fine with today's casual themeparks.
I'm not fine with the status quo. I don't understand why you keep thinking I am. I just don't think that turning every game into a PvP sandbox is a good idea and I think your train of thought seems less aimed at people who dislike the status quo and more at people who like PvP sandboxes.
That's not what you are offering, then what are you offering? I can't seem to understand how you actually plan to implement, for instance, the immersive features of DayZ without making the game like DayZ (open ended gank fest).
Yes they can affect your play, but I personally never felt limited by it. Yes you can run into situations that might not be fun at first, but I don't see what keeps you from making the best out of it. If you are at clan war, call your clanies to bail you out. If you have a ganker group keeping you in safe zone, bring some friends and free the village. I don't see how that limits you any more then you not being able to solo a raid boss or similar. There are elements that only work in groups or with a minimum level or with decent gear or whatever. Yes players can affect you, but they don't affect you more then other elements. If you don't like the human element, then instanciated PVE games are your friend.
Well, personal is personal. I have.
Making the best of it? That sounds like something you'd hear after being bullied in school. Why would I want to have a negative experience to make the best of in the first place?
What do you mean bail you out? Sitting in stations is very typical wardec behavior in EVE. You do it because there's no way to predict if someone will camp a statoin.
"Bring some friends" I just started the game, what friends? Our enemies probably have way, way more friends than I do.
I don't have to Raid until I want to. Any level 85 is welcome in WoW and the guild will work with them. Until I get there, I have no concerns. World PvP won't bother me since I don't lose my stuff. I HAVE to get involved in PvP crap if I don't want to. Any miner corp in EVE, chances are it'll get war decced. Chances are your fellow corpmates are cowards who do not want to do anything.
I dislike instanced PvE games so I really do not get your point.
If you don't like to directly compete like you would in a tennis, soccer or chess match, because you don't find it enjoyable, that's okay. Personally I prefer that kind of competition because I feel that PVE usually is too easy and repetive,
That's fine but I think the point of my arguments, agian, is that I do not want to invite the FFA PvP that comes with sandboxes into themepark.
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
Cut the patronizing tone. Where did I say I was forced to play a PvP game? Where? Are you sure you understood what you were replying to?
Why do you think I dislike PvP games? Because of people like you. You're always patronizing. Putting is down, calling us bad, unskilled, carebears. Sick of it.
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.
Bashing a mob is really too small a detail to consider either, but PVE combat on the whole is predominantly themepark. The only way it could be considered otherwise is if the way the player "fights" is like oldschool Populous (manipulating the entire game world to achieve victory in combat.)
You have sand and you have rides.
Sandboxes were originally defined because they're a bunch of sand and players create their own stuff, while the themepark players ride the rides the developers constructed and can't change the rides. The dynamic Diablo-esque dungeon you describe is definitely the latter. It's definitely themepark.
You can disagree, but really you're disagreeing with all the developers who coined these concepts in the first place and the fundamental idea behind each concept. You could also disagree with the definition of "up" but that isn't going to change what it means to everyone else.
Whatever you say.
Oh, and players first coined the phrases when they were complaining about EQ.
Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter Let me start by the end.
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!
No, I'm not attacking any games.
There are bad games and there are games that aren't for each individual tastes,
Bad games have problems with user input, have poor AI, have no depth, etc.
I'm not missing point B, I just have a different opinion of what a MMORPG is.
In my view a MMORPG is simply a game where you customize an avatar that represents you in an online world where you can find many other player you can interact with.
As you can see that is a very simple definition that allows for many things to be included in a game.
In fact my biggest beef with MMORPGs is the requirement to have organized parties to do the most interesting content - I prefer a chaotic experience that gives a bigger emphasis on the tactical aspect over the strategic one.
I think the "cavalry has arrived" is one of the best feelings, for the ones that help and for those being helped.
Additionally I dislike when my game starts to have schedules and starts to resemble a job.
You can say "well maybe you need a new genre". But that is the same answer that players that prefer theme parks give to the sandbox players and they aren't happy when they hear that answer.
Maybe I just need a game that caters to my wishes and maybe that game is GW2 (not all of them but good enough).
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
> > Yes they can affect your play, but I personally never felt limited by it. Yes you can run into situations that might not be fun at first, but I don't see what keeps you from making the best out of it. If you are at clan war, call your clanies to bail you out. If you have a ganker group keeping you in safe zone, bring some friends and free the village. I don't see how that limits you any more then you not being able to solo a raid boss or similar. There are elements that only work in groups or with a minimum level or with decent gear or whatever. Yes players can affect you, but they don't affect you more then other elements. If you don't like the human element, then instanciated PVE games are your friend.
> Well, personal is personal. I have.
And that's why games that give the player this type of freedom likely are not for you. You feel limited, I feel motivated.
> Making the best of it? That sounds like something you'd hear after being bullied in school. Why would I want to have a negative experience to make the best of in the first place?
That's how we differ. I die/wipe/fail on something hard or even unfair and it just makes me want to try harder. For you it's a negative experience, for me it's just a sign that I still got to improve something or find new ways to handle it.
"Bring some friends" I just started the game, what friends? Our enemies probably have way, way more friends than I do.
Personally in that case I would level somewhere else, or ask on some channel if somebody friendly would help, or go around town and talk to people and make some friends while learning about the shops, npcs and the likes, or.... Just because a small PVE area is locked down for a not too long time doesn't mean I can't do anything. If it annoys you so much that you can't bear it, the game or server type isn't for you. You can always play games like WoW (or comparable titles) that only have consentual PVP.
> I don't have to Raid until I want to. Any level 85 is welcome in WoW and the guild will work with them. Until I get there, I have no concerns. World PvP won't bother me since I don't lose my stuff. I HAVE to get involved in PvP crap if I don't want to. Any miner corp in EVE, chances are it'll get war decced. Chances are your fellow corpmates are cowards who do not want to do anything.
And how does that change anything about you not being able to do it solo or at your level? Like I said, if you don't like open pvp, you shouldn't play an open pvp game or on an open pvp server. I sometimes get ganked by higher levels or groups. Do I care? Not really, I just res and adapt. Either I get friends to help me or ask my clan or move on, or.... Same as what I would eg do when I fail to kill a Raid Boss solo.
> I dislike instanced PvE games so I really do not get your point.
I thought you said you don't like other players affecting your game play in a negative way, it limits your game play. Open world PVE games will still allow others to grief you easily by killstealing you, training you and all the other stuff that griefers enjoy to do. Just that you are not allowed to fight back. So, griefing you is not limited to killing you. If you want to be safe from griefers PVE instances are your only safe place.
> > If you don't like to directly compete like you would in a tennis, soccer or chess match, because you don't find it enjoyable, that's okay. Personally I prefer that kind of competition because I feel that PVE usually is too easy and repetive,
> That's fine but I think the point of my arguments, agian, is that I do not want to invite the FFA PvP that comes with sandboxes into themepark.
I am playing a mostly themepark game with FFA PvP right now: Tera. So the thing you don't want already exists. And some (7?) years ago I played a pure PVE sandbox named Istaria. But I agree on Themepark games usually not allowing you to decide on who you fight.
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
> Cut the patronizing tone. Where did I say I was forced to play a PvP game? Where? Are you sure you understood what you were replying to?
> Why do you think I dislike PvP games? Because of people like you. You're always patronizing. Putting is down, calling us bad, unskilled, carebears. Sick of it.
You screwed up quotes. Check the original postings and you'll notice that this was written as a reply to a posting of someone named Unlight. So no need to get so emotional about it if that wasn't you on a second account (;
But yes, mmorpg.com's quoting system is really terribad, not like I didn't do the same mistake before (=
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?
First I'm not trying to compare sandbox games to reality.
I just dislike the politics involved in both Sandbox Games and Theme Park Games.
It is a game, I don't want to be having to put up with other people non-sense just because I might need them to do stuff in game.
I want to play with people I enjoy as people and not people I enjoy as players. I want people to be able to triumph by what they do during battle and not what they did before it started. I want content to not be crazy long so people can develop in the game as players by learning with faillure.
An MMORPG is just a game, where you play in an online world with loads of other people and are represented by a customizable avatar.
Those other "things I removed" are just systems used to give that experience, many being a legacy from the pen and paper RPGs (which by the way weren't about min/maxing and somehow computer RPGs became about that but strangely no one complains about that change).
Change those systems. Crazy concept.
Blizzard removed and polished some of the concepts present on older MMORPGs and was rewarded.
Maybe some other company will remove/change some of the systems people believe are a irremovable part of a MMORPG ~(like gear progression and grinding to an endgame)and is rewarded as well
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Those other "things I removed" are just systems used to give that experience, many being a legacy from the pen and paper RPGs (which by the way weren't about min/maxing and somehow computer RPGs became about that but strangely no one complains about that change).
Because there's no change to complain about. Any game with choices and math is prone to min/maxing. If you didn't encounter those players in 1stEd, consider yourself lucky, but don't assume they didn't exist.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter Those other "things I removed" are just systems used to give that experience, many being a legacy from the pen and paper RPGs (which by the way weren't about min/maxing and somehow computer RPGs became about that but strangely no one complains about that change).
Because there's no change to complain about. Any game with choices and math is prone to min/maxing. If you didn't encounter those players in 1stEd, consider yourself lucky, but don't assume they didn't exist.
Yes, but the GM could "cheat" and make min/max less prevalent.
And of course systems were implemented to make the stats fall in certain intervals where out comes were expected, basically tailoring the experience to fit the group and keep the players in a group balanced.
We are playing without GMs but we can move the focus from the stats and spreadsheets into mechanical aspects (players use macros to circumvent these, so one needs to create skills that can be used in several ways so players are trading off the effect now for a potential effect in the future).
Look at Starcraft: Brood War. It is a game that represents the pinnacle of balance. Still if you ported the skills and units to SC2, they would be completely imbalanced. How does one explain this? The AI, UI and path finding were so limited that was almost impossible to take advantage of the overpower skills/units - they were hard to use and easy to waste them.
There are ways, developers just need to implement them and become very rich.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I thought you said you don't like other players affecting your game play in a negative way, it limits your game play. Open world PVE games will still allow others to grief you easily by killstealing you, training you and all the other stuff that griefers enjoy to do. Just that you are not allowed to fight back. So, griefing you is not limited to killing you. If you want to be safe from griefers PVE instances are your only safe place.
I don't know who I'm talking to at this point... Quotes, lol.
I don't ever recall being bothered by other players in a PvE or diminished PvP game. I play WoW on PvP servers just fine. The sort of griefing that exists in PvE/diminished PvP games can do little to bother me. Sandboxes need to go the way of diminished PvP and I'd have no problem with them at all. FFA PVP is the issue.
The problem is that in most of the sandbox games, if you're ganked, you lose progress. And then you just lose progress over and over again and never get anywhere. It's like playing Diablo SC vs HC mode. In SC, you can find a challenge but you can save there and later come back and try again. PvP sandboxes are more like HC mode where you have to restart repeatedly. Except is far easier to stay alive in Diablo than it is in PvP sandboxes... beating your head against something is only fun if you can actually afford to effectively do it, not when you're busy with other stuff and are loading up a game to relax, not to have to mine again because you lost a ship.
You seem to, agian, like the other poster, try to pin opinions on me that I really do not have. Again, I never said I want PvP removed from a PvP game, I was only saying I do not want sandbox, full-loot, pseudo-permadeath PvP in my themeparks. I don't know why you keep using that argument, it's like you don't hear me or something.
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.
Minecraft ?
Originally posted by eHug
Originally posted by UnlightWhen 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.
I never understood the constant complaints about PKs or griefers, they don't affect my game play much. Sure, they can temporarily lock me out from a small area or similar, but what keeps you from doing something else or (what I usually do) finding help to take sweet revenge?
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
As for players not creating content, I don't agree. If the developers give the players the right tools, the players can create it with ease. And there are plenty of players that prefer creating content over just consuming it, just look at Minecraft or Lego if you want non examples that everybody knows about.
Originally posted by UnlightGive me an open world that can live and evolve without players in it, and I'll be among the first to take up residence.
Why don't you play single player games then? They seem to be exactly what you look for. No other players annoying your gaming fun, no monthly fees either.
I think I understand what Unlight is talking about. To the exception of UO, which added the “PvE only” option later (Trammel) to save the game from players leaving for EQ to escape the ganking and griefing, every other attempt at a sandbox MMORPG more or less forces PvP on you, like it or not. And except EvE, which did the smart thing of adding areas with different levels of PvP, and therefore survived, all other "sandbox" attempts miserably failed because of that. Recent examples are Darkfall and Mortal Online, which both failed and are on "life support" with a vestigial player base because the arrogant developers refused to listen to the vast majority of the player base, which would like to enjoy a sandbox game without having to worry about young 13 year old Johnny Nolife ganking him and camping his corpse as soon as he logs into the game.
Why those stubborn and arrogant developers think that sandbox automatically equals FFA PvP is beyond my understanding. The two sandbox MMOs which are successes, UO and EvE, succeeded because they made compromises to cater to a larger player base. Doesn't that ring a bell? Is that really so hard to add PvE only servers and/or areas to a game?
I've played UO pre-Trammel, been there done that, and as a someone who has seen both sides of the fences, I value choice. Somedays I enjoy being on my toes and having to watch my back all the time, but other days I just want to relax and enjoy the game without having to care about Johnny Nolife. And the failure of "PvP only" MMOs proves that I'm not the only one, but more like a part of the vast majority.
Make me a good modern sandbox (UO2 please...) with the option to play PvE or PvP (or to switch at will like UO), and I'll be there without thinking twice. But no way I'm gonna play another poorly designed forced FFA PvP failure like Darkfall or MO.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Yes, but the GM could "cheat" and make min/max less prevalent.
Speaking as a GM I wouldn't cheat like that. I think I'd be wrong if I wouldn't let the players enjoy the benefits of their min-maxing. Who am I to tell them how they should enjoy the game?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
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.
Minecraft ?
Originally posted by eHug
Originally posted by UnlightWhen 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.
I never understood the constant complaints about PKs or griefers, they don't affect my game play much. Sure, they can temporarily lock me out from a small area or similar, but what keeps you from doing something else or (what I usually do) finding help to take sweet revenge?
If you prefer it all fluffy and friendly, PVP games aren't your thing but hey, there are tons of PVE games for you if you can't or don't want to handle PVP, nobody forces you to play a PVP game.
As for players not creating content, I don't agree. If the developers give the players the right tools, the players can create it with ease. And there are plenty of players that prefer creating content over just consuming it, just look at Minecraft or Lego if you want non examples that everybody knows about.
Originally posted by UnlightGive me an open world that can live and evolve without players in it, and I'll be among the first to take up residence.
Why don't you play single player games then? They seem to be exactly what you look for. No other players annoying your gaming fun, no monthly fees either.
I think I understand what Unlight is talking about. To the exception of UO, which added the “PvE only” option later (Trammel) to save the game from players leaving for EQ to escape the ganking and griefing, every other attempt at a sandbox MMORPG more or less forces PvP on you, like it or not. And except EvE, which did the smart thing of adding areas with different levels of PvP, and therefore survived, all other "sandbox" attempts miserably failed because of that. Recent examples are Darkfall and Mortal Online, which both failed and are on "life support" with a vestigial player base because the arrogant developers refused to listen to the vast majority of the player base, which would like to enjoy a sandbox game without having to worry about young 13 year old Johnny Nolife ganking him and camping his corpse as soon as he logs into the game.
Why those stubborn and arrogant developers think that sandbox automatically equals FFA PvP is beyond my understanding. The two sandbox MMOs which are successes, UO and EvE, succeeded because they made compromises to cater to a larger player base. Doesn't that ring a bell? Is that really so hard to add PvE only servers and/or areas to a game?
I've played UO pre-Trammel, been there done that, and as a someone who has seen both sides of the fences, I value choice. Somedays I enjoy being on my toes and having to watch my back all the time, but other days I just want to relax and enjoy the game without having to care about Johnny Nolife. And the failure of "PvP only" MMOs proves that I'm not the only one, but more like a part of the vast majority.
Make me a good modern sandbox (UO2 please...) with the option to play PvE or PvP (or to switch at will like UO), and I'll be there without thinking twice. But no way I'm gonna play another poorly designed forced FFA PvP failure like Darkfall or MO.
I think todays' sandbox should just simply have Guild wars. That's all, as you know seeing you played UO. Just simply let people declare war on eachother. This should stop any kind of FFA slaughter I would think. If not at war, can't fight/murder anyone in the open. They should also take a small note from UO again. Remember how people flagged when helping blue heal PKs? Pesky blue healers who turned grey - imploy that mechanic and I think it'd be fine.
Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.
** edit ** * Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.
Gotta disagree with you here man...
MANY fans of just about any genre will play a game they love for a very long period of time if its designed with longevity in mind. Just look at Modern Warfare, Madden, Eve, Starcraft, Street Fighter, Minecraft, and WoW. And I think that fans of Madden and Modern Warfare often fall into the "casual" segment, and yet they are still known to play those games for long periods of time.
So I don't really think that the general gamer audience has gotten more capricious. I mean, just look at WoW, it had like 12 million subscribers for years!
No, I think the issue is what the OP describes. Many MMORPGs are just over-themparkized. They are highly linear and hardly have any replayability. So the players just play the games as they were pretty much designed to be played. They go through the game content for 3 months or so, and then that's it. No more game, no more reason to play.
The crazy thing is that game devs often seem surprised when this happens.
I think that over-themeparkization is a huge problem with today's MMORPGs. I mean, look at WAR and SWTOR. Those games were so linear that they made vanilla WoW look like a sandbox. And where are they now? WAR is a rotting corpse, and SWTOR is dying a rapid death. Same with Aion and AoC.
And it's also like you say, these games just can never have enough content. I think SWTOR is the biggest example of that. The devs spent HUGE amounts of money trying to put together all this VO story content that they thought would keep the players busy for years. They even stated that they aren't making the game for "abnormal" players that just burn through content, instead they expected the "normal" players who play games at a lower rate to hang around.
And well, look what happened. People burned through the content and now there is a mass exodus. And ironically, they blamed it on the more casual players.
Its far more serious than an addiction to a lame style of hand holding play....Its pure crap developement teams.Its a bunch of clowns who failed at their last (few) game/s,moving on to so called new dev teams,and proceeding to fail again......and again.....and again.....
The whole industry needs a purge that would make stalin cringe.These "developers" MUST be good at something else,for they sure as hell are not good at designing and producing games.They simply need to realize,they,the industry,and the consumers will be much happier when theyve (the dev teams) moved on to some other field of work.
I think that over-themeparkization is a huge problem with today's MMORPGs. I mean, look at WAR and SWTOR. Those games were so linear that they made vanilla WoW look like a sandbox. And where are they now? WAR is a rotting corpse, and SWTOR is dying a rapid death. Same with Aion and AoC.
And it's also like you say, these games just can never have enough content. I think SWTOR is the biggest example of that. The devs spent HUGE amounts of money trying to put together all this VO story content that they thought would keep the players busy for years. They even stated that they aren't making the game for "abnormal" players that just burn through content, instead they expected the "normal" players who play games at a lower rate to hang around.
And well, look what happened. People burned through the content and now there is a mass exodus. And ironically, they blamed it on the more casual players.
I think that over-themeparkization is a huge problem with today's MMORPGs. I mean, look at WAR and SWTOR. Those games were so linear that they made vanilla WoW look like a sandbox. And where are they now? WAR is a rotting corpse, and SWTOR is dying a rapid death. Same with Aion and AoC.
And it's also like you say, these games just can never have enough content. I think SWTOR is the biggest example of that. The devs spent HUGE amounts of money trying to put together all this VO story content that they thought would keep the players busy for years. They even stated that they aren't making the game for "abnormal" players that just burn through content, instead they expected the "normal" players who play games at a lower rate to hang around.
And well, look what happened. People burned through the content and now there is a mass exodus. And ironically, they blamed it on the more casual players.
Ehm, sorry, but you should get your facts straight: Aion is one of the biggest cash cows in the MMORPG scene, making like 200+ million dollar a year. Maybe in the west, NA and EU, Aion wasn't anywhere near the largest, but worldwide its revenues were still among the highest, their total number of servers also being in the 60-100 range.
So that puts some dent in your theory.
Besides that, what people were praising WoW for was the fact that it offered a more entertaining leveling experience with its quest based leveling than the mob grinding that went before it offered. Just try to tell people that, just remove all the quests and tell them as devs that they should rely on mob grinding to level, and see how MMO gamers will react. I think the vehement dislike that the majority has towards 'Asian grinders' tells enough how they regard non-questing, mob grinding based leveling.
It should be obvious that most MMO gamers simply want to be entertained while playing an MMORPG, and for many quest content > mob grinding as leveling. In the same way VO quest content/dynamic questing > stale traditional questing.
It should also be obvious that in itself that isn't enough to entertain MMO gamers: combat should feel fun and entertaining, and other activities besides quest based leveling (and yes, GW2's DE and Personal Story is quest content too) should be fun and entertaining too.
The whole thing is that an MMORPG shouldn't just have entertaining stuff for its first 200 hours, but also entertaining activities after a player has passed its first 200-300 hours of ingame playtime.
Why those stubborn and arrogant developers think that sandbox automatically equals FFA PvP is beyond my understanding. The two sandbox MMOs which are successes, UO and EvE, succeeded because they made compromises to cater to a larger player base. Doesn't that ring a bell? Is that really so hard to add PvE only servers and/or areas to a game?
This. EVE/UO are a basic diminished PvP system. And this FFA PvP crap is what is going to keep any upcoming sandbox from rising and becoming popular enough to compete with a themepark. Make a sandbox that gives plenty to do for PvE players without having to participate in ganking, clan wars, and drama, and you will have tons of users.
I think that over-themeparkization is a huge problem with today's MMORPGs. I mean, look at WAR and SWTOR. Those games were so linear that they made vanilla WoW look like a sandbox. And where are they now? WAR is a rotting corpse, and SWTOR is dying a rapid death. Same with Aion and AoC.
As a casual, I am just going to say that Aion, AoC, and WAR are not and were not on my radar. SW:TOR and Rift were, for a little bit, but I didn't even play a month SW:TOR. But we recognize these as WoW-clones better than MMORPG fans because we're a lot more critical.
On the other hand, numerous min-maxers still flock to every new MMORPG, setup guilds, rush to max level, get world firsts. We're not responsible for that. I don't know why you people keep playing those games but blaming us.
We, casuals, are either playing WoW or not playing anything because there's honestly no MMORPG out there that's worth playing atm, and casuals are not the sort to sub to a game and 'wait for patches and fixes'.
So I don't consider it a "problem". Those games are dead to us. We're asleep, dormant, until something of the level of WoW comes around.
It's pretty obvious when you look at Skyrim and Minecraft. The Sandbox creates a long term customer. The theme park (WOW aside) is only as good as it's scripted quest content, once done your done.
You're forgetting games like LoL, MW2, D3, L4D2, GW and Aion, just to name a few, that also had long term customer retainership and that were nowhere near a sandbox experience. Also, not to forget WoW, which is as themepark as you can get with as scripted quest content as you can get, yet despite the statements that such a thing could never keep players longterm still managed to do so.
Just saying that reality is less black & white than people often prefer it to.
I think that over-themeparkization is a huge problem with today's MMORPGs. I mean, look at WAR and SWTOR. Those games were so linear that they made vanilla WoW look like a sandbox. And where are they now? WAR is a rotting corpse, and SWTOR is dying a rapid death. Same with Aion and AoC.
And it's also like you say, these games just can never have enough content. I think SWTOR is the biggest example of that. The devs spent HUGE amounts of money trying to put together all this VO story content that they thought would keep the players busy for years. They even stated that they aren't making the game for "abnormal" players that just burn through content, instead they expected the "normal" players who play games at a lower rate to hang around.
And well, look what happened. People burned through the content and now there is a mass exodus. And ironically, they blamed it on the more casual players.
Don't be ridiculous. Should we look at Fall of Mankind and Mortal Online and say that "people don't want sandbox MMOs, they want something different"? Should they be held as an example of how sandboxes are?
Its been said few times before: Its not about sandbox or themepark people just don't play shitty games.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid Its been said few times before: Its not about sandbox or themepark people just don't play shitty games.
I think that's worth repeating.
The terms sandbox and themepark don't have any real meaning. It's all the same I-Speak that Steve Jobs would spout off. "Innovative, Revolutionary, Magical, It Just Works."
Comments
This actually isn't true. A sandbox is predominantly just a tool, which isn't that hard to create.
A fun themepark is much harder to create and requires a lot more effort.
Much like the analogy each is based on ("Here's your sandbox, kid" vs. "I've constructed this amazing rollercoaster for you. It cost $25 million to build.")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Whatever you say.
Oh, and players first coined the phrases when they were complaining about EQ.
Once upon a time....
There are bad games and there are games that aren't for each individual tastes,
Bad games have problems with user input, have poor AI, have no depth, etc.
I'm not missing point B, I just have a different opinion of what a MMORPG is.
In my view a MMORPG is simply a game where you customize an avatar that represents you in an online world where you can find many other player you can interact with.
As you can see that is a very simple definition that allows for many things to be included in a game.
In fact my biggest beef with MMORPGs is the requirement to have organized parties to do the most interesting content - I prefer a chaotic experience that gives a bigger emphasis on the tactical aspect over the strategic one.
I think the "cavalry has arrived" is one of the best feelings, for the ones that help and for those being helped.
Additionally I dislike when my game starts to have schedules and starts to resemble a job.
You can say "well maybe you need a new genre". But that is the same answer that players that prefer theme parks give to the sandbox players and they aren't happy when they hear that answer.
Maybe I just need a game that caters to my wishes and maybe that game is GW2 (not all of them but good enough).
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
First I'm not trying to compare sandbox games to reality.
I just dislike the politics involved in both Sandbox Games and Theme Park Games.
It is a game, I don't want to be having to put up with other people non-sense just because I might need them to do stuff in game.
I want to play with people I enjoy as people and not people I enjoy as players. I want people to be able to triumph by what they do during battle and not what they did before it started. I want content to not be crazy long so people can develop in the game as players by learning with faillure.
An MMORPG is just a game, where you play in an online world with loads of other people and are represented by a customizable avatar.
Those other "things I removed" are just systems used to give that experience, many being a legacy from the pen and paper RPGs (which by the way weren't about min/maxing and somehow computer RPGs became about that but strangely no one complains about that change).
Change those systems. Crazy concept.
Blizzard removed and polished some of the concepts present on older MMORPGs and was rewarded.
Maybe some other company will remove/change some of the systems people believe are a irremovable part of a MMORPG ~(like gear progression and grinding to an endgame)and is rewarded as well
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Because there's no change to complain about. Any game with choices and math is prone to min/maxing. If you didn't encounter those players in 1stEd, consider yourself lucky, but don't assume they didn't exist.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Yes, but the GM could "cheat" and make min/max less prevalent.
And of course systems were implemented to make the stats fall in certain intervals where out comes were expected, basically tailoring the experience to fit the group and keep the players in a group balanced.
We are playing without GMs but we can move the focus from the stats and spreadsheets into mechanical aspects (players use macros to circumvent these, so one needs to create skills that can be used in several ways so players are trading off the effect now for a potential effect in the future).
Look at Starcraft: Brood War.
It is a game that represents the pinnacle of balance.
Still if you ported the skills and units to SC2, they would be completely imbalanced.
How does one explain this?
The AI, UI and path finding were so limited that was almost impossible to take advantage of the overpower skills/units - they were hard to use and easy to waste them.
There are ways, developers just need to implement them and become very rich.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Minecraft ?
I think I understand what Unlight is talking about. To the exception of UO, which added the “PvE only” option later (Trammel) to save the game from players leaving for EQ to escape the ganking and griefing, every other attempt at a sandbox MMORPG more or less forces PvP on you, like it or not. And except EvE, which did the smart thing of adding areas with different levels of PvP, and therefore survived, all other "sandbox" attempts miserably failed because of that. Recent examples are Darkfall and Mortal Online, which both failed and are on "life support" with a vestigial player base because the arrogant developers refused to listen to the vast majority of the player base, which would like to enjoy a sandbox game without having to worry about young 13 year old Johnny Nolife ganking him and camping his corpse as soon as he logs into the game.
Why those stubborn and arrogant developers think that sandbox automatically equals FFA PvP is beyond my understanding. The two sandbox MMOs which are successes, UO and EvE, succeeded because they made compromises to cater to a larger player base. Doesn't that ring a bell? Is that really so hard to add PvE only servers and/or areas to a game?
I've played UO pre-Trammel, been there done that, and as a someone who has seen both sides of the fences, I value choice. Somedays I enjoy being on my toes and having to watch my back all the time, but other days I just want to relax and enjoy the game without having to care about Johnny Nolife. And the failure of "PvP only" MMOs proves that I'm not the only one, but more like a part of the vast majority.
Make me a good modern sandbox (UO2 please...) with the option to play PvE or PvP (or to switch at will like UO), and I'll be there without thinking twice. But no way I'm gonna play another poorly designed forced FFA PvP failure like Darkfall or MO.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Speaking as a GM I wouldn't cheat like that. I think I'd be wrong if I wouldn't let the players enjoy the benefits of their min-maxing. Who am I to tell them how they should enjoy the game?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think todays' sandbox should just simply have Guild wars. That's all, as you know seeing you played UO. Just simply let people declare war on eachother. This should stop any kind of FFA slaughter I would think. If not at war, can't fight/murder anyone in the open. They should also take a small note from UO again. Remember how people flagged when helping blue heal PKs? Pesky blue healers who turned grey - imploy that mechanic and I think it'd be fine.
Gotta disagree with you here man...
MANY fans of just about any genre will play a game they love for a very long period of time if its designed with longevity in mind. Just look at Modern Warfare, Madden, Eve, Starcraft, Street Fighter, Minecraft, and WoW. And I think that fans of Madden and Modern Warfare often fall into the "casual" segment, and yet they are still known to play those games for long periods of time.
So I don't really think that the general gamer audience has gotten more capricious. I mean, just look at WoW, it had like 12 million subscribers for years!
No, I think the issue is what the OP describes. Many MMORPGs are just over-themparkized. They are highly linear and hardly have any replayability. So the players just play the games as they were pretty much designed to be played. They go through the game content for 3 months or so, and then that's it. No more game, no more reason to play.
The crazy thing is that game devs often seem surprised when this happens.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'm totally with you with almost all you say.
I think that over-themeparkization is a huge problem with today's MMORPGs. I mean, look at WAR and SWTOR. Those games were so linear that they made vanilla WoW look like a sandbox. And where are they now? WAR is a rotting corpse, and SWTOR is dying a rapid death. Same with Aion and AoC.
And it's also like you say, these games just can never have enough content. I think SWTOR is the biggest example of that. The devs spent HUGE amounts of money trying to put together all this VO story content that they thought would keep the players busy for years. They even stated that they aren't making the game for "abnormal" players that just burn through content, instead they expected the "normal" players who play games at a lower rate to hang around.
And well, look what happened. People burned through the content and now there is a mass exodus. And ironically, they blamed it on the more casual players.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I do not think it is the themepark...it is the lack of content and features that other games have that kill games.
Its far more serious than an addiction to a lame style of hand holding play....Its pure crap developement teams.Its a bunch of clowns who failed at their last (few) game/s,moving on to so called new dev teams,and proceeding to fail again......and again.....and again.....
The whole industry needs a purge that would make stalin cringe.These "developers" MUST be good at something else,for they sure as hell are not good at designing and producing games.They simply need to realize,they,the industry,and the consumers will be much happier when theyve (the dev teams) moved on to some other field of work.
Perhaps pizza delivery ,lawnmowing,or windshield washing .....
^^ Agree. Good post as usual Creslin. Well put.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Ehm, sorry, but you should get your facts straight: Aion is one of the biggest cash cows in the MMORPG scene, making like 200+ million dollar a year. Maybe in the west, NA and EU, Aion wasn't anywhere near the largest, but worldwide its revenues were still among the highest, their total number of servers also being in the 60-100 range.
So that puts some dent in your theory.
Besides that, what people were praising WoW for was the fact that it offered a more entertaining leveling experience with its quest based leveling than the mob grinding that went before it offered. Just try to tell people that, just remove all the quests and tell them as devs that they should rely on mob grinding to level, and see how MMO gamers will react. I think the vehement dislike that the majority has towards 'Asian grinders' tells enough how they regard non-questing, mob grinding based leveling.
It should be obvious that most MMO gamers simply want to be entertained while playing an MMORPG, and for many quest content > mob grinding as leveling. In the same way VO quest content/dynamic questing > stale traditional questing.
It should also be obvious that in itself that isn't enough to entertain MMO gamers: combat should feel fun and entertaining, and other activities besides quest based leveling (and yes, GW2's DE and Personal Story is quest content too) should be fun and entertaining too.
The whole thing is that an MMORPG shouldn't just have entertaining stuff for its first 200 hours, but also entertaining activities after a player has passed its first 200-300 hours of ingame playtime.
This. EVE/UO are a basic diminished PvP system. And this FFA PvP crap is what is going to keep any upcoming sandbox from rising and becoming popular enough to compete with a themepark. Make a sandbox that gives plenty to do for PvE players without having to participate in ganking, clan wars, and drama, and you will have tons of users.
As a casual, I am just going to say that Aion, AoC, and WAR are not and were not on my radar. SW:TOR and Rift were, for a little bit, but I didn't even play a month SW:TOR. But we recognize these as WoW-clones better than MMORPG fans because we're a lot more critical.
On the other hand, numerous min-maxers still flock to every new MMORPG, setup guilds, rush to max level, get world firsts. We're not responsible for that. I don't know why you people keep playing those games but blaming us.
We, casuals, are either playing WoW or not playing anything because there's honestly no MMORPG out there that's worth playing atm, and casuals are not the sort to sub to a game and 'wait for patches and fixes'.
So I don't consider it a "problem". Those games are dead to us. We're asleep, dormant, until something of the level of WoW comes around.
You're forgetting games like LoL, MW2, D3, L4D2, GW and Aion, just to name a few, that also had long term customer retainership and that were nowhere near a sandbox experience. Also, not to forget WoW, which is as themepark as you can get with as scripted quest content as you can get, yet despite the statements that such a thing could never keep players longterm still managed to do so.
Just saying that reality is less black & white than people often prefer it to.
Don't be ridiculous. Should we look at Fall of Mankind and Mortal Online and say that "people don't want sandbox MMOs, they want something different"? Should they be held as an example of how sandboxes are?
Its been said few times before: Its not about sandbox or themepark people just don't play shitty games.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think that's worth repeating.
The terms sandbox and themepark don't have any real meaning. It's all the same I-Speak that Steve Jobs would spout off. "Innovative, Revolutionary, Magical, It Just Works."