The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
And even if the VAST VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of players are only interested in directed content.
Thats -still- not a deal-breaker, because there are ways to have directed content in a sanbox.
Originally posted by HarafnirI always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.Keep thinking that.
Hm .. you have a reading comprehension problem?The OP did not say you do not exist. He said your guys are not "massive" and so far i have not seen any evidence that there is a massive sandbox market out there. A few guys ranting on a internet forum do NOT make a massive market.
The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means.
I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO.
I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following.
That doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
That's the observation bit. Here's the make up reasons with no sources and no proof bit. Those sandbox gamers couldn't play the way they want if there was a large population on the server. The guy driving through windows to rob places would get shot by another player playing a cop. Or the guy driving through windows to rob places wouldn't be able to drive through the player who was playing a shopkeeper's window because the game doesn't allow that. You can't be totally free in a game if everyone else is totally free as well. The feel of the game breaks down and it moves away from being that sandbox where you can do anything you want, any way you want. That's what I think anyway.
Your example is just falling back on the old FFA PvP argument again. We all know that FFA PvP is not attractive to everyone, in fact, it's probably only attractive to a minority. And yes, FFA PvP can definitely spoil single player esque sandbox fun.
But...sandboxes do NOT have to have FFA PvP. It isn't a requirement.
I really don't see why robbing a bank in a game like GTA would not be even more fun if you could do it with your friends. And you could have one guy be the getaway driver, one guy watch the hostages, and the other go into the vault. Just make it so it's not FFA PvP, and all of a sudden you can have the same "SP sandbox fun," but now you can do it with your friends.
Basically, the only difference I see between sandbox and themepark is that in a sandbox you decide what to do from a very large list of options and just about all options are open to you at any one time, and in a themepark, you decide what to do from a very small list options, and typically a smaller amount of options are available to you at any one point in time.
I mean, look at WoW. People have argue that it is a "sandbox" because you can:
Do dungeons, Quest, BG PvP, Craft, or Raid
But the reality is that these options boil down to a relatively small amount of things to do. You can quest...but only in the zone appropriate for your level. You can do dungeons...but only the ones approrpriate for you level, you can craft, but you only see a benefit from stuff appropriate for your level.
See what I'm getting at here? The game is directed by your level, your level decides what you can do, and the entire game world is never really open to you at any one point. Even at max level, you can go to low level areas, but they hold 0 appeal for you. Now at high level they have made it a bit more sandboxy by making heroic modes for the lower dungeons so that more is open to you...and I think this is a large part of why WoW has been successful at retaining subs.
Now contrast this with an actual sandbox game like Skyrim though. At first glance, it may seem like it is very similar to WoW. Because, in exception for the multiplayer stuff, you can do very similiar things. Quest, dungeons, craft, etc...
But the difference here isn't in what you can do, it's in how it's implemented. In Skyrim you can do just about any quest in the game at any time. Nearly the entire world is open to you at just about any point in the game. This is the difference. A themepark directs your experience, a sandbox doesn't. Or at least, those are the two extremes.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
I agree with you. And I would take it further by saying that I really don't think people care about the whole sandbox/themepark thing as much as its talked about on these boards. I'm pretty sure that if someone were to release an MMO that played like Skyrim and had the developer support/polish of WoW or Rift people would play the hell out of it.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
And even if the VAST VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of players are only interested in directed content.
Thats -still- not a deal-breaker, because there are ways to have directed content in a sanbox.
Exactly!
I have to admit I really do have a full Conspiracy mind-control DARPA theory around why we dont have more intresting content in games but I fear people will think I am more crazy then they already do.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
And even if the VAST VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of players are only interested in directed content.
Thats -still- not a deal-breaker, because there are ways to have directed content in a sanbox.
@ creslin,
And this is where the definitions diverge. IMO a sandbox can have that huge chain of quest nodes, it doesn't change the game. It will still be a sandbox with or without that. Quests and quests chains are IMO not the defining feature. In any/every game with them I am not forced to do them. I can still go and get xp by doing whatever I was doing before the quest came along.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
And even if the VAST VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of players are only interested in directed content.
Thats -still- not a deal-breaker, because there are ways to have directed content in a sanbox.
@ creslin,
And this is where the definitions diverge. IMO a sandbox can have that huge chain of quest nodes, it doesn't change the game. It will still be a sandbox with or without that. Quests and quests chains are IMO not the defining feature. In any/every game with them I am not forced to do them. I can still go and get xp by doing whatever I was doing before the quest came along.
the largest common denominator in sandbox is the word choice. As long as I am not forced to do a quest line to realistically move around and in general progress then its a win.
What I like about TES is that there are some quests that reward LESS for doing the quest rather than not doing the quest. case in point 'go get XYZ for me' reward 50gp. value of item 200gp. So go get it without the quest and sell it = win or if you want to see where the quest line takes you do the quest instead.
options
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
And even if the VAST VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of players are only interested in directed content.
Thats -still- not a deal-breaker, because there are ways to have directed content in a sanbox.
@ creslin,
And this is where the definitions diverge. IMO a sandbox can have that huge chain of quest nodes, it doesn't change the game. It will still be a sandbox with or without that. Quests and quests chains are IMO not the defining feature. In any/every game with them I am not forced to do them. I can still go and get xp by doing whatever I was doing before the quest came along.
the largest common denominator in sandbox is the word choice. As long as I am not forced to do a quest line to realistically move around and in general progress then its a win.
What I like about TES is that there are some quests that reward LESS for doing the quest rather than not doing the quest. case in point 'go get XYZ for me' reward 50gp. value of item 200gp. So go get it without the quest and sell it = win or if you want to see where the quest line takes you do the quest instead.
options
Yeah exactly...
My concept of sandbox would definitely allow for quest chains, even large quest chains. The difference between it and themepark is that you are not FORCED to do any large quest chain to "advance" through the game.
For example, in WoW, you have zones that are strictly tiered by level, and you typically have a choice of just a few zones at each level. You will do one of those zones, or you will not advance. It's that simple. You can't decide to do Un'Goro crater at level 20, and you can't decide to do Elwynn Forest at level 85...not happening. And yes, you can do PvP or dungeons too, but those options are simillarly limited. This is what creates the guided experience.
As for sandbox games with quest chains...Skyrim definitely has them. It has very large quest chains with the different guilds. But it is STILL a sandbox because nothing really directs your experience. The quest chains are there for you to do whenever you feel like. You can ignore them if you like, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
My concept of sandbox would definitely allow for quest chains, even large quest chains. The difference between it and themepark is that you are not FORCED to do any large quest chain to "advance" through the game.
For example, in WoW, you have zones that are strictly tiered by level, and you typically have a choice of just a few zones at each level. You will do one of those zones, or you will not advance. It's that simple. You can't decide to do Un'Goro crater at level 20, and you can't decide to do Elwynn Forest at level 85...not happening. And yes, you can do PvP or dungeons too, but those options are simillarly limited. This is what creates the guided experience.
As for sandbox games with quest chains...Skyrim definitely has them. It has very large quest chains with the different guilds. But it is STILL a sandbox because nothing really directs your experience. The quest chains are there for you to do whenever you feel like. You can ignore them if you like, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
Skyrim can do without tiered zone design because it uses content scaling. Scaling is very problematic without using instances - if not outright impossible. If you have no tiered zones then the game becomes that much more inconvenient and that means saying goodbye to being casual friendly.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Creslin321 Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Creslin321Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by HarafnirI always find it funny. Some little selfimportant brat come in and scream "Sandbox crowds are a myth! You guys do not exist!" Then you read his post history....Guild Wars... Guild Wars II.... DDO... freebie games. It is just another flipping little noob and froob player that think he, by liking one game, can talk for the whole of MMO community and explain true quality.pretty much EVERYONE that played MMOS before WoW would love a real good sandbox game. Close to everyone. Problem is, and the only problem is, there has not been relased a "real", "good" or even "sandbox" game since then. So we have nothing to play, we are old and experienced enough not to throw money on bad products and yes.... That might be our fault.I can explain exactly why we wont, but OP would not understand, its way over his head. Anyway... Your cute, OP. We do not exist. The old, experienced MMO players do not exist, because you did not find them in your precious Guiild Wars.Keep thinking that.
Hm .. you have a reading comprehension problem?The OP did not say you do not exist. He said your guys are not "massive" and so far i have not seen any evidence that there is a massive sandbox market out there. A few guys ranting on a internet forum do NOT make a massive market. The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means. I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO.I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following. That doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. That's the observation bit. Here's the make up reasons with no sources and no proof bit. Those sandbox gamers couldn't play the way they want if there was a large population on the server. The guy driving through windows to rob places would get shot by another player playing a cop. Or the guy driving through windows to rob places wouldn't be able to drive through the player who was playing a shopkeeper's window because the game doesn't allow that. You can't be totally free in a game if everyone else is totally free as well. The feel of the game breaks down and it moves away from being that sandbox where you can do anything you want, any way you want. That's what I think anyway. Your example is just falling back on the old FFA PvP argument again. We all know that FFA PvP is not attractive to everyone, in fact, it's probably only attractive to a minority. And yes, FFA PvP can definitely spoil single player esque sandbox fun.
But...sandboxes do NOT have to have FFA PvP. It isn't a requirement.
I really don't see why robbing a bank in a game like GTA would not be even more fun if you could do it with your friends. And you could have one guy be the getaway driver, one guy watch the hostages, and the other go into the vault. Just make it so it's not FFA PvP, and all of a sudden you can have the same "SP sandbox fun," but now you can do it with your friends.
Basically, the only difference I see between sandbox and themepark is that in a sandbox you decide what to do from a very large list of options and just about all options are open to you at any one time, and in a themepark, you decide what to do from a very small list options, and typically a smaller amount of options are available to you at any one point in time.
I mean, look at WoW. People have argue that it is a "sandbox" because you can:
Do dungeons, Quest, BG PvP, Craft, or Raid
But the reality is that these options boil down to a relatively small amount of things to do. You can quest...but only in the zone appropriate for your level. You can do dungeons...but only the ones approrpriate for you level, you can craft, but you only see a benefit from stuff appropriate for your level.
See what I'm getting at here? The game is directed by your level, your level decides what you can do, and the entire game world is never really open to you at any one point. Even at max level, you can go to low level areas, but they hold 0 appeal for you. Now at high level they have made it a bit more sandboxy by making heroic modes for the lower dungeons so that more is open to you...and I think this is a large part of why WoW has been successful at retaining subs.
Now contrast this with an actual sandbox game like Skyrim though. At first glance, it may seem like it is very similar to WoW. Because, in exception for the multiplayer stuff, you can do very similiar things. Quest, dungeons, craft, etc...
But the difference here isn't in what you can do, it's in how it's implemented. In Skyrim you can do just about any quest in the game at any time. Nearly the entire world is open to you at just about any point in the game. This is the difference. A themepark directs your experience, a sandbox doesn't. Or at least, those are the two extremes.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply.
It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things.
I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this.
Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just because me and my friends are not dating hot women doesnt mean we dont want to.
In most things there is SUPPLY and demand. Not just one or the other.
It also does not mean that we want to.
The proof of burden is on the side of those who claims there is a mass market. WHY? Because developers are not going to invest 10s of millions of dollars simply because the possibility of a mass market exists. Some proof points are necessarily.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply.
It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things.
I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this.
Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
your position is this.
because its not realistic for town NPCs to be affected by players in an MMO is why we cant have housing, FPS combat, FPS view nor a skill based system.
I find it hard to believe people havent thought this thru.
its not an ALL or NOTHING realtionship.
wait I thought I just replied to a TES Online thread so forgive me. never the less I am going to let the point set even though its not exactly the same subject
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
My concept of sandbox would definitely allow for quest chains, even large quest chains. The difference between it and themepark is that you are not FORCED to do any large quest chain to "advance" through the game.
For example, in WoW, you have zones that are strictly tiered by level, and you typically have a choice of just a few zones at each level. You will do one of those zones, or you will not advance. It's that simple. You can't decide to do Un'Goro crater at level 20, and you can't decide to do Elwynn Forest at level 85...not happening. And yes, you can do PvP or dungeons too, but those options are simillarly limited. This is what creates the guided experience.
As for sandbox games with quest chains...Skyrim definitely has them. It has very large quest chains with the different guilds. But it is STILL a sandbox because nothing really directs your experience. The quest chains are there for you to do whenever you feel like. You can ignore them if you like, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
See thats the difference and I guess it comes down to perception. In themeparks I'm not forced to do them to advance either, we'll use WoW. In WoW I can get to max level by gathering/exploring, questing, grinding, dungeons or pvp. I don't need to do a quest chain to advance. My last run through wow in December I only did the quests that came with the dungeons, the one before that I did all quests, sometimes I've just done pvp. Once I even tried just the gathering but I got too bored.
It has zero impact on the rest of the game, just like skyrim. The quests are just there to do whenvery your feel like, you can ignore them, and many do, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
In skyrim there are definately areas and things I cannot do until I advance to a certain level in the quest chain, not the guild chains, but the dragonborn story chain, for instance you can't meet Paarthurnax until you've helped Delphine and delivered the horn. Just like WoW, there are dungeons/things I can't do until I get to a certain level/stage.
edit - I should say that I have never actually been max level in wow, but I've been close, I just got too bored with the game before reaching that. However I was never limited by the number of ways to reach that level.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply.
It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things.
I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this.
Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
your position is this.
because its not realistic for town NPCs to be affected by players in an MMO is why we cant have housing, FPS combat, FPS view nor a skill based system.
I find it hard to believe people havent thought this thru.
its not an ALL or NOTHING realtionship.
wait I thought I just replied to a TES Online thread so forgive me. never the less I am going to let the point set even though its not exactly the same subject
Housing, fps combat, fps view, skill based systems have nothing to do with what she said. She stated that if you open skyrim up to multiplayer other people will impact that players enjoyment of the game, and their ability to progress in the game. aka the person will not be able to sell to that town.
So you have to limit the options, or accept that people will grief like that. All those things your mentioned can still be done with or without players impacting each other.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
My concept of sandbox would definitely allow for quest chains, even large quest chains. The difference between it and themepark is that you are not FORCED to do any large quest chain to "advance" through the game.
For example, in WoW, you have zones that are strictly tiered by level, and you typically have a choice of just a few zones at each level. You will do one of those zones, or you will not advance. It's that simple. You can't decide to do Un'Goro crater at level 20, and you can't decide to do Elwynn Forest at level 85...not happening. And yes, you can do PvP or dungeons too, but those options are simillarly limited. This is what creates the guided experience.
As for sandbox games with quest chains...Skyrim definitely has them. It has very large quest chains with the different guilds. But it is STILL a sandbox because nothing really directs your experience. The quest chains are there for you to do whenever you feel like. You can ignore them if you like, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
See thats the difference and I guess it comes down to perception. In themeparks I'm not forced to do them to advance either, we'll use WoW. In WoW I can get to max level by gathering/exploring, questing, grinding, dungeons or pvp. I don't need to do a quest chain to advance. My last run through wow in December I only did the quests that came with the dungeons, the one before that I did all quests, sometimes I've just done pvp. Once I even tried just the gathering but I got too bored.
It has zero impact on the rest of the game, just like skyrim. The quests are just there to do whenvery your feel like, you can ignore them, and many do, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
In skyrim there are definately areas and things I cannot do until I advance to a certain level in the quest chain, not the guild chains, but the dragonborn story chain, for instance you can't meet Paarthurnax until you've helped Delphine and delivered the horn. Just like WoW, there are dungeons/things I can't do until I get to a certain level/stage.
ok I was waiting for someone to make this point.
I havent played WoW so forgive me if its not like other MMOs in the respect I am about to say
Your position is this.
'you are not forced to drive to the next state you have the option to walk.'
This arguement style can be extended to just about anything such as:
'we dont force you to be in jail, you will just get beaten if you try to leave.'
most games its woefully unrealistic to advance without doing quests.
There is a lot to be said to building a home without any power tools but its a totally different experience
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Housing, fps combat, fps view, skill based systems have nothing to do with what she said. She stated that if you open skyrim up to multiplayer other people will impact that players enjoyment of the game, and their ability to progress in the game. aka the person will not be able to sell to that town.
So you have to limit the options, or accept that people will grief like that. All those things your mentioned can still be done with or without players impacting each other.
I know, like I said I thought I was replying to a TES specific thread. People have used her arguement to justify everything that Zenimax plans to do to TES Online which is the things I have listed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
My concept of sandbox would definitely allow for quest chains, even large quest chains. The difference between it and themepark is that you are not FORCED to do any large quest chain to "advance" through the game.
For example, in WoW, you have zones that are strictly tiered by level, and you typically have a choice of just a few zones at each level. You will do one of those zones, or you will not advance. It's that simple. You can't decide to do Un'Goro crater at level 20, and you can't decide to do Elwynn Forest at level 85...not happening. And yes, you can do PvP or dungeons too, but those options are simillarly limited. This is what creates the guided experience.
As for sandbox games with quest chains...Skyrim definitely has them. It has very large quest chains with the different guilds. But it is STILL a sandbox because nothing really directs your experience. The quest chains are there for you to do whenever you feel like. You can ignore them if you like, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
See thats the difference and I guess it comes down to perception. In themeparks I'm not forced to do them to advance either, we'll use WoW. In WoW I can get to max level by gathering/exploring, questing, grinding, dungeons or pvp. I don't need to do a quest chain to advance. My last run through wow in December I only did the quests that came with the dungeons, the one before that I did all quests, sometimes I've just done pvp. Once I even tried just the gathering but I got too bored.
It has zero impact on the rest of the game, just like skyrim. The quests are just there to do whenvery your feel like, you can ignore them, and many do, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
In skyrim there are definately areas and things I cannot do until I advance to a certain level in the quest chain, not the guild chains, but the dragonborn story chain, for instance you can't meet Paarthurnax until you've helped Delphine and delivered the horn. Just like WoW, there are dungeons/things I can't do until I get to a certain level/stage.
ok I was waiting for someone to make this point.
I havent played WoW so forgive me if its not like other MMOs in the respect I am about to say
Your position is this.
you are not forced to drive to the next state you have the option to walk.
This arguement style can be extended to just about anything such as:
we dont force you to be in jail, you will just get beaten if you try to leave.
most games its woefully unrealistic to advance without doing quests.
No it isn't that way at all. It is just as fast to gain levels in wow by dungeons and pvp as it is in through questings. So it's more do you want to take a car or a motorcycle. Not only that but there are definate advantages to not doing the quest chains - that is pvp gives you really good rewards, dungeons give you really good rewards and more coin.
You are not punished in any way shape or form by not doing the quests.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply. It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things. I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this. Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
your position is this.
because its not realistic for town NPCs to be affected by players in an MMO is why we cant have housing, FPS combat, FPS view nor a skill based system.
I find it hard to believe people havent thought this thru.
its not an ALL or NOTHING realtionship.
wait I thought I just replied to a TES Online thread so forgive me. never the less I am going to let the point set even though its not exactly the same subject
Not exactly. Players would rather play a single player sandbox game with all of the freedom that implies than play an MMORPG sandbox game with all of the freedom and consequences that implies.
Hey, at least you noticed after one post. I've done the same thing with two or three posts. I don't think I even tried to explain it. I just didn't post for awhile. :-)
** edit ** To your point in your edited post, not the quoted one - Try advancing in SWToR without questing. It is nearly impossible. It may be impossible for all I know. You might be able to do it in Rift, but you'd try to stab your eyes out with your keyboard after a day or so. Progression freedom is the exception, not the rule. I personally do not see this as a sandbox/theme park thing, but if progression freedom is a sandbox feature, then we need it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply. It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things. I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this. Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
your position is this.
because its not realistic for town NPCs to be affected by players in an MMO is why we cant have housing, FPS combat, FPS view nor a skill based system.
I find it hard to believe people havent thought this thru.
its not an ALL or NOTHING realtionship.
wait I thought I just replied to a TES Online thread so forgive me. never the less I am going to let the point set even though its not exactly the same subject
Not exactly. Players would rather play a single player sandbox game with all of the freedom that implies than play an MMORPG sandbox game with all of the freedom and consequences that implies.
Hey, at least you noticed after one post. I've done the same thing with two or three posts. I don't think I even tried to explain it. I just didn't post for awhile. :-)
I am a long time fan of the TES series, 10 years now and I can say almost everything I wanted out of a online version of TES already exists in an MMO. It can get tiring having people tell me why I play TES games more so when its actually not the reasons I play at all.
I dont play TES games because they are single player. I play them because of features. Some are critical, some are not, not ALL are required to make be a very happy gamer.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No it isn't that way at all. It is just as fast to gain levels in wow by dungeons and pvp as it is in through questings. So it's more do you want to take a car or a motorcycle. Not only that but there are definate advantages to not doing the quest chains - that is pvp gives you really good rewards, dungeons give you really good rewards and more coin.
You are not punished in any way shape or form by not doing the quests.
yes you are. this is silly. I dont know how many of the blindly obvious examples I can provide. are you SURE you want to take that position because I assure you its not making you look as clever as you think, in fact just the opposite
Way I see it is that there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who think they are clever by pointing out that nobody make you drive to work, that walking is a comparable option and the other group that think that is a retarded position and that the other side is trying to be clever when in fact its having the opposite effect.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
And even if the VAST VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of players are only interested in directed content.
Thats -still- not a deal-breaker, because there are ways to have directed content in a sanbox.
@ creslin,
And this is where the definitions diverge. IMO a sandbox can have that huge chain of quest nodes, it doesn't change the game. It will still be a sandbox with or without that. Quests and quests chains are IMO not the defining feature. In any/every game with them I am not forced to do them. I can still go and get xp by doing whatever I was doing before the quest came along.
It makes a difference though when devs use the game space for their directed content, or leave the game world as an empty parking lots ala SWG.
Until PVE is no longer popular, themeparks will continue to dwarf MMO sandboxes. MMO sandboxes make a focus of the players, where as the themepark focuses on providing that PVE content folks are seeking.
Granted not all seek that aforementioned PVE, and those gamers will continue to get games like EVE and DF. Which are actually more populated by gamers wanting PVP. That is something TOR failed at miserably....providing FFA PVP folks with a themepark game.
If a themepark ever manages to give those same FFA folks a home, I think we will be left with mainly Owen types as the only ones clamoring for MMO sandboxes.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply. It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things. I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this. Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
your position is this.
because its not realistic for town NPCs to be affected by players in an MMO is why we cant have housing, FPS combat, FPS view nor a skill based system.
I find it hard to believe people havent thought this thru.
its not an ALL or NOTHING realtionship.
wait I thought I just replied to a TES Online thread so forgive me. never the less I am going to let the point set even though its not exactly the same subject
Not exactly. Players would rather play a single player sandbox game with all of the freedom that implies than play an MMORPG sandbox game with all of the freedom and consequences that implies.
Hey, at least you noticed after one post. I've done the same thing with two or three posts. I don't think I even tried to explain it. I just didn't post for awhile. :-)
Do you know what players rather play ABOVE ALL ELSE?
A polished game with high production values.
This is the no.1 selling point, there is nothing more important.
No it isn't that way at all. It is just as fast to gain levels in wow by dungeons and pvp as it is in through questings. So it's more do you want to take a car or a motorcycle. Not only that but there are definate advantages to not doing the quest chains - that is pvp gives you really good rewards, dungeons give you really good rewards and more coin.
You are not punished in any way shape or form by not doing the quests.
yes you are. this is silly. I dont know how many of the blindly obvious examples I can provide. are you SURE you want to take that position because I assure you its not making you look as clever as you think, in fact just the opposite
How? As I stated I get xp just as fast and I get better gear and rewards. So pleas explain how?
I don't need to do a single quest and I will get to the high levels just was fast and with just as good gear (actually I'll probably have better gear) and just as much coin (actually I'll probably have more coin).
Your example of driving or walking is rediculous and would only work if questing was significantly better or faster than not questing (assuming you meant that driving is better than walking). I'm saying questing or dungeons or pvp are all just as fast and dungeons and pvp is more rewarding.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No it isn't that way at all. It is just as fast to gain levels in wow by dungeons and pvp as it is in through questings. So it's more do you want to take a car or a motorcycle. Not only that but there are definate advantages to not doing the quest chains - that is pvp gives you really good rewards, dungeons give you really good rewards and more coin.
You are not punished in any way shape or form by not doing the quests.
yes you are. this is silly. I dont know how many of the blindly obvious examples I can provide. are you SURE you want to take that position because I assure you its not making you look as clever as you think, in fact just the opposite
How? As I stated I get xp just as fast and I get better gear and rewards. So pleas explain how?
I don't need to do a single quest and I will get to the high levesl just was fast and with just as good gear and just as much coin.
I guess its different then. I havent played WoW so I cant speak to that. I do know that not questing in EQ2 as I tried to do is total crazy talk its like a 1:1000 ratio.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply. It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things. I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this. Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
your position is this. because its not realistic for town NPCs to be affected by players in an MMO is why we cant have housing, FPS combat, FPS view nor a skill based system.I find it hard to believe people havent thought this thru.its not an ALL or NOTHING realtionship.wait I thought I just replied to a TES Online thread so forgive me. never the less I am going to let the point set even though its not exactly the same subject
Not exactly. Players would rather play a single player sandbox game with all of the freedom that implies than play an MMORPG sandbox game with all of the freedom and consequences that implies. Hey, at least you noticed after one post. I've done the same thing with two or three posts. I don't think I even tried to explain it. I just didn't post for awhile. :-)
I am a long time fan of the TES series, 10 years now and I can say almost everything I wanted out of a online version of TES already exists in an MMO. It can get tiring having people tell me why I play TES games more so when its actually not the reasons I play at all.
I dont play TES games because they are single player. I play them because of features. Some are critical, some are not, not ALL are required to make be a very happy gamer.
I'm not a TES fan or player. I'm just going by what the people I game with have said to me. Playing Skyrim as a multiplayer game is a no go. Same thing with Minecraft (which I do play; I also run a server), but with a slight twist - playing with chosen friends is fine, playing with strangers is not. Playing with too many friends on the same server is not OK either. Sandbox = Good, Sandbox with a bunch of people = Not Good. This is a tiny group of people, but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe there is a big difference in the overall gamer population.
** edit ** I'm also the only person in my little group of gamer friends that plays Minecraft on an RPG server with faction (guild) warfare, Full Loot PvP and the possibility of having all your stuff wrecked because of other players. I'm fine with all of this and I think it adds to my enjoyment of the game. I am very much in the minority though. I would be really surprised if this was not mirrored in the larger gamer population.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
And even if the VAST VAST VAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of players are only interested in directed content.
Thats -still- not a deal-breaker, because there are ways to have directed content in a sanbox.
I agree with you. And I would take it further by saying that I really don't think people care about the whole sandbox/themepark thing as much as its talked about on these boards. I'm pretty sure that if someone were to release an MMO that played like Skyrim and had the developer support/polish of WoW or Rift people would play the hell out of it.
Exactly!
I have to admit I really do have a full Conspiracy mind-control DARPA theory around why we dont have more intresting content in games but I fear people will think I am more crazy then they already do.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
@ creslin,
And this is where the definitions diverge. IMO a sandbox can have that huge chain of quest nodes, it doesn't change the game. It will still be a sandbox with or without that. Quests and quests chains are IMO not the defining feature. In any/every game with them I am not forced to do them. I can still go and get xp by doing whatever I was doing before the quest came along.
the largest common denominator in sandbox is the word choice. As long as I am not forced to do a quest line to realistically move around and in general progress then its a win.
What I like about TES is that there are some quests that reward LESS for doing the quest rather than not doing the quest. case in point 'go get XYZ for me' reward 50gp. value of item 200gp. So go get it without the quest and sell it = win or if you want to see where the quest line takes you do the quest instead.
options
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Always a good antonym for "bad game".
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.
Yeah exactly...
My concept of sandbox would definitely allow for quest chains, even large quest chains. The difference between it and themepark is that you are not FORCED to do any large quest chain to "advance" through the game.
For example, in WoW, you have zones that are strictly tiered by level, and you typically have a choice of just a few zones at each level. You will do one of those zones, or you will not advance. It's that simple. You can't decide to do Un'Goro crater at level 20, and you can't decide to do Elwynn Forest at level 85...not happening. And yes, you can do PvP or dungeons too, but those options are simillarly limited. This is what creates the guided experience.
As for sandbox games with quest chains...Skyrim definitely has them. It has very large quest chains with the different guilds. But it is STILL a sandbox because nothing really directs your experience. The quest chains are there for you to do whenever you feel like. You can ignore them if you like, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Skyrim can do without tiered zone design because it uses content scaling. Scaling is very problematic without using instances - if not outright impossible. If you have no tiered zones then the game becomes that much more inconvenient and that means saying goodbye to being casual friendly.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The funny thing is that I'm about 99% sure that this whole argument just comes down to everyone's perception of what sandbox means. I'm guessing that you and Quirhid probably perceive sandbox to mean: Hardcore, FFA PvP, full loot, little to no developer content, huge barren world. Basically a game in the tradition of UO, Eve, or Darkfall. And if you define sandbox like this, I would agree...there is no massive crowd. FFA PvP and full loot alone is enough to chase tons of people away. And I think I know this because I remember all the complaints about it when everyone was playing pre-Trammel UO. I, on the other hand, perceive sandbox as the "classic" definition of the term as seen on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game). Basically any unguided experience where there is a big world and the player gets to decide how they want to play. This includes games like Elder Scrolls and GTA which currently have a MASSIVE following, so clearly, by my definition, sandbox games have a massive following.
That doesn't seem to translate into a massive sandbox MMORPG following though. If as many people wanted to play sandbox MMORPG as pay to play sandbox games in general, it seems like it would dwarf any other kind of MMORPG. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. That's the observation bit. Here's the make up reasons with no sources and no proof bit. Those sandbox gamers couldn't play the way they want if there was a large population on the server. The guy driving through windows to rob places would get shot by another player playing a cop. Or the guy driving through windows to rob places wouldn't be able to drive through the player who was playing a shopkeeper's window because the game doesn't allow that. You can't be totally free in a game if everyone else is totally free as well. The feel of the game breaks down and it moves away from being that sandbox where you can do anything you want, any way you want. That's what I think anyway.
Your example is just falling back on the old FFA PvP argument again. We all know that FFA PvP is not attractive to everyone, in fact, it's probably only attractive to a minority. And yes, FFA PvP can definitely spoil single player esque sandbox fun.
But...sandboxes do NOT have to have FFA PvP. It isn't a requirement.
I really don't see why robbing a bank in a game like GTA would not be even more fun if you could do it with your friends. And you could have one guy be the getaway driver, one guy watch the hostages, and the other go into the vault. Just make it so it's not FFA PvP, and all of a sudden you can have the same "SP sandbox fun," but now you can do it with your friends.
Basically, the only difference I see between sandbox and themepark is that in a sandbox you decide what to do from a very large list of options and just about all options are open to you at any one time, and in a themepark, you decide what to do from a very small list options, and typically a smaller amount of options are available to you at any one point in time.
I mean, look at WoW. People have argue that it is a "sandbox" because you can:
Do dungeons, Quest, BG PvP, Craft, or Raid
But the reality is that these options boil down to a relatively small amount of things to do. You can quest...but only in the zone appropriate for your level. You can do dungeons...but only the ones approrpriate for you level, you can craft, but you only see a benefit from stuff appropriate for your level.
See what I'm getting at here? The game is directed by your level, your level decides what you can do, and the entire game world is never really open to you at any one point. Even at max level, you can go to low level areas, but they hold 0 appeal for you. Now at high level they have made it a bit more sandboxy by making heroic modes for the lower dungeons so that more is open to you...and I think this is a large part of why WoW has been successful at retaining subs.
Now contrast this with an actual sandbox game like Skyrim though. At first glance, it may seem like it is very similar to WoW. Because, in exception for the multiplayer stuff, you can do very similiar things. Quest, dungeons, craft, etc...
But the difference here isn't in what you can do, it's in how it's implemented. In Skyrim you can do just about any quest in the game at any time. Nearly the entire world is open to you at just about any point in the game. This is the difference. A themepark directs your experience, a sandbox doesn't. Or at least, those are the two extremes.
The more directed an experience is, the more themeparky it is. The more undirected it is, the more sandboxy it is. And I really don't see why a more undirected MMO wouldn't be popular. Do people really need that huge chain of quest nodes to play? Are we really too inept to just explore and find stuff to do? I really don't think so...and I think the popularity of SP sandboxes basically proves this.
The example of Skyrim needs to be expanded. In Skyrim, your actions have an impact on the general health of the towns you're adventuring around. If you kill off a town's food supply, they won't buy your stuff because they have no money for food. Add another player in there and now you can't sell your stuff in the town because another player killed off the town's food supply.
It is the old FFA PvP argument, but it is relevant. If you take a single player game and make it massively multiplayer, you've substantially changed the game play. Playing a massively multiplayer Skyrim would be substantially different from playing the single player Skyrim. Either you allow the players to have a substantial impact on each other's game play preserving the sandbox, or you mitigate the impact players have on each other's game play, limiting choices and moving the game towards the theme park side of things.
I'm the only person in my group of gamers who would play a game where my game play could be substantially impacted by other players. My experience is that while it's possible for people to enjoy those interactions, most people do not. The fact that the most popular sandbox games are single player or small scale multi-player proves this.
Other things you said about progression, I think are totally true, but they are applicable to any game. This doesn't seem like a sandbox/theme park thing to me. I can conceptualize it, but when I think "sandbox" or "theme park", that bit of the game play spectrum just doesn't pop up. Perhaps, to my mind, it's not a "core" sandbox or theme park feature because the impact is at the character level and not at the world level. Meh. Whatever. If they had done that with SWToR, I'd probably still be playing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It also does not mean that we want to.
The proof of burden is on the side of those who claims there is a mass market. WHY? Because developers are not going to invest 10s of millions of dollars simply because the possibility of a mass market exists. Some proof points are necessarily.
your position is this.
because its not realistic for town NPCs to be affected by players in an MMO is why we cant have housing, FPS combat, FPS view nor a skill based system.
I find it hard to believe people havent thought this thru.
its not an ALL or NOTHING realtionship.
wait I thought I just replied to a TES Online thread so forgive me. never the less I am going to let the point set even though its not exactly the same subject
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
See thats the difference and I guess it comes down to perception. In themeparks I'm not forced to do them to advance either, we'll use WoW. In WoW I can get to max level by gathering/exploring, questing, grinding, dungeons or pvp. I don't need to do a quest chain to advance. My last run through wow in December I only did the quests that came with the dungeons, the one before that I did all quests, sometimes I've just done pvp. Once I even tried just the gathering but I got too bored.
It has zero impact on the rest of the game, just like skyrim. The quests are just there to do whenvery your feel like, you can ignore them, and many do, and it has zero impact on the rest of the game.
In skyrim there are definately areas and things I cannot do until I advance to a certain level in the quest chain, not the guild chains, but the dragonborn story chain, for instance you can't meet Paarthurnax until you've helped Delphine and delivered the horn. Just like WoW, there are dungeons/things I can't do until I get to a certain level/stage.
edit - I should say that I have never actually been max level in wow, but I've been close, I just got too bored with the game before reaching that. However I was never limited by the number of ways to reach that level.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Housing, fps combat, fps view, skill based systems have nothing to do with what she said. She stated that if you open skyrim up to multiplayer other people will impact that players enjoyment of the game, and their ability to progress in the game. aka the person will not be able to sell to that town.
So you have to limit the options, or accept that people will grief like that. All those things your mentioned can still be done with or without players impacting each other.
ok I was waiting for someone to make this point.
I havent played WoW so forgive me if its not like other MMOs in the respect I am about to say
Your position is this.
'you are not forced to drive to the next state you have the option to walk.'
This arguement style can be extended to just about anything such as:
'we dont force you to be in jail, you will just get beaten if you try to leave.'
most games its woefully unrealistic to advance without doing quests.
There is a lot to be said to building a home without any power tools but its a totally different experience
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I know, like I said I thought I was replying to a TES specific thread. People have used her arguement to justify everything that Zenimax plans to do to TES Online which is the things I have listed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No it isn't that way at all. It is just as fast to gain levels in wow by dungeons and pvp as it is in through questings. So it's more do you want to take a car or a motorcycle. Not only that but there are definate advantages to not doing the quest chains - that is pvp gives you really good rewards, dungeons give you really good rewards and more coin.
You are not punished in any way shape or form by not doing the quests.
Not exactly. Players would rather play a single player sandbox game with all of the freedom that implies than play an MMORPG sandbox game with all of the freedom and consequences that implies.
Hey, at least you noticed after one post. I've done the same thing with two or three posts. I don't think I even tried to explain it. I just didn't post for awhile. :-)
** edit **
To your point in your edited post, not the quoted one - Try advancing in SWToR without questing. It is nearly impossible. It may be impossible for all I know. You might be able to do it in Rift, but you'd try to stab your eyes out with your keyboard after a day or so. Progression freedom is the exception, not the rule. I personally do not see this as a sandbox/theme park thing, but if progression freedom is a sandbox feature, then we need it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I am a long time fan of the TES series, 10 years now and I can say almost everything I wanted out of a online version of TES already exists in an MMO. It can get tiring having people tell me why I play TES games more so when its actually not the reasons I play at all.
I dont play TES games because they are single player. I play them because of features. Some are critical, some are not, not ALL are required to make be a very happy gamer.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
yes you are. this is silly. I dont know how many of the blindly obvious examples I can provide. are you SURE you want to take that position because I assure you its not making you look as clever as you think, in fact just the opposite
Way I see it is that there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who think they are clever by pointing out that nobody make you drive to work, that walking is a comparable option and the other group that think that is a retarded position and that the other side is trying to be clever when in fact its having the opposite effect.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It makes a difference though when devs use the game space for their directed content, or leave the game world as an empty parking lots ala SWG.
Until PVE is no longer popular, themeparks will continue to dwarf MMO sandboxes. MMO sandboxes make a focus of the players, where as the themepark focuses on providing that PVE content folks are seeking.
Granted not all seek that aforementioned PVE, and those gamers will continue to get games like EVE and DF. Which are actually more populated by gamers wanting PVP. That is something TOR failed at miserably....providing FFA PVP folks with a themepark game.
If a themepark ever manages to give those same FFA folks a home, I think we will be left with mainly Owen types as the only ones clamoring for MMO sandboxes.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Do you know what players rather play ABOVE ALL ELSE?
A polished game with high production values.
This is the no.1 selling point, there is nothing more important.
How? As I stated I get xp just as fast and I get better gear and rewards. So pleas explain how?
I don't need to do a single quest and I will get to the high levels just was fast and with just as good gear (actually I'll probably have better gear) and just as much coin (actually I'll probably have more coin).
Your example of driving or walking is rediculous and would only work if questing was significantly better or faster than not questing (assuming you meant that driving is better than walking). I'm saying questing or dungeons or pvp are all just as fast and dungeons and pvp is more rewarding.
I guess its different then. I havent played WoW so I cant speak to that. I do know that not questing in EQ2 as I tried to do is total crazy talk its like a 1:1000 ratio.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I'm not a TES fan or player. I'm just going by what the people I game with have said to me. Playing Skyrim as a multiplayer game is a no go. Same thing with Minecraft (which I do play; I also run a server), but with a slight twist - playing with chosen friends is fine, playing with strangers is not. Playing with too many friends on the same server is not OK either. Sandbox = Good, Sandbox with a bunch of people = Not Good. This is a tiny group of people, but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe there is a big difference in the overall gamer population.
** edit **
I'm also the only person in my little group of gamer friends that plays Minecraft on an RPG server with faction (guild) warfare, Full Loot PvP and the possibility of having all your stuff wrecked because of other players. I'm fine with all of this and I think it adds to my enjoyment of the game. I am very much in the minority though. I would be really surprised if this was not mirrored in the larger gamer population.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.