Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

We don't need anymore PvP focused sandbox mmos right now.

13468926

Comments

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member UncommonPosts: 4,818
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer

     

     

    No, it doesn't say something (negative) about the argument we're trying to make. Yes, crafters are "easy kills" for PK's in ffa pvp games. It's a profession, just like crafting is. The funny thing is in UO, the "carebear" professions like the crafters and pve characters were always the money makers.

     

    So yes, in a sandbox game there is an eco system or a food chain. That's because sandbox games are better and more organic, so systems like that can form.

    I've always found an ecosystem required live bodies in it to actually be anything more than a dead world. what happened in UO when they split the servers into pvp and pve again....I kind of forget.

    Not only is this changing the topic, it also hurts your case. UO was quickly and steadily increasing in population until they introduced Trammel. Within a year or 2 of trammel being released, the population started falling and hasn't really stopped.

     

    Thanks for bringing that point up because it's one I failed to mention in my post. Non-sandbox games often have huge bursts of activity in the beginning and then quickly die off. This is because people get addicted to the grind, but are ultimately disappointed with the actual game.

    Trammel was added in 2000 the game hit it's peak in population in 2003. They added over 150k subs after the split. In 2008 it was back down to it's pre trammel population numbers. I don't think 8 years is dieing off quickly. Nice try though.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Margulis

    There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed  that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game.  To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route?  Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused.  Do we seriously need another one like that?  It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE)  population?  Makes no sense........ 

    It's probably because the devs nowadays have a concern about the retention of players after the "endgame" (the famous "themepark trap"). If there is not a good meaningful PVP system, the players will start quiting the mmo after they reach the "endgame", except if the devs produce tons of PVE "content" at a very high speed (bigger than WoW's). But that route is more expensive and hard, while a good and meaningful PVP system as a endgame retainer is much more cheaper and of proven success (see L2 and EVE, as examples i can remember now).

     

     

    THIS!!! The devs keep saying Everquest Next will be a very different game - something revolutionary instead of just another version of the games they made in the past.

     

    Here's the President of Sony Online Entertainment saying he agrees "wholeheartedly" that "A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward."

     

    Of course, folks on the Everquest Next board will dismiss this as the head honcho at SOE just trolling them again.

     

    Smedley also said you'll be able to destroy vast portions of the world - almost all of it. How does that work if players can't defend stuff through PVP?

     

    Anyway, this isn't just about EQN. I believe the concept of "sandbox MMO" implies player freedom in the sense that there are as few artificial barriers to playing as possible. The people inside the game make the fun.

     

    Edit: And I'm really pleased to see more people on the general discussion boards thinking the way I do. On the EQN boards it was very different, but I guess they're mostly fans of games SOE made in the past.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by azzamasin

    Originally posted by nerovipus32

    Originally posted by Waterlily If they promote this game as a PVP game, it's dead out of the gate. PVE players outnumber PVP players tenfold.
    Some players like both, what category do they fall into? Good job at making up statistics though.
     He was being kind, its more like a thousand fold.  And this isn't make believe numbers.  There's no rationale human who can look at the MMO landscape and believe that PvP players outnumber PvE players.  Sure there are both but the genre is the, will always be the, loved by the: PvE crowd

    It's hardly official, but at least for people on this site, it breaks down like so:

    http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/polls
    Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP?
    Opened: 02/19/2009
    Respondents: 15,484
    Status: Open

    PvP - 5.7%
    PvE - 14.8%
    PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5%
    PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8%
    Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2%



    So the "pure" PvE people are nearly triple the numbers of the purely PvP people. The PvE focused people and the equal parts PvP/PvE peole dwarf everyone else though.

    I would be interested in a new poll on this same subject.

     

    The thing most people are missing here is that from a business perspective the PVE market is oversaturated. You can't get all 35 per cent of it.

     

    Now a good part of the 5.7 per cent who prefer PVP are waiting around for the return of the king. There's a lot of money to be had for the devs who can capture their hearts.

  • EvelknievelEvelknievel Member UncommonPosts: 2,964
    Originally posted by keenber
    What we need is anorther SWG as the PVP in that game didnt effect PVErs and was actually fun to watch PVPers fighting sometimes.

     

    I liked the way Star Wars Galaxies did their PvP with a 'TEF - Temporary Enemy Flag' or you could go around being overt for special bonuses.

    Forcing a PVE player to PVP is not a way to make a mmorpg game in my opinion, it should be a option.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by Distopia
    The title should read we don't need anymore badly implemented PVP focused MMO's right now. We sure as hell need a well thought out implementation of it in a sandbox game aside from EVE. If you don't want to play as a ship you have no options at all for that.

     

    LOL this. I don't want to play as a ship. Man there have been so many great comments in this thread. =D
  • strangiato2112strangiato2112 Member CommonPosts: 1,538
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Now a good part of the 5.7 per cent who prefer PVP are waiting around for the return of the king. There's a lot of money to be had for the devs who can capture their hearts.

    However, there are options for PvP sandboxes.  There arent for PvE.  So the dev that makes a great PvE sandbox will be reward significantly more than the one that makes a great PvP one

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by Vossik

    The ABSOLUTE LAST thing the mmo market needs is another mmo focused on scripted dungeons you and your friends (or whatever asshat seventeen year old the group finder vomits up)  zerg over and over until you either die of boredom, die of frustration over morons, or get the carrot you've been chasing. Then it's on to the next carrot! Why? To justify losing your soul chasing the last one. 

    NO THANK YOU 

     

     

    OMG thank you so much for this comment!!! I just died laughing!!!

     

    BTW, can anyone tell me how to reply to multiple posts without screwing up the formatting?

  • MargulisMargulis Member CommonPosts: 1,614
    Originally posted by jdlamson75
    Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE.  Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too.  Want, want, want.  Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox.  Thank you.

    I know, we're so greedy it's unreal.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • MargulisMargulis Member CommonPosts: 1,614
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by azzamasin

    Originally posted by nerovipus32

    Originally posted by Waterlily If they promote this game as a PVP game, it's dead out of the gate. PVE players outnumber PVP players tenfold.
    Some players like both, what category do they fall into? Good job at making up statistics though.
     He was being kind, its more like a thousand fold.  And this isn't make believe numbers.  There's no rationale human who can look at the MMO landscape and believe that PvP players outnumber PvE players.  Sure there are both but the genre is the, will always be the, loved by the: PvE crowd

    It's hardly official, but at least for people on this site, it breaks down like so:

    http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/polls
    Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP?
    Opened: 02/19/2009
    Respondents: 15,484
    Status: Open

    PvP - 5.7%
    PvE - 14.8%
    PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5%
    PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8%
    Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2%



    So the "pure" PvE people are nearly triple the numbers of the purely PvP people. The PvE focused people and the equal parts PvP/PvE peole dwarf everyone else though.

    I would be interested in a new poll on this same subject.

     

    The thing most people are missing here is that from a business perspective the PVE market is oversaturated. You can't get all 35 per cent of it.

     Oh really?  This discussion is about sandbox mmo's.  Do tell me, what are the names of all these PvE sandboxes that are oversaturating the market?

    Now a good part of the 5.7 per cent who prefer PVP are waiting around for the return of the king. There's a lot of money to be had for the devs who can capture their hearts.

     

  • killahhkillahh Member UncommonPosts: 445
    So, you don't want another pvp in games, might as well say you want no risk.
    well then go ahead and make one.

    ..........
    I daresay you'll find the pure pve is pure boredom, in the end. There's only so many versions of wow one can handle.
    A sandbox is not about rules that must be strictly followed, as a pure pve environment must be.

    over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer

     

     

    No, it doesn't say something (negative) about the argument we're trying to make. Yes, crafters are "easy kills" for PK's in ffa pvp games. It's a profession, just like crafting is. The funny thing is in UO, the "carebear" professions like the crafters and pve characters were always the money makers.

     

    So yes, in a sandbox game there is an eco system or a food chain. That's because sandbox games are better and more organic, so systems like that can form.

    I've always found an ecosystem required live bodies in it to actually be anything more than a dead world. what happened in UO when they split the servers into pvp and pve again....I kind of forget.

    Not only is this changing the topic, it also hurts your case. UO was quickly and steadily increasing in population until they introduced Trammel. Within a year or 2 of trammel being released, the population started falling and hasn't really stopped.

     

    Thanks for bringing that point up because it's one I failed to mention in my post. Non-sandbox games often have huge bursts of activity in the beginning and then quickly die off. This is because people get addicted to the grind, but are ultimately disappointed with the actual game.

    Trammel was added in 2000 the game hit it's peak in population in 2003. They added over 150k subs after the split. In 2008 it was back down to it's pre trammel population numbers. I don't think 8 years is dieing off quickly. Nice try though.

    http://i.imgur.com/NmjiA.png

     

    Where are you getting your numbers? As you say trammel was added in mid 2000. At that point they had about 175k subscribers. After introducing trammel subs peaked at about 250k. It stayed around that level for 3 (sorry not 2...) years before dropping, and has yet to recover. By the way, it has dropped to LOWER than its' pre-trammel numbers. Hooray for carebear hand-holding.

     

    By the way, before trammel the increase in subs was far more consistent. In fact the only other game on that chart that resembles that kind of slow steady increase is EVE, the most sandbox game on that chart which also has open world pvp and looting. The other games have sporadic increases with inevitable catastrophic declines because they're boring and shallow.

     

    But again, you're dodging from the original point. You were saying something about the fact that ffa pvp games require "easy kills" says something about our argument? What does it say about it?

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Margulis

    There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed  that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game.  To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route?  Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused.  Do we seriously need another one like that?  It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE)  population?  Makes no sense........ 

    It's probably because the devs nowadays have a concern about the retention of players after the "endgame" (the famous "themepark trap"). If there is not a good meaningful PVP system, the players will start quiting the mmo after they reach the "endgame", except if the devs produce tons of PVE "content" at a very high speed (bigger than WoW's). But that route is more expensive and hard, while a good and meaningful PVP system as a endgame retainer is much more cheaper and of proven success (see L2 and EVE, as examples i can remember now).

     

     

    THIS!!! The devs keep saying Everquest Next will be a very different game - something revolutionary instead of just another version of the games they made in the past.

     

    Here's the President of Sony Online Entertainment saying he agrees "wholeheartedly" that "A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward."

     

    Of course, folks on the Everquest Next board will dismiss this as the head honcho at SOE just trolling them again.

     

    Smedley also said you'll be able to destroy vast portions of the world - almost all of it. How does that work if players can't defend stuff through PVP?

     

    Anyway, this isn't just about EQN. I believe the concept of "sandbox MMO" implies player freedom in the sense that there are as few artificial barriers to playing as possible. The people inside the game make the fun.

     

    Edit: And I'm really pleased to see more people on the general discussion boards thinking the way I do. On the EQN boards it was very different, but I guess they're mostly fans of games SOE made in the past.

     

    This guy knows what's up.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Margulis
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by azzamasin

    Originally posted by nerovipus32

    Originally posted by Waterlily If they promote this game as a PVP game, it's dead out of the gate. PVE players outnumber PVP players tenfold.
    Some players like both, what category do they fall into? Good job at making up statistics though.
     He was being kind, its more like a thousand fold.  And this isn't make believe numbers.  There's no rationale human who can look at the MMO landscape and believe that PvP players outnumber PvE players.  Sure there are both but the genre is the, will always be the, loved by the: PvE crowd

    It's hardly official, but at least for people on this site, it breaks down like so:

    http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/polls
    Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP?
    Opened: 02/19/2009
    Respondents: 15,484
    Status: Open

    PvP - 5.7%
    PvE - 14.8%
    PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5%
    PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8%
    Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2%



    So the "pure" PvE people are nearly triple the numbers of the purely PvP people. The PvE focused people and the equal parts PvP/PvE peole dwarf everyone else though.

    I would be interested in a new poll on this same subject.

     

    The thing most people are missing here is that from a business perspective the PVE market is oversaturated. You can't get all 35 per cent of it.

    Now a good part of the 5.7 per cent who prefer PVP are waiting around for the return of the king. There's a lot of money to be had for the devs who can capture their hearts.

     

     Oh really?  This discussion is about sandbox mmo's.  Do tell me, what are the names of all these PvE sandboxes that are oversaturating the market?

     

    Well they don't really exist and for good reason. What would be the point of it? Sandbox games traditionally have pvp for a couple different reasons. Primarily for the risk/reward aspect of the game. I care about my things because they're hard to acquire/hold onto. Another reason is because it gives you something to play for. In darkfall you do a lot of harvesting to build up your city, which you have to defend. In that instance if you take out the pvp there would be 0 reason to play. 

     

    There are some sandbox-y non-pvp games though. FFXI is probably the best example. The drive in that game was the sheer complexity of it. There's simply so much to achieve and learn about the game.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member UncommonPosts: 4,818
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer

     

    But again, you're dodging from the original point. You were saying something about the fact that ffa pvp games require "easy kills" says something about our argument? What does it say about it?

    It wasn't dodging the point it was making it. You just seem to think that a fall off of population after 4-6 years is the sign of a failed game design not just the nature of mmos.  The game continued to grow through 4 more ex packs and yet you still blame that one as it's " down fall " It doesn't show that people get bored and quit if they have a pve option, it shows people get bored of pvp without free kills around.

    And given the choice people choose not to be a free lunch and the pvp servers die off. So your argument that they shouldn't be given the choice isn't to make a game better for everyone. It's to keep your pvp game from turning into a ghost town.

  • CallsignVegaCallsignVega Member UncommonPosts: 288

    Is this thread a joke? What is the purpose of an online game if you do not want to compete with other players? I think what you want is a single player game like Skyrim or Witcher.. 

     

    Let's all log in after dropping the kids off at soccer practice so we can gang up on some NPC's. Sounds like fun!

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer

     

    But again, you're dodging from the original point. You were saying something about the fact that ffa pvp games require "easy kills" says something about our argument? What does it say about it?

    It wasn't dodging the point it was making it. You just seem to think that a fall off of population after 4-6 years is the sign of a failed game design not just the nature of mmos.  The game continued to grow through 4 more ex packs and yet you still blame that one as it's " down fall " It doesn't show that people get bored and quit if they have a pve option, it shows people get bored of pvp without free kills around.

    And given the choice people choose not to be a free lunch and the pvp servers die off. So your argument that they shouldn't be given the choice isn't to make a game better for everyone. It's to keep your pvp game from turning into a ghost town.

    So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?

     

    Anyway, back to why you're wrong about the subs: It was less than a year before the upward trend stopped. So in reality the game had good and steady success for the first 3 years, then trammel is implemented and within a year the growth stops. Then for a couple years there's no growth, but it does survive, until it starts its' near fatal decline. I mean how do you not see that? It goes up before trammel, trammel comes out and it gets a small boost from the new expansion and the shiny new features for a year and then is completely stagnant for a couple years before it dies. Seriously, go check that chart again.

     

    Look at EVE's subs on that chart and compare it to UO's. The only difference is that EVE didn't sell out like UO did it. The reason you think pvp sandbox games aren't successful is because they don't have the enormous huge blowout starts like the crappy themepark games do, but the difference is they have player retention. Good mmo's aren't meant to have huge summer blockbuster-esque opening weekends. That's not sustainable.

     

    But again back to your original point:

     

    "The real reason they argue is because with the option to go to a pve server they wont be free kills on their pvp server and that ruins the fun for them. Which says something about the argument they're trying to make."

     

    The point you're trying to make here is just the modest one that people won't play if there's a pve option? Because it seems very much like you're poking fun at the pvp crowd, saying it says something about us that we only have fun if there are "free kills" for us. It's not the first time I've heard that empty insult and it's total BS.

  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465
    Personally, I think one of the very, very few good things about SWG-NGE was the mechanics behind the PvP system (not the combat system, a more broken mess I have never seen). It had open world, consensual PvP (sometimes incentivized) in most places and automatic PvP enabled in several battleground areas. That way people could PvP anywhere that wanted to, and people that went into PvP enabled areas knew the risks. But frankly, designers need to get away from the always enabled, full loot PvP, it just turns off many more people than it attracts. That said, I don't see how the argument became open, full loot PvP or nothing... the SWG system was "in between" and functioned fine. And there was a ton of PvP in the old days (and there was a reasonable death penalty too, to prevent zerging), 200 vs 200 battles when it was fully consensual... people WANTED to PvP (not "had to"), so the "must have PVP enabled all the time" crowd might consider that in their argument.
  • MMOExposedMMOExposed Member RarePosts: 7,400
    Originally posted by CallsignVega

    Is this thread a joke? What is the purpose of an online game if you do not want to compete with other players? I think what you want is a single player game like Skyrim or Witcher.. 

     

    Let's all log in after dropping the kids off at soccer practice so we can gang up on some NPC's. Sounds like fun!

    Because some online games are all about coop and working together to build something. Hence Sandbox.

     

    reading this thread I realized people have changed the meaning of sandbox. Sandbox is all about player made content. Not PvP FFA. 

     

    Minecraft allows players to make anything they can with the tools they have. It's a sandbox. Second life allow people to make anything with coding skills. Again its a sandbox.

    elder scrolls allow people to make just about anything or do anything with the right coding skills. It's a sandbox.

     

    darkfall for example has no player made content, just a open world for arena fighting. Yet you call it a Sandbox. Yes clearly the definition has changed.

    Philosophy of MMO Game Design

  • MothanosMothanos Member UncommonPosts: 1,910

    Lets say that if PVP in this Sandbox doesnt deliver or aint present at all that its going to flop harder then Archeage in Korea.

    PvP in a sandbox is mandatory for not only contend but for economy.
    Without good pvp this game is not even worth playing.

    And it will be sandbox mmo # 190382103 that isnt worth mentioning.

  • KBishopKBishop Member Posts: 205
    Originally posted by Mothanos

    Lets say that if PVP in this Sandbox doesnt deliver or aint present at all that its going to flop harder then Archeage in Korea.

    PvP in a sandbox is mandatory for not only contend but for economy.
    Without good pvp this game is not even worth playing.

    And it will be sandbox mmo # 190382103 that isnt worth mentioning.

    Couldn't you possibly make a game very similar to minecraft where you build a character to help create establishments to defend off monsters? It may not have the potential that a pvp sandbox has but is pvp 100% mandatory?

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Member UncommonPosts: 1,365
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by Mothanos

    Lets say that if PVP in this Sandbox doesnt deliver or aint present at all that its going to flop harder then Archeage in Korea.

    PvP in a sandbox is mandatory for not only contend but for economy.
    Without good pvp this game is not even worth playing.

    And it will be sandbox mmo # 190382103 that isnt worth mentioning.

    Couldn't you possibly make a game very similar to minecraft where you build a character to help create establishments to defend off monsters? It may not have the potential that a pvp sandbox has but is pvp 100% mandatory?

     

    It is impossible to say for sure.

    If, hypothetically, a PVE sandbox game did come out and wasn't very good and wasn't very well received -- there would be people clamoring to push their agenda and make sure we all -know- the reason it failed was lack of PvP.

    This is no different than the garbage pvp sandbox MMOs that get released and those with an agenda assure us the full loot open pvp is to blame (cleverly ignoring the game is pretty much utter garbage by every other standard).

    either way, I personally think a game could work as a PVE or PVP based sandbox game.  I have no good evidence though and i am absolutely sure the answer to either game isn't some short answer someone is going to write up in a post here on this forum any day soon.

     

     

    edit: i particularly like your minecraft analogy.

    edit #2: to address this thread directly, your stance and title OP seem ridiculous to me.  We absolutely need more sandbox games with PVP that aren't total crap, and we absolutely need more PVE focused sandbox games.  We need good developers making good games for you AND me and we shouldn't be fighting each other about who has better tastes.

  • MothanosMothanos Member UncommonPosts: 1,910

    The diffrence between minecraft and a tripple A mmo is production costs and investors.
    Where Minecraft is low budget development and not as complicated to maintain as a sandbox or themepark mmo, it has to deliver contend on fast pace before players get bored.

    Yes its hard to tell if a sandbox mmo can do good without pvp, but you turn away so many people that would have at least tried it that you already lost a big chunk of money.
    There are only a few studio's able to support their own mmo's without investors Sqaure Enix / Blizzard a few years back (activision says hi) and CCP.
    They have zero presure to pay back investors or shareholders etc etc.

    In todays market $$$ makes or break mmo's.
    Without pvp the number of people willing to pay for your product is realy stagering so they cant live without it.
    PvP is mandatory for a mmo's survivial wether you or me like it or not.

    This accounts if you have a high budget mmo, not a low budget mmo offcourse.

  • KBishopKBishop Member Posts: 205
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by KBishop
    Originally posted by Mothanos

    Lets say that if PVP in this Sandbox doesnt deliver or aint present at all that its going to flop harder then Archeage in Korea.

    PvP in a sandbox is mandatory for not only contend but for economy.
    Without good pvp this game is not even worth playing.

    And it will be sandbox mmo # 190382103 that isnt worth mentioning.

    Couldn't you possibly make a game very similar to minecraft where you build a character to help create establishments to defend off monsters? It may not have the potential that a pvp sandbox has but is pvp 100% mandatory?

     

    It is impossible to say for sure.

    If, hypothetically, a PVE sandbox game did come out and wasn't very good and wasn't very well received -- there would be people clamoring to push their agenda and make sure we all -know- the reason it failed was lack of PvP.

    This is no different than the garbage pvp sandbox MMOs that get released and those with an agenda assure us the full loot open pvp is to blame (cleverly ignoring the game is pretty much utter garbage by every other standard).

    either way, I personally think a game could work as a PVE or PVP based sandbox game.  I have no good evidence though and i am absolutely sure the answer to either game isn't some short answer someone is going to write up in a post here on this forum any day soon.

     

     

    edit: i particularly like your minecraft analogy.

    edit #2: to address this thread directly, your stance and title OP seem ridiculous to me.  We absolutely need more sandbox games with PVP that aren't total crap, and we absolutely need more PVE focused sandbox games.  We need good developers making good games for you AND me and we shouldn't be fighting each other about who has better tastes.

    Oh I'm not on either side of the fence in terms of extremes. I think any MMORPG whether sandbox or themepark severely hampers a lot of potential by focusing on JUST pvp or JUST pve. I think in this day and age, they realistically can and should focus on both. I'm not here to make claim that a pve only sandbox game is the way to go, I was just playing devils advocate and wondering if it all was possible to make a pve only sandbox game.

  • StarIStarI Member UncommonPosts: 987

    You guys can have silent rages all day long but it won't change the fact that your so called PvE sandboxes in reality are nothing but themeparks with loads of fluff which makes your mind happy inside all the available choices. However when it comes to social interaction you want easy routes, like avoiding confrontations at a press of a button. That alone is themepark trait. You cba with something so you want devs to give you instant gratification. It's quite ironic when on the other hand all you do is hate on themeparks which actually evolved into what they are exactly because of what you guys are.

    Going this route, I swear some day internet will become sinonim for irony.

Sign In or Register to comment.