There are more than 2, I just happened to list 2 of the more prolific ones. Your statment was "there are zero AAA sandboxes", when you should have said "I know of zero AAA sandboxes"...we kindly would have educated you on the subject.
Fact is, sandboxes were tried by AAAs, and not to say that they failed outright, but they were dwarfed by themeparks, hense thats where the development shifted to. Even themeparks that are considered "faileurs" are vastly more successfull than most sandboxes.
ok lets pull back from the Willow slapping and instead just educate me with more modern examples perhaps?
When I have conversations about gaming and the troubles of current games UO and SWG often get pulled into the mix of old school gaming and/or even indie games. i do think the creative liberity Lord British had back then would likely never happen at a AAA firm today but I would rather others speak to that because its out of my element.
When I think of who knows best about what a Sandbox is trion is one of last companies that comes to mind.
They are also the ones failing at making it mainstream. Which I said earlier is doing more damage to the "brand" than good. But that's just my thought.
Also, CCP is not indie dev, lol.
Yeah in all the ranting to show how only indie devs are making sandbox games it does seem to show the biggest problem with them. They're boring to the avg gamer, and the avg gamer is the target market of the AAA studio. All that freedom with no conventional progression of difficulty means most players just run around looking at everything they could do till they get bored and quit. Freedom sounds great on paper but it doesn't explain why people end up back in their guided themepark experience.
All of these indie games unable to make it mainstream and all of these gamers asking for sandbox but refusing to play an indie title really do more damage than good as far as getting AAA companies interested.
They are also the ones failing at making it mainstream. Which I said earlier is doing more damage to the "brand" than good. But that's just my thought.
Also, CCP is not indie dev, lol.
Yeah in all the ranting to show how only indie devs are making sandbox games it does seem to show the biggest problem with them. They're boring to the avg gamer, and the avg gamer is the target market of the AAA studio. All that freedom with no conventional progression of difficulty means most players just run around looking at everything they could do till they get bored and quit. Freedom sounds great on paper but it doesn't explain why people end up back in their guided themepark experience.
All of these indie games unable to make it mainstream and all of these gamers asking for sandbox but refusing to play an indie title really do more damage than good as far as getting AAA companies interested.
so I have lot of confusion here.
1. If Sandboxes appear to be so boring why are AAAs so interested in using the term all the time?
2. Given that UO was a AAA sandbox was it also boring? or did it have some better understanding of sandbox than Wurm Online does and if so specifically how.
3. CCP is an indie. why? because they do not get their money from a publisher let alone a publically traded one
They are also the ones failing at making it mainstream. Which I said earlier is doing more damage to the "brand" than good. But that's just my thought.
Also, CCP is not indie dev, lol.
Yeah in all the ranting to show how only indie devs are making sandbox games it does seem to show the biggest problem with them. They're boring to the avg gamer, and the avg gamer is the target market of the AAA studio. All that freedom with no conventional progression of difficulty means most players just run around looking at everything they could do till they get bored and quit. Freedom sounds great on paper but it doesn't explain why people end up back in their guided themepark experience.
All of these indie games unable to make it mainstream and all of these gamers asking for sandbox but refusing to play an indie title really do more damage than good as far as getting AAA companies interested.
so I have lot of confusion here.
1. If Sandboxes appear to be so boring why are AAAs so interested in using the term all the time?
2. Given that UO was a AAA sandbox was it also boring? or did it have some better understanding of sandbox than Wurm Online does and if so specifically how.
1 you should be able to figure out on your own. It's not that complicated. If you need a hint look up buzzword.
2 UO is a 15 year old game that had 1 other "mmo" that almost no one knew about, and one in development when it launched. Trying to apply the design and success to todays market is silly. Worm as far as sandboxes goes is a much better game yet I wouldn't call it a smashing success that's going to jumpstart the industry like UO helped do. Why do you think that is ?
Is it because it's an indie title or is it because as much as people say they want games to be a sandbox, what they really want is something like skyrim ( a non linear open world quest "grinder" ) Where you're giving the illusion of freedom but you're never too far off the guided path.
They are also the ones failing at making it mainstream. Which I said earlier is doing more damage to the "brand" than good. But that's just my thought.
Also, CCP is not indie dev, lol.
Yeah in all the ranting to show how only indie devs are making sandbox games it does seem to show the biggest problem with them. They're boring to the avg gamer, and the avg gamer is the target market of the AAA studio. All that freedom with no conventional progression of difficulty means most players just run around looking at everything they could do till they get bored and quit. Freedom sounds great on paper but it doesn't explain why people end up back in their guided themepark experience.
All of these indie games unable to make it mainstream and all of these gamers asking for sandbox but refusing to play an indie title really do more damage than good as far as getting AAA companies interested.
so I have lot of confusion here.
1. If Sandboxes appear to be so boring why are AAAs so interested in using the term all the time?
2. Given that UO was a AAA sandbox was it also boring? or did it have some better understanding of sandbox than Wurm Online does and if so specifically how.
1 you should be able to figure out on your own. It's not that complicated. If you need a hint look up buzzword.
2 UO is a 15 year old game that had 1 other "mmo" that almost no one knew about, and one in development when it launched. Trying to apply the design and success to todays market is silly. Worm as far as sandboxes goes is a much better game yet I wouldn't call it a smashing success that's going to jumpstart the industry like UO helped do. Why do you think that is ?
Is it because it's an indie title or is it because as much as people say they want games to be a sandbox, what they really want is something like skyrim ( a non linear open world quest "grinder" ) Where you're giving the illusion of freedom but you're never too far off the guided path.
So your saying a part of the industry who hasnt made a Sandbox in 15 years and the ones they did make that were sandboxes indie companies emulate that this is actually borning and nobody really wants it but the few people who do are loud enough that the majortiy of people think they want a sandbox.
jesus fucking christ.
no its not like that at all.
indies make games like UO
AAA games do not make games that UO or even close for more than a decade.
If people didnt like those indie games or UO AAA companies would not be interested in making them happy.
There are more than 2, I just happened to list 2 of the more prolific ones. Your statment was "there are zero AAA sandboxes", when you should have said "I know of zero AAA sandboxes"...we kindly would have educated you on the subject.
Fact is, sandboxes were tried by AAAs, and not to say that they failed outright, but they were dwarfed by themeparks, hense thats where the development shifted to. Even themeparks that are considered "faileurs" are vastly more successfull than most sandboxes.
ok lets pull back from the Willow slapping and instead just educate me with more modern examples perhaps?
When I have conversations about gaming and the troubles of current games UO and SWG often get pulled into the mix of old school gaming and/or even indie games. i do think the creative liberity Lord British had back then would likely never happen at a AAA firm today but I would rather others speak to that because its out of my element.
When I think of who knows best about what a Sandbox is trion is one of last companies that comes to mind.
Educate me.
My entire point is that sandboxes were tried in the begining, and the audiance just wasn't there (compared to themeparks), so AAAs stopped making them...your response to that is asking me to "name you modern ones"??? I agree there are no (or very few) modern ones. The reason why there are no modern ones is what we disagree on.
There are more than 2, I just happened to list 2 of the more prolific ones. Your statment was "there are zero AAA sandboxes", when you should have said "I know of zero AAA sandboxes"...we kindly would have educated you on the subject.
Fact is, sandboxes were tried by AAAs, and not to say that they failed outright, but they were dwarfed by themeparks, hense thats where the development shifted to. Even themeparks that are considered "faileurs" are vastly more successfull than most sandboxes.
ok lets pull back from the Willow slapping and instead just educate me with more modern examples perhaps?
When I have conversations about gaming and the troubles of current games UO and SWG often get pulled into the mix of old school gaming and/or even indie games. i do think the creative liberity Lord British had back then would likely never happen at a AAA firm today but I would rather others speak to that because its out of my element.
When I think of who knows best about what a Sandbox is trion is one of last companies that comes to mind.
Educate me.
My entire point is that sandboxes were tried in the begining, and the audiance just wasn't there (compared to themeparks), so AAAs stopped making them...your response to that is asking me to "name you modern ones"??? I agree there are no (or very few) modern ones. The reason why there are no modern ones is what we disagree on.
I figured that was pretty clear, but I guess not.
That is actually well said.
So what I am to understand is that your position is that UO didnt really do all that well and people think they want a Sandbox (for reasons we havent explored yet but should) but really dont which is why AAA companies use the term but they are not really interested in sandboxes.
That is a well thought out position. A few questions though
1. specifically WHY do people 'think' they want sandboxes?
2. do AAA companies really have a better feel of what makes a good sandbox if they understand that people really do not want sandboxes in the first place?
AAA games do not make games that UO or even close for more than a decade.
If people didnt like those indie games or UO AAA companies would not be interested in making them happy.
that is how it is....deal with it.
I really don't think it's hard to understand why companies find the sandbox to be less desirable on the business front. A themepark is all about content, stories and combat. These things are easily controlled. Sandboxes are about player to player relations. Something far less easy to control. Instead of relying on writing, design skill, and programming, you rely on players to create the incentive to log on or off. Where would you place your millions as being a safer bet?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
AAA games do not make games that UO or even close for more than a decade.
If people didnt like those indie games or UO AAA companies would not be interested in making them happy.
that is how it is....deal with it.
I really don't think it's hard to understand why companies find the sandbox to be less desirable on the business front. A themepark is all about content, stories and combat. These things are easily controlled. Sandboxes are about player to player relations. Something far less easy to control. Instead of relying on writing, design skill, and programming, you rely on players to create the incentive to log on or off. Where would you your millions on being a safer bet?
the position being argued here by others (if I understand it correctly) is that the masses really do not like Sandboxes they just are not aware that they dont like Sandboxes. They THINK they do which is why AAAs use the terms but in reality they find it boring.
Now I personally think that is hogwash...but at least its nice to get a position that sounds somewhat coherent for a change
I really don't think it's hard to understand why companies find the sandbox to be less desirable on the business front. A themepark is all about content, stories and combat. These things are easily controlled. Sandboxes are about player to player relations. Something far less easy to control. Instead of relying on writing, design skill, and programming, you rely on players to create the incentive to log on or off. Where would you your millions on being a safer bet?
the position being argued here by others (if I understand it correctly) is that the masses really do not like Sandboxes they just are not aware that they dont like Sandboxes. They THINK they do which is why AAAs use the terms but in reality they find it boring.
Now I personally think that is hogwash...but at least its nice to get a position that sounds somewhat coherent for a change
I'd agree that's not really a strong argument. It's making assumptions based on likes or dislikes, which are usually guided by personal feelings on the topic. Many people really don't know what they like until they get it in a package that fits them.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Pure sandboxes don't make money. AAA titles are run by big companies who like to make money. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
The pure sandbox game is reserved for the indie developers whose main goal is to draw some interest through niche marketing since they don't have the funds to provide that big budget feel in their games.
Microsoft is buying the company that made Minecraft for $2 billion.
Linear games don't make money after initial box sales, would be closer to the truth.
people will just say two things
1. MineCraft is not an MMO because it doesnt have more than 64 players on a server
2. MineCraft is not an RPG therefore it doesnt count
3. MineCraft is not an indie because its owned by Microsoft.
My entire point is that sandboxes were tried in the begining, and the audiance just wasn't there (compared to themeparks), so AAAs stopped making them...your response to that is asking me to "name you modern ones"??? I agree there are no (or very few) modern ones. The reason why there are no modern ones is what we disagree on.
I figured that was pretty clear, but I guess not.
UO created the MMO market and was a huge success at the time. It had PvP issues that drove away a lot of would-be players, and the fact that it was 2d at a time when 3d accelerators were just taking off hurt it's potential but it was a big success. Everquest surpassed it and as typically happens MMOs after it generally tried to clone EQ. How many AAA sandboxes have there really been in those 15 years? There was SWG which shipped before it was ready, and never achieved the success some hoped it would gain. But if you go back to mid-2003 when SWG had 300k subscribers, the only games larger were Everquest and Lineage (primarily in Korea). It was the third largest MMO on the market.
Then WoW hit, and the market expanded. Everyone was now cloning WoW instead of Everquest and that's the state the MMO genre has remained in until recently.
I agree with Jc-smith. Times were vastly different in the pre-WOW days. Having 300k subs was huge then. I think some of issue also is how to define a sandbox that makes it different from a themepark. These distinctions need to made so us players can see thru the buzz words and ad's to properly dicern what is what.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
I really don't think it's hard to understand why companies find the sandbox to be less desirable on the business front. A themepark is all about content, stories and combat. These things are easily controlled. Sandboxes are about player to player relations. Something far less easy to control. Instead of relying on writing, design skill, and programming, you rely on players to create the incentive to log on or off. Where would you your millions on being a safer bet?
the position being argued here by others (if I understand it correctly) is that the masses really do not like Sandboxes they just are not aware that they dont like Sandboxes. They THINK they do which is why AAAs use the terms but in reality they find it boring.
Now I personally think that is hogwash...but at least its nice to get a position that sounds somewhat coherent for a change
I'd agree that's not really a strong argument. It's making assumptions based on likes or dislikes, which are usually guided by personal feelings on the topic. Many people really don't know what they like until they get it in a package that fits them.
This is sort of how I see it:
People get sold a slogan or some propaganda and they buy into it without thinking. They know what themeparks are, having played several, and maybe they want a change of pace. The sandbox word gets thrown around various threads and articles as something better or that solves all the woes of the themepark without a real explanation of what that all means. They hear what they want and glom onto sandbox (and all of its derivatives - sandpark, sandbox-style, etc) and then invent their own expectation based on what they've heard. When they get there the reality doesn't mesh with the fantasy - nerd rage ensues.
I think that is one reason why there is often a backlash or disappointment in the various sandbox oriented offerings. For example, someone hears about resource gathering, crafting, and building. They get a picture in their mind of what they think that means based on their interpretation of the feature. They get into the game and find out what PK means, what resource destruction and management mean, self-direction, self-direction character progression, and all sorts of other realities they may not have considered. The exact details vary from person to person and game to game, but the pattern, I believe, is similar. System shock ensues and they call the game crap.
I don't think Indie games do sandbox better or make better games than their high budget corporate counterparts could - that is subjective anyway. It is that the Indie games are doing it at all and the big budget companies aren't. There often isn't a better high budget counterpart because that isn't where the money is. Big studios could make games with better graphics, animations, coding, and systems, but since the money isn't really there, they don't. Those sandbox features Indies offer have a limited appeal. The few small exceptions of big developer games we have recently, Trove and Landmark, aren't as gritty and and hardcore in the sandbox as some of their Indie cousins. They can't be and still appeal to enough people to make money.
here is the problem I am having with your comment.
I dont see what I highlight in yellow actually happening.
I dont see people jumping on forums complaining about sandbox features. I do see people complaining about themepark features but not sandbox ones.
More over, who gets disapointed about being able to build a house but not required to do so...that is silly
Originally posted by someforumguy The masses are playing Minecraft. So apparently a well executed sandbox game could be very popular. Unfortunately, Microsoft thinks so too
Microsoft doesn't even know what the term Sandbox means.
They bought Minecraft because of all the hype its getting being released on the newer consoles. They saw how many people play it, found out its insanely popular on smartphones also and thought its time to try to buy more marketshare, but as usual they are a few years late to the...game...literally this time.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Originally posted by someforumguy The masses are playing Minecraft. So apparently a well executed sandbox game could be very popular. Unfortunately, Microsoft thinks so too
Microsoft doesn't even know what the term Sandbox means.
They bought Minecraft because of all the hype its getting being released on the newer consoles. They saw how many people play it, found out its insanely popular on smartphones also and thought its time to try to buy more marketshare, but as usual they are a few years late to the...game...literally this time.
I hope they improve the graphics, make the voxels smaller and leave the rest alone
here is the problem I am having with your comment.
I dont see what I highlight in yellow actually happening.
I dont see people jumping on forums complaining about sandbox features. I do see people complaining about themepark features but not sandbox ones.
More over, who gets disapointed about being able to build a house but not required to do so...that is silly
You kind of have to approach the above from a certain perspective. I highly doubt it's those who enjoy themepark features jumping on forums bemoaning those features, the people who are going to gravitate toward such topics are those who dislike them, or want something else. The other part of said perspective is that, those who like themepark features have little to complain about, so they're less likely to strike out at the other option, it's not in the way of their preference.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
here is the problem I am having with your comment.
I dont see what I highlight in yellow actually happening.
I dont see people jumping on forums complaining about sandbox features. I do see people complaining about themepark features but not sandbox ones.
More over, who gets disapointed about being able to build a house but not required to do so...that is silly
You kind of have to approach the above from a certain perspective. I highly doubt it's those who enjoy themepark features jumping on forums bemoaning those features, the people who are going to gravitate toward such topics are those who dislike them, or want something else. The other part of said perspective is that, those who like themepark features have little to complain about, so they're less likely to strike out at the other option, it's not in the way of their preference.
HOWEVER...the exact inverse is not true?
someone is claiming that people complain about sandbox features and I havent seen any such complaints
here is the problem I am having with your comment.
I dont see what I highlight in yellow actually happening.
I dont see people jumping on forums complaining about sandbox features. I do see people complaining about themepark features but not sandbox ones.
More over, who gets disapointed about being able to build a house but not required to do so...that is silly
You kind of have to approach the above from a certain perspective. I highly doubt it's those who enjoy themepark features jumping on forums bemoaning those features, the people who are going to gravitate toward such topics are those who dislike them, or want something else. The other part of said perspective is that, those who like themepark features have little to complain about, so they're less likely to strike out at the other option, it's not in the way of their preference.
HOWEVER...the exact inverse is not true?
someone is claiming that people complain about sandbox features and I havent seen any such complaints
I think he's referring to feedback on specific games or game types FFAPVP as an example... His point was about people getting the wrong idea about games based on feature lists and interpretations of them. Who in turn rail against said mechanics after discovering them or discovering how they effect the feature they picked a game up for.
There's a lot of that for all game types not just sandboxes..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
here is the problem I am having with your comment.
I dont see what I highlight in yellow actually happening.
I dont see people jumping on forums complaining about sandbox features. I do see people complaining about themepark features but not sandbox ones.
More over, who gets disapointed about being able to build a house but not required to do so...that is silly
You kind of have to approach the above from a certain perspective. I highly doubt it's those who enjoy themepark features jumping on forums bemoaning those features, the people who are going to gravitate toward such topics are those who dislike them, or want something else. The other part of said perspective is that, those who like themepark features have little to complain about, so they're less likely to strike out at the other option, it's not in the way of their preference.
HOWEVER...the exact inverse is not true?
someone is claiming that people complain about sandbox features and I havent seen any such complaints
I think he's referring to feedback on specific games or game types FFAPVP as an example... His point was about people getting the wrong idea about games based on feature lists and interpretations of them. Who in turn rail against said mechanics after discovering them or discovering how they effect the feature they picked a game up for.
In all fairness FFA is the ONLY sandbox feature I have ever heard anyone mention.
which is why that statement seemed really odd to me.
Originally posted by someforumguy The masses are playing Minecraft. So apparently a well executed sandbox game could be very popular. Unfortunately, Microsoft thinks so too
Microsoft doesn't even know what the term Sandbox means.
They bought Minecraft because of all the hype its getting being released on the newer consoles. They saw how many people play it, found out its insanely popular on smartphones also and thought its time to try to buy more marketshare, but as usual they are a few years late to the...game...literally this time.
I hope they improve the graphics, make the voxels smaller and leave the rest alone
This is the ONLY reason I am not playing the game
While I have no doubts there are going to be a bunch of quality of life improvements as well as a ton of "borrowing" from the modding community, they will also find a way to charge for it.
They purchased Mojang for $2.5 billion, they'll have to find a way to make back their investment, and we all know MS loves their DLC.
someone is claiming that people complain about sandbox features and I havent seen any such complaints
I think he's referring to feedback on specific games or game types FFAPVP as an example... His point was about people getting the wrong idea about games based on feature lists and interpretations of them. Who in turn rail against said mechanics after discovering them or discovering how they effect the feature they picked a game up for.
In all fairness FFA is the ONLY sandbox feature I have ever heard anyone mention.
which is why that statement seemed really odd to me.
I'd agree it certainly is the main thing complained about when it comes to Sandboxes today. The second being community related issues, IE ganking, griefing, meta.. etc..
Edit- which really links back to my original reply to you.. The community is really the main detrimental or positive influence on the success of a sandbox game, mechanics are secondary to it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
someone is claiming that people complain about sandbox features and I havent seen any such complaints
I think he's referring to feedback on specific games or game types FFAPVP as an example... His point was about people getting the wrong idea about games based on feature lists and interpretations of them. Who in turn rail against said mechanics after discovering them or discovering how they effect the feature they picked a game up for.
In all fairness FFA is the ONLY sandbox feature I have ever heard anyone mention.
which is why that statement seemed really odd to me.
I'd agree it certainly is the main thing complained about when it comes to Sandboxes today. The second being community related issues, IE ganking, griefing, meta.. etc..
which of course is all related to FFA. which really isnt a requirement for Sandbox by any stretch
someone is claiming that people complain about sandbox features and I havent seen any such complaints
I think he's referring to feedback on specific games or game types FFAPVP as an example... His point was about people getting the wrong idea about games based on feature lists and interpretations of them. Who in turn rail against said mechanics after discovering them or discovering how they effect the feature they picked a game up for.
In all fairness FFA is the ONLY sandbox feature I have ever heard anyone mention.
which is why that statement seemed really odd to me.
I'd agree it certainly is the main thing complained about when it comes to Sandboxes today. The second being community related issues, IE ganking, griefing, meta.. etc..
which of course is all related to FFA. which really isnt a requirement for Sandbox by any stretch
Somewhat yes, but even in a non-ffa game (SWG as an example), the community and how they treat each other plays the biggest factor on the state of a sandbox game, so it's all relative.The community drives the overall experience.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
ok lets pull back from the Willow slapping and instead just educate me with more modern examples perhaps?
When I have conversations about gaming and the troubles of current games UO and SWG often get pulled into the mix of old school gaming and/or even indie games. i do think the creative liberity Lord British had back then would likely never happen at a AAA firm today but I would rather others speak to that because its out of my element.
When I think of who knows best about what a Sandbox is trion is one of last companies that comes to mind.
Educate me.
Yeah in all the ranting to show how only indie devs are making sandbox games it does seem to show the biggest problem with them. They're boring to the avg gamer, and the avg gamer is the target market of the AAA studio. All that freedom with no conventional progression of difficulty means most players just run around looking at everything they could do till they get bored and quit. Freedom sounds great on paper but it doesn't explain why people end up back in their guided themepark experience.
All of these indie games unable to make it mainstream and all of these gamers asking for sandbox but refusing to play an indie title really do more damage than good as far as getting AAA companies interested.
so I have lot of confusion here.
1. If Sandboxes appear to be so boring why are AAAs so interested in using the term all the time?
2. Given that UO was a AAA sandbox was it also boring? or did it have some better understanding of sandbox than Wurm Online does and if so specifically how.
3. CCP is an indie. why? because they do not get their money from a publisher let alone a publically traded one
1 you should be able to figure out on your own. It's not that complicated. If you need a hint look up buzzword.
2 UO is a 15 year old game that had 1 other "mmo" that almost no one knew about, and one in development when it launched. Trying to apply the design and success to todays market is silly. Worm as far as sandboxes goes is a much better game yet I wouldn't call it a smashing success that's going to jumpstart the industry like UO helped do. Why do you think that is ?
Is it because it's an indie title or is it because as much as people say they want games to be a sandbox, what they really want is something like skyrim ( a non linear open world quest "grinder" ) Where you're giving the illusion of freedom but you're never too far off the guided path.
So your saying a part of the industry who hasnt made a Sandbox in 15 years and the ones they did make that were sandboxes indie companies emulate that this is actually borning and nobody really wants it but the few people who do are loud enough that the majortiy of people think they want a sandbox.
jesus fucking christ.
no its not like that at all.
that is how it is....deal with it.
My entire point is that sandboxes were tried in the begining, and the audiance just wasn't there (compared to themeparks), so AAAs stopped making them...your response to that is asking me to "name you modern ones"??? I agree there are no (or very few) modern ones. The reason why there are no modern ones is what we disagree on.
I figured that was pretty clear, but I guess not.
That is actually well said.
So what I am to understand is that your position is that UO didnt really do all that well and people think they want a Sandbox (for reasons we havent explored yet but should) but really dont which is why AAA companies use the term but they are not really interested in sandboxes.
That is a well thought out position. A few questions though
1. specifically WHY do people 'think' they want sandboxes?
2. do AAA companies really have a better feel of what makes a good sandbox if they understand that people really do not want sandboxes in the first place?
I really don't think it's hard to understand why companies find the sandbox to be less desirable on the business front. A themepark is all about content, stories and combat. These things are easily controlled. Sandboxes are about player to player relations. Something far less easy to control. Instead of relying on writing, design skill, and programming, you rely on players to create the incentive to log on or off. Where would you place your millions as being a safer bet?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
the position being argued here by others (if I understand it correctly) is that the masses really do not like Sandboxes they just are not aware that they dont like Sandboxes. They THINK they do which is why AAAs use the terms but in reality they find it boring.
Now I personally think that is hogwash...but at least its nice to get a position that sounds somewhat coherent for a change
I'd agree that's not really a strong argument. It's making assumptions based on likes or dislikes, which are usually guided by personal feelings on the topic. Many people really don't know what they like until they get it in a package that fits them.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
people will just say two things
1. MineCraft is not an MMO because it doesnt have more than 64 players on a server
2. MineCraft is not an RPG therefore it doesnt count
3. MineCraft is not an indie because its owned by Microsoft.
hand to god...wait for it...
UO created the MMO market and was a huge success at the time. It had PvP issues that drove away a lot of would-be players, and the fact that it was 2d at a time when 3d accelerators were just taking off hurt it's potential but it was a big success. Everquest surpassed it and as typically happens MMOs after it generally tried to clone EQ. How many AAA sandboxes have there really been in those 15 years? There was SWG which shipped before it was ready, and never achieved the success some hoped it would gain. But if you go back to mid-2003 when SWG had 300k subscribers, the only games larger were Everquest and Lineage (primarily in Korea). It was the third largest MMO on the market.
Then WoW hit, and the market expanded. Everyone was now cloning WoW instead of Everquest and that's the state the MMO genre has remained in until recently.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
I think some of issue also is how to define a sandbox that makes it different from a themepark. These distinctions need to made so us players can see thru the buzz words and ad's to properly dicern what is what.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
here is the problem I am having with your comment.
I dont see what I highlight in yellow actually happening.
I dont see people jumping on forums complaining about sandbox features. I do see people complaining about themepark features but not sandbox ones.
More over, who gets disapointed about being able to build a house but not required to do so...that is silly
Microsoft doesn't even know what the term Sandbox means.
They bought Minecraft because of all the hype its getting being released on the newer consoles. They saw how many people play it, found out its insanely popular on smartphones also and thought its time to try to buy more marketshare, but as usual they are a few years late to the...game...literally this time.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
I hope they improve the graphics, make the voxels smaller and leave the rest alone
This is the ONLY reason I am not playing the game
You kind of have to approach the above from a certain perspective. I highly doubt it's those who enjoy themepark features jumping on forums bemoaning those features, the people who are going to gravitate toward such topics are those who dislike them, or want something else. The other part of said perspective is that, those who like themepark features have little to complain about, so they're less likely to strike out at the other option, it's not in the way of their preference.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
HOWEVER...the exact inverse is not true?
someone is claiming that people complain about sandbox features and I havent seen any such complaints
I think he's referring to feedback on specific games or game types FFAPVP as an example... His point was about people getting the wrong idea about games based on feature lists and interpretations of them. Who in turn rail against said mechanics after discovering them or discovering how they effect the feature they picked a game up for.
There's a lot of that for all game types not just sandboxes..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
In all fairness FFA is the ONLY sandbox feature I have ever heard anyone mention.
which is why that statement seemed really odd to me.
While I have no doubts there are going to be a bunch of quality of life improvements as well as a ton of "borrowing" from the modding community, they will also find a way to charge for it.
They purchased Mojang for $2.5 billion, they'll have to find a way to make back their investment, and we all know MS loves their DLC.
I'd agree it certainly is the main thing complained about when it comes to Sandboxes today. The second being community related issues, IE ganking, griefing, meta.. etc..
Edit- which really links back to my original reply to you.. The community is really the main detrimental or positive influence on the success of a sandbox game, mechanics are secondary to it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
which of course is all related to FFA. which really isnt a requirement for Sandbox by any stretch
Somewhat yes, but even in a non-ffa game (SWG as an example), the community and how they treat each other plays the biggest factor on the state of a sandbox game, so it's all relative.The community drives the overall experience.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson