Ironically ARK is the next gen sandbox MMO , we have waited for such long time.

Lobotomist

Its ironical that as we see sun is setting on MMOs , the one game that is not actual MMO is everything people wanted from that pie in the sky sandbox MMO.

The real move forward came from totally different ( and new ) genre - survival games.

And let review the features :

1. Completely Skill based freeform - You gain EXP by doing things , you invest skills into completely freeform system. You can specialize or be jack of all trades. But nobody can be 100% self sufficient and at the point will need to rely on others.

2. Levels are not very important - A fresh player can equip highest level equipment and be deadly , and vice versa

3. Build , craft - You can build anything from a sleeping bag to city . From axe to self sufficient electronic powered eko zone. And you need , in order to survive.

4. You influence environment - You can clear forests , kill wildlife , tame , corner , set one on other - Its a living world and your presence changes it.

5. Your influence politics - Just like in EVE for that mater. Everyone is on the same island, there is no limit to interactions good or bad. You can raid , burn , pillage , kill , imprison , take hostages , sabotage , steal ... or trade , enter aliances , help ....

6. Grind - There is always some goal , something to strive for. Pehaps to tame some new species , or to strive towards building something... and all this needs lot and lot of effort and time.

7. Constant danger - You are never ever safe. From other players , wildlife , thirst , hunger , cold - You must always be on your feet. No dull moment.

8. Exploration - Fully open world with forests , swamps , caves , snow peeks - no invisible walls

9. Endgame with no endgame - Aside for mystery of island , its pillars , you have very high encounters - but only your imagination is the limit. What will you be ?

10. Its not DayZ. This is actual game with actual content, that is added almost every week. Not empty shell with nothing to do than kill newbies.
Here people MUST work together to actually accomplish something in game.

11. Hardcore but not hardcore - You lose everything you own on death. But you never lose your character progress.



So...
We have a game that has all ingredients of dream sandbox MMO. But its actually game limited to 70 people per server.
And that is only thing that makes it non MMO.


What an irony

Agent_Joseph

I hope it ll be mmo game after they done it ,game is really impressive but waiting for final product 

Coman

The game is oke (graphics awsome), but I am not so much into the dino theme tbh. 

muffins89

I didn't like it.  it's basically a zombie survival game but with dinosaurs instead. 

Bloodaxes

I heard they are now focusing on the game's story instead of new dinos. It might be interesting to see what they plan to do.

d_20

FFA PVP is not my "dream" sandbox.

Apraxis

You are right. Survival Games are actually those sandbox games we always wanted. Be it DayZ, ARK or any other out there.(and they become more and more, and not all of them are just carbon copies of DayZ) All of them still have some small problems, or things which could be improved, but in there heart they are sandbox games, and more open, with more player freedom as every existing MMO out there (EvE and some other old sandbox mmo excluded)

And yeap, on point it that they are all rather limited with players per server/world. However, nowadays i tend to say that to many players make a good and living community rather impossible. Dunbar's number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number) might be one reason why it is that way. However, 50 or 70 seems still a little bit less, i would like much more anything around 250-500- maybe even 1000 ppl per server/world, because actually in any world you will have different factions, and those should be anywhere around dunbar's number. (however, i feel everything above 1000 ppl online is almost to much)

But nevertheless those 50-100 ppl/server games are a lot more interesting, a lot more fun, and a lot more sandbox then any MMO.

And @d_20 or anyone not so interested in pvp, and let say it politically, and territory conflict, just look at Minecraft. It is basicly the same from a more pve orientated perspective.

With other words.. more player is in most cases necessarily a better world and community.

Edit/PS: Damn it.. since when did i have an avatar pic? Do we now get automatically a random avatar? I somehow don't like that new forum software that much...

Zzad

One thing is really dislike about ARK is that you can still get killed/robbed when you are offline!!!
Even if you go to "sleep" in a safe area/house other players can destroy your place...kill your pets & yourself when offline.

Kiyoris

It's another easymode action game where you can solo everything.

Lobotomist

muffins89 said:

I didn't like it.  it's basically a zombie survival game but with dinosaurs instead. 

This couldnt be further from truth.

Its absolutely nothing similar to zombie game.

You know the idea for zombie games came from simplicity of Zombie AI. They basically just run towards you from the moment they spot you. Its laziest design possible.


In Ark. You have around 100 species of dinosaurs, fishes, insects and mammal. Each based on real animals.

They hunt each other , graze , wander ( even mate and have eggs - since the last patch ) its real simulated ecosystem.

Some dinos will hunt you , other will only protect their territory , some will run away and some attack only if provoked. Some will even stalk you and try to steal your hunted prey ...

Its ridiculous even to compare it with zombie games.

Lobotomist

Zzad said:

One thing is really dislike about ARK is that you can still get killed/robbed when you are offline!!!
Even if you go to "sleep" in a safe area/house other players can destroy your place...kill your pets & yourself when offline.

This is a part of their dedication to realism.

But you have many different servers with many different rules. Some forbid offline griefing or killing

Saxx0n

Apraxis said:

You are right. Survival Games are actually those sandbox games we always wanted. Be it DayZ, ARK or any other out there.(and they become more and more, and not all of them are just carbon copies of DayZ) All of them still have some small problems, or things which could be improved, but in there heart they are sandbox games, and more open, with more player freedom as every existing MMO out there (EvE and some other old sandbox mmo excluded)

And yeap, on point it that they are all rather limited with players per server/world. However, nowadays i tend to say that to many players make a good and living community rather impossible. Dunbar's number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number) might be one reason why it is that way. However, 50 or 70 seems still a little bit less, i would like much more anything around 250-500- maybe even 1000 ppl per server/world, because actually in any world you will have different factions, and those should be anywhere around dunbar's number. (however, i feel everything above 1000 ppl online is almost to much)

But nevertheless those 50-100 ppl/server games are a lot more interesting, a lot more fun, and a lot more sandbox then any MMO.

And @d_20 or anyone not so interested in pvp, and let say it politically, and territory conflict, just look at Minecraft. It is basicly the same from a more pve orientated perspective.

With other words.. more player is in most cases necessarily a better world and community.

Edit/PS: Damn it.. since when did i have an avatar pic? Do we now get automatically a random avatar? I somehow don't like that new forum software that much...

Life is Feudal:Your Own 64/100 player version is launching this month, but more importantly 99% of these assets are also assets for our MMO version. The mmo version will have a target of 10,000 players per server. We already have tested a pre alpha version of the mmo. It personally takes me over 4 hours to sprint non-encumbered across our early test maps.

Beta testing will begin early 2016. All owners of Life is Feudal:Your Own get a free key to our b2p mmo version.

cagan

I am glad to see we are finally moving away from the WOW model after 10-15 years, and many wow clone MMO's are failing and going F2P. The survival games are the next gen MMO's where you can interact with envireonment and craft real items to use (not armor or sword only but whole castles, farms, etc)

khanstruct

I've always shied away from the idea of "survival games", simply because the term sounds too simplistic (it makes me think "run", "hide", "shoot", "then run again"). Discussing this, however, I'm realizing that my game IS a cyberpunk, survival game. There are no preset objectives. You're just trying to survive and maintain your life in a dangerous, futuristic city.

...interesting.

Kyleran

It sounds like a good game, and I might try it one day.

Still seems a bit lacking in terms of controlling players from wantonly committing atrocities against their fellow man, but perhaps this will change some in the future.

khanstruct

Kyleran said:

It sounds like a good game, and I might try it one day.

Still seems a bit lacking in terms of controlling players from wantonly committing atrocities against their fellow man, but perhaps this will change some in the future.

Yeah, but I think they're going for the whole "savage" feel, so I guess that works for them. Never played it personally. I may have to check it out.

Ikisis

muffins89 said:

I didn't like it.  it's basically a zombie survival game but with dinosaurs instead. 

This made me laugh. Does anyone remember Capcoms Dino Crisis lol. NAILED IT

Scorchien

Coman said:

The game is oke (graphics awsome), but I am not so much into the dino theme tbh. 

yea , fun to fool with for a while , but the theme isnt for me ...

  Savage Lands is much better imo

Lobotomist

Scorchien said:

Coman said:

The game is oke (graphics awsome), but I am not so much into the dino theme tbh. 

yea , fun to fool with for a while , but the theme isnt for me ...

  Savage Lands is much better imo

Savage Lands is also great. Its basically Skyrim as survival game.

However in terms of production values Ark is light years above all of other games. Its done by very large team, over 50 people. Has huge investments from Microsoft and other major companies. Its going places.

Other games are developed by very small teams and pretty much on mercy of early access funds

JDis25

Combat in Ark is terrible. Taming dinosaurs and gathering materials is boring/tedious and takes forever. These are the reasons I quit playing this.

I want a sandbox with more RPG/MOBA style combat and less of a "realistic" combat style.

Aethaeryn

JDis25 said:

Combat in Ark is terrible. Taming dinosaurs and gathering materials is boring/tedious and takes forever. These are the reasons I quit playing this.

I want a sandbox with more RPG/MOBA style combat and less of a "realistic" combat style.

I would agree, sadly.  I love the game.  It is fun to play but the grind of taming etc. is horrific.  Taming early little dino's requires enough work to put me off.   I do appreciate that they are trying to make it difficult to take a T-Rex (could take hours and on a PvP server someone could kill it / you when you are almost done) but on the severs I have tried there are large fortresses with rows of large dinos so people must be grinding it out.

Now that they are working on the story aspect I think it would be something I will play later.  I have already purchased it and had enough fun for it to be worth the money. 

I also agree with OP that it has a great chance of becoming even better.  They are making changes (new biomes etc.) at a decent pace.  I love Savage Lands but the pace of development is too slow.  With many games like that the number of people purchasing is going to dwindle (If you liked the idea you likely already bought it) and the incentive to continue developing the game seems to dry up with the funds.  Savage Lands doesn't seem to be one of those that will quit development but there are many that have.

Saxx0n

I thought this discussion was about future survival sandbox mmos not 64 player run private servers.

ElRenmazuo

d_20 said:

FFA PVP is not my "dream" sandbox.

Then pick a PvE server

immodium

If your into survival games sure, if your into RPGs it's an awful MMO.

Lobotomist

Saxx0n said:

I thought this discussion was about future survival sandbox mmos not 64 player run private servers.

In a way private servers are good idea. If you are not satisfied with rules - for example FFA PVP. You have opportunity to join different ruleset server. I think Das Tal are also entertaining same idea ?

Lobotomist

JDis25 said:

Combat in Ark is terrible. Taming dinosaurs and gathering materials is boring/tedious and takes forever. These are the reasons I quit playing this.

I want a sandbox with more RPG/MOBA style combat and less of a "realistic" combat style.

Serious games must have boring and tedious parts. The "new age" trend to make everything mini-game is what caused dumbing down in modern games.

Without great effort you can not have great accomplishment.