I believe one defining difference between theme parks is sandbox style games can provide more "opportunities" for interactions between players.
You can have dungeons and raids, but if you lock them away in an uninterruptible instance its becoming more theme park like.
A title such as EVE provides for player interaction in almost every activity, both postively and more frequently negatively.
Theme parks let you enjoy the ride in a bubble, no one interrupts your experience.
Sandboxes may have someone come along to help you build your castle, but more often they'll try to just kick it down.
Then it becomes up to you to find ways to stomp their face or protect the castle in some creative way.
The problem is that we don't have a consensus on a definition sandbox for video games. They all let you do what the programming allows you to do. Some say "more choices" which really is a silly benchmark that is hard to defend imo.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I believe one defining difference between theme parks is sandbox style games can provide more "opportunities" for interactions between players.
You can have dungeons and raids, but if you lock them away in an uninterruptible instance its becoming more theme park like.
A title such as EVE provides for player interaction in almost every activity, both postively and more frequently negatively.
Theme parks let you enjoy the ride in a bubble, no one interrupts your experience.
Sandboxes may have someone come along to help you build your castle, but more often they'll try to just kick it down.
Then it becomes up to you to find ways to stomp their face or protect the castle in some creative way.
The problem is that we don't have a consensus on a definition sandbox for video games. They all let you do what the programming allows you to do. Some say "more choices" which really is a silly benchmark that is hard to defend imo.
yes and speaking personally I find putting something like GTA into the same 'type' as Wurm to be very insulting and off the mark (people call GTA a sandbox). That plus the industry itself will call literally anything open world if they think it can get more sales
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just read this comment over on Steam for Hero's Song. I feel it answers the question.
CrAnKeD wrote, "The main problems I have with the game now:
- Map tile size is WAY too big making it difficult to find things on the map
- Lack of content (yes I know the stage the game is in)
When I say lack of content, I mean there is literally nothing to do in this game but walk around killing things, trying the different classes and bug testing. I said in the forums a week ago when they were talking about going to EA from alpha that they were going to end up getting hammered by reviewers because there is really nothing to this game at the moment and as of this writing, they are labeled as "mixed"."
Fans of sandbox say that players make the content. I think by this they mean they can prey on leveling PvE players. Maybe this writer is an achiever and wants defined goals. I always said that sandbox games have undefined goals (quests). Like go forth and acquire skills and levels. Look at Minecraft's achievements for a list of undefined quests.
We could make a sandbox, with typical UI controls. But a portion of the gaming community, mainly player new to gaming, will need a list of directions on what and how to do things.
My question to y'all, what do you expect to do in a sandbox game? Be specific, do just say stuff or things that resemble stuff. I'm working on a Three Faction World Conquest game. A new player starts out in a Farming Village tutorial map. There learn how to choose profession in a dynamic class building system. They learn Combat, Looting, Harvesting, Crafting, Healing, Buffing, and Structures. Then they are sent out into the world to work for their faction. Their first task is to go to a location and defend a forward base. Once there they must determine that state of the base. Does it need to be built, repaired, or manned and defended. Waves of attackers will eventually come. Once sufficient levels have been gained, players will be retasked. Now they will hunt down the attackers, find and destroy their camps and bases. After this players should be ready to acquire advanced professions and start specializing as Combat, Crafters, Support or Hybrid professions. Hybrid professions will be less than pure Combat, Crafters, or Support professions.
I was thinking I would assign new elite professional players to building new player cities and giving XP based on level of progress. In this phase players would come into contact with existing guild or form new ones. Once they maxed their professions and moved to end game content, they would venture forth to establish player run cities and bases. And continue the battle. Land and citizen size would determine titles and ranks of players.
Death would be meet with XP loss or penalties. Healers and or Buffs would be vital to survival and continued advancement.
Most people just want to come in and play and sandboxes would take too much time to learn, craft, etc.. Sandboxes take too much time to develop, also, and they only appeal to a small market of players, the 'so-called 'hardcore' players. If you want to make money, a sandbox game will not make it, any more. Only one is truly surviving and that is EVE but really only hardcore players need apply there (and Yes, I have tried it).
MMO's need to appeal to a wide base of players to survive and sandboxes are NOT IT.
Just read this comment over on Steam for Hero's Song. I feel it answers the question.
CrAnKeD wrote, "The main problems I have with the game now:
- Map tile size is WAY too big making it difficult to find things on the map
- Lack of content (yes I know the stage the game is in)
When I say lack of content, I mean there is literally nothing to do in this game but walk around killing things, trying the different classes and bug testing. I said in the forums a week ago when they were talking about going to EA from alpha that they were going to end up getting hammered by reviewers because there is really nothing to this game at the moment and as of this writing, they are labeled as "mixed"."
Fans of sandbox say that players make the content. I think by this they mean they can prey on leveling PvE players. Maybe this writer is an achiever and wants defined goals. I always said that sandbox games have undefined goals (quests). Like go forth and acquire skills and levels. Look at Minecraft's achievements for a list of undefined quests.
We could make a sandbox, with typical UI controls. But a portion of the gaming community, mainly player new to gaming, will need a list of directions on what and how to do things.
My question to y'all, what do you expect to do in a sandbox game? Be specific, do just say stuff or things that resemble stuff. I'm working on a Three Faction World Conquest game. A new player starts out in a Farming Village tutorial map. There learn how to choose profession in a dynamic class building system. They learn Combat, Looting, Harvesting, Crafting, Healing, Buffing, and Structures. Then they are sent out into the world to work for their faction. Their first task is to go to a location and defend a forward base. Once there they must determine that state of the base. Does it need to be built, repaired, or manned and defended. Waves of attackers will eventually come. Once sufficient levels have been gained, players will be retasked. Now they will hunt down the attackers, find and destroy their camps and bases. After this players should be ready to acquire advanced professions and start specializing as Combat, Crafters, Support or Hybrid professions. Hybrid professions will be less than pure Combat, Crafters, or Support professions.
I was thinking I would assign new elite professional players to building new player cities and giving XP based on level of progress. In this phase players would come into contact with existing guild or form new ones. Once they maxed their professions and moved to end game content, they would venture forth to establish player run cities and bases. And continue the battle. Land and citizen size would determine titles and ranks of players.
Death would be meet with XP loss or penalties. Healers and or Buffs would be vital to survival and continued advancement.
Most people just want to come in and play. Sandboxes take too much time to develop and they only appeal to a small market of players. If you want to make money, a sandbox game will not make any, any more.
MMO's need to appeal to a wide base of players to survive and sandboxes are NOT IT.
yeah I am not in agreement with that and if I was a business person I would be paying very close attention to Rust and its 4.7 million copies sold, never mind all the others like ARK
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I believe one defining difference between theme parks is sandbox style games can provide more "opportunities" for interactions between players.
You can have dungeons and raids, but if you lock them away in an uninterruptible instance its becoming more theme park like.
A title such as EVE provides for player interaction in almost every activity, both postively and more frequently negatively.
Theme parks let you enjoy the ride in a bubble, no one interrupts your experience.
Sandboxes may have someone come along to help you build your castle, but more often they'll try to just kick it down.
Then it becomes up to you to find ways to stomp their face or protect the castle in some creative way.
The problem is that we don't have a consensus on a definition sandbox for video games. They all let you do what the programming allows you to do. Some say "more choices" which really is a silly benchmark that is hard to defend imo.
yes and speaking personally I find putting something like GTA into the same 'type' as Wurm to be very insulting and off the mark (people call GTA a sandbox). That plus the industry itself will call literally anything open world if they think it can get more sales
Who puts Wurm and GTA into the same category? Hey, I remember someone on this site once calling wow a sandbox. so... hahaha
Well industry trying to market a game to as many people as they can will use whatever buzzwords they can. We need people to be better consumers.
In the end, I am not sure that sandbox will be a useful definition.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Most people just want to come in and play and sandboxes would take too much time to learn, craft, etc.. Sandboxes take too much time to develop, also, and they only appeal to a small market of players, the 'so-called 'hardcore' players. If you want to make money, a sandbox game will not make it, any more. Only one is truly surviving and that is EVE but really only hardcore players need apply there (and Yes, I have tried it).
MMO's need to appeal to a wide base of players to survive and sandboxes are NOT IT.
are we saying here that for most people learning how to craft gear and a basic fort in 7 days to die (for example) is too hard for most peoples leisure time (i understand that we ALL are able to put in more thought to our non-leasure time)
maybe that is true, I just give people more credit then that but maybe I am in denial
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
... But in games like Grand Theft Auto (GTA) and Skyrim, isn't killing mobs the main activity? Even in fully functional theme parks, most quest are kill 10 "X named" mobs.
I am not commenting out everything you said because I am ignoring it but rather because I want to highlight this point.
In my view and in the view shared by others (not sure if its a lot though) GTA is NOT a sandbox game. Skyrim is a little more so but not much.
They are Traditionally Narrative based game titles that try to be open world. Open world and sandbox are not exclusively the same thing.
so I really think a failure to understand Sandbox in addition to making an entire conversation about and entire genre based on one game is faulty.
There are whole threads about the difference between/definition of sandbox games. Many sides have been taken on that subject so while I understand this reflects your definition of a sandbox game I think many would disagree.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Fans of sandbox say that players make the content. I think by this they mean they can prey on leveling PvE players.
This is where you lost me, who says sandbox mmos are suppose to be pvp focused in terms of pvp toggled areas while leveling.
Have you never heard of player cities, economy, merchants, communities playing their part in the world without having to rely on devs as much as themeparks for patches/updates.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
There are whole threads about the difference between/definition of sandbox games. Many sides have been taken on that subject so while I understand this reflects your definition of a sandbox game I think many would disagree.
I think theres a distinctive difference between a Sandbox MMO and a Sandbox game which is something people seem to overlook as far as I've seen.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
There are whole threads about the difference between/definition of sandbox games. Many sides have been taken on that subject so while I understand this reflects your definition of a sandbox game I think many would disagree.
I think theres a distinctive difference between a Sandbox MMO and a Sandbox game which is something people seem to overlook as far as I've seen.
and I dont agree.
yes there is a difference however is it substantive enough of a difference I do not think so
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There are whole threads about the difference between/definition of sandbox games. Many sides have been taken on that subject so while I understand this reflects your definition of a sandbox game I think many would disagree.
I think theres a distinctive difference between a Sandbox MMO and a Sandbox game which is something people seem to overlook as far as I've seen.
and I dont agree.
yes there is a difference however is it substantive enough of a difference I do not think so
Hint: MMO means massively multiplayer, the biggest difference between the two types.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There are whole threads about the difference between/definition of sandbox games. Many sides have been taken on that subject so while I understand this reflects your definition of a sandbox game I think many would disagree.
I think theres a distinctive difference between a Sandbox MMO and a Sandbox game which is something people seem to overlook as far as I've seen.
and I dont agree.
yes there is a difference however is it substantive enough of a difference I do not think so
If you look at SWG and minecraft or SWG and H1Z1 it's as clear as day. Theres more of a grind in a sandbox mmo and more complexity to it at least the way I define it. A regular sandbox game on the other hand usually isn't as grindy or intricate as a sandbox mmo would be. But a sandbox game still has the core values of what sandbox is about which is freedom to do what you want provided with the tools by the devs.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
in games like Minecraft, Rust, DayZ, 7 Days to Die, and H1Z1. I have outlined PvE and PvP combat, looting, harvesting, and crafting. I also expect there to be trade. What more than the listed six systems can we expect in a sandbox?
In terms of a regular sandbox game I think you listed it all but for a Sandbox MMO. I expect complex and intricate systems especially in terms of crafting and harvesting different levels of materials.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
There are whole threads about the difference between/definition of sandbox games. Many sides have been taken on that subject so while I understand this reflects your definition of a sandbox game I think many would disagree.
I think theres a distinctive difference between a Sandbox MMO and a Sandbox game which is something people seem to overlook as far as I've seen.
and I dont agree.
yes there is a difference however is it substantive enough of a difference I do not think so
If you look at SWG and minecraft or SWG and H1Z1 it's as clear as day. Theres more of a grind in a sandbox mmo and more complexity to it at least the way I define it. A regular sandbox game on the other hand usually isn't as grindy or intricate as a sandbox mmo would be. But a sandbox game still has the core values of what sandbox is about which is freedom to do what you want provided with the tools by the devs.
here is the 'new market' if you will that we are in that I hope should shed some light on all this
1. Wurm Unlimited is the EXACT ruleset of Wurm Online. 2. Life is Fedual which was supposed to be an MMO is actually a private server based game which also has a single player version with the same rule set.
This trend is likely to grow
and H1Z1 is just an example of all things bad. I wouldnt put it in any list with other games other that blantent rip offs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
i barley know what that means now a days... EVE, Wushu. you cant have a sand box without ffa pvp. those are the only two that found rule sets that worked.
When it comes down to top down shit like hero's song lets be real it's 2016 that shit looks like something for 95...
Sandboxes are about interconnected systems. Themeparks are about content
In a themepark, the content comes first - the IP, the worlds, the quests, the storylines etc - then systems are built to support that content.
In a sandbox, the systems come first - classes, leveling, housing, crafting, alliances, pvp etc - and then the players use those systems to "create content".
As a sandbox has no set direction, the systems in place need to support organic gameplay. The fighters need combat classes and things to kill. The explorers need vast worlds to explore. The socialisers need social systems in place so they can meet one another. Creative types need cosmetic systems, housing, crafting systems.
Each of these systems then needs to work well with one another. So, if you want a great crafting system, you need a reason to craft, usually to create items to sell. If you want to sell items, there needs to be a consistent market. That means people need a reason to buy items, so items must be useful to others on a regular basis. This leads us to having crafted items being best in game, for items to degrade and need replacing etc.
So, sandboxes, whilst theoretically cheaper to make (as you don't need millions of quests), are actually harder to make because the systems are more complicated. If you get the balance wrong, it can upset the entire ecosystem of the game. By making the systems come first, you are shifting the design process away from your typical creative types and towards your developer types. Its the old creative vs logic argument - most people are one or the other.
In a themepark, it doesn't matter too much if the systems are unbalanced. It doesn't matter if there is no economy for crafters, because the game encourages you to craft anyway via achievements, titles, progress bars and quests. It doesn't matter if your class is underpowered, because questing is dead easy so you can still do it.
So, if you are thinking of designing or building a sandbox game, don't approach it like a checklist of features you need to be considered a sandbox. Instead, change your mindset. Ask a ton of people what activities they most enjoy in games and what they least enjoy, then think about systems that would allow those players to do the things they like and avoid the things they don't like. Then start thinking of how to link everything together.
I'll start.
I'm a combat-orientated player. I enjoy killing things. I enjoy optimising my killing - how many things can I kill at once? I constantly strive to get better at killing stuff I enjoy hunting down epic things to kill, partly for aesthetics, partly for the challenge. I enjoy killing other real world people I enjoy progression through killing I like it when my actions in game have a lasting impact.
I dislike stories in games I dislike unbalanced games
So, taking those things, I would come up with the following systems
Combat Classes - multiple combat classes so that I can kill stuff in a variety of ways
Deep combat system - allows for long learning curve, hard-to-master type gameplay
Horizontal progression - allows players to progress and specialise without unbalancing combat. Also ensures all content is relevant
World PvP (preferably with some sort of consent being required)
Territory Control
Quests not tied to progression - they are there for story only
3+ factions
These systems would mean that when I was dropped into the sandbox, I could go off and play the way I wanted to, because the systems support my style of gameplay. I'd go out, kill stuff and unlock new skills. It would take me time to learn everything and really push myself. I could kill npcs to take territory, and I could pvp when flagged. However, other factions can do the same, resulting in an ever shifting landscape.
These are obviously only systems to support one style of play. A decent sandbox will support many different types of play and try to balance everything. If you spoke to an explorer, the whole territory control thing probably wouldn't work, so you'd want to revise the system so that it pleases me, but doesn't restrict where the explorer can go. Likewise, speak to a crafter and they'd hate any sort of non-consensual pvp, so you'd want to make sure that pvp was entirely consensual so that crafters don't get ganked.
Speak to enough people and themes will start to come out. You'll identify common systems and common areas of enjoyment so your game will slowly start to come together. Some systems will clash, so you'll then need to make a design decision on which way to go.
You should still have a theme or a core feature that you focus on. For example, SWG had the Galactic Civil War, so many of the systems were designed to support that theme. But, being a sandbox, you could completely ignore it if you wanted. You're going for a 3-way territory control focused game, so many of your systems will be set up to support that, you just need to ensure that many different types of gameplay are supported but also fit in with the theme. So, maybe you have social classes (like entertainers, musicians etc) that increase recovery rates in towns under attack, that speed up construction time etc. It will allow social players to be social, whilst also giving them a valid reason for doing so and fitting in with the theme of the game.
Can't have a sandbox with "consensual" pvp... RL is a sandbox. PvP is not consensual. There are penalties for those who engage in pvp outside of customs though.
I used to really love playing Eve Online, and many MMOs that were "hardcore". I haven't touched an MMO that isn't a theme box for around 8 years. A friend of a friend convinced us to try BDO (sandboxy). After I spent a few hours in character creation, I lasted 2 hours in game and quit.
I spend 8 hours a day using my brain to solve complicated problems and identify patterns. The last thing I want to do is to wreck my brain some more when I come home. I want to go on auto pilot and I'm sure the vast majoity feel the same way (hence why theme parks are so popular).
buuut those types of games aren't that popular... in fact most along with the industry are dying because of them...
I used to really love playing Eve Online, and many MMOs that were "hardcore". I haven't touched an MMO that isn't a theme box for around 8 years. A friend of a friend convinced us to try BDO (sandboxy). After I spent a few hours in character creation, I lasted 2 hours in game and quit.
I spend 8 hours a day using my brain to solve complicated problems and identify patterns. The last thing I want to do is to wreck my brain some more when I come home. I want to go on auto pilot and I'm sure the vast majoity feel the same way (hence why theme parks are so popular).
buuut those types of games aren't that popular... in fact most along with the industry are dying because of them...
HOWEVER...in the single player/multiplayer universe they are extreemly popular. two early access titles that are very sandboxed have together sold more copies then Witcher 3 has TOTAL.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
How is this game still being discussed as an mmo? there are no official servers and the cap per server is 60 people.
The sandbox part I guess is ok because in recent times games like H1Z1 is labeled sandbox <--by Smedley too.
This game is more a rogue like than anything else to me. Single player with VERY limited crafting When I play it I kind of feel like I'm playing a combination or Dungeons of Dredmor, Haven & Hearth or Salem(both these games more mmo and more sandbox imo) + some NES game that I can't remember the name at this time.
The insanely large map and screwey mob spawns break immersion for me but like someone else said it's only early access so those things I'm sure will be improved.
Having quests or quest hubs doesn't mean it is not a sandbox. Would swg or uo have less sandbox goals with the introduction of a million quests? it just adds another option and imo more options means more sandbox.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
In every sandbox I've played I do the same general thing. I either start a guild or join an existing guild that fights for an ideal I believe in. For instance fighting against groups that prey on newbs or tyrant groups that use their power to extort money and force others to do their will.
The features I need for this is:
1. A PvP system that will allow me to engage my enemies.
2. My enemies suffer some kind of noticeable setback when I kill them.
This is most easily achieved through Open World Full Loot PvP but can be achieved through other means less offensive to people who loathe non-consensual PvP such as areas zoned into different PvP rulesets.
Features I like in addition to this are:
1. Not having to grind endlessly to be stronger in PvP / the ability to do content together with my friends even if I've been playing 5 years and they've been playing 5 hours.
2. A combat system that doesn't stink.
3. An economy /crafting that doesn't stink. 4. Character customization that doesn't stink.
5. Graphics that don't stink.
Those factors can majorly impact my enjoyment of the game but none of them are fully essential to engage in the kind of play I want to engage in.
I think the important thing to note is that not all those features need to be balanced perfectly for me to have fun. Not all those features have to be great for me to have fun. And I think that's what makes sandboxes still far easier to build than a themepark.
You give me a decent combat system and something fun to fight over / a meaningful way to achieve victory, and I, and many others like me are having fun. You can then expand on the rest of the systems of the game and grow it into something great.
Where you see developers misstep with this is they will come in and create every system at once and halfass all of them. At that point nobody is having fun, nobody is enjoying your game, and you have nothing.
I think a good sandbox should identify one or two major target audiences on launch. Create the game with it appealing heavily to them from day one. Market heavily to them. And then expand your features and broaden your marketing once you have those areas done really well.
Comments
The problem is that we don't have a consensus on a definition sandbox for video games. They all let you do what the programming allows you to do. Some say "more choices" which really is a silly benchmark that is hard to defend imo.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Most people just want to come in and play and sandboxes would take too much time to learn, craft, etc.. Sandboxes take too much time to develop, also, and they only appeal to a small market of players, the 'so-called 'hardcore' players. If you want to make money, a sandbox game will not make it, any more. Only one is truly surviving and that is EVE but really only hardcore players need apply there (and Yes, I have tried it).
MMO's need to appeal to a wide base of players to survive and sandboxes are NOT IT.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Who puts Wurm and GTA into the same category? Hey, I remember someone on this site once calling wow a sandbox. so... hahaha
Well industry trying to market a game to as many people as they can will use whatever buzzwords they can. We need people to be better consumers.
In the end, I am not sure that sandbox will be a useful definition.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
maybe that is true, I just give people more credit then that but maybe I am in denial
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Black Desert, Age Of Wushu and ArcheAge
Upcoming Best Sandbox mmorpg games
Dark And Light, Age Of Wushu 2 and Peria Chronicles
Have you never heard of player cities, economy, merchants, communities playing their part in the world without having to rely on devs as much as themeparks for patches/updates.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
yes there is a difference however is it substantive enough of a difference I do not think so
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
1. Wurm Unlimited is the EXACT ruleset of Wurm Online.
2. Life is Fedual which was supposed to be an MMO is actually a private server based game which also has a single player version with the same rule set.
This trend is likely to grow
and H1Z1 is just an example of all things bad. I wouldnt put it in any list with other games other that blantent rip offs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When it comes down to top down shit like hero's song lets be real it's 2016 that shit looks like something for 95...
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I take that back 95 is actually more accurate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The sandbox part I guess is ok because in recent times games like H1Z1 is labeled sandbox <--by Smedley too.
This game is more a rogue like than anything else to me. Single player with VERY limited crafting When I play it I kind of feel like I'm playing a combination or Dungeons of Dredmor, Haven & Hearth or Salem(both these games more mmo and more sandbox imo) + some NES game that I can't remember the name at this time.
The insanely large map and screwey mob spawns break immersion for me but like someone else said it's only early access so those things I'm sure will be improved.
The features I need for this is:
1. A PvP system that will allow me to engage my enemies.
2. My enemies suffer some kind of noticeable setback when I kill them.
This is most easily achieved through Open World Full Loot PvP but can be achieved through other means less offensive to people who loathe non-consensual PvP such as areas zoned into different PvP rulesets.
Features I like in addition to this are:
1. Not having to grind endlessly to be stronger in PvP / the ability to do content together with my friends even if I've been playing 5 years and they've been playing 5 hours.
2. A combat system that doesn't stink.
3. An economy /crafting that doesn't stink.
4. Character customization that doesn't stink.
5. Graphics that don't stink.
Those factors can majorly impact my enjoyment of the game but none of them are fully essential to engage in the kind of play I want to engage in.
I think the important thing to note is that not all those features need to be balanced perfectly for me to have fun. Not all those features have to be great for me to have fun. And I think that's what makes sandboxes still far easier to build than a themepark.
You give me a decent combat system and something fun to fight over / a meaningful way to achieve victory, and I, and many others like me are having fun. You can then expand on the rest of the systems of the game and grow it into something great.
Where you see developers misstep with this is they will come in and create every system at once and halfass all of them. At that point nobody is having fun, nobody is enjoying your game, and you have nothing.
I think a good sandbox should identify one or two major target audiences on launch. Create the game with it appealing heavily to them from day one. Market heavily to them. And then expand your features and broaden your marketing once you have those areas done really well.