EVE needs the safe zones I must say because a newbie stick has absolutely no chance against a Titan or capital ship. So saying all games need security systems does not apply at all. you simply cannot globally apply rules to every single title out there based on one single MMO that made something work for 'their' game. of course security will gain more mass appeal and help newbies get up to speed when the barrier between newb and veteran is so vast like it is in EVE
Anything can be made to work given a lot of thought is my firm belief. I've seen open PVP work flawless (Starport) and I've seen Security - FFA Zones work flawless (EVE).
if you really think about it, MMOs are supposed to be worlds which many many players inhabit at once, so it really makes WAY more sense for an MMO to be a skill based sandbox than a class based combat grind
No wonder games like Grand Theft Auto, Ultima Online, Oblivion/Morrowind, Second Life have been so popular.
Give us some structure but only when we choose, but most importantly give us a TON of small things to do that are fun.
We are very different from each other and each of us like different things.
Don't penalize for taking "bad" actions. Because in truth there are no "bad" actions.
PVP should always be FFA with of limit cities. Just because you can kill someone and loot them doesn't mean you will. People will align with their "kind" PKers will align with PKers and the Good with the Good.
Why is the lore forced upon us? There is nothing more frustrating than finding a nice person on the "other" side and having to be automatic enemies.
Items are the last thing MMO's should be about. Can you imagine playing GTA with the "Pistol of DOOM" You wouldn't take any chances in fear of losing it.
Skill trees and Classes are the worst. There is nothing worse than being forced to pick a class when you don't know any and feeling the Nerf stick once in a while. If I want an invisible, healing, plate wearing mage, why can't I? Skills are answer here.
Grand Theft Auto, Oblivion were okay but after a while they got boring.
Morrowind was more linear then Oblivion in some regards.
Baldur's Gate 1-2, Fallout 1-2, Planescape Torment, KOTOR, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines were all better then those games IMHO.
P.S. The problem with most Sand Box games is that they don't have an engaging enough background story to follow or explore. Basically sometimes it's like they use the sand box nature of game play to not work on inputing background content. Just because a game allows you the freedom to do what you want is not a good reason to just not develop any sort of lore and background content or mini games.
yeah true but there are many Sandbox games. Like what about Spiderman 2? That thing was critically acclaimed. awesome story that follows the movie but also has sandbox (many reviewers have dubbed it a 'sandbox')
sandbox can be strongly story driven. played that thing non-stop til the end.
now I admit I did not finish oblivion and GTA either but thats the beauty of it! You write your own story and can spend countless hours goofing off
Linear pve mmos are popular, though i'm not sure why. Once you've gone through all the content then its time to find a new game. I suspect some of them have tons of subscribers just because they are accessible and people just want a pretty looking chat room. Sand box games don't get boring because you can effect the game world and always have objectives to accomplish. Linear PVE games are boring and i don't plan on ever playing one again.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
There had been many problems with "sandbox" games.
In UO back in 1997 for example players always found a way to create the uber combination of skills thus creating mostly a combination of magery and archery. This led into a boring experience since everyone (since UO had no skill trees) had a chance to make something really different and unique but actually very few ignored the uber ladder and tried to advance in a different way.
As for PVP i think that UO had the most hard core pvp system ever created. You could be attacked everywhere outside of town without any reason at all. No factions no friends no enemies, just a rude word or a loot steal (yes you could do that ) from someone outside town was a reason to start a fight with full corpse loot for the winner and the loser trying to get back to town just wearing a ghost robe.
It was impossible though to uphold the "law" in UO since every player or team of players that did not wish to risk an open battle found many ways to attack people that liked pve mostly, using mechanisms which could not distinguish them between fighters and murderers.
This was a problem. But is had not been any effort to balance UO. As a solution all of these interactions were stopped and 2 different worlds were created. The world of the pvpers and the world of the pve's.
They said that if Ultime did not change into this new system of playing it would not be alive until today. It's amazing that most people like this style of playing and actually there have been so few mmos that have only pvp servers. Strange.
Ideally all mmorpgs should be sandbox games. but being a sandbox game has alot of problems especially when we are talking about games taht are 3d nowadays.
1. it is extremely hard to maintain a 3d sandbox mmorpgs, like adding in game contents (new houses? maybe gm held events?)
2. it is also extremely difficult to maintain a balance world in a sandbox game, since sooner or later players will come up with a "perfect" build where everyone will use that build. a sandbox mmorpg requires a very good game design and maintaining to keep the world healthy, which is not much of a good thing to the investors who invest alot of money into the game.
3. other than the orginal uo, there hasn't been a real sandbox mmrpg that can do what uo did (the saga of ryzom came very close tho,just no housing). it's not taht no one tries tomake a 3d sandbox game, but it's that those people all failed at the end.(darkfall isn't finish after all these years, and may take a year or 2 more. vanguard is dying in an ugly way, etc etc)
4. at the same time the success of games like WoW, EQ2, Lineage1-2, RO, you name it doesn't really provide any reason for the investors to go for a sandbox game. Remember, most of those investors aren't gamers. They invest to make money, not for fun. and the demographic tell them that going for sandbox = bad idea
it's not that a sandbox mmorpg is a bad idea. it's just that the tech nowaday isn't enough to let the devs to create a truely sandbox MMORPG(not gta orother craps since they aren't mmorpgs.) or the cost to maintain a sandbox mmorpg isjust too much when compare to the class/level base mmorpgs.
right now the only 2 sandbox mmorpgs taht are 3d are saga of ryzom and darkfall. the first one isn't mainstream (i have to say it's an amazing game tho. Ijust don't like sci-fi mmorpg tho-.-), and the second one takes ages to develope....and until someone can prove a sandbox mmorpg can earn as much money as class base mmorpgs, don'texpect to see a real sandbox mmorpg anytime soon
I find it weird some of you seem to link 'builds/balancing flaws and errors' as something inherently to 'sandbox' games. There's plenty of non-sandbox games that suffer from the same symptoms, be they skill - or classbased. It's due to poor design decissions, not because of the way players progress or how they can affect the gameworld.
Another thing that strikes me is the generalization 'sandbox' games NEED to be skill-based. Don't get me wrong, I prefer skill-based gameplay over classes anytime of the day, but I fail to see how player progression measurements can dictate how my actions shape the world. What I can ATTEMPT to do as a player and how succesfull I would be at it are again game design decissions and not dogmatic strictures of the type of player progression.
I find it weird some of you seem to link 'builds/balancing flaws and errors' as something inherently to 'sandbox' games. There's plenty of non-sandbox games that suffer from the same symptoms, be they skill - or classbased. It's due to poor design decissions, not because of the way players progress or how they can affect the gameworld. Another thing that strikes me is the generalization 'sandbox' games NEED to be skill-based. Don't get me wrong, I prefer skill-based gameplay over classes anytime of the day, but I fail to see how player progression measurements can dictate how my actions shape the world. What I can ATTEMPT to do as a player and how succesfull I would be at it are again game design decissions and not dogmatic strictures of the type of player progression.
True but thing is i and we have yet to see a proper Level based sandbox game as leveling is bad for sandbox games, as it forces players to level rather than have fun and play.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
Sandbox is a philosophy, it doesn't dictate specific systems or rulesets, or what have you. It doesn't mean you can't have story. Stop being so limited in what sandbox means. Sandbox means the players have a lot of influence on the world or can play the game in different ways; rather than being limited and going through prebuilt unchanging content.
Sandbox aren't necesarily more difficult to run, they are much more difficult to build initially however. But once they are running, you can leave a lot to the players, and in fact; the new content that other games have to keep adding to hold onto player subscriptions are not as necesary in a sandbox game.
I wouldn't call sandbox the "only" answer, I think there is still a place for more linear mmorpgs. Sandbox isn't what everyone is looking for. But many of us are tired of being the same cookie-cutter character doing the exact same quests every other person has done; and not really having any way to make our mark on the world. In the real world, most people want to feel that they have had a point of existence, and I think we hope to do the same in a virtual world.
I don't really like the term "sandbox" myself, it is not a very good term. Second Life and it's kind are the ultimate sandbox games, anything is possible. I prefer just calling them dynamic. I want to see more dynamic games! I want a game like A Tale In the Desert that is more mainstream. I love walking around seeing everyones buildings that they built. I want a game like Roma Victor that's actually good. I want a massively multiplayer game that looks and feels like Gothic or Fallout. Fallout actually has a story, but it feels like a sandbox.
Set up your static content, but allow your world some freedom to develop as well. I don't like the idea of no npcs or starting areas. We are not born into this world without people or civilizations already existing around us. I want npcs though to be more dynamic. They should have their own lives to live. They fill in for players who are often logged off.
I don't know where I'm going with this, it's just dreaming lol. Static games have a lower initial investment, and have been proven to be able to get many subscribers. It's not even that dynamic games have a harder time getting subscribers, after Everquest there were quite a few static flops before WoW took the world by storm, and not many dynamic experiments. SWG lost many subscribers when they changed from dynamic to static, and I don't know if they have yet recovered.
One thing though, I do think that as a whole, more dynamic games really can't support as large of a population as static games can. It just might be the nature of the beast. If you seperate people by great distance, they will get annoyed with having to travel long distances to see the rest of the world. If you allow fast travel, than the distance seperation wasn't really worth much to begin with. Worlds have a limit to how many people they can support, based on how resources are limited, or how much space their is for people to build their houses etc. So this could be one reason we don't see as many dynamic games.
When a player can make a significant impact on the world, he takes up much more "space" and resources.
With World of Warcraft smashing its way onto the MMORPG scene in 2004, the massively multiplayer online world carved itself a place in mainstream entertainment for a long time to come. In January '07 Blizzard reported 8 million subscribers for World of Warcraft, and new gamers continue to subscribe every month. A large number of game developers are continuing to enter the market, but few of them offer anything different, and are therefore unlikely to capture a part of a market that now claims over 15 million total subscribers.
With Web 2.0 changing the way we think about social communities and online interaction, many a developer’s blog or gaming community forum has touched on the subject of the dynamic world and the future of MMOGs. What is a dynamic world? It builds upon the idea of the persistence of a game such as World of Warcraft, but adds the idea of an evolving environment: they are games that change and can be changed. For many the dynamic game world seems the next logical step in RPG’s. This article will capture the spirit of the dynamic world and give examples of MMORPGs that have followed this path in the past and have enjoyed the most fanatically loyal player bases of any games. It will also explore the pieces of the dynamic world puzzle in all of their digital and social forms, including their ties to human nature. The dynamic world concept holds incredible potential for both gamers and developers alike, carrying with it the promise of immersing players in a long-term and interactive setting by allowing them to both experience and create the content of the game world.
There are varying definitions of the phrase "dynamic world", but it is widely accepted that a dynamic world is a world that changes over time. Even this definition is a little sketchy though, as an instanced dungeon changes over time as well and could be considered part of its respective game world. For this article we will take a dynamic world to mean a persistent, changing game world that all players share simultaneously and continuously. We will address many intricate aspects of dynamic worlds, specifically player interaction and the viability of such interaction from a design standpoint.
The most simplest aspects of a dynamic world are those built into the world itself. A changing weather system (snow, rain, hail, fog, etc), seasons, and constellations and planetary movements are prime examples. Migrating monster spawns or camps also fall into this category. These things and more are examples of dynamism in a virtual world from an environmental standpoint (created by the developers). However, these are entirely the result of developer guidance, rather than player-driven change
We can classify player driven change in a game world in two categories: constructive (the creation of new cities, items and places) and destructive (the overthrow of a city, elimination of a threat, etc.). There have been several MMOG's in the past that have implemented some of these ideas into their game worlds, and many more that have claimed to have a dynamic world simply to attract more attention. Some examples of virtual worlds with dynamic elements are seen below. Many of the listed games have received a comparatively minor amount of player and developer attention in the past.
Virtual worlds with some dynamic elements:
Ultima Online (Origin) — Allowed players to purchase houses or fortifications (such as towers, forts and castles) and place them on flat land in the game world. Players could create the equivalent of crude towns by placing these structures close together. This effectively created a dynamic element during game play. However players could not destroy the assets of another player, removing any possible "destructive change".
Shadowbane (Wolfpack) — Players could construct their own cities around a "spawn" point called a "tree of life". Cities could be placed nearly anywhere on the map and would be recorded onto a dynamic map of the world that would display information about the cities sphere of influence, population, etc. The tree of life protected the buildings around it from outside destruction, effectively making them immune to attack except during a declared siege. Sieges were initiated with a "bane stone" that would negate the tree of life's power at a time of the defenders choosing. Players could also place siege engines and wall defenses. Later in Shadowbane's development a resource system was implemented that placed many mines all over the world that could be controlled by players to collect resources for crafting. A territory control system was also implemented that allowed players to claim pieces of the map under the banner of their guild for certain distinct bonuses and titles.
Star Wars Galaxies (SOE) — The developers introduced player owned cities into the game that contained a function that allowed them to police their own territory, although the implementation changed schizophrenically over time. Initially, a /citywarning command was present that forced outside players to leave the premises under pain of attack. After complaints that these city functions were helping certain factions "choke" vital content areas, the /citywarning aspect was removed, effectively making player cities free ground for all. Instead, SWG relies on its implementation of the factional (Empire vs. Rebel) system. Most Star Wars Galaxies buildings are unassailable (such as player housing, cantinas and the like), but SWG also features factional fortifications such as turrets and bases which will defend against the opposite faction and may also be raided and destroyed by the enemy.
Eve Online (CCP Games) — In Eve online players can claim realms of space as their respective territory and construct player run space stations within the area. Players can also mine resources from asteroids to later use during starship construction.
Second Life (Linden Labs) — The application drew major attention in 2006. Although some claim it does not classify as game due to the lack of any sort of point system, win/loss factor, or "end game" it has attracted a large group of subscription based users. The world is as close to dynamic as a mainstream online application has reached up until this point. Users can add content into the game and even maintain intellectual property rights over it. They can also design and place buildings and develop art through other avenues within the program.
It must be noted that the trend in MMORPG’s has been toward instanced game worlds in recent years, as it solves a number of design snags that developers have had on their plates in previous games. Since the goal of most mainstream MMORPGs has been primarily to focus on in-depth environmental content such as intriguing storylines or epic monster encounters, the idea of a PvE based monolithic (one piece) environment has been discarded. Gaming enthusiast Mike Rozak explains the reason for this:
A monolithic reality doesn't work well for virtual worlds (in my opinion). The problem was noticed from the very beginning of text MUDs, since in a monolithic reality, if one player changes the world, it remains changed for all players. This means that if a player kills the evil overlord, then for all players thereafter the evil overlord is dead, which is a bit of a bummer for all the other players who wanted their chance at defeating the evil overlord.
It is here that the reasoning behind the current developer trend toward instancing becomes apparent. It is logical and convenient to fracture the game world in a way that gives all players a shot at immersing themselves in the environmental content of the game. Yet gamers everywhere are crying out for something more; something that they can change and influence. Why hasn’t this been done already? In a game based solely or mostly on built-in environmental content is it possible to have a player driven dynamic from a development standpoint? Cultural historian Timothy Burke touches on the feelings regarding the purely environmental (PvE) aspect of dynamic worlds:
When I've ventured out before on this topic, I've found a reasonable degree of consensus on this point among scholars, developers and players, that dynamic, changing, responsive synthetic worlds are what we need. I've also heard on many occasions that they simply are not technically possible at the present time.
Hits like World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, Guild Wars, and Anarchy Online have focused on providing content that appeal to gamers with the use of instancing. Very little of it is player driven content. Why is this? Why haven't players already been given the ability to manipulate a dynamic world around them and create their own stories? What about player driven politics, economics, and social interaction? The answer lies in the individual psychological and social concepts that surround these ideas. Player driven social dynamics can only exist in certain environments. Some are interdependent concepts that cannot exist in worlds such as those proposed in games like World of Warcraft or Everquest 2 because certain variables are not present. For instance; gamers in virtual worlds like World of Warcraft create social groups or guilds in order to achieve higher rewards and challenges from the environmental "end-game" content Blizzard has implemented with the game. There is no inherent social necessity for players to group together, as the social dynamic within a guild does not affect the game world.
By the elimination of certain "virtual confinements" that inhibit constructive and destructive change in mainstream MMORPG's, players can create their own content that can have a dramatically different effect on game play. These dynamic implementations create an immersive aspect as well that is different than many mainstream MMORPG's.
If players are granted a degree of authority over their environment, their virtues and vices will create conflict as they come in contact with one another. Whether this be a political, military, or social dynamic; players will experience a psychological immersion within the game because they have invested their own emotions and labors into the environment that they play in. This is an important concept for developers and gamers alike. Mathew Mihaly, president of game-developer Achaea LLC, has stated:
Politics allow you to provide players with two very important, positive feelings: a sense of attainment, and a sense of ownership and control over their environment. By giving players methods by which to advance in a political hierarchy, provided there are rewards attached, you give players the important feeling of achievement as they climb the ladder of success. Further, as players gain power in your world, they begin the transformation from guest to owner (at least in their minds, and that is what is important).
This illustrates a primary reason that dynamic worlds are so immersive and compelling. Players become committed to these designs because of the ownership they have in the game world. The concept of player ownership may seem fleeting in some regard, but it is an emotional investment by the player that has long lasting implications. It is important to understand as well that player ownership and politics in a dynamic world go hand in hand with economics. You can't have a sense of attainment, ownership, or control without something that players can attain, own, or control. Whether it be currency, territory, fame, glory, respect, or items; the economic concept of scarcity will be the driving force behind player action in a virtual world. There will never be enough material or emotional satisfaction to go around, which will bring people together socially in order to better accomplish their goals. Clay Shirky; an adjunct professor in NYU's graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program states it simply:
How to build a Nomic [realistic] world? Start with economics.
One could argue that a socio-political dynamic exists in mainstream MMORPGs simply because within the individual guild there is a form of economic scarcity. The guild itself and its political qualities exist for the cooperative acquisition of materials and completion of activities that require a group. The guild provides access to these materials in return for a player's participation. However, from an "extra-guild" perspective, social politics do not really exist on a community-wide level in such a world for one simple reason: the absence of scarcity on a worldwide basis. While scarcity of resources (items, respect, material) may exist within each guild, each guild has unlimited access to the resources of that world.
If any guild can enter an instance and kill an epic monster, then from an overall standpoint economic scarcity has ceased to have an impact on the social dynamic between separate guilds. Since scarcity is going to be the driving force in social interaction between individuals and guilds, there must be an overall factor of economic scarcity in order to have a dynamic and immersive political system that affects everyone within a game world. Now some might argue that material scarcity is not the only motivating social factor on this subject, but it must be noted that scarcity can exist in the form of things like glory and respect as well. Regardless, it is an easily seen fact that a large portion of the lasting appeal of most mainstream MMORPG’s lies in the acquisition of virtual materials and proverbial "tokens of achievement". Colleen Malone of Peace Magazine references the research of Dr. Homer Dixon, one of the leading authorities in the field of modern economics:
The research shows that renewable resource scarcities can produce civil conflict, instability, large and destabilizing population movements, aggravated racial, ethnic, or religious tensions, and debilitated political and social institutions. According to Homer-Dixon, the role of environmental scarcity in contributing causally to conflict is often downplayed or ignored entirely.
What does all of this babble about economics and politics really mean for our dynamic world? In order for a player-driven social dynamic to have an impact on the game world, there needs to be a persistent world with no instancing. These concepts create a kind of intrigue that is not present in MMORPG's in the mainstream. With players having ownership over pieces of their virtual world, they will have a psychological interest in maintaining those assets. But that isn't the only variable that creates immersion in these types of games.
In order for players to willfully interact with each other politically, diplomatically, or otherwise on a "global" scale, some form of competition will have to be present. Take two real world countries for example; you have a world population existing on scarce resources that has created a social network of international politics in order to exist in a mutually beneficial environment. When they cannot do so, war ensues. This is where we have to use a dirty phrase. That’s right... player versus player. PvP isn’t the only way to create competition in our dynamic world, but it's the easiest. Creating a PvE world with the possibility of competition among players is possible, but requires a massive amount of content on the development end such as NPCs that can organize attacks and adapt to player politics.
Enabling an environment in which players can freely kill each other has been done to different degrees in the past. Games like Shadowbane and Lineage II both had what could be considered "open PvP" systems. However, Lineage II had tight rules on PvP that would flag a player with harsh penalties in certain situations if they got "out of hand" whereas Shadowbane had none of these restrictions. Both worlds had strong points, but it must be noted that the player versus player aspect added to these games forced the gamers to take their personal and guild politics seriously. This added meaningfulness that led to greater interest and immersion in the game world.
Along with the economic and social motivations discussed earlier, there lies another immersion factor: the threat of violence (PvP). Without the threat of violence the dynamic world's politics and economics will seem pointless in many respects. The threat of PvP combat will cause organizations to form, people to cooperate, and player guilds to take each other seriously so that politics and economics will maintain realism. This spice causes players to want to log on every day just as the hope of attaining wealth and property within the game world will do the same on the other side of the "hedonistic spectrum" Player ownership is more important if there is a chance of loss. This doesn't necessarily mean loss of assets or items. It can mean loss of face, loss of prestige or honor as well. This conflict creates an intriguing storyline and gives meaning to what the players do in our world. However, our dynamic world is still meant to please the player. And while many players are willing to risk their ownership in the dynamic world in exchange for more political and economic immersion, other players see the gaming world from a different perspective. Some gamers desire a world in which there is no true loss. Even if an attempt against monsters in an epic PvE encounter is lost, the players will walk away with everything they own still in tact and they'll just have to try again later. For many players gaming is an escape from the risk that accompanies any action in real life and they would like their work in the game to be preserved indefinitely whether it be assets or items.
Past RPG Developers have often used items of great power as the main drive or attraction within their games. The removal of items as a major force in these games might draw more people to a fully dynamic world that contains an open PvP environment. "Loot" needs to be a powerful and important factor in games like World of Warcraft because it is so valuable that players will strive for long periods of time to attain it, constantly developing their avatars and keeping them interested in the game’s content—but in a player-driven dynamic world, the emphasis shifts to the evolution of the drama around the characters and organizations within the game's story. In such a game, there is no longer need for loot of incredible value. One approach is to implement a "full-loot system". A full loot system is something rather contrary to most games on the market today. While many players would be repulsed by the sheer thought, such a system could take the focus off of the constant struggle for new items and place it on more immersive environmental and player content. In a world of governments, kingdoms, militaries, alliances, betrayals, stealth, and intrigue there is no necessity in powerful items that drastically alter the course of conflict. Many players after having experienced MMORPGs are looking to developers to usher in this new kind of content and depart from the traditional item or experience "grind" that is so common in today’s games.
The dynamic world embodies the concepts that will become the future of MMORPGs. As the Internet and gaming communities continue to grow, gamers are taking an increasing interest in plugging the community itself into the game world in such a way that everyone can experience a world that follows one rule: what you do means something. Meaning is what everyone searches for in everything they do and is exactly where the spirit of all these details becomes apparent. Meaning enthralls and grabs us. It holds us to our seats and doesn’t let go. For thousands of years mankind has used the ideas of conflict and emotional attachment in stories to move us and compel us. In more recent years, radio, movies, and television have done the same on a global scale.
The gaming industry has an advantage other venues do not: interaction. The most interesting worlds that lay before us will be the ones that respond to everything the player does and that all players and guilds can build in their own image. Our greatest stories can be traced long ago to a tribal campfire. It wasn’t Homer, Shakespeare or Steven Spielberg that created the heart of these stories—it was all of us.
Ideally all mmorpgs should be sandbox games. but being a sandbox game has alot of problems especially when we are talking about games taht are 3d nowadays. 1. it is extremely hard to maintain a 3d sandbox mmorpgs, like adding in game contents (new houses? maybe gm held events?) 2. it is also extremely difficult to maintain a balance world in a sandbox game, since sooner or later players will come up with a "perfect" build where everyone will use that build. a sandbox mmorpg requires a very good game design and maintaining to keep the world healthy, which is not much of a good thing to the investors who invest alot of money into the game. 3. other than the orginal uo, there hasn't been a real sandbox mmrpg that can do what uo did (the saga of ryzom came very close tho,just no housing). it's not taht no one tries tomake a 3d sandbox game, but it's that those people all failed at the end.(darkfall isn't finish after all these years, and may take a year or 2 more. vanguard is dying in an ugly way, etc etc) 4. at the same time the success of games like WoW, EQ2, Lineage1-2, RO, you name it doesn't really provide any reason for the investors to go for a sandbox game. Remember, most of those investors aren't gamers. They invest to make money, not for fun. and the demographic tell them that going for sandbox = bad idea it's not that a sandbox mmorpg is a bad idea. it's just that the tech nowaday isn't enough to let the devs to create a truely sandbox MMORPG(not gta orother craps since they aren't mmorpgs.) or the cost to maintain a sandbox mmorpg isjust too much when compare to the class/level base mmorpgs. right now the only 2 sandbox mmorpgs taht are 3d are saga of ryzom and darkfall. the first one isn't mainstream (i have to say it's an amazing game tho. Ijust don't like sci-fi mmorpg tho-.-), and the second one takes ages to develope....and until someone can prove a sandbox mmorpg can earn as much money as class base mmorpgs, don'texpect to see a real sandbox mmorpg anytime soon
p.s. I think i forgot EvE online.
I like this post but I ahve a different view on these issues.
2)
Let's say what you say is correct that 'pure' skill based sandbox is choatic and leads to uber templates and it is a nightmare to balance due to the flexibility of a player being able to change skills at will.
Well, how is this bad for the publisher? I mean, what if you make it take forever+++ to get all these skills? What if- all the skills are somewhat viable and fun to mess around with?
Well then I say this. I would have a freakin awesome time acquiring all these skills. I would *never* have to reroll to experiment. We would have even 1vs1 battles because in the end we are Gods and have mastered all things. This is not such a bad thing to tryout.
My opinion? I think players will naturally stick to their favorite 50 or so attacks. No way to keybind 1000+ abilities. It would allow true player skill to count when you have thousands of skills at your disposal. And it is perfectly balanced cause everyone has access to the same skills.
I'd love to see this. Let the player decide what skills to use no boundaries. just as many skills they can manually committ to memory and keybind
3) you leftout EVE in your post which kinda nulls out that argument. might been a good point if not for EVE or Wurm Online or A Tale in the Desert (if its 3d i dunno didnt play yet) and others.
4) is a valid one. I ahve an 'opinion' here. I might be hardcore dreaming. BUt my take is that pure capitalism will kick in. At GDC they discussed this one. How to compete with WoW? Well some developers said was avoid the hell out of it. Strike new boundaries and hit new enviroments. this way you wont get compared to that mega-monster and might survive. EVE/CCP has done this and Pirates of Burning Sea and Fallen Earth and the other smaller companies will do this. Others with $$$ will grab the big IPs like Turbine did and strike that way more directly. but the smaller budgets 'might' innovate to get noticed. sometimes innovation is 'regression'. grabbing old ideas from the original trendsetters and fix up the kinks to reduce their risk.
That's my 'guess'. Richard Bartle guesses this too but his projection is much more farther out then mine.
I think you also hit on the nail but where we differ- I think the client side is the bigger issue. When you let ppl build anywhere and if you have a 'light souce' and shadows then you will need dynamic lighting which is a lot more expensive then static lighting. so we're looking at multi-core comptures (dual core / quad core) and directx 10 cards to lighten the client side load.
I honestly do not see the appeal of such open ended "sand box" games. I have a life already I do not want to log on to play a second one. I guess I can see how it would appeal to people without a decent RL, but why would people who are normal healthy members of society be interested in a game like this?
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I honestly do not see the appeal of such open ended "sand box" games. I have a life already I do not want to log on to play a second one. I guess I can see how it would appeal to people without a decent RL, but why would people who are normal healthy members of society be interested in a game like this?
you should be more specific you have a long list of MMOs in your signature they all present virtual worlds where you have a 'second life' online. your post does not make sense too me are you assuming a game like EVE is more nerdy then the games you have played?
I honestly do not see the appeal of such open ended "sand box" games. I have a life already I do not want to log on to play a second one. I guess I can see how it would appeal to people without a decent RL, but why would people who are normal healthy members of society be interested in a game like this?
Says the nerd with the long list of MMO'sin his signiture
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
I honestly do not see the appeal of such open ended "sand box" games. I have a life already I do not want to log on to play a second one. I guess I can see how it would appeal to people without a decent RL, but why would people who are normal healthy members of society be interested in a game like this?
you should be more specific you have a long list of MMOs in your signature they all present virtual worlds where you have a 'second life' online. your post does not make sense too me are you assuming a game like EVE is more nerdy then the games you have played?
There is a difference between playing a game and having a "second life" Sandbox games play into a second life type of mentality. Wanting the ability to do everything you can do in RL in a game environment.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I honestly do not see the appeal of such open ended "sand box" games. I have a life already I do not want to log on to play a second one. I guess I can see how it would appeal to people without a decent RL, but why would people who are normal healthy members of society be interested in a game like this?
you should be more specific you have a long list of MMOs in your signature they all present virtual worlds where you have a 'second life' online. your post does not make sense too me are you assuming a game like EVE is more nerdy then the games you have played?
There is a difference between playing a game and having a "second life" Sandbox games play into a second life type of mentality. Wanting the ability to do everything you can do in RL in a game environment.
Let say it quite simple, we live in a peaceful and in order world. Not much harm, problems, or drama is around. We live, we work, we get children, we build our home, and so on. We do not have to put everything on the line, like it was in the stone ages, where we fight over our life every single day. And because of the absence of this, we look where we can gather those feeling anywhere else.
In such a dynamic virtual world, you get a lot of drama, and really compacted, to fill they void left from our living standards nowadays. and it is completely risk-free at else, noone lose their something, just virutal assets, nothing else.
By the way, this is also the reason, why extreme sport is as populas as it is, to get the adrenaline rush, the mainkind was used to in the stone ages. It is within our nature, and because we are not able to get it in our normal peaceful live, we try to get it anywhere else.
And yes, even the normal linear games, are almost the same, they fill just an other void, they are big chatrooms, and simulate the feeling of a herd/community, to be not alone, to let alone the isolation a lot of ppl feel nowadays. With mmos, or chatrooms, or whatever, a lot of ppl feel again part of a community, as it was natural in the past.
So a sandbox or virtual world is not, that we want to do everything we can do in RL, much more that we can do there what is no longer available in the RL.
@Smolder: Good article. I can just agree to this article, to every single point.
And this is the reason why i really hope, that Darkfall(or any other game, which try something like that) become true. I really hope it.
For the really hardcore, we still want to play a game here, if you want ultimate sandbox, then go "live" second life ( no you cant "play" second life, as it is not a game ).
For the people saying WoW has 9million subs, I bet the Europe and US servers arent doing that good, and their main gain in players comes from Asia.
People that say sandboxes dont work, they do work, look at Ultima Online ( until they introuced trammel and boosted items, bleh ), they had a good amount of subs. Look at SWG, until they removed the sandbox out of the game, /cry, they had a good amount of subs. Look at EVE online, this one still has a good amount of subs, and grows steadily. Mainly because they stay true to the sandbox idea but also cater to the newbies by giving them linear options ( tutorial and missions ). Only problem with this game is that the combat is too slow, but this has nothin to do with the concept of sandbox.
There is a good market for a sandbox game ...
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I think the problem holding most people back from plunging into a full sandbox is the completely ingrained idea (in every single mmorpg) that it is easier to destroy than it is to create. Thus, a simple solution presents itself...
Make it easier to build stuff.
Think of how long the grinds take. What are most grinds for? Getting better so you can kill the enviroment. What do you do in a sandbox? You build the enviroment. All of the sudden a grind doesen't seem so important does it? Providing players with a short grind (without which you are worthless) not only allows everybody (sandboxers, wowers, etc.) to become involved quickly; it also removes one of the main problems with sandboxes in the first place; the helpless wandering around with nothing to do.
Take this for example; a swg like game with no limits on build plots or pets or anything you could think of. Then, you start fully leveled up at a proffesion you choose. What do you do? You become involved. You expand an empire of armorsmiths. You fight to completely take over the capital planet. You travel the thousands of miles across a ocean in a attempt to find the lost library of guns and ammo.
Now, imagine said swg-like-game with as many elements of the sandbox that you want. Have a taste for intrigue? Go to the capital and become king. Want a "true" sandbox? Load up yer spaceship and blast off to a planet that nobody has been to before. Think about that. How long would it take the devs to create a completely blank world with terrain, resources, and mabye some wildlife? 2 hours by hand? 15 seconds with a random map generator?
If I want an invisible, healing, plate wearing mage, why can't I? Skills are answer here.
Um, because that would be imbalanced, and any game with a decent group of developers would set any magic damage to be unmitigated by armor? So, basically, if you wore plate and could cast spells, there's no point to have any kind of real melee skills in a PvP or PvE setting.
No wonder games like Grand Theft Auto, Ultima Online, Oblivion/Morrowind, Second Life have been so popular. Give us some structure but only when we choose, but most importantly give us a TON of small things to do that are fun. We are very different from each other and each of us like different things. Don't penalize for taking "bad" actions. Because in truth there are no "bad" actions. PVP should always be FFA with of limit cities. Just because you can kill someone and loot them doesn't mean you will. People will align with their "kind" PKers will align with PKers and the Good with the Good. Why is the lore forced upon us? There is nothing more frustrating than finding a nice person on the "other" side and having to be automatic enemies. Items are the last thing MMO's should be about. Can you imagine playing GTA with the "Pistol of DOOM" You wouldn't take any chances in fear of losing it. Skill trees and Classes are the worst. There is nothing worse than being forced to pick a class when you don't know any and feeling the Nerf stick once in a while. If I want an invisible, healing, plate wearing mage, why can't I? Skills are answer here.
The success of games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Final Fantasy XI and many, many other games prove you're wrong. Sand box is NOT the only answer. in fact, its quite the opposide.
And the decent sized inflow of mmorpg vets every day that say they are sick of level/grinders like WoW, not to mention the success of pre-cu swg, UO, eve, and other sandboxes, prove that you are wrong *shrug* we can argue about semantics all day, but in the end the truth is people are starting to get sick of the same thing being rehashed. I happen to agree fully with the op. The current trend of rpgs like wow are way too linear have no point (pvp is pointless) and way too item centric.
It really is time for someone to make a good sandbox mmo with a bit of innovation with it. Dont worry... I have a feeling its coming soon.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be. Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with. You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises. Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you. As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box. You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved. One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far. Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model. Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre. Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world. It is my dream, and the dream of others as has been shown, that we will one day have a true sand box virtual world where human dynamism and pliability of the game world go hand in hand to create the ultimate virtual world experience that we all, on some level lust for in our imaginations. I implore you to continue discussion of this topic so that more will come to understand the wonder that is possible if only development crews would put aside their greed for the dollar and seek to innovate instead. In order to make this happen we should rally those with excesses of money to donate to the cause of evolving the genre in a way that may eventually lead us to the Matrix and holodecks.
I agree with the above 100%. Thank you for posting it.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
if you really think about it, MMOs are supposed to be worlds which many many players inhabit at once, so it really makes WAY more sense for an MMO to be a skill based sandbox than a class based combat grind
Lol and this man wins the thread. So much truth in such a small space.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
No wonder games like Grand Theft Auto, Ultima Online, Oblivion/Morrowind, Second Life have been so popular. Give us some structure but only when we choose, but most importantly give us a TON of small things to do that are fun. We are very different from each other and each of us like different things. Don't penalize for taking "bad" actions. Because in truth there are no "bad" actions. PVP should always be FFA with of limit cities. Just because you can kill someone and loot them doesn't mean you will. People will align with their "kind" PKers will align with PKers and the Good with the Good. Why is the lore forced upon us? There is nothing more frustrating than finding a nice person on the "other" side and having to be automatic enemies. Items are the last thing MMO's should be about. Can you imagine playing GTA with the "Pistol of DOOM" You wouldn't take any chances in fear of losing it. Skill trees and Classes are the worst. There is nothing worse than being forced to pick a class when you don't know any and feeling the Nerf stick once in a while. If I want an invisible, healing, plate wearing mage, why can't I? Skills are answer here.
You should probably just go back to playing Ultima Online. You know, they upgraded the graphics by a ton and now it's called UO Kingdom Reborn.
Comments
EVE needs the safe zones I must say because a newbie stick has absolutely no chance against a Titan or capital ship. So saying all games need security systems does not apply at all. you simply cannot globally apply rules to every single title out there based on one single MMO that made something work for 'their' game. of course security will gain more mass appeal and help newbies get up to speed when the barrier between newb and veteran is so vast like it is in EVE
Anything can be made to work given a lot of thought is my firm belief. I've seen open PVP work flawless (Starport) and I've seen Security - FFA Zones work flawless (EVE).
if you really think about it, MMOs are supposed to be worlds which many many players inhabit at once, so it really makes WAY more sense for an MMO to be a skill based sandbox than a class based combat grind
Grand Theft Auto, Oblivion were okay but after a while they got boring.
Morrowind was more linear then Oblivion in some regards.
Baldur's Gate 1-2, Fallout 1-2, Planescape Torment, KOTOR, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines were all better then those games IMHO.
P.S. The problem with most Sand Box games is that they don't have an engaging enough background story to follow or explore. Basically sometimes it's like they use the sand box nature of game play to not work on inputing background content. Just because a game allows you the freedom to do what you want is not a good reason to just not develop any sort of lore and background content or mini games.
yeah true but there are many Sandbox games. Like what about Spiderman 2? That thing was critically acclaimed. awesome story that follows the movie but also has sandbox (many reviewers have dubbed it a 'sandbox')sandbox can be strongly story driven. played that thing non-stop til the end.
now I admit I did not finish oblivion and GTA either but thats the beauty of it! You write your own story and can spend countless hours goofing off
Linear pve mmos are popular, though i'm not sure why. Once you've gone through all the content then its time to find a new game. I suspect some of them have tons of subscribers just because they are accessible and people just want a pretty looking chat room. Sand box games don't get boring because you can effect the game world and always have objectives to accomplish. Linear PVE games are boring and i don't plan on ever playing one again.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
There had been many problems with "sandbox" games.
In UO back in 1997 for example players always found a way to create the uber combination of skills thus creating mostly a combination of magery and archery. This led into a boring experience since everyone (since UO had no skill trees) had a chance to make something really different and unique but actually very few ignored the uber ladder and tried to advance in a different way.
As for PVP i think that UO had the most hard core pvp system ever created. You could be attacked everywhere outside of town without any reason at all. No factions no friends no enemies, just a rude word or a loot steal (yes you could do that ) from someone outside town was a reason to start a fight with full corpse loot for the winner and the loser trying to get back to town just wearing a ghost robe.
It was impossible though to uphold the "law" in UO since every player or team of players that did not wish to risk an open battle found many ways to attack people that liked pve mostly, using mechanisms which could not distinguish them between fighters and murderers.
This was a problem. But is had not been any effort to balance UO. As a solution all of these interactions were stopped and 2 different worlds were created. The world of the pvpers and the world of the pve's.
They said that if Ultime did not change into this new system of playing it would not be alive until today. It's amazing that most people like this style of playing and actually there have been so few mmos that have only pvp servers. Strange.
Ideally all mmorpgs should be sandbox games. but being a sandbox game has alot of problems especially when we are talking about games taht are 3d nowadays.
1. it is extremely hard to maintain a 3d sandbox mmorpgs, like adding in game contents (new houses? maybe gm held events?)
2. it is also extremely difficult to maintain a balance world in a sandbox game, since sooner or later players will come up with a "perfect" build where everyone will use that build. a sandbox mmorpg requires a very good game design and maintaining to keep the world healthy, which is not much of a good thing to the investors who invest alot of money into the game.
3. other than the orginal uo, there hasn't been a real sandbox mmrpg that can do what uo did (the saga of ryzom came very close tho,just no housing). it's not taht no one tries tomake a 3d sandbox game, but it's that those people all failed at the end.(darkfall isn't finish after all these years, and may take a year or 2 more. vanguard is dying in an ugly way, etc etc)
4. at the same time the success of games like WoW, EQ2, Lineage1-2, RO, you name it doesn't really provide any reason for the investors to go for a sandbox game. Remember, most of those investors aren't gamers. They invest to make money, not for fun. and the demographic tell them that going for sandbox = bad idea
it's not that a sandbox mmorpg is a bad idea. it's just that the tech nowaday isn't enough to let the devs to create a truely sandbox MMORPG(not gta orother craps since they aren't mmorpgs.) or the cost to maintain a sandbox mmorpg isjust too much when compare to the class/level base mmorpgs.
right now the only 2 sandbox mmorpgs taht are 3d are saga of ryzom and darkfall. the first one isn't mainstream (i have to say it's an amazing game tho. Ijust don't like sci-fi mmorpg tho-.-), and the second one takes ages to develope....and until someone can prove a sandbox mmorpg can earn as much money as class base mmorpgs, don'texpect to see a real sandbox mmorpg anytime soon
p.s. I think i forgot EvE online.
HEHE yes you did. EvE does the sandbox thing very well if you can get past the learning curve that is.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
I find it weird some of you seem to link 'builds/balancing flaws and errors' as something inherently to 'sandbox' games. There's plenty of non-sandbox games that suffer from the same symptoms, be they skill - or classbased. It's due to poor design decissions, not because of the way players progress or how they can affect the gameworld.
Another thing that strikes me is the generalization 'sandbox' games NEED to be skill-based. Don't get me wrong, I prefer skill-based gameplay over classes anytime of the day, but I fail to see how player progression measurements can dictate how my actions shape the world. What I can ATTEMPT to do as a player and how succesfull I would be at it are again game design decissions and not dogmatic strictures of the type of player progression.
True but thing is i and we have yet to see a proper Level based sandbox game as leveling is bad for sandbox games, as it forces players to level rather than have fun and play.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
Sandbox is a philosophy, it doesn't dictate specific systems or rulesets, or what have you. It doesn't mean you can't have story. Stop being so limited in what sandbox means. Sandbox means the players have a lot of influence on the world or can play the game in different ways; rather than being limited and going through prebuilt unchanging content.
Sandbox aren't necesarily more difficult to run, they are much more difficult to build initially however. But once they are running, you can leave a lot to the players, and in fact; the new content that other games have to keep adding to hold onto player subscriptions are not as necesary in a sandbox game.
I wouldn't call sandbox the "only" answer, I think there is still a place for more linear mmorpgs. Sandbox isn't what everyone is looking for. But many of us are tired of being the same cookie-cutter character doing the exact same quests every other person has done; and not really having any way to make our mark on the world. In the real world, most people want to feel that they have had a point of existence, and I think we hope to do the same in a virtual world.
I don't really like the term "sandbox" myself, it is not a very good term. Second Life and it's kind are the ultimate sandbox games, anything is possible. I prefer just calling them dynamic. I want to see more dynamic games! I want a game like A Tale In the Desert that is more mainstream. I love walking around seeing everyones buildings that they built. I want a game like Roma Victor that's actually good. I want a massively multiplayer game that looks and feels like Gothic or Fallout. Fallout actually has a story, but it feels like a sandbox.
Set up your static content, but allow your world some freedom to develop as well. I don't like the idea of no npcs or starting areas. We are not born into this world without people or civilizations already existing around us. I want npcs though to be more dynamic. They should have their own lives to live. They fill in for players who are often logged off.
I don't know where I'm going with this, it's just dreaming lol. Static games have a lower initial investment, and have been proven to be able to get many subscribers. It's not even that dynamic games have a harder time getting subscribers, after Everquest there were quite a few static flops before WoW took the world by storm, and not many dynamic experiments. SWG lost many subscribers when they changed from dynamic to static, and I don't know if they have yet recovered.
One thing though, I do think that as a whole, more dynamic games really can't support as large of a population as static games can. It just might be the nature of the beast. If you seperate people by great distance, they will get annoyed with having to travel long distances to see the rest of the world. If you allow fast travel, than the distance seperation wasn't really worth much to begin with. Worlds have a limit to how many people they can support, based on how resources are limited, or how much space their is for people to build their houses etc. So this could be one reason we don't see as many dynamic games.
When a player can make a significant impact on the world, he takes up much more "space" and resources.
With World of Warcraft smashing its way onto the MMORPG scene in 2004, the massively multiplayer online world carved itself a place in mainstream entertainment for a long time to come. In January '07 Blizzard reported 8 million subscribers for World of Warcraft, and new gamers continue to subscribe every month. A large number of game developers are continuing to enter the market, but few of them offer anything different, and are therefore unlikely to capture a part of a market that now claims over 15 million total subscribers.
With Web 2.0 changing the way we think about social communities and online interaction, many a developer’s blog or gaming community forum has touched on the subject of the dynamic world and the future of MMOGs. What is a dynamic world? It builds upon the idea of the persistence of a game such as World of Warcraft, but adds the idea of an evolving environment: they are games that change and can be changed. For many the dynamic game world seems the next logical step in RPG’s. This article will capture the spirit of the dynamic world and give examples of MMORPGs that have followed this path in the past and have enjoyed the most fanatically loyal player bases of any games. It will also explore the pieces of the dynamic world puzzle in all of their digital and social forms, including their ties to human nature. The dynamic world concept holds incredible potential for both gamers and developers alike, carrying with it the promise of immersing players in a long-term and interactive setting by allowing them to both experience and create the content of the game world.
There are varying definitions of the phrase "dynamic world", but it is widely accepted that a dynamic world is a world that changes over time. Even this definition is a little sketchy though, as an instanced dungeon changes over time as well and could be considered part of its respective game world. For this article we will take a dynamic world to mean a persistent, changing game world that all players share simultaneously and continuously. We will address many intricate aspects of dynamic worlds, specifically player interaction and the viability of such interaction from a design standpoint.
The most simplest aspects of a dynamic world are those built into the world itself. A changing weather system (snow, rain, hail, fog, etc), seasons, and constellations and planetary movements are prime examples. Migrating monster spawns or camps also fall into this category. These things and more are examples of dynamism in a virtual world from an environmental standpoint (created by the developers). However, these are entirely the result of developer guidance, rather than player-driven change
We can classify player driven change in a game world in two categories: constructive (the creation of new cities, items and places) and destructive (the overthrow of a city, elimination of a threat, etc.). There have been several MMOG's in the past that have implemented some of these ideas into their game worlds, and many more that have claimed to have a dynamic world simply to attract more attention. Some examples of virtual worlds with dynamic elements are seen below. Many of the listed games have received a comparatively minor amount of player and developer attention in the past.
Virtual worlds with some dynamic elements:
Ultima Online (Origin) — Allowed players to purchase houses or fortifications (such as towers, forts and castles) and place them on flat land in the game world. Players could create the equivalent of crude towns by placing these structures close together. This effectively created a dynamic element during game play. However players could not destroy the assets of another player, removing any possible "destructive change".
Shadowbane (Wolfpack) — Players could construct their own cities around a "spawn" point called a "tree of life". Cities could be placed nearly anywhere on the map and would be recorded onto a dynamic map of the world that would display information about the cities sphere of influence, population, etc. The tree of life protected the buildings around it from outside destruction, effectively making them immune to attack except during a declared siege. Sieges were initiated with a "bane stone" that would negate the tree of life's power at a time of the defenders choosing. Players could also place siege engines and wall defenses. Later in Shadowbane's development a resource system was implemented that placed many mines all over the world that could be controlled by players to collect resources for crafting. A territory control system was also implemented that allowed players to claim pieces of the map under the banner of their guild for certain distinct bonuses and titles.
Star Wars Galaxies (SOE) — The developers introduced player owned cities into the game that contained a function that allowed them to police their own territory, although the implementation changed schizophrenically over time. Initially, a /citywarning command was present that forced outside players to leave the premises under pain of attack. After complaints that these city functions were helping certain factions "choke" vital content areas, the /citywarning aspect was removed, effectively making player cities free ground for all. Instead, SWG relies on its implementation of the factional (Empire vs. Rebel) system. Most Star Wars Galaxies buildings are unassailable (such as player housing, cantinas and the like), but SWG also features factional fortifications such as turrets and bases which will defend against the opposite faction and may also be raided and destroyed by the enemy.
Eve Online (CCP Games) — In Eve online players can claim realms of space as their respective territory and construct player run space stations within the area. Players can also mine resources from asteroids to later use during starship construction.
Second Life (Linden Labs) — The application drew major attention in 2006. Although some claim it does not classify as game due to the lack of any sort of point system, win/loss factor, or "end game" it has attracted a large group of subscription based users. The world is as close to dynamic as a mainstream online application has reached up until this point. Users can add content into the game and even maintain intellectual property rights over it. They can also design and place buildings and develop art through other avenues within the program.
It must be noted that the trend in MMORPG’s has been toward instanced game worlds in recent years, as it solves a number of design snags that developers have had on their plates in previous games. Since the goal of most mainstream MMORPGs has been primarily to focus on in-depth environmental content such as intriguing storylines or epic monster encounters, the idea of a PvE based monolithic (one piece) environment has been discarded. Gaming enthusiast Mike Rozak explains the reason for this:
A monolithic reality doesn't work well for virtual worlds (in my opinion). The problem was noticed from the very beginning of text MUDs, since in a monolithic reality, if one player changes the world, it remains changed for all players. This means that if a player kills the evil overlord, then for all players thereafter the evil overlord is dead, which is a bit of a bummer for all the other players who wanted their chance at defeating the evil overlord.
It is here that the reasoning behind the current developer trend toward instancing becomes apparent. It is logical and convenient to fracture the game world in a way that gives all players a shot at immersing themselves in the environmental content of the game. Yet gamers everywhere are crying out for something more; something that they can change and influence. Why hasn’t this been done already? In a game based solely or mostly on built-in environmental content is it possible to have a player driven dynamic from a development standpoint? Cultural historian Timothy Burke touches on the feelings regarding the purely environmental (PvE) aspect of dynamic worlds:
When I've ventured out before on this topic, I've found a reasonable degree of consensus on this point among scholars, developers and players, that dynamic, changing, responsive synthetic worlds are what we need. I've also heard on many occasions that they simply are not technically possible at the present time.
Hits like World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, Guild Wars, and Anarchy Online have focused on providing content that appeal to gamers with the use of instancing. Very little of it is player driven content. Why is this? Why haven't players already been given the ability to manipulate a dynamic world around them and create their own stories? What about player driven politics, economics, and social interaction? The answer lies in the individual psychological and social concepts that surround these ideas. Player driven social dynamics can only exist in certain environments. Some are interdependent concepts that cannot exist in worlds such as those proposed in games like World of Warcraft or Everquest 2 because certain variables are not present. For instance; gamers in virtual worlds like World of Warcraft create social groups or guilds in order to achieve higher rewards and challenges from the environmental "end-game" content Blizzard has implemented with the game. There is no inherent social necessity for players to group together, as the social dynamic within a guild does not affect the game world.
By the elimination of certain "virtual confinements" that inhibit constructive and destructive change in mainstream MMORPG's, players can create their own content that can have a dramatically different effect on game play. These dynamic implementations create an immersive aspect as well that is different than many mainstream MMORPG's.
If players are granted a degree of authority over their environment, their virtues and vices will create conflict as they come in contact with one another. Whether this be a political, military, or social dynamic; players will experience a psychological immersion within the game because they have invested their own emotions and labors into the environment that they play in. This is an important concept for developers and gamers alike. Mathew Mihaly, president of game-developer Achaea LLC, has stated:
Politics allow you to provide players with two very important, positive feelings: a sense of attainment, and a sense of ownership and control over their environment. By giving players methods by which to advance in a political hierarchy, provided there are rewards attached, you give players the important feeling of achievement as they climb the ladder of success. Further, as players gain power in your world, they begin the transformation from guest to owner (at least in their minds, and that is what is important).
This illustrates a primary reason that dynamic worlds are so immersive and compelling. Players become committed to these designs because of the ownership they have in the game world. The concept of player ownership may seem fleeting in some regard, but it is an emotional investment by the player that has long lasting implications. It is important to understand as well that player ownership and politics in a dynamic world go hand in hand with economics. You can't have a sense of attainment, ownership, or control without something that players can attain, own, or control. Whether it be currency, territory, fame, glory, respect, or items; the economic concept of scarcity will be the driving force behind player action in a virtual world. There will never be enough material or emotional satisfaction to go around, which will bring people together socially in order to better accomplish their goals. Clay Shirky; an adjunct professor in NYU's graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program states it simply:
How to build a Nomic [realistic] world? Start with economics.
One could argue that a socio-political dynamic exists in mainstream MMORPGs simply because within the individual guild there is a form of economic scarcity. The guild itself and its political qualities exist for the cooperative acquisition of materials and completion of activities that require a group. The guild provides access to these materials in return for a player's participation. However, from an "extra-guild" perspective, social politics do not really exist on a community-wide level in such a world for one simple reason: the absence of scarcity on a worldwide basis. While scarcity of resources (items, respect, material) may exist within each guild, each guild has unlimited access to the resources of that world.
If any guild can enter an instance and kill an epic monster, then from an overall standpoint economic scarcity has ceased to have an impact on the social dynamic between separate guilds. Since scarcity is going to be the driving force in social interaction between individuals and guilds, there must be an overall factor of economic scarcity in order to have a dynamic and immersive political system that affects everyone within a game world. Now some might argue that material scarcity is not the only motivating social factor on this subject, but it must be noted that scarcity can exist in the form of things like glory and respect as well. Regardless, it is an easily seen fact that a large portion of the lasting appeal of most mainstream MMORPG’s lies in the acquisition of virtual materials and proverbial "tokens of achievement". Colleen Malone of Peace Magazine references the research of Dr. Homer Dixon, one of the leading authorities in the field of modern economics:
The research shows that renewable resource scarcities can produce civil conflict, instability, large and destabilizing population movements, aggravated racial, ethnic, or religious tensions, and debilitated political and social institutions. According to Homer-Dixon, the role of environmental scarcity in contributing causally to conflict is often downplayed or ignored entirely.
What does all of this babble about economics and politics really mean for our dynamic world? In order for a player-driven social dynamic to have an impact on the game world, there needs to be a persistent world with no instancing. These concepts create a kind of intrigue that is not present in MMORPG's in the mainstream. With players having ownership over pieces of their virtual world, they will have a psychological interest in maintaining those assets. But that isn't the only variable that creates immersion in these types of games.
In order for players to willfully interact with each other politically, diplomatically, or otherwise on a "global" scale, some form of competition will have to be present. Take two real world countries for example; you have a world population existing on scarce resources that has created a social network of international politics in order to exist in a mutually beneficial environment. When they cannot do so, war ensues. This is where we have to use a dirty phrase. That’s right... player versus player. PvP isn’t the only way to create competition in our dynamic world, but it's the easiest. Creating a PvE world with the possibility of competition among players is possible, but requires a massive amount of content on the development end such as NPCs that can organize attacks and adapt to player politics.
Enabling an environment in which players can freely kill each other has been done to different degrees in the past. Games like Shadowbane and Lineage II both had what could be considered "open PvP" systems. However, Lineage II had tight rules on PvP that would flag a player with harsh penalties in certain situations if they got "out of hand" whereas Shadowbane had none of these restrictions. Both worlds had strong points, but it must be noted that the player versus player aspect added to these games forced the gamers to take their personal and guild politics seriously. This added meaningfulness that led to greater interest and immersion in the game world.
Along with the economic and social motivations discussed earlier, there lies another immersion factor: the threat of violence (PvP). Without the threat of violence the dynamic world's politics and economics will seem pointless in many respects. The threat of PvP combat will cause organizations to form, people to cooperate, and player guilds to take each other seriously so that politics and economics will maintain realism. This spice causes players to want to log on every day just as the hope of attaining wealth and property within the game world will do the same on the other side of the "hedonistic spectrum" Player ownership is more important if there is a chance of loss. This doesn't necessarily mean loss of assets or items. It can mean loss of face, loss of prestige or honor as well. This conflict creates an intriguing storyline and gives meaning to what the players do in our world. However, our dynamic world is still meant to please the player. And while many players are willing to risk their ownership in the dynamic world in exchange for more political and economic immersion, other players see the gaming world from a different perspective. Some gamers desire a world in which there is no true loss. Even if an attempt against monsters in an epic PvE encounter is lost, the players will walk away with everything they own still in tact and they'll just have to try again later. For many players gaming is an escape from the risk that accompanies any action in real life and they would like their work in the game to be preserved indefinitely whether it be assets or items.
Past RPG Developers have often used items of great power as the main drive or attraction within their games. The removal of items as a major force in these games might draw more people to a fully dynamic world that contains an open PvP environment. "Loot" needs to be a powerful and important factor in games like World of Warcraft because it is so valuable that players will strive for long periods of time to attain it, constantly developing their avatars and keeping them interested in the game’s content—but in a player-driven dynamic world, the emphasis shifts to the evolution of the drama around the characters and organizations within the game's story. In such a game, there is no longer need for loot of incredible value. One approach is to implement a "full-loot system". A full loot system is something rather contrary to most games on the market today. While many players would be repulsed by the sheer thought, such a system could take the focus off of the constant struggle for new items and place it on more immersive environmental and player content. In a world of governments, kingdoms, militaries, alliances, betrayals, stealth, and intrigue there is no necessity in powerful items that drastically alter the course of conflict. Many players after having experienced MMORPGs are looking to developers to usher in this new kind of content and depart from the traditional item or experience "grind" that is so common in today’s games.
The dynamic world embodies the concepts that will become the future of MMORPGs. As the Internet and gaming communities continue to grow, gamers are taking an increasing interest in plugging the community itself into the game world in such a way that everyone can experience a world that follows one rule: what you do means something. Meaning is what everyone searches for in everything they do and is exactly where the spirit of all these details becomes apparent. Meaning enthralls and grabs us. It holds us to our seats and doesn’t let go. For thousands of years mankind has used the ideas of conflict and emotional attachment in stories to move us and compel us. In more recent years, radio, movies, and television have done the same on a global scale.
The gaming industry has an advantage other venues do not: interaction. The most interesting worlds that lay before us will be the ones that respond to everything the player does and that all players and guilds can build in their own image. Our greatest stories can be traced long ago to a tribal campfire. It wasn’t Homer, Shakespeare or Steven Spielberg that created the heart of these stories—it was all of us.
From the GuildCafe
An article by: Aaron "Lindorn" Smith
http://www.guildcafe.com/Vox/04073-Smith-Dynamic-Worlds.html
I like this post but I ahve a different view on these issues.
2)
Let's say what you say is correct that 'pure' skill based sandbox is choatic and leads to uber templates and it is a nightmare to balance due to the flexibility of a player being able to change skills at will.
Well, how is this bad for the publisher? I mean, what if you make it take forever+++ to get all these skills? What if- all the skills are somewhat viable and fun to mess around with?
Well then I say this. I would have a freakin awesome time acquiring all these skills. I would *never* have to reroll to experiment. We would have even 1vs1 battles because in the end we are Gods and have mastered all things. This is not such a bad thing to tryout.
My opinion? I think players will naturally stick to their favorite 50 or so attacks. No way to keybind 1000+ abilities. It would allow true player skill to count when you have thousands of skills at your disposal. And it is perfectly balanced cause everyone has access to the same skills.
I'd love to see this. Let the player decide what skills to use no boundaries. just as many skills they can manually committ to memory and keybind
3) you leftout EVE in your post which kinda nulls out that argument. might been a good point if not for EVE or Wurm Online or A Tale in the Desert (if its 3d i dunno didnt play yet) and others.
4) is a valid one. I ahve an 'opinion' here. I might be hardcore dreaming. BUt my take is that pure capitalism will kick in. At GDC they discussed this one. How to compete with WoW? Well some developers said was avoid the hell out of it. Strike new boundaries and hit new enviroments. this way you wont get compared to that mega-monster and might survive. EVE/CCP has done this and Pirates of Burning Sea and Fallen Earth and the other smaller companies will do this. Others with $$$ will grab the big IPs like Turbine did and strike that way more directly. but the smaller budgets 'might' innovate to get noticed. sometimes innovation is 'regression'. grabbing old ideas from the original trendsetters and fix up the kinks to reduce their risk.
That's my 'guess'. Richard Bartle guesses this too but his projection is much more farther out then mine.
I think you also hit on the nail but where we differ- I think the client side is the bigger issue. When you let ppl build anywhere and if you have a 'light souce' and shadows then you will need dynamic lighting which is a lot more expensive then static lighting. so we're looking at multi-core comptures (dual core / quad core) and directx 10 cards to lighten the client side load.
I honestly do not see the appeal of such open ended "sand box" games. I have a life already I do not want to log on to play a second one. I guess I can see how it would appeal to people without a decent RL, but why would people who are normal healthy members of society be interested in a game like this?
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
you should be more specific you have a long list of MMOs in your signature they all present virtual worlds where you have a 'second life' online. your post does not make sense too me are you assuming a game like EVE is more nerdy then the games you have played?
Says the nerd with the long list of MMO'sin his signiture
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."
-- Jean Rostand
Great great post!
Waiting for AoC... praying for Darkfall. Where's the company with big pockets to lift DF to the daylight.
you should be more specific you have a long list of MMOs in your signature they all present virtual worlds where you have a 'second life' online. your post does not make sense too me are you assuming a game like EVE is more nerdy then the games you have played?
There is a difference between playing a game and having a "second life" Sandbox games play into a second life type of mentality. Wanting the ability to do everything you can do in RL in a game environment.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
you should be more specific you have a long list of MMOs in your signature they all present virtual worlds where you have a 'second life' online. your post does not make sense too me are you assuming a game like EVE is more nerdy then the games you have played?
There is a difference between playing a game and having a "second life" Sandbox games play into a second life type of mentality. Wanting the ability to do everything you can do in RL in a game environment.
Let say it quite simple, we live in a peaceful and in order world. Not much harm, problems, or drama is around. We live, we work, we get children, we build our home, and so on. We do not have to put everything on the line, like it was in the stone ages, where we fight over our life every single day. And because of the absence of this, we look where we can gather those feeling anywhere else.
In such a dynamic virtual world, you get a lot of drama, and really compacted, to fill they void left from our living standards nowadays. and it is completely risk-free at else, noone lose their something, just virutal assets, nothing else.
By the way, this is also the reason, why extreme sport is as populas as it is, to get the adrenaline rush, the mainkind was used to in the stone ages. It is within our nature, and because we are not able to get it in our normal peaceful live, we try to get it anywhere else.
And yes, even the normal linear games, are almost the same, they fill just an other void, they are big chatrooms, and simulate the feeling of a herd/community, to be not alone, to let alone the isolation a lot of ppl feel nowadays. With mmos, or chatrooms, or whatever, a lot of ppl feel again part of a community, as it was natural in the past.
So a sandbox or virtual world is not, that we want to do everything we can do in RL, much more that we can do there what is no longer available in the RL.
@Smolder: Good article. I can just agree to this article, to every single point.
And this is the reason why i really hope, that Darkfall(or any other game, which try something like that) become true. I really hope it.
One day there will be another good sandbox.
For the really hardcore, we still want to play a game here, if you want ultimate sandbox, then go "live" second life ( no you cant "play" second life, as it is not a game ).
For the people saying WoW has 9million subs, I bet the Europe and US servers arent doing that good, and their main gain in players comes from Asia.
People that say sandboxes dont work, they do work, look at Ultima Online ( until they introuced trammel and boosted items, bleh ), they had a good amount of subs.
Look at SWG, until they removed the sandbox out of the game, /cry, they had a good amount of subs.
Look at EVE online, this one still has a good amount of subs, and grows steadily. Mainly because they stay true to the sandbox idea but also cater to the newbies by giving them linear options ( tutorial and missions ). Only problem with this game is that the combat is too slow, but this has nothin to do with the concept of sandbox.
There is a good market for a sandbox game ...
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I think the problem holding most people back from plunging into a full sandbox is the completely ingrained idea (in every single mmorpg) that it is easier to destroy than it is to create. Thus, a simple solution presents itself...
Make it easier to build stuff.
Think of how long the grinds take. What are most grinds for? Getting better so you can kill the enviroment. What do you do in a sandbox? You build the enviroment. All of the sudden a grind doesen't seem so important does it? Providing players with a short grind (without which you are worthless) not only allows everybody (sandboxers, wowers, etc.) to become involved quickly; it also removes one of the main problems with sandboxes in the first place; the helpless wandering around with nothing to do.
Take this for example; a swg like game with no limits on build plots or pets or anything you could think of. Then, you start fully leveled up at a proffesion you choose. What do you do? You become involved. You expand an empire of armorsmiths. You fight to completely take over the capital planet. You travel the thousands of miles across a ocean in a attempt to find the lost library of guns and ammo.
Now, imagine said swg-like-game with as many elements of the sandbox that you want. Have a taste for intrigue? Go to the capital and become king. Want a "true" sandbox? Load up yer spaceship and blast off to a planet that nobody has been to before. Think about that. How long would it take the devs to create a completely blank world with terrain, resources, and mabye some wildlife? 2 hours by hand? 15 seconds with a random map generator?
Think about it.
Um, because that would be imbalanced, and any game with a decent group of developers would set any magic damage to be unmitigated by armor? So, basically, if you wore plate and could cast spells, there's no point to have any kind of real melee skills in a PvP or PvE setting.
The success of games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Final Fantasy XI and many, many other games prove you're wrong. Sand box is NOT the only answer. in fact, its quite the opposide.
And the decent sized inflow of mmorpg vets every day that say they are sick of level/grinders like WoW, not to mention the success of pre-cu swg, UO, eve, and other sandboxes, prove that you are wrong *shrug* we can argue about semantics all day, but in the end the truth is people are starting to get sick of the same thing being rehashed. I happen to agree fully with the op. The current trend of rpgs like wow are way too linear have no point (pvp is pointless) and way too item centric.
It really is time for someone to make a good sandbox mmo with a bit of innovation with it. Dont worry... I have a feeling its coming soon.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
I agree with the above 100%. Thank you for posting it.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
Lol and this man wins the thread. So much truth in such a small space.
"Do not fret! Your captain is about to enter Valhalla!" - General Beatrix of Alexandria
"The acquisition of knowledge is of use to the intellect, for nothing can be loved or hated without first being known." - Leo da Vinci
You should probably just go back to playing Ultima Online. You know, they upgraded the graphics by a ton and now it's called UO Kingdom Reborn.