Originally posted by _Shadowmage Tier 1 for the High Elves is a giant sandbox. They defend the beaches (sand) from the Dark Elf invasion.Is that what you mean?
I think each tier will be sandbox but the whole warhammer world will not be connected.Example world of warcraft wer the whole world map is connected as a whole.
WAR is not a sandbox on any level that I can think of.
The PvE component of the game is story-based, meaning you follow a story that weaves through the various quests, zones, etc., of the game world. It is expected, though not required, that you follow this story and reveal the lore, all while leveling up, getting loot, doing fun things, etc. It is not 100% linear, in that you do not have to do it, and there are lots of optional components, as well as extra things, but there is a main story arc.
While that is going on, you can do open RvR, take keeps, and do scenarios (think WoW battlegrounds).
The crafting, by Mark Jacobs's own admission, is fairly limited. It is geared to what the game about - war in RvR form. There is no bread baking or music playing.
The end game is the most dynamic bit, where you can level up your city, conquer the enemy's, etc. But still, it is mostly an MMORPG world that is influenced by arena elements. And I say this is the best way I can. Once you are "done" the PvE portion of the game, as it will run out, like it does in all games, you will be in an arena that looks like a world.
If you go into this game expecting PvE in the same vein as WoW, with a few cool twists, and RvR in the same vein as DAoC, again with a few cool twists, you will not be disappointed. If you go in expecting an open world where you can do anything you want, be whatever you want, then look elsewhere.
It's not a sandbox game by any sense of the word, but it should still be fun.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
I think he means by sandbox, something a very intelligent person, such as himself, plays as opposed to linear games which appeal to most people because they are sheep/idiots.
Sandbox vs Linear has nothing to do with intellect. Some people prefer to explore and create their own content and some people prefer to be given content to do. You don't call people who like to cook at home intelligent and people who like to eat at a restaurant sheep/idiots do you? A home cooked meal can be nice but a fancy dinner can be nice as well.
Sandbox games don't really get made because the amount of people that want them is shadowed by the amount of people that want content put in front of them. Not to mention the fact that if you ask 15 different people about the definition of a sandbox game you will get 15 different answers. Some say no levels, some say no set content, some say no set path, etc.
As for WAR being a sandbox-ish game? Nope. There are 3 pairings, levels, set areas for objectives, and set content. So by anyones definition it isn't sandbox.
It's not a sandbox game by any sense of the word, but it should still be fun.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
I think he means by sandbox, something a very intelligent person, such as himself, plays as opposed to linear games which appeal to most people because they are sheep/idiots.
Sandbox vs Linear has nothing to do with intellect. Some people prefer to explore and create their own content and some people prefer to be given content to do. You don't call people who like to cook at home intelligent and people who like to eat at a restaurant sheep/idiots do you? A home cooked meal can be nice but a fancy dinner can be nice as well.
Sandbox games don't really get made because the amount of people that want them is shadowed by the amount of people that want content put in front of them. Not to mention the fact that if you ask 15 different people about the definition of a sandbox game you will get 15 different answers. Some say no levels, some say no set content, some say no set path, etc.
As for WAR being a sandbox-ish game? Nope. There are 3 pairings, levels, set areas for objectives, and set content. So by anyones definition it isn't sandbox.
Looks like you didn't read into what the person you quoted wrote and quickly shot off your own opinion.
If you look at pre-cu SWG and UO those were true MMO's. WoW, AoC, and now WAR are nothing different than FPS styled game. No selection but a weapon and defined path or open world to get to the same goal as everyone else.
UO and SWG for example had different goals. As a crafter you wanted to make money and make the best armor. As Bounty Hunter you hunted Jedi. But the point was you had different paths for different goals.
But enough about what MMO's should be or not. WAR is by no means a sandbox, it is just a game with different style of play and selection of classes.
"Sandbox" has absolutely nothing to do with classes and levels. You can have a perfect "sandbox" game with those, just like you can have a linear one that is skill-based.
"Sandbox" refers to the way the game world is structured and what is the basic approach to content. A linear game has a limited amount of pre-scripted content players are supposed to "consume" while playing. A sandbox game has a completely different approach - its provides players with tools to generate their own content. The easiest way to do this is through PvP of course, but there are many other ways as well.
Just because most sandbox rpgs were skill-based it doesn't mean that it is a part of the definition. As mentioned above, Shadowbane had classes and yet it was a sandbox.
WAR is not a sandbox in classical sense but it does have a few sandboxy elements. Namely dynamic world, non-linear advancement schemes at max level, the impact of social play on the game world as a whole.
Alternatively you can look at it as pretty much linear in leveling but gaining more and more freeform "sandbox" elements as you approach max level. The devs already stated they don't want leveling to take a lot of time since T4 is where it's at. "The game begins at endgme" has been taken very seriously by WAR devs. At T4 WAR gets sandboxy in a way since pretty much the whole game area is contestable and it is the players whose decisions impact the common game world and other players' experience of it.
Sandbox i dont know but itll have alot of freedom.
There'll be like a total of 70 zones for you to explore. Complete tome of knowledge achievements of which there's a zillion achievements. Do quests and group up and do public quests of which there's a ton. Then there's RvR which you can basically do all over the world over the many rvr zones. That you can do the scenario's, mini RvR games, of which there are many but tied to your lvl range. Then there's ofcourse the many normal quests or you can just go out and kill monsters in a group for loot or xp. You can btw just xp only in rvr or only in PVE or both. Up to you.
So warhammer in a way leaves alot of freedom to the player.
If you look at pre-cu SWG and UO those were true MMO's. WoW, AoC, and now WAR are nothing different than FPS styled game. No selection but a weapon and defined path or open world to get to the same goal as everyone else. UO and SWG for example had different goals. As a crafter you wanted to make money and make the best armor. As Bounty Hunter you hunted Jedi. But the point was you had different paths for different goals. But enough about what MMO's should be or not. WAR is by no means a sandbox, it is just a game with different style of play and selection of classes.
So are you calling MUDS which were around long before UO and SWG and were highly more popular at one point than either..non MMOS? ARe you calling EQ1 non mmo? Because last I looked it was more popular at its peek than Either UO or SWG ever where not to mention it lasted as a top game far longer.
Sorry what makes an MMO is different for everyone. For me an MMO is a world I can create a toon for and play around in. If the game lets me do whatever I want fine...but I honestly get bored since I don't want to "live" a life in an MMO i'm there for the MMO - G part MMO Game so I enjoy having content. What I DO hate about most content filled games IS the lack of progression & customization choices. There's no reason in today's world we can't have a hybrid that allows us to choose which path to take and still have quests if we want to do them.
If you want an MMO that has no G part there is Second Life...but...*shiver* I hardly call that a word worth paying money for. This site is about MMOGS MMO GAmes not MMOL's.
When MMO's drop the RPG part ...perhaps your definition of MMO might hold more true..but RPG always means Quests & storylines to follow. Every pen & paper RPG has a quest or a storyline to follow but atleast lets players make choices on how to handle it or what to do with their 'daily' life when on downtime in a town or city.
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of players think "sandbox" means skills, instead of levels. I don't think you need skills instead of levels to make a sandbox game, but it certainly makes a certain segment of players feel like it's a sandbox if you put skills in the game, instead of levels.
I don't mind a skill system, with a couple of caveats.
First, for the love of god give me skill points to spend. Don't make me swing my sword to raise my sword skill. That is retarded. Yes, it's "realistic" to get better at something, the more you practice. But guess what's also realistic? Practice is boring.
The best way to get good at anything in the real world is to do boring practice all day long. I don't really need that sort of "realism" in my MMO.
For example, let's say you wanted to get good at bow hunting. Would you go deer hunting with a bow every day? No you would not. You would practice shooting your bow at a target every day, so you'd be a good shot when you actually went hunting. You would not go into the forest hunting deer, and shoot 8 million arrows, scaring off everything within miles, so you could increase your bow skill.
Second, give me skill caps. Don't let players max every skill in the game, then it's just a skill grind to get to the top, where every character is exactly the same because every character has every skill at max.
What would really make WAR a sandbox game has nothing to do with classes or skills. The big change that would make WAR a sandbox, would be no Realms. There would be no Destruction and no Order. Instead, players would make their own factions, and create their own Realms wherever they wanted them to be.
Player made factions and realms would make the game a sandbox,
Not swinging your sword over and over to increase your sword skill. That's retarded.
I still play Shadowbane, and imo, wouldn't classify it as a sandbox at all. You can tweak your character to your heart's content, but you're still bound by class and all end with the same goal in mind, destroy. And while you are free to do alot of things, you are still bound the nature of the game and the class you choose.
My wife and I both played UO and SW:G (pre-cu). I loved the ability to keep the same character but manipulate their skills and abilties, without having to reroll. In UO, I was a mace fighter until my mage skills were sufficient to switch, later I changed him into a thief...all the while my wife was content skinning animals and tailoring in her cabin so she could sell goods out of her vendor. We did the same in SW:G, I enjoy making my own content, building RP towns with my guild, etc...and while you can do those things in other games, early UO got it right and SW:G came close.
Having said all that, WAR is a game, like many others, that I have been looking forward to playing for quite some time... at least until another good sandbox game comes out .
What would really make WAR a sandbox game has nothing to do with classes or skills. The big change that would make WAR a sandbox, would be no Realms. There would be no Destruction and no Order. Instead, players would make their own factions, and create their own Realms wherever they wanted them to be. Player made factions and realms would make the game a sandbox,
(is assuming you were just sayign as an example btw so don't take any offense ))
Of course then WAR wouldn't be a Warhammer game anymore since Warhammer was always about Classes & Realm vs Realm. Even in Table Top you didn't see people making armies of Greenskins & Dwarves to go onto the battlefield to work together since thats essentially against the lore and probably the rules as well.
Player made factions are essentially guild vs guild which is in Guild Wars, Shadowbane, AoC, and a few other games that were heavily Guild Based.
WAR being a Sandbox just wouldnt' be WAR. It'd be an entirely different game that I probably wouldn't play. I get bored grinding skills & farming supplies and micromanaging my time to tend to my house or 'guild' etc etc. But I knwo alot of people have the time or the passion to do it and it really is unfair that no one's managed to get it right. Not even UO had it right since the Fubar'd themselves trying to figure out how to keep people from Griefing others all the time and deciding splitting each server into 2 shards *scoff* lol worst idea ever.
What would really make WAR a sandbox game has nothing to do with classes or skills. The big change that would make WAR a sandbox, would be no Realms. There would be no Destruction and no Order. Instead, players would make their own factions, and create their own Realms wherever they wanted them to be. Player made factions and realms would make the game a sandbox,
(is assuming you were just sayign as an example btw so don't take any offense ))
Of course then WAR wouldn't be a Warhammer game anymore since Warhammer was always about Classes & Realm vs Realm. Even in Table Top you didn't see people making armies of Greenskins & Dwarves to go onto the battlefield to work together since thats essentially against the lore and probably the rules as well.
Player made factions are essentially guild vs guild which is in Guild Wars, Shadowbane, AoC, and a few other games that were heavily Guild Based.
WAR being a Sandbox just wouldnt' be WAR. It'd be an entirely different game that I probably wouldn't play. I get bored grinding skills & farming supplies and micromanaging my time to tend to my house or 'guild' etc etc. But I knwo alot of people have the time or the passion to do it and it really is unfair that no one's managed to get it right. Not even UO had it right since the Fubar'd themselves trying to figure out how to keep people from Griefing others all the time and deciding splitting each server into 2 shards *scoff* lol worst idea ever.
I agree. If you want to stick with the IP of Warhammer, then you're not going to make a sandbox game out of it.
I don't think it would be much of a sandbox, if the rules didn't let you decide what the factions were going to be.
Sure, the dwarves and greenskins have been fighting forever. But that doesn't mean they can't make a treaty today, does it? In a sandbox game, this would be a possibility.
I don't think you have to have FFA PvP to be a sandbox. There's no reason players shouldn't be safe in the zone controlled by their faction, and no reason you need to be able to gank someone that's in your party.
It's not a sandbox game by any sense of the word, but it should still be fun.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
I think he means by sandbox, something a very intelligent person, such as himself, plays as opposed to linear games which appeal to most people because they are sheep/idiots.
Sandbox vs Linear has nothing to do with intellect. Some people prefer to explore and create their own content and some people prefer to be given content to do. You don't call people who like to cook at home intelligent and people who like to eat at a restaurant sheep/idiots do you? A home cooked meal can be nice but a fancy dinner can be nice as well.
Sandbox games don't really get made because the amount of people that want them is shadowed by the amount of people that want content put in front of them. Not to mention the fact that if you ask 15 different people about the definition of a sandbox game you will get 15 different answers. Some say no levels, some say no set content, some say no set path, etc.
As for WAR being a sandbox-ish game? Nope. There are 3 pairings, levels, set areas for objectives, and set content. So by anyones definition it isn't sandbox.
And neither did my post. My post was a commentary on how the person I quoted came off sounding superior. Thus my point.
It's not a sandbox game by any sense of the word, but it should still be fun.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
Yes Elder Scroll series are excellent example of sandbox gameplay. In MMO typical sandbox that are well known are Ultima Online and EVE Online. Everquest is not typical sandbox but even the first step against it. The same is about Vanguard - lets say with sandbox elements. Sandbox gameplay is alternatives on RL sand fields where kids play - there is some engine that gives you basic functionality and its up to the players to model and gives some tasks and opurtunities. In short word: player build the world and entire game and gameplay. In such games different servers are quite different in contrast to Linear games where is almost no difference except the average progress on the server.
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration ______\m/_____ LordOfDarkDesire
old SWG was a great Sandbox game till some idiots at Sony ruined it thinkng they needed it to be more of an arcade game >< The problem now you get the wow crowd crying out for endgame content... A true MMORPG doesn't have endgame content. there is no endgame
Jesus Christ, SWG was up shit creek anyway, all Sony did was try to save it and fail miserably.
NO mmo based on a series of books, game or pretty much anythign that already has a lore can be made a sandbox. A true sand box is a game where all the locations exist, there might be tons, npc faction. But if you want to build your town, state, empire, ship... you can. You should be able to create everything like in real life ( politaical party, organisation, company...) There wouldnt be a main quest, and the notion of class wouldnt exist, pick up an axe, your a soldier, a bow your a bowman. Sure you should be able to learn ball kind of skills. But you should also loose efficiency at the skills you dont use a lot. If a group of players feels like killing your horse raping your family, skinning your pet you've spend countless hours leveling with and making a pair of slippers, burning your house stealing all the stuff you had in your house / chect and then slit your throat.
They should be able to do it if the game is to be a true sandbox. But this will nevr happen. there will always be a liit in the freedom you get.
Honestly less than a tenth of the mmo population would play a true sandbox for a long time.
I'm not a no life that sits in front of his computer all day long, I'm an intern that sits in front of his computer all day long.
From what I've seen of the videos on YouTube, WAR fits the "Sandbox" description-do anything you want. This applies to joining any group, any time for a public quest! What a great idea!!
NO mmo based on a series of books, game or pretty much anythign that already has a lore can be made a sandbox. A true sand box is a game where all the locations exist, there might be tons, npc faction. But if you want to build your town, state, empire, ship... you can. You should be able to create everything like in real life ( politaical party, organisation, company...) There wouldnt be a main quest, and the notion of class wouldnt exist, pick up an axe, your a soldier, a bow your a bowman. Sure you should be able to learn ball kind of skills. But you should also loose efficiency at the skills you dont use a lot. If a group of players feels like killing your horse raping your family, skinning your pet you've spend countless hours leveling with and making a pair of slippers, burning your house stealing all the stuff you had in your house / chect and then slit your throat. They should be able to do it if the game is to be a true sandbox. But this will nevr happen. there will always be a liit in the freedom you get. Honestly less than a tenth of the mmo population would play a true sandbox for a long time.
That's not really true. There are some books which are pretty much about anarchy where you could make a game out of them which is a total sandbox. Mostly these are Mad Max/Road Warrior type books, which have a lore but no real sides.
No, WAR is not sandbox. I would put it in the themepark end of the spectrum for obvious reasons.
Sandbox is basicly giving players a set of tools and let them run with it. The players decide their objectives of the game. Each direction and objective forced on the players by the game would tip the "Sandbox -> Themepark"-scale. A good example of a sandbox game would be Sim City imo.
The tools given will need limitations though, thus creating some sort of challenge. Therefor I don't necessarily agree with the statement that fixed classes and levels automatically bumps a game from being sandbox.
However, people that enjoy sandbox games often wants as much customization as possible for their characters (if present). And seeing it adds to the creative process and the diversity of the game world - I would agree that it's an important factor, just not a gamebreaking one.
So most games are somewhere inbetween, and people have diffrent limits on that scale where they are willing to call a game "sandbox" or not.
SWG (at least at release), although not a true Sandbox game of course, I would put on the "sandbox" side of this scale, mainly because of two big elements. First the player-driven ecomony - with all that came with it, like the resouce gathering system and most items being player made.
The second would be player housing/cities/bases wich gave the players the oppertunity to change the world around them.
This could for example allow for a scenario where my city decides to attack another neighboring rebel city because my city wants to control the weapons market and surrounding resources. This imo, is a good sandbox element. The cities, the weapon market, and the control of the surrounding resources were completely player-driven. As were the objective to siege the rebel city.
So again, WAR is not in the sandbox catergory for me, not even a little. Someone mentioned that the RvR city sieges could be considered a sandbox element, something I can't agree with at all. It's not player-driven at all. Players are thrown an objective to fight to plunder the opposite factions city, then the "event" is reset to allow for a new war from the beginning. There's no sandbox in that at all, infact its the opposite.
But that isn't necessarily a bad thing! I personally enjoy the themepark side of games a little bit more, as I enjoy more story-driven games.
Comments
You sir win this thread.
I think each tier will be sandbox but the whole warhammer world will not be connected.Example world of warcraft wer the whole world map is connected as a whole.
WAR is not a sandbox on any level that I can think of.
The PvE component of the game is story-based, meaning you follow a story that weaves through the various quests, zones, etc., of the game world. It is expected, though not required, that you follow this story and reveal the lore, all while leveling up, getting loot, doing fun things, etc. It is not 100% linear, in that you do not have to do it, and there are lots of optional components, as well as extra things, but there is a main story arc.
While that is going on, you can do open RvR, take keeps, and do scenarios (think WoW battlegrounds).
The crafting, by Mark Jacobs's own admission, is fairly limited. It is geared to what the game about - war in RvR form. There is no bread baking or music playing.
The end game is the most dynamic bit, where you can level up your city, conquer the enemy's, etc. But still, it is mostly an MMORPG world that is influenced by arena elements. And I say this is the best way I can. Once you are "done" the PvE portion of the game, as it will run out, like it does in all games, you will be in an arena that looks like a world.
If you go into this game expecting PvE in the same vein as WoW, with a few cool twists, and RvR in the same vein as DAoC, again with a few cool twists, you will not be disappointed. If you go in expecting an open world where you can do anything you want, be whatever you want, then look elsewhere.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
I think he means by sandbox, something a very intelligent person, such as himself, plays as opposed to linear games which appeal to most people because they are sheep/idiots.
Sandbox vs Linear has nothing to do with intellect. Some people prefer to explore and create their own content and some people prefer to be given content to do. You don't call people who like to cook at home intelligent and people who like to eat at a restaurant sheep/idiots do you? A home cooked meal can be nice but a fancy dinner can be nice as well.
Sandbox games don't really get made because the amount of people that want them is shadowed by the amount of people that want content put in front of them. Not to mention the fact that if you ask 15 different people about the definition of a sandbox game you will get 15 different answers. Some say no levels, some say no set content, some say no set path, etc.
As for WAR being a sandbox-ish game? Nope. There are 3 pairings, levels, set areas for objectives, and set content. So by anyones definition it isn't sandbox.
thank you Distaste, you put that very well and I agree with both your points.
Everything creates huge amounts of negativity on the internet, that's what the internet is for: Negativity, porn and lolcats.
What a total load of BS.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
I think he means by sandbox, something a very intelligent person, such as himself, plays as opposed to linear games which appeal to most people because they are sheep/idiots.
Sandbox vs Linear has nothing to do with intellect. Some people prefer to explore and create their own content and some people prefer to be given content to do. You don't call people who like to cook at home intelligent and people who like to eat at a restaurant sheep/idiots do you? A home cooked meal can be nice but a fancy dinner can be nice as well.
Sandbox games don't really get made because the amount of people that want them is shadowed by the amount of people that want content put in front of them. Not to mention the fact that if you ask 15 different people about the definition of a sandbox game you will get 15 different answers. Some say no levels, some say no set content, some say no set path, etc.
As for WAR being a sandbox-ish game? Nope. There are 3 pairings, levels, set areas for objectives, and set content. So by anyones definition it isn't sandbox.
Looks like you didn't read into what the person you quoted wrote and quickly shot off your own opinion.
What a total load of BS.
And yet he is right. Sandbox means customizable.
Until developers understand that MMO's are meant to be customizable and not pre-defined garbage classes then this genre is doomed.
What if I just enjoy crafting and become a jack of all trades and supply my guild with rop notch gear and not be limited to 1 selection.
If you look at pre-cu SWG and UO those were true MMO's. WoW, AoC, and now WAR are nothing different than FPS styled game. No selection but a weapon and defined path or open world to get to the same goal as everyone else.
UO and SWG for example had different goals. As a crafter you wanted to make money and make the best armor. As Bounty Hunter you hunted Jedi. But the point was you had different paths for different goals.
But enough about what MMO's should be or not. WAR is by no means a sandbox, it is just a game with different style of play and selection of classes.
Lol, this is getting so tired...
"Sandbox" has absolutely nothing to do with classes and levels. You can have a perfect "sandbox" game with those, just like you can have a linear one that is skill-based.
"Sandbox" refers to the way the game world is structured and what is the basic approach to content. A linear game has a limited amount of pre-scripted content players are supposed to "consume" while playing. A sandbox game has a completely different approach - its provides players with tools to generate their own content. The easiest way to do this is through PvP of course, but there are many other ways as well.
Just because most sandbox rpgs were skill-based it doesn't mean that it is a part of the definition. As mentioned above, Shadowbane had classes and yet it was a sandbox.
WAR is not a sandbox in classical sense but it does have a few sandboxy elements. Namely dynamic world, non-linear advancement schemes at max level, the impact of social play on the game world as a whole.
Alternatively you can look at it as pretty much linear in leveling but gaining more and more freeform "sandbox" elements as you approach max level. The devs already stated they don't want leveling to take a lot of time since T4 is where it's at. "The game begins at endgme" has been taken very seriously by WAR devs. At T4 WAR gets sandboxy in a way since pretty much the whole game area is contestable and it is the players whose decisions impact the common game world and other players' experience of it.
Sandbox i dont know but itll have alot of freedom.
There'll be like a total of 70 zones for you to explore. Complete tome of knowledge achievements of which there's a zillion achievements. Do quests and group up and do public quests of which there's a ton. Then there's RvR which you can basically do all over the world over the many rvr zones. That you can do the scenario's, mini RvR games, of which there are many but tied to your lvl range. Then there's ofcourse the many normal quests or you can just go out and kill monsters in a group for loot or xp. You can btw just xp only in rvr or only in PVE or both. Up to you.
So warhammer in a way leaves alot of freedom to the player.
So are you calling MUDS which were around long before UO and SWG and were highly more popular at one point than either..non MMOS? ARe you calling EQ1 non mmo? Because last I looked it was more popular at its peek than Either UO or SWG ever where not to mention it lasted as a top game far longer.
Sorry what makes an MMO is different for everyone. For me an MMO is a world I can create a toon for and play around in. If the game lets me do whatever I want fine...but I honestly get bored since I don't want to "live" a life in an MMO i'm there for the MMO - G part MMO Game so I enjoy having content. What I DO hate about most content filled games IS the lack of progression & customization choices. There's no reason in today's world we can't have a hybrid that allows us to choose which path to take and still have quests if we want to do them.
If you want an MMO that has no G part there is Second Life...but...*shiver* I hardly call that a word worth paying money for. This site is about MMOGS MMO GAmes not MMOL's.
When MMO's drop the RPG part ...perhaps your definition of MMO might hold more true..but RPG always means Quests & storylines to follow. Every pen & paper RPG has a quest or a storyline to follow but atleast lets players make choices on how to handle it or what to do with their 'daily' life when on downtime in a town or city.
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of players think "sandbox" means skills, instead of levels. I don't think you need skills instead of levels to make a sandbox game, but it certainly makes a certain segment of players feel like it's a sandbox if you put skills in the game, instead of levels.
I don't mind a skill system, with a couple of caveats.
First, for the love of god give me skill points to spend. Don't make me swing my sword to raise my sword skill. That is retarded. Yes, it's "realistic" to get better at something, the more you practice. But guess what's also realistic? Practice is boring.
The best way to get good at anything in the real world is to do boring practice all day long. I don't really need that sort of "realism" in my MMO.
For example, let's say you wanted to get good at bow hunting. Would you go deer hunting with a bow every day? No you would not. You would practice shooting your bow at a target every day, so you'd be a good shot when you actually went hunting. You would not go into the forest hunting deer, and shoot 8 million arrows, scaring off everything within miles, so you could increase your bow skill.
Second, give me skill caps. Don't let players max every skill in the game, then it's just a skill grind to get to the top, where every character is exactly the same because every character has every skill at max.
What would really make WAR a sandbox game has nothing to do with classes or skills. The big change that would make WAR a sandbox, would be no Realms. There would be no Destruction and no Order. Instead, players would make their own factions, and create their own Realms wherever they wanted them to be.
Player made factions and realms would make the game a sandbox,
Not swinging your sword over and over to increase your sword skill. That's retarded.
I still play Shadowbane, and imo, wouldn't classify it as a sandbox at all. You can tweak your character to your heart's content, but you're still bound by class and all end with the same goal in mind, destroy. And while you are free to do alot of things, you are still bound the nature of the game and the class you choose.
My wife and I both played UO and SW:G (pre-cu). I loved the ability to keep the same character but manipulate their skills and abilties, without having to reroll. In UO, I was a mace fighter until my mage skills were sufficient to switch, later I changed him into a thief...all the while my wife was content skinning animals and tailoring in her cabin so she could sell goods out of her vendor. We did the same in SW:G, I enjoy making my own content, building RP towns with my guild, etc...and while you can do those things in other games, early UO got it right and SW:G came close.
Having said all that, WAR is a game, like many others, that I have been looking forward to playing for quite some time... at least until another good sandbox game comes out
.
(is assuming you were just sayign as an example btw so don't take any offense
))
Of course then WAR wouldn't be a Warhammer game anymore since Warhammer was always about Classes & Realm vs Realm. Even in Table Top you didn't see people making armies of Greenskins & Dwarves to go onto the battlefield to work together since thats essentially against the lore and probably the rules as well.
Player made factions are essentially guild vs guild which is in Guild Wars, Shadowbane, AoC, and a few other games that were heavily Guild Based.
WAR being a Sandbox just wouldnt' be WAR. It'd be an entirely different game that I probably wouldn't play. I get bored grinding skills & farming supplies and micromanaging my time to tend to my house or 'guild' etc etc. But I knwo alot of people have the time or the passion to do it and it really is unfair that no one's managed to get it right. Not even UO had it right since the Fubar'd themselves trying to figure out how to keep people from Griefing others all the time and deciding splitting each server into 2 shards *scoff* lol worst idea ever.
(is assuming you were just sayign as an example btw so don't take any offense
))
Of course then WAR wouldn't be a Warhammer game anymore since Warhammer was always about Classes & Realm vs Realm. Even in Table Top you didn't see people making armies of Greenskins & Dwarves to go onto the battlefield to work together since thats essentially against the lore and probably the rules as well.
Player made factions are essentially guild vs guild which is in Guild Wars, Shadowbane, AoC, and a few other games that were heavily Guild Based.
WAR being a Sandbox just wouldnt' be WAR. It'd be an entirely different game that I probably wouldn't play. I get bored grinding skills & farming supplies and micromanaging my time to tend to my house or 'guild' etc etc. But I knwo alot of people have the time or the passion to do it and it really is unfair that no one's managed to get it right. Not even UO had it right since the Fubar'd themselves trying to figure out how to keep people from Griefing others all the time and deciding splitting each server into 2 shards *scoff* lol worst idea ever.
I agree. If you want to stick with the IP of Warhammer, then you're not going to make a sandbox game out of it.
I don't think it would be much of a sandbox, if the rules didn't let you decide what the factions were going to be.
Sure, the dwarves and greenskins have been fighting forever. But that doesn't mean they can't make a treaty today, does it? In a sandbox game, this would be a possibility.
I don't think you have to have FFA PvP to be a sandbox. There's no reason players shouldn't be safe in the zone controlled by their faction, and no reason you need to be able to gank someone that's in your party.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
I think he means by sandbox, something a very intelligent person, such as himself, plays as opposed to linear games which appeal to most people because they are sheep/idiots.
Sandbox vs Linear has nothing to do with intellect. Some people prefer to explore and create their own content and some people prefer to be given content to do. You don't call people who like to cook at home intelligent and people who like to eat at a restaurant sheep/idiots do you? A home cooked meal can be nice but a fancy dinner can be nice as well.
Sandbox games don't really get made because the amount of people that want them is shadowed by the amount of people that want content put in front of them. Not to mention the fact that if you ask 15 different people about the definition of a sandbox game you will get 15 different answers. Some say no levels, some say no set content, some say no set path, etc.
As for WAR being a sandbox-ish game? Nope. There are 3 pairings, levels, set areas for objectives, and set content. So by anyones definition it isn't sandbox.
And neither did my post. My post was a commentary on how the person I quoted came off sounding superior. Thus my point.
What do you define Sandbox as? Sandbox, for me, is an open world where you can go or do anything. Kind of live Oblivion, that seems to come to mind. I don't know of any MMO that is "sandbox" except Vanguard and the original EQ, thats about as close as I can see.
He was talking about it being linear, like follow the line, go here and here, no where else.
Yes Elder Scroll series are excellent example of sandbox gameplay. In MMO typical sandbox that are well known are Ultima Online and EVE Online. Everquest is not typical sandbox but even the first step against it. The same is about Vanguard - lets say with sandbox elements. Sandbox gameplay is alternatives on RL sand fields where kids play - there is some engine that gives you basic functionality and its up to the players to model and gives some tasks and opurtunities. In short word: player build the world and entire game and gameplay. In such games different servers are quite different in contrast to Linear games where is almost no difference except the average progress on the server.
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration
______\m/_____
LordOfDarkDesire
no
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
old SWG was a great Sandbox game till some idiots at Sony ruined it thinkng they needed it to be more of an arcade game ><
The problem now you get the wow crowd crying out for endgame content...
A true MMORPG doesn't have endgame content. there is no endgame
Jesus Christ, SWG was up shit creek anyway, all Sony did was try to save it and fail miserably.
O_o o_O
NO mmo based on a series of books, game or pretty much anythign that already has a lore can be made a sandbox. A true sand box is a game where all the locations exist, there might be tons, npc faction. But if you want to build your town, state, empire, ship... you can. You should be able to create everything like in real life ( politaical party, organisation, company...) There wouldnt be a main quest, and the notion of class wouldnt exist, pick up an axe, your a soldier, a bow your a bowman. Sure you should be able to learn ball kind of skills. But you should also loose efficiency at the skills you dont use a lot. If a group of players feels like killing your horse raping your family, skinning your pet you've spend countless hours leveling with and making a pair of slippers, burning your house stealing all the stuff you had in your house / chect and then slit your throat.
They should be able to do it if the game is to be a true sandbox. But this will nevr happen. there will always be a liit in the freedom you get.
Honestly less than a tenth of the mmo population would play a true sandbox for a long time.
I'm not a no life that sits in front of his computer all day long, I'm an intern that sits in front of his computer all day long.
From what I've seen of the videos on YouTube, WAR fits the "Sandbox" description-do anything you want. This applies to joining any group, any time for a public quest! What a great idea!!
That's not really true. There are some books which are pretty much about anarchy where you could make a game out of them which is a total sandbox. Mostly these are Mad Max/Road Warrior type books, which have a lore but no real sides.
No, WAR is not sandbox. I would put it in the themepark end of the spectrum for obvious reasons.
Sandbox is basicly giving players a set of tools and let them run with it. The players decide their objectives of the game. Each direction and objective forced on the players by the game would tip the "Sandbox -> Themepark"-scale. A good example of a sandbox game would be Sim City imo.
The tools given will need limitations though, thus creating some sort of challenge. Therefor I don't necessarily agree with the statement that fixed classes and levels automatically bumps a game from being sandbox.
However, people that enjoy sandbox games often wants as much customization as possible for their characters (if present). And seeing it adds to the creative process and the diversity of the game world - I would agree that it's an important factor, just not a gamebreaking one.
So most games are somewhere inbetween, and people have diffrent limits on that scale where they are willing to call a game "sandbox" or not.
SWG (at least at release), although not a true Sandbox game of course, I would put on the "sandbox" side of this scale, mainly because of two big elements. First the player-driven ecomony - with all that came with it, like the resouce gathering system and most items being player made.
The second would be player housing/cities/bases wich gave the players the oppertunity to change the world around them.
This could for example allow for a scenario where my city decides to attack another neighboring rebel city because my city wants to control the weapons market and surrounding resources. This imo, is a good sandbox element. The cities, the weapon market, and the control of the surrounding resources were completely player-driven. As were the objective to siege the rebel city.
So again, WAR is not in the sandbox catergory for me, not even a little. Someone mentioned that the RvR city sieges could be considered a sandbox element, something I can't agree with at all. It's not player-driven at all. Players are thrown an objective to fight to plunder the opposite factions city, then the "event" is reset to allow for a new war from the beginning. There's no sandbox in that at all, infact its the opposite.
But that isn't necessarily a bad thing! I personally enjoy the themepark side of games a little bit more, as I enjoy more story-driven games.
PS. Too tired to spell-check!