And since he (eric) went there, I'll follow up using your quote that he exhibits the typical qualities of the Bush era administration of shaking your finger and proclaiming to the world someone is wrong but not having any idea why.
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
And since he (eric) went there, I'll follow up using your quote that he exhibits the typical qualities of the Bush era administration of shaking your finger and proclaiming to the world someone is wrong but not having any idea why.
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
Guys, just because someone disagrees does not make them an idiot. He's as entitled to prefer a directed experience as others to prefer a sandbox. To each their own. It's one thing to debate the merits of each side, it's another to attack the poster.
...and I'm not just referring to the post I'm responding to. A general us vs. them theme is developing in this thread that need not.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
And since he (eric) went there, I'll follow up using your quote that he exhibits the typical qualities of the Bush era administration of shaking your finger and proclaiming to the world someone is wrong but not having any idea why.
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
Guys, just because someone disagrees does not make them an idiot. He's as entitled to prefer a directed experience as others to prefer a sandbox. To each their own. It's one thing to debate the merits of each side, it's another to attack the poster.
...and I'm not just referring to the post I'm responding to. A general us vs. them theme is developing in this thread that need not.
It's inevitable it would seem. However, my view of MMO games is inclusive. While I do not like themeparks, I don't mind them being made either. Hell, I wouldn't mind a AAA title which would blend the best of both worlds.
If people like playing themeparks, more power to them. This eric guy shows up various sandbox theads, insults everyone, and then tries to explain in as rude a way as possible that we already have every sandbox feature we ever ask for in WoW. It's a ludicrous assertion which is always peppered with personal attacks. I usually try to avoid flaming back but he got on my nerves this time. I just don't understand what makes some people feel so threatened by the prospect of having a few sandbox games around. The market is already flooded with themeparks.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
You guys want more sandbox games on the market? The for the love of god support the ones that are out now. And no Eve isn't the only sandbox or sandboxish mmo on the market to day, do some research and help out. Show these AAA companies that a sanbox game can make decent money.
I support the ones that are in development now. I am following Mortal Online, Earthrise and Fallen Earth very closely. However, I have tried a few of the existing ones mentioned in this thread. It's going to take a certain kind of person to get into games like A Tale in the Desert or Wurm. They are very clunky by today's standards. Desert is zero combat (not a bad thing in my personal opinion) and Wurm's combat is awkward and ugly. I'm keep an eye out for future versions of Desert though. It's been evolving.
I don't mind supporting indy devs, but I still have some standards as to what games I will enjoy and what I won't. I tried them and they didn't do it for me. To each his own.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
And since he (eric) went there, I'll follow up using your quote that he exhibits the typical qualities of the Bush era administration of shaking your finger and proclaiming to the world someone is wrong but not having any idea why.
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
Guys, just because someone disagrees does not make them an idiot. He's as entitled to prefer a directed experience as others to prefer a sandbox. To each their own. It's one thing to debate the merits of each side, it's another to attack the poster.
...and I'm not just referring to the post I'm responding to. A general us vs. them theme is developing in this thread that need not.
It's inevitable it would seem. However, my view of MMO games is inclusive. While I do not like themeparks, I don't mind them being made either. Hell, I wouldn't mind a AAA title which would blend the best of both worlds.
If people like playing themeparks, more power to them. This eric guy shows up various sandbox theads, insults everyone, and then tries to explain in as rude a way as possible that we already have every sandbox feature we ever ask for in WoW. It's a ludicrous assertion which is always peppered with personal attacks. I usually try to avoid flaming back but he got on my nerves this time. I just don't understand what makes some people feel so threatened by the prospect of having a few sandbox games around. The market is already flooded with themeparks.
My choice of game is sandbox and I tend to stick to them although every once in a while I'll try out the newest themepark that comes along.
But I do kinda see where eric is coming from, sometimes sandbox players tend to be very insulting when it comes to discussions about the two types of playstyles. They mock the other with words like dumbed down, hand-holding, care-bear or cracks at the intelligence of the themepark player not being smart enough or having enough skill to make it in a sandbox etc. Now I have not seen to much of that in this thread, however in others it pops up more often then not. It is really quite silly to think one type of game is better then the other, they are just different.
Agree with what you said about an AAA title drawing a blend of both worlds, hopefully they will not make us wait to long.
It's inevitable it would seem. However, my view of MMO games is inclusive. While I do not like themeparks, I don't mind them being made either. Hell, I wouldn't mind a AAA title which would blend the best of both worlds. If people like playing themeparks, more power to them. This eric guy shows up various sandbox theads, insults everyone, and then tries to explain in as rude a way as possible that we already have every sandbox feature we ever ask for in WoW. It's a ludicrous assertion which is always peppered with personal attacks. I usually try to avoid flaming back but he got on my nerves this time. I just don't understand what makes some people feel so threatened by the prospect of having a few sandbox games around. The market is already flooded with themeparks.
"Insults everyone"? Personal attacks peppered throughout?
Please link me my personal attacks, I must have been having a multiple personality disorder attack when I wrote them and then deleted them because I can't see them..
The only thing I've written in this thread that might be construed as an "insult" is my postulation that Dana Massey might think the Obama healthplan might work...
Some might call me cynical about a sandbox ever being popular again. Some might call me cynical about MMO's in general being as fun as they once were. I prefer the term "realist". Having seen all types of MMO's come out and fail I don't hold out much hope in any new ones (though I hope Bioware can do it right with the SW license). The game only has to be FUN for me to play it, be it sandbox or themepark. I just don't see UO has this holy grail of game design. The guy who designed it sure doesn't anymore.
I suppose my years of MUDing prior to UO et al have even given me a more jaded view than most players here. And all the griefing and macroing in UO left a very bad taste in my mouth (and in SW:G as well, at least the macroing part).
BTW, I do play Eve, which is semi-sandbox, but its very rigidly controlled, so while there's "freedom", it's very limited freedom, which is basically what I have in any themepark MMO out there now. So I fail to see much difference outside of no visible levels being the norm in "sandbox" games (they're there of course).
You guys want more sandbox games on the market? The for the love of god support the ones that are out now. And no Eve isn't the only sandbox or sandboxish mmo on the market to day, do some research and help out. Show these AAA companies that a sanbox game can make decent money.
I support the ones that are in development now. I am following Mortal Online, Earthrise and Fallen Earth very closely. However, I have tried a few of the existing ones mentioned in this thread. It's going to take a certain kind of person to get into games like A Tale in the Desert or Wurm. They are very clunky by today's standards. Desert is zero combat (not a bad thing in my personal opinion) and Wurm's combat is awkward and ugly. I'm keep an eye out for future versions of Desert though. It's been evolving.
I don't mind supporting indy devs, but I still have some standards as to what games I will enjoy and what I won't. I tried them and they didn't do it for me. To each his own.
Yeah Games like Tale of the Desert and Wurm are really niche indy products.
It's not easy to find the sandbox games in this mess of themeparks. Sometimes I have to look toward hybrids (Ones with skill systems under the hood like AO).
I myself support Eve online and Ryzom. Ryzom is actually pretty awesome we just need more players so the pvp could take off.
It supports, FvF capturable outpost pvp, FFA pvp zones, Dedicated pvp enabled arenas and a flagging system, No pvp looting but gear does decay so crafters are kept in business. I know its a bit limiting pvp wise for a sandbox but its the one game that gives players a choice. You can also get into Player run events, Boss hunts and Large Raid areas and encounters.
It's not UO but it gives more freedom than most mmos on the market. I'm sure if you look around you will find something you enjoy.
You know I am a little sick of these editorials that never mention one of the original three MMOs and probably the best sandbox world ever created, Asheron's Call.
Why is it the ultimate sandbox? Because the devs, before they were Turbine, created their own lore and didn't use the traditional fantasy mumbo-jumbo. Asheron's Call is an open-ended game and has always been. It was one of the big three MMOs--Everquest, UO, Asheron's Call. Why is it never mentioned in these columns? It's really aggravating that it gets no credit from these supposed "columnists."
Please start including Asheron's Call in these editorials, it has earned that right in gaming history.
Asheron's Call was the first online game I played. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more if I could have compared it with others I had played. As it was, the online gaming was so new to me that I had a tough time with it.
You know I am a little sick of these editorials that never mention one of the original three MMOs and probably the best sandbox world ever created, Asheron's Call.
Why is it the ultimate sandbox? Because the devs, before they were Turbine, created their own lore and didn't use the traditional fantasy mumbo-jumbo. Asheron's Call is an open-ended game and has always been. It was one of the big three MMOs--Everquest, UO, Asheron's Call. Why is it never mentioned in these columns? It's really aggravating that it gets no credit from these supposed "columnists."
Please start including Asheron's Call in these editorials, it has earned that right in gaming history.
I had a lot of fun in Asherons Call. The only thing that was annoying was the corpse runs, but that was pretty standard for the time. Its too bad that Turbine didn't apply the lessons they learned to Asherons Call 2. They messed that game up so badly that they ended up closing it. After selling people an expansion of course.
I know most of us are assuming Blizz next mmo in development will be a linear theme park design. I however think its at least possible that Blizz might surprise us and go sandbox.
a theme park game would compete with wow. why siphon off players from one mmo to another when you can bring in new players with a different design.
can you imagine the hype around here if Blizz announced their next MMO was sandbox and using some awesome classic rpg licence like Fallout or Master of Orion
UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
So how would you define 'freedom' in a game - or are you arguing there's really no such thing?
As an aside, the ethos of so relatively little 'direction how to play' helped build a lot of the 'community' of UO, which in turn led to a lot of it's longevity. It wasn't let loose as a game with a defined 'solution', but more a 'what would happen if we gave people this stuff and left them to play with it' experiment. A mixture of the relative complexity of the game (there wasn't anything like it around to compare it with, really), and the sheer lack of knowledge about the world and how things worked, meant you HAD to talk to people, watch how things happened, and do all the 'community building' stuff if you wanted to figure out how the game worked. Even PvPers spent time learning the game, and the maps, and the interaction between spells, environment, mobs...
That led to superb discussion forums, which again reinforce 'community', and a genuine sense of exploration and discovery when you played. That faded with knowledge, experience, and changes to the game world, but the openness of the character system and the friends/guilds/teams built up initially kept involvement in the game pretty high.
What's that got to do with 'sandbox'? A real 'sandbox' doesn't have a clear end-game, be it boss dungeons, special 'must have' loot, elite areas and such that form the only visible, pushed by the designers, long-term aim of the game. All should be there in every game, to some extent - but in many current game designs, they are the only longer term aim presented to the player, and people mostly follow the path indicated and stick to the designated route rather than exploring the wilderness - or sheep-like follow the flock, if you want a crueller analogy -. and you can't really fault anyone for it, since they enjoy it.
By default though, if you have an 'end game' in your design document or underlying philosophy, you can't build a sandbox - but without it, you have a hell of a time getting any of the 'suits' in the business understanding what you are making, and probably won't get the financial backing to make the game. Instead of keeping players (or as they are more usually referred to nowadays, 'subscribers') by giving them an emotional investment in a freeform game, you are bound to try keep them by new expansions, extra classes, bigger dungeons, and more shiny 'stuff', and you make your money because people don't want to feel left behind without the new toys... again, the finance guys love this model because they can see the revenue rolling in.
Nowadays I doubt you can recreate that bigger atmosphere of 'exploration and wonder' because within a day of game release (if not before, from Beta testing), there are pages and pages of info, detailed maps, data, templates, analysis of item/skill/level interactions, and everything else, out there on the web or in expensive guidebooks in your local game store (forming part of the money-making machine for the game company) - but good, complex and interesting as they are, and I think the devotion that goes into building them is admirable, they reinforce the concept of 'end-game' as it is being offered by the developers and designers. Combine that with the basic similarity of interface, class/character role, movement systems, hotbars and so on, and in a very short time the game stops feeling 'new', and for a lot of players becomes more 'habit' than 'adventure'. Sure there's the 'you don't have to read it approach, but in all honesty how small a minority of us take that choice?
You guys want more sandbox games on the market? The for the love of god support the ones that are out now. And no Eve isn't the only sandbox or sandboxish mmo on the market to day, do some research and help out. Show these AAA companies that a sanbox game can make decent money.
I thought that's why I am enjoying this unfolding wishes and wants, aside from the couple of trolls posting, there's nothing on the market for me.
What are the choices, EvE and waste three years grinding a system to be able to do X and from afar. Maybe it's the cartoony WoW and I thought I'd never laugh at a cartoon as comical.
Maybe I've been spoilt by the older style games and watched these evolve from the monochrome vector days into what is now only polished pixels zooming around the screen in what is short living, "Oh that looks cool".
Or is it because I've done alot of modding, game content creation, or even blueprinting tabletop games. Even though it wasn't a true MMO in the current scheme of thinking, NWN (Neverwinter Nights 1) was the most fun because we could create what we wanted and enjoy the experience together with a social network of people. Well that was until the programmer I was working alongside got snatched up by Bioware, that dashed our NWN2 plans. But hey, it's for the better considering what they did with NWN2 anyway.
I think the main issue is that you have too many MMO's with you can create 10 characters, never die just wait upto 30 secs for a respawn, play on both sides of the fence, be social in ganking beat-fests, have and endgame where you all look at each other and say, "ENDGAME, next!" I think that covers alot of my resentment of the MMO community out there playing, and I just ain't interested in THAT style of play. Hell I didn't care about the cost of Darkfall, but I've learned a few things over the years and when you see something becoming sour, run faster than you can in seeing the throng headed your way for a ganking.
I don't hold UO as my pinacle of MMO's as I sadly never had the chance to play due to working in the desert and couldn't imagine hacking the local phone box (local = 50 km away btw) just to play a game. So instead I headed for the development of games, or at worst single play. That said, the socialism you get from a good group without having limits on your gaming is what I miss the most. If that fits sandbox or not, who cares.
What we really need is a game that balances the best of each element and then expands the players perspective on how they can interact with that world, rather than a list of broken promises by dangling goldfarmer carrots in front of us. I do not care for spiffy gfx, exclusive pay as you go BS, I don't even really give a damn who makes it.
All I know is that if you make it, I'll have a look, if I like it and have freedom to be creative with my avatar then I'll stick around and build a group of friends who wish to do more than just have constant war. Ask yourself, would Hitler (of the H word) enjoy the gank fests or would he be into something other than killing?
no truer words have been spoken in some time. I have to congratulate Dana, it was a great read and I 100% agree what he posted., Here is to hoping that the MMO gods read it and grant our wishes
(although I have to say that Eve online comes close to what he has been talking about, closer than anything else I have experianced since UO)
I know most of us are assuming Blizz next mmo in development will be a linear theme park design. I however think its at least possible that Blizz might surprise us and go sandbox. a theme park game would compete with wow. why siphon off players from one mmo to another when you can bring in new players with a different design. can you imagine the hype around here if Blizz announced their next MMO was sandbox and using some awesome classic rpg licence like Fallout or Master of Orion
If Blizz could make one and allow it to survive as a niche game, sure. I'd love to see it. But I honestly feel that Blizz doesn't have the balls to make a game that won't appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a huge market, but they have built their empire on the EQ / DAOC models, which were linear and anything but sandbox. I just don't feel their millions of subscribers will fall into a sandbox and go, "yay, 2 newbs can kill my vet warrior, oh and they were scholars too."
I know most of us are assuming Blizz next mmo in development will be a linear theme park design. I however think its at least possible that Blizz might surprise us and go sandbox. a theme park game would compete with wow. why siphon off players from one mmo to another when you can bring in new players with a different design. can you imagine the hype around here if Blizz announced their next MMO was sandbox and using some awesome classic rpg licence like Fallout or Master of Orion
If Blizz could make one and allow it to survive as a niche game, sure. I'd love to see it. But I honestly feel that Blizz doesn't have the balls to make a game that won't appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a huge market, but they have built their empire on the EQ / DAOC models, which were linear and anything but sandbox. I just don't feel their millions of subscribers will fall into a sandbox and go, "yay, 2 newbs can kill my vet warrior, oh and they were scholars too."
Blizzard is all about making the most money. Thats to be found in the mass markets. Thus, thats what their focus is. Niche markets seldom attract the attention of major investors. All those investors care about is their return on investment. Intone the mystic phrase; "Its just like World of Warcraft" and watch them go all starry eyed, and start throwing truck loads of money at you.
AAA class games are NOT cheap. They typically cost many millions of dollars(of other peoples money). Thus the suits involved are VERY wary of taking risks. Theme park games like WoW have demonstrated a substantial return on investment. Sand box games tend to be niche. Until that perception can be altered, I doubt we are going to see much progress.
As usual, Dana Massey is wrong on so many things that I wonder if he also believes that the Obama healthcare plan is going to be a glowing success story. He keeps confusing "freedom" with "lack of direction". Just because UO lacked any "end game" content and players had to resort to PKing to do something new doesn't mean it's the holy grail of gaming. And he paints with far too wide a brush the point about levels mattering in EQ1 to mean that every game with levels has to use exponential power curves. I've played plenty of MUD's that didn't. And they weren't "sandbox"... They were far more like EQ1 than UO. And his point about a writer in UO actually being a WRITER in real life... well hell, take out the "RPG" bit from the name why don't ya. Perhaps SOME PEOPLE might want to PLAY a ROLE where they have skills in GAME where they don't in REAL LIFE (you know, writing... poetry... picking berries.... SWORDPLAY....MAGIC USING...)... And most of his points are already done in the level based games anyways. Berry picking? WoW has that. Fishing? Got that too. And heck, you can't even (legally) MACRO those abilities like everyone did in UO...
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this post. What UO had to me was in deed freedom and the reason I played. Instead of playing a story written by the devs I played a story of my own creation. I logged in each day and decided exactly what I was going to do. I didn't have to go run up to some NPC and ask what do you want me to do today. I didn't have to pick some predetermined class, I could make my chars any thing I wanted within reason. I could be a Black Smith that used 2 handed mace weapons, I could be a Bard with Magic, I could be a partial Bard warrior, I could be a Tamer with Archery, I could be just about anything I could think of. I could have a house just about anywhere I wanted. I could decorate that house in just about any way I wanted. I could sit in my house and play a game of chess or Backgamon with friends if I didn't feel like going out and adventuring if I wanted. I could have a vendor at my house that would sale my wares for me. I could grow plants on my roof. I could be a Treasure hunter looking for buried treasure. I could.............. well you get the idea.
Sandbox MMORPG's are for the creative mind, and lets face it your average person isn't very creative and needs that guide to tell them what to do and how to have fun and that is why we haven't really had many Sandbox MMORPG's. Where we see freedom those that lack that creative gene see lack of direction. It's just a different mindset and mentality. Sandbox's are only appealing to those that are a bit creative and can think for themselves. Which means that Sanbox's are always going to be a niche type thing because those that can't think for themselves or lack that creative gene far out number us.
I know most of us are assuming Blizz next mmo in development will be a linear theme park design. I however think its at least possible that Blizz might surprise us and go sandbox. a theme park game would compete with wow. why siphon off players from one mmo to another when you can bring in new players with a different design. can you imagine the hype around here if Blizz announced their next MMO was sandbox and using some awesome classic rpg licence like Fallout or Master of Orion
If Blizz could make one and allow it to survive as a niche game, sure. I'd love to see it. But I honestly feel that Blizz doesn't have the balls to make a game that won't appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a huge market, but they have built their empire on the EQ / DAOC models, which were linear and anything but sandbox. I just don't feel their millions of subscribers will fall into a sandbox and go, "yay, 2 newbs can kill my vet warrior, oh and they were scholars too."
Blizzard is all about making the most money. Thats to be found in the mass markets. Thus, thats what their focus is. Niche markets seldom attract the attention of major investors. All those investors care about is their return on investment. Intone the mystic phrase; "Its just like World of Warcraft" and watch them go all starry eyed, and start throwing truck loads of money at you.
AAA class games are NOT cheap. They typically cost many millions of dollars(of other peoples money). Thus the suits involved are VERY wary of taking risks. Theme park games like WoW have demonstrated a substantial return on investment. Sand box games tend to be niche. Until that perception can be altered, I doubt we are going to see much progress.
Blizzard probably has the money to finance their own projects by now. While they may not build a full sandbox, they have the resources to build a game that brings the best of both worlds together. I think they are going to have to raise the bar on this next game, and to do that they will have to take a step back from the theme park design of WoW and see what else they can add. The only place they have to go is toward a more open and free game design. I would be surprised if the next game is just another WoW clone with nicer graphics and new setting/lore. The end game model is already boring everyone to death, and once people finally leave WoW, they often seem to be disgusted to find out that the other AAA titles play very similarly.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this post. What UO had to me was in deed freedom and the reason I played. Instead of playing a story written by the devs I played a story of my own creation. I logged in each day and decided exactly what I was going to do. I didn't have to go run up to some NPC and ask what do you want me to do today. I didn't have to pick some predetermined class, I could make my chars any thing I wanted within reason. I could be a Black Smith that used 2 handed mace weapons, I could be a Bard with Magic, I could be a partial Bard warrior, I could be a Tamer with Archery, I could be just about anything I could think of. I could have a house just about anywhere I wanted. I could decorate that house in just about any way I wanted. I could sit in my house and play a game of chess or Backgamon with friends if I didn't feel like going out and adventuring if I wanted. I could have a vendor at my house that would sale my wares for me. I could grow plants on my roof. I could be a Treasure hunter looking for buried treasure. I could.............. well you get the idea. Sandbox MMORPG's are for the creative mind, and lets face it your average person isn't very creative and needs that guide to tell them what to do and how to have fun and that is why we haven't really had many Sandbox MMORPG's. Where we see freedom those that lack that creative gene see lack of direction. It's just a different mindset and mentality. Sandbox's are only appealing to those that are a bit creative and can think for themselves. Which means that Sanbox's are always going to be a niche type thing because those that can't think for themselves or lack that creative gene far out number us.
Sandbox ain't free whack-a-mole... It's a world, where you can be or do anything, and the world doesnt revolve around combat, but the people inhabiting that world, be it the fisherman, the poet, the ministrel the uncle Ben farmer and yes the triggerhappy soldier/goon.
the problem is MMO players haveen gotten a lot more...well
They have become bigger jerks.
Back in UO i was stalked by PKers while i was just trying to mape the world and cut lumber. And that was the good old days. In WoW (which isnt nearly as sand box ) you have people camping corses and hiding spies cross faction.
Now imagine that in full sandbox?
*shudder*
That's a BIG problem, how to do sandbox without feeding the world to the trolls.
Simply can't be done, without some limitations on PvP. Every system I've seen that doesn't use HARD CODED(server side) limits on who can attack who, has ended up being a gankfest. Its simply the nature of the Beast. Griefers and gankers are WAY too "creative" in finding ways around any system thats not hard coded. They then eventually drive off the very type of people that a real sand box MUST have to evolve into a living breathing world.
you know there would be a way to limit the pking, give a player a limited number of unflagged kills per week, once they reach that limit they start losing how much weight they can carry and once they are down to 0 and still keep killing unflagged start taking away from their stats. A system like that would let a limited amount of unflagged killing for those who think killing an unarmed crafter as fun. but also makes it so that crafter can one punch kill those who thiink they are leet for being able to kill non combat toons.
Sandbox ain't free whack-a-mole... It's a world, where you can be or do anything, and the world doesnt revolve around combat, but the people inhabiting that world, be it the fisherman, the poet, the ministrel the uncle Ben farmer and yes the triggerhappy soldier/goon.
the problem is MMO players haveen gotten a lot more...well
They have become bigger jerks.
Back in UO i was stalked by PKers while i was just trying to mape the world and cut lumber. And that was the good old days. In WoW (which isnt nearly as sand box ) you have people camping corses and hiding spies cross faction.
Now imagine that in full sandbox?
*shudder*
That's a BIG problem, how to do sandbox without feeding the world to the trolls.
Simply can't be done, without some limitations on PvP. Every system I've seen that doesn't use HARD CODED(server side) limits on who can attack who, has ended up being a gankfest. Its simply the nature of the Beast. Griefers and gankers are WAY too "creative" in finding ways around any system thats not hard coded. They then eventually drive off the very type of people that a real sand box MUST have to evolve into a living breathing world.
you know there would be a way to limit the pking, give a player a limited number of unflagged kills per week, once they reach that limit they start losing how much weight they can carry and once they are down to 0 and still keep killing unflagged start taking away from their stats. A system like that would let a limited amount of unflagged killing for those who think killing an unarmed crafter as fun. but also makes it so that crafter can one punch kill those who thiink they are leet for being able to kill non combat toons.
Stat loss systems have been tried...and tried. Gankers/griefers always find some way around it. If you have a limited number of kills, they rotate alts. If its stat loss, they use up one character and switch to another. These people will go to ANY extent to ruin other peoples fun. Not to mention, how many ganks does it take before a non combat character(crafter, explorer, story teller) gets tired of it and finds another game? I've seen some very creative anti gank systems over the years. They always fail to keep ganking under control. If its at all possible, gankers/griefers will find a way.
Comments
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/05/04/how-david-beats-goliath-a-lesson-in-game-design/
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/05/04/how-david-beats-goliath-a-lesson-in-game-design/
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
Guys, just because someone disagrees does not make them an idiot. He's as entitled to prefer a directed experience as others to prefer a sandbox. To each their own. It's one thing to debate the merits of each side, it's another to attack the poster.
...and I'm not just referring to the post I'm responding to. A general us vs. them theme is developing in this thread that need not.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Great article Dana, and you reflect my sentiments exactly. I just wish a AAA MMO company would get the memo.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/05/04/how-david-beats-goliath-a-lesson-in-game-design/
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
Guys, just because someone disagrees does not make them an idiot. He's as entitled to prefer a directed experience as others to prefer a sandbox. To each their own. It's one thing to debate the merits of each side, it's another to attack the poster.
...and I'm not just referring to the post I'm responding to. A general us vs. them theme is developing in this thread that need not.
It's inevitable it would seem. However, my view of MMO games is inclusive. While I do not like themeparks, I don't mind them being made either. Hell, I wouldn't mind a AAA title which would blend the best of both worlds.
If people like playing themeparks, more power to them. This eric guy shows up various sandbox theads, insults everyone, and then tries to explain in as rude a way as possible that we already have every sandbox feature we ever ask for in WoW. It's a ludicrous assertion which is always peppered with personal attacks. I usually try to avoid flaming back but he got on my nerves this time. I just don't understand what makes some people feel so threatened by the prospect of having a few sandbox games around. The market is already flooded with themeparks.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
You guys want more sandbox games on the market? The for the love of god support the ones that are out now.
And no Eve isn't the only sandbox or sandboxish mmo on the market to day, do some research and help out.
Show these AAA companies that a sanbox game can make decent money.
Playing: EvE, Ryzom
I support the ones that are in development now. I am following Mortal Online, Earthrise and Fallen Earth very closely. However, I have tried a few of the existing ones mentioned in this thread. It's going to take a certain kind of person to get into games like A Tale in the Desert or Wurm. They are very clunky by today's standards. Desert is zero combat (not a bad thing in my personal opinion) and Wurm's combat is awkward and ugly. I'm keep an eye out for future versions of Desert though. It's been evolving.
I don't mind supporting indy devs, but I still have some standards as to what games I will enjoy and what I won't. I tried them and they didn't do it for me. To each his own.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Uh... whatever.
I find using UO as a positive example of anything to be laughable. It was a design *failure*, not a success. It had 2 things going for it when it released: It was Ultima, and it had no real competition (outside of the barely heard of Meridian 59).
The "open pvp" many people tout as being so wonderful is actually the cause of its demise. Reading Raph's blogs about the subject easily show this to be true, even among the die hard believers there. And Trammel came too late, after half of the playerbase had already left for something more "structured" (EQ1) since there was now competition.
Here's a quote from one of the comments to one of his recent blog posts:
"Trammel also created issues with the social game fabric of UO though, so in effect, while it solved the pk problem, it did it by sacrificing other genuinely good parts of the game as well. It was the right decision, but it was lamentable that that was the case.
And that’s kinda the problem. The solution was to invalidate the situation, not to actually solve it. And Trammel caused a number of issues in the long term as well, both in terms of community building an in terms of economy. UO actually needed PKs in some number in order to function the way it was designed, they just needed to be on the losing side, not the constantly winning side.
I’m also not sure that UO would have done better had there been a Trammel earlier on. UO’s pve game has always been horrible shallow, and the community ties wouldn’t have developed in the same way had Trammel been there from the start. I think they would’ve genuinely been weaker, and I think that would’ve caused it to spiral downwards much sooner. In order for sandbox games to have been bigger in the market place they would’ve needed to be more compelling on more levels than just not having to worry about getting ganked when you’re walking outside the guard zone. "
http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/05/04/how-david-beats-goliath-a-lesson-in-game-design/
Every single example of "Freedom" listed for UO I've seen duplicated many times in the level based games. UO lacked direction. It didn't create "freedom". You could "do what you wanted" (within the rules of the game, aka, you couldn't drill a hole to the center of the planet, nor cause everyone else to vanish) because that's all there was to do. People grouped in dungeons.... wow, they do that in every game... they PvP'd.. that's extremely common as well. They ground skills (Sounds like leveling to me!).... happens in almost every MMORPG...
Sure, I can't "Forget" how to pick herbs in WoW to learn how to mine like you could in UO, but I actually think that's a GOOD thing.
You need to talk to your doctor about getting on meds. You are so much of a fanboy, and so cynical about any other gaming option, that your posts read like a study in depression and anxiety.
Everyone knows that Trammel was a mess, and most people I have seen comment about the good old days refer to pre-Trammel UO. Anyway, I know you would like us all to follow you back to WoW, or whatever Themepark you are fanboying this week, but we just aren't going to do it. Believe it or not, some people don't like the same things as you, and it's ok. You don't have to feel upset or inadequate because of it. You are welcome to your opinion, and your style of game. If someone builds a few sandboxes, you won't have to play them if you don't want to.
Guys, just because someone disagrees does not make them an idiot. He's as entitled to prefer a directed experience as others to prefer a sandbox. To each their own. It's one thing to debate the merits of each side, it's another to attack the poster.
...and I'm not just referring to the post I'm responding to. A general us vs. them theme is developing in this thread that need not.
It's inevitable it would seem. However, my view of MMO games is inclusive. While I do not like themeparks, I don't mind them being made either. Hell, I wouldn't mind a AAA title which would blend the best of both worlds.
If people like playing themeparks, more power to them. This eric guy shows up various sandbox theads, insults everyone, and then tries to explain in as rude a way as possible that we already have every sandbox feature we ever ask for in WoW. It's a ludicrous assertion which is always peppered with personal attacks. I usually try to avoid flaming back but he got on my nerves this time. I just don't understand what makes some people feel so threatened by the prospect of having a few sandbox games around. The market is already flooded with themeparks.
My choice of game is sandbox and I tend to stick to them although every once in a while I'll try out the newest themepark that comes along.
But I do kinda see where eric is coming from, sometimes sandbox players tend to be very insulting when it comes to discussions about the two types of playstyles. They mock the other with words like dumbed down, hand-holding, care-bear or cracks at the intelligence of the themepark player not being smart enough or having enough skill to make it in a sandbox etc. Now I have not seen to much of that in this thread, however in others it pops up more often then not. It is really quite silly to think one type of game is better then the other, they are just different.
Agree with what you said about an AAA title drawing a blend of both worlds, hopefully they will not make us wait to long.
"Insults everyone"? Personal attacks peppered throughout?
Please link me my personal attacks, I must have been having a multiple personality disorder attack when I wrote them and then deleted them because I can't see them..
The only thing I've written in this thread that might be construed as an "insult" is my postulation that Dana Massey might think the Obama healthplan might work...
Some might call me cynical about a sandbox ever being popular again. Some might call me cynical about MMO's in general being as fun as they once were. I prefer the term "realist". Having seen all types of MMO's come out and fail I don't hold out much hope in any new ones (though I hope Bioware can do it right with the SW license). The game only has to be FUN for me to play it, be it sandbox or themepark. I just don't see UO has this holy grail of game design. The guy who designed it sure doesn't anymore.
I suppose my years of MUDing prior to UO et al have even given me a more jaded view than most players here. And all the griefing and macroing in UO left a very bad taste in my mouth (and in SW:G as well, at least the macroing part).
BTW, I do play Eve, which is semi-sandbox, but its very rigidly controlled, so while there's "freedom", it's very limited freedom, which is basically what I have in any themepark MMO out there now. So I fail to see much difference outside of no visible levels being the norm in "sandbox" games (they're there of course).
I support the ones that are in development now. I am following Mortal Online, Earthrise and Fallen Earth very closely. However, I have tried a few of the existing ones mentioned in this thread. It's going to take a certain kind of person to get into games like A Tale in the Desert or Wurm. They are very clunky by today's standards. Desert is zero combat (not a bad thing in my personal opinion) and Wurm's combat is awkward and ugly. I'm keep an eye out for future versions of Desert though. It's been evolving.
I don't mind supporting indy devs, but I still have some standards as to what games I will enjoy and what I won't. I tried them and they didn't do it for me. To each his own.
Yeah Games like Tale of the Desert and Wurm are really niche indy products.
It's not easy to find the sandbox games in this mess of themeparks. Sometimes I have to look toward hybrids (Ones with skill systems under the hood like AO).
I myself support Eve online and Ryzom. Ryzom is actually pretty awesome we just need more players so the pvp could take off.
It supports, FvF capturable outpost pvp, FFA pvp zones, Dedicated pvp enabled arenas and a flagging system, No pvp looting but gear does decay so crafters are kept in business. I know its a bit limiting pvp wise for a sandbox but its the one game that gives players a choice. You can also get into Player run events, Boss hunts and Large Raid areas and encounters.
It's not UO but it gives more freedom than most mmos on the market. I'm sure if you look around you will find something you enjoy.
Playing: EvE, Ryzom
I didn't play UO, but I played the original SWG. Best sandbox I've played.
It was a lot of fun until the NGE ruined it. That has to be one of the WORST mistakes I've seen in a long time.
You know I am a little sick of these editorials that never mention one of the original three MMOs and probably the best sandbox world ever created, Asheron's Call.
Why is it the ultimate sandbox? Because the devs, before they were Turbine, created their own lore and didn't use the traditional fantasy mumbo-jumbo. Asheron's Call is an open-ended game and has always been. It was one of the big three MMOs--Everquest, UO, Asheron's Call. Why is it never mentioned in these columns? It's really aggravating that it gets no credit from these supposed "columnists."
Please start including Asheron's Call in these editorials, it has earned that right in gaming history.
Asheron's Call was the first online game I played. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more if I could have compared it with others I had played. As it was, the online gaming was so new to me that I had a tough time with it.
I had a lot of fun in Asherons Call. The only thing that was annoying was the corpse runs, but that was pretty standard for the time. Its too bad that Turbine didn't apply the lessons they learned to Asherons Call 2. They messed that game up so badly that they ended up closing it. After selling people an expansion of course.
I know most of us are assuming Blizz next mmo in development will be a linear theme park design. I however think its at least possible that Blizz might surprise us and go sandbox.
a theme park game would compete with wow. why siphon off players from one mmo to another when you can bring in new players with a different design.
can you imagine the hype around here if Blizz announced their next MMO was sandbox and using some awesome classic rpg licence like Fallout or Master of Orion
So how would you define 'freedom' in a game - or are you arguing there's really no such thing?
As an aside, the ethos of so relatively little 'direction how to play' helped build a lot of the 'community' of UO, which in turn led to a lot of it's longevity. It wasn't let loose as a game with a defined 'solution', but more a 'what would happen if we gave people this stuff and left them to play with it' experiment. A mixture of the relative complexity of the game (there wasn't anything like it around to compare it with, really), and the sheer lack of knowledge about the world and how things worked, meant you HAD to talk to people, watch how things happened, and do all the 'community building' stuff if you wanted to figure out how the game worked. Even PvPers spent time learning the game, and the maps, and the interaction between spells, environment, mobs...
That led to superb discussion forums, which again reinforce 'community', and a genuine sense of exploration and discovery when you played. That faded with knowledge, experience, and changes to the game world, but the openness of the character system and the friends/guilds/teams built up initially kept involvement in the game pretty high.
What's that got to do with 'sandbox'? A real 'sandbox' doesn't have a clear end-game, be it boss dungeons, special 'must have' loot, elite areas and such that form the only visible, pushed by the designers, long-term aim of the game. All should be there in every game, to some extent - but in many current game designs, they are the only longer term aim presented to the player, and people mostly follow the path indicated and stick to the designated route rather than exploring the wilderness - or sheep-like follow the flock, if you want a crueller analogy -. and you can't really fault anyone for it, since they enjoy it.
By default though, if you have an 'end game' in your design document or underlying philosophy, you can't build a sandbox - but without it, you have a hell of a time getting any of the 'suits' in the business understanding what you are making, and probably won't get the financial backing to make the game. Instead of keeping players (or as they are more usually referred to nowadays, 'subscribers') by giving them an emotional investment in a freeform game, you are bound to try keep them by new expansions, extra classes, bigger dungeons, and more shiny 'stuff', and you make your money because people don't want to feel left behind without the new toys... again, the finance guys love this model because they can see the revenue rolling in.
Nowadays I doubt you can recreate that bigger atmosphere of 'exploration and wonder' because within a day of game release (if not before, from Beta testing), there are pages and pages of info, detailed maps, data, templates, analysis of item/skill/level interactions, and everything else, out there on the web or in expensive guidebooks in your local game store (forming part of the money-making machine for the game company) - but good, complex and interesting as they are, and I think the devotion that goes into building them is admirable, they reinforce the concept of 'end-game' as it is being offered by the developers and designers. Combine that with the basic similarity of interface, class/character role, movement systems, hotbars and so on, and in a very short time the game stops feeling 'new', and for a lot of players becomes more 'habit' than 'adventure'. Sure there's the 'you don't have to read it approach, but in all honesty how small a minority of us take that choice?
I thought that's why I am enjoying this unfolding wishes and wants, aside from the couple of trolls posting, there's nothing on the market for me.
What are the choices, EvE and waste three years grinding a system to be able to do X and from afar. Maybe it's the cartoony WoW and I thought I'd never laugh at a cartoon as comical.
Maybe I've been spoilt by the older style games and watched these evolve from the monochrome vector days into what is now only polished pixels zooming around the screen in what is short living, "Oh that looks cool".
Or is it because I've done alot of modding, game content creation, or even blueprinting tabletop games. Even though it wasn't a true MMO in the current scheme of thinking, NWN (Neverwinter Nights 1) was the most fun because we could create what we wanted and enjoy the experience together with a social network of people. Well that was until the programmer I was working alongside got snatched up by Bioware, that dashed our NWN2 plans. But hey, it's for the better considering what they did with NWN2 anyway.
I think the main issue is that you have too many MMO's with you can create 10 characters, never die just wait upto 30 secs for a respawn, play on both sides of the fence, be social in ganking beat-fests, have and endgame where you all look at each other and say, "ENDGAME, next!" I think that covers alot of my resentment of the MMO community out there playing, and I just ain't interested in THAT style of play. Hell I didn't care about the cost of Darkfall, but I've learned a few things over the years and when you see something becoming sour, run faster than you can in seeing the throng headed your way for a ganking.
I don't hold UO as my pinacle of MMO's as I sadly never had the chance to play due to working in the desert and couldn't imagine hacking the local phone box (local = 50 km away btw) just to play a game. So instead I headed for the development of games, or at worst single play. That said, the socialism you get from a good group without having limits on your gaming is what I miss the most. If that fits sandbox or not, who cares.
What we really need is a game that balances the best of each element and then expands the players perspective on how they can interact with that world, rather than a list of broken promises by dangling goldfarmer carrots in front of us. I do not care for spiffy gfx, exclusive pay as you go BS, I don't even really give a damn who makes it.
All I know is that if you make it, I'll have a look, if I like it and have freedom to be creative with my avatar then I'll stick around and build a group of friends who wish to do more than just have constant war. Ask yourself, would Hitler (of the H word) enjoy the gank fests or would he be into something other than killing?
no truer words have been spoken in some time. I have to congratulate Dana, it was a great read and I 100% agree what he posted., Here is to hoping that the MMO gods read it and grant our wishes
(although I have to say that Eve online comes close to what he has been talking about, closer than anything else I have experianced since UO)
If Blizz could make one and allow it to survive as a niche game, sure. I'd love to see it. But I honestly feel that Blizz doesn't have the balls to make a game that won't appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a huge market, but they have built their empire on the EQ / DAOC models, which were linear and anything but sandbox. I just don't feel their millions of subscribers will fall into a sandbox and go, "yay, 2 newbs can kill my vet warrior, oh and they were scholars too."
If Blizz could make one and allow it to survive as a niche game, sure. I'd love to see it. But I honestly feel that Blizz doesn't have the balls to make a game that won't appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a huge market, but they have built their empire on the EQ / DAOC models, which were linear and anything but sandbox. I just don't feel their millions of subscribers will fall into a sandbox and go, "yay, 2 newbs can kill my vet warrior, oh and they were scholars too."
Blizzard is all about making the most money. Thats to be found in the mass markets. Thus, thats what their focus is. Niche markets seldom attract the attention of major investors. All those investors care about is their return on investment. Intone the mystic phrase; "Its just like World of Warcraft" and watch them go all starry eyed, and start throwing truck loads of money at you.
AAA class games are NOT cheap. They typically cost many millions of dollars(of other peoples money). Thus the suits involved are VERY wary of taking risks. Theme park games like WoW have demonstrated a substantial return on investment. Sand box games tend to be niche. Until that perception can be altered, I doubt we are going to see much progress.
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this post. What UO had to me was in deed freedom and the reason I played. Instead of playing a story written by the devs I played a story of my own creation. I logged in each day and decided exactly what I was going to do. I didn't have to go run up to some NPC and ask what do you want me to do today. I didn't have to pick some predetermined class, I could make my chars any thing I wanted within reason. I could be a Black Smith that used 2 handed mace weapons, I could be a Bard with Magic, I could be a partial Bard warrior, I could be a Tamer with Archery, I could be just about anything I could think of. I could have a house just about anywhere I wanted. I could decorate that house in just about any way I wanted. I could sit in my house and play a game of chess or Backgamon with friends if I didn't feel like going out and adventuring if I wanted. I could have a vendor at my house that would sale my wares for me. I could grow plants on my roof. I could be a Treasure hunter looking for buried treasure. I could.............. well you get the idea.
Sandbox MMORPG's are for the creative mind, and lets face it your average person isn't very creative and needs that guide to tell them what to do and how to have fun and that is why we haven't really had many Sandbox MMORPG's. Where we see freedom those that lack that creative gene see lack of direction. It's just a different mindset and mentality. Sandbox's are only appealing to those that are a bit creative and can think for themselves. Which means that Sanbox's are always going to be a niche type thing because those that can't think for themselves or lack that creative gene far out number us.
If Blizz could make one and allow it to survive as a niche game, sure. I'd love to see it. But I honestly feel that Blizz doesn't have the balls to make a game that won't appeal to the masses. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a huge market, but they have built their empire on the EQ / DAOC models, which were linear and anything but sandbox. I just don't feel their millions of subscribers will fall into a sandbox and go, "yay, 2 newbs can kill my vet warrior, oh and they were scholars too."
Blizzard is all about making the most money. Thats to be found in the mass markets. Thus, thats what their focus is. Niche markets seldom attract the attention of major investors. All those investors care about is their return on investment. Intone the mystic phrase; "Its just like World of Warcraft" and watch them go all starry eyed, and start throwing truck loads of money at you.
AAA class games are NOT cheap. They typically cost many millions of dollars(of other peoples money). Thus the suits involved are VERY wary of taking risks. Theme park games like WoW have demonstrated a substantial return on investment. Sand box games tend to be niche. Until that perception can be altered, I doubt we are going to see much progress.
Blizzard probably has the money to finance their own projects by now. While they may not build a full sandbox, they have the resources to build a game that brings the best of both worlds together. I think they are going to have to raise the bar on this next game, and to do that they will have to take a step back from the theme park design of WoW and see what else they can add. The only place they have to go is toward a more open and free game design. I would be surprised if the next game is just another WoW clone with nicer graphics and new setting/lore. The end game model is already boring everyone to death, and once people finally leave WoW, they often seem to be disgusted to find out that the other AAA titles play very similarly.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Nicely Said
url=http://www.enjin.com]
[/url]
the problem is MMO players haveen gotten a lot more...well
They have become bigger jerks.
Back in UO i was stalked by PKers while i was just trying to mape the world and cut lumber. And that was the good old days. In WoW (which isnt nearly as sand box ) you have people camping corses and hiding spies cross faction.
Now imagine that in full sandbox?
*shudder*
That's a BIG problem, how to do sandbox without feeding the world to the trolls.
Simply can't be done, without some limitations on PvP. Every system I've seen that doesn't use HARD CODED(server side) limits on who can attack who, has ended up being a gankfest. Its simply the nature of the Beast. Griefers and gankers are WAY too "creative" in finding ways around any system thats not hard coded. They then eventually drive off the very type of people that a real sand box MUST have to evolve into a living breathing world.
you know there would be a way to limit the pking, give a player a limited number of unflagged kills per week, once they reach that limit they start losing how much weight they can carry and once they are down to 0 and still keep killing unflagged start taking away from their stats. A system like that would let a limited amount of unflagged killing for those who think killing an unarmed crafter as fun. but also makes it so that crafter can one punch kill those who thiink they are leet for being able to kill non combat toons.
url=http://www.enjin.com]
[/url]
the problem is MMO players haveen gotten a lot more...well
They have become bigger jerks.
Back in UO i was stalked by PKers while i was just trying to mape the world and cut lumber. And that was the good old days. In WoW (which isnt nearly as sand box ) you have people camping corses and hiding spies cross faction.
Now imagine that in full sandbox?
*shudder*
That's a BIG problem, how to do sandbox without feeding the world to the trolls.
Simply can't be done, without some limitations on PvP. Every system I've seen that doesn't use HARD CODED(server side) limits on who can attack who, has ended up being a gankfest. Its simply the nature of the Beast. Griefers and gankers are WAY too "creative" in finding ways around any system thats not hard coded. They then eventually drive off the very type of people that a real sand box MUST have to evolve into a living breathing world.
you know there would be a way to limit the pking, give a player a limited number of unflagged kills per week, once they reach that limit they start losing how much weight they can carry and once they are down to 0 and still keep killing unflagged start taking away from their stats. A system like that would let a limited amount of unflagged killing for those who think killing an unarmed crafter as fun. but also makes it so that crafter can one punch kill those who thiink they are leet for being able to kill non combat toons.
Stat loss systems have been tried...and tried. Gankers/griefers always find some way around it. If you have a limited number of kills, they rotate alts. If its stat loss, they use up one character and switch to another. These people will go to ANY extent to ruin other peoples fun. Not to mention, how many ganks does it take before a non combat character(crafter, explorer, story teller) gets tired of it and finds another game? I've seen some very creative anti gank systems over the years. They always fail to keep ganking under control. If its at all possible, gankers/griefers will find a way.