That means having places to explore that you will not be explicitely sent to, nor have every inch of the map put to direct use. Having features that are not completely explained, and thusly there are a lot of things you still learn years down the line. Very little direction and goal orientation, so that it makes you question "what do *I* want to do?" instead of "what are they telling me to do?".
Sandboxes, above all, are for those that have some initiative and come from a curious nature.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Originally posted by GTwander Mystery. That means having places to explore that you will not be explicitely sent to, nor have every inch of the map put to direct use. Having features that are not completely explained, and thusly there are a lot of things you still learn years down the line. Very little direction and goal orientation, so that it makes you question "what do *I* want to do?" instead of "what are they telling me to do?". Sandboxes, above all, are for those that have some initiative and come from a curious nature.
[...]Very little direction and goal orientation, so that it makes you question "what do *I* want to do?" instead of "what are they telling me to do?".[...]
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
That means having places to explore that you will not be explicitely sent to, nor have every inch of the map put to direct use. Having features that are not completely explained, and thusly there are a lot of things you still learn years down the line. Very little direction and goal orientation, so that it makes you question "what do *I* want to do?" instead of "what are they telling me to do?".
Sandboxes, above all, are for those that have some initiative and come from a curious nature.
Agree that this is a top feature. Really, it should be for any game with a world, but particularly for Sandbox games.
I'd add a large, huge, mega, world that's designed for lots of exploration, and discoveries. This is part of "mystery".
That world should also be highly interactive. Players should be able to work things, mechanically, and build such things. They should be able to move things, pull on things, push things, open things, etc. This can work really well with "mysteries", as well as with player construction and generally exploring.
Lots of secret places, hidden places, lost places. Lot's of secret rooms, passages, cubby holes.
Players should be able to build strong social speheres with real depth in organizing and running them. Cities and governments, Temples and religions, Trades and shipping, Guild centers and classes (paladins, thieves, stone masons, whatever), and just about anything you can think of, players should be able to set up using a deep but flexible system.
A good Sandbox should have wondering MOBs with AI, instead of static spawns (except for starting areas or some unique situations).
For a really good Sandbox, you'd want a world with physics and can change. Chopping down trees, carving out tunnels, moving mountains (heh), but this isn't an absolute neccessity. Just that it would make that game that much better, even partially implemented.
Deep lore, with many questions, and clues in the game world to discover. Meaning to the lore. History to the lore and outside of it, too.
Big, bad, evils that want to destroy the players and take over the world. Played by GMs, and using game mechanics that players use to build evil within the player base.
Big, good guys. Played by GMs, and doing the same as the big bads.
The GMs in the above situations would need to keep in the background. Their charaters should be killable, and with perma-death, though also powerful. Examples: Dragon, Liche, Vampire, Unicorn, Demi-god, Ghost, Agents of ancient secret societies.
The ability to place or manipulate items in the game world in a creative manner.
A system to allow transferrable player written material. Examples would be paper, books, data discs, and scrolls.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
No fast travel and a huge map, crafting > or = dropped gear
S M A R T "herd"or free roam type AI , just a few i like myself but not necessary sandbox exclusive.
While i agree with you, having to travel increases the exploration/discovery element. Some players will argue "why i have to walk/run when i could do other things".
And crafting....yes player crafted items must be equal or superior to drop items from raid/dungeon bosses.
Full FFA pvp, everyone flagged to everyone all the time.
Full player looting.
A crafting and market as deep and meaningful as EVE.
A guild driven community with extensive tools and political machination.
An indepth player housing system with the ability to not only create cities (or any player zone) but also the ability to attack and either take over or destroy said cities.
A deep, well thought out skill set to choose from with no crappy generic 'professions'.
Basically a mix of classic UO with Darkfall and EVE in an up to date MMO would be fantastic, especially if you could throw in RvR elements and realm pride ala DAoC.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
* Be skill based and not level based. (If classes are implemented, they'd have to be done in a unique format)
* Have persistent real time housing (including decorations).
* Have craftable items to trade that aren't simply PvP oriented (ex: Tailoring and dying clothes, Making a box or furniture).
*Prefer*
- Meaningful PVP.
- Full loot and murder count system.
- Other unique systems non-PvP related (ex: Thieving).
- A cool implementation of achivement system.
Basically, I described UO pre-trammel. Anyways...that's what's Important to me.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
My ideal "sandbox" MMO would have minimal PvP in it. If it does need PvP it should be entirely optional. I'm so sick of all these sandbox MMOs with full loot FFA PvP. Everyone claims they want them, yet the market is full of them and I don't see a large number of people playing those games (except EvE). Instead the game would focus on exploration, ability for players to create their own content (a sandbox MMO with a dungeon creator would be great), the ability to carry out changes in the world (terraforming, cutting down trees, creating huge craters with explosives, destroying cities with siege weapons, etc.), and a really robust crafting system that focuses on a player driven economy.
Sandbox is the most overused term on this forum. Every MMO IS a Sandbox game. Yes, even WoW. The idea that you have to divide MMOs up into two seperate genres of themepark and sandbox is just absurd.
Wanted to comment on your hardly noone plays ffapvp sandbox games besides eve comment.
There's a reason for that. Besides eve no other pvp sandbox developer learned from uo and trammel. Eve lives because it gives players the option to reduce their risk to nill. Sb,df, mo all failed at this.
Wanted to comment on your hardly noone plays ffapvp sandbox games besides eve comment. There's a reason for that. Besides eve no other pvp sandbox developer learned from uo and trammel. Eve lives because it gives players the option to reduce their risk to nill. Sb,df, mo all failed at this.
All I ever hear is "pre-Trammel" this and "pre-NGE" that. There are also plenty of "EQ before PoP/Luclin" and "TBC or WotLK ruined WoW" posts too. What did Eve "learn" from UO and Trammel? What didn't other PvP "sandbox" developers learn? That post is completely vague.
Darkfall and Mortal Online had basically the feature list that UO had pre-Trammel. They didn't have great success (though they had some), because there isn't a huge player base that wants this stuff. Nobody wants to go back to the Dark Ages of MMOs. All these features don't work, because a lot of people just don't find them fun. Aren't sandbox games suppose to be about freedom? Then why do I have to have PvP and griefers shoved down my throat in all of them. Feels more like a prison than freedom.
Wanted to comment on your hardly noone plays ffapvp sandbox games besides eve comment. There's a reason for that. Besides eve no other pvp sandbox developer learned from uo and trammel. Eve lives because it gives players the option to reduce their risk to nill. Sb,df, mo all failed at this.
All I ever hear is "pre-Trammel" this and "pre-NGE" that. There are also plenty of "EQ before PoP/Luclin" and "TBC or WotLK ruined WoW" posts too. What did Eve "learn" from UO and Trammel? What didn't other PvP "sandbox" developers learn? That post is completely vague.
Darkfall and Mortal Online had basically the feature list that UO had pre-Trammel. They didn't have great success (though they had some), because there isn't a huge player base that wants this stuff. Nobody wants to go back to the Dark Ages of MMOs. All these features don't work, because a lot of people just don't find them fun. Aren't sandbox games suppose to be about freedom? Then why do I have to have PvP and griefers shoved down my throat in all of them. Feels more like a prison than freedom.
lol..
Yes, there is a massive player base that wants old school types of MMORPG's. Nearly every single MMORPG that has come out in the last 6 years has been aimed squarly at kids... since internet is basically free now.
Back then, the internet cost money and only adults played, thus most games provided challenge and adventure. Now? ..all that recent MMO's seem to only provide "experiences", theme park and rewards.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
Wanted to comment on your hardly noone plays ffapvp sandbox games besides eve comment. There's a reason for that. Besides eve no other pvp sandbox developer learned from uo and trammel. Eve lives because it gives players the option to reduce their risk to nill. Sb,df, mo all failed at this.
All I ever hear is "pre-Trammel" this and "pre-NGE" that. There are also plenty of "EQ before PoP/Luclin" and "TBC or WotLK ruined WoW" posts too. What did Eve "learn" from UO and Trammel? What didn't other PvP "sandbox" developers learn? That post is completely vague.
Darkfall and Mortal Online had basically the feature list that UO had pre-Trammel. They didn't have great success (though they had some), because there isn't a huge player base that wants this stuff. Nobody wants to go back to the Dark Ages of MMOs. All these features don't work, because a lot of people just don't find them fun. Aren't sandbox games suppose to be about freedom? Then why do I have to have PvP and griefers shoved down my throat in all of them. Feels more like a prison than freedom.
I think he was agreeing with you.
EVE learned that you have to give the players a place in the game where they can play without having to PvP all the time. Of course CPP chickened out on this and instead of disabling PvP in empire space, they simply made it much more inconvenient for the attacker.
To me a 'sandbox' indicates a place for creation of new ideas and building new things. Allowing non-consensual destruction of those things goes against that meaning of 'sandbox'. Thus a game with non-consensual PvP can never be a real sandbox for me.
Wanted to comment on your hardly noone plays ffapvp sandbox games besides eve comment. There's a reason for that. Besides eve no other pvp sandbox developer learned from uo and trammel. Eve lives because it gives players the option to reduce their risk to nill. Sb,df, mo all failed at this.
All I ever hear is "pre-Trammel" this and "pre-NGE" that. There are also plenty of "EQ before PoP/Luclin" and "TBC or WotLK ruined WoW" posts too. What did Eve "learn" from UO and Trammel? What didn't other PvP "sandbox" developers learn? That post is completely vague.
Darkfall and Mortal Online had basically the feature list that UO had pre-Trammel. They didn't have great success (though they had some), because there isn't a huge player base that wants this stuff. Nobody wants to go back to the Dark Ages of MMOs. All these features don't work, because a lot of people just don't find them fun. Aren't sandbox games suppose to be about freedom? Then why do I have to have PvP and griefers shoved down my throat in all of them. Feels more like a prison than freedom.
They learned that players want a choice. You don't want pvp rammed down your throut you want options. Let there be looting pvp as the focus but damn it give people the option to opt out of it.
I was si Ply explaining why eve is successful not disagreeing with you lol.
Playing: Rift, LotRO Waiting on: GW2, BP
FC-FamineFuncom Community ManagerMemberUncommonPosts: 278
If I had the chance to make a sandbox game then I certainly would include SOME degree of direction. However, it would be an option for those who need direction in order to find interesting things to do in-game. I say this because even though the sandbox element is very open in it's core, many players still become bored or lost when it comes to finding things to do. Thus, the direction would act as a supporting role to giving players a push in the right direction that could lead to more open ended content that's true to the sandbox nature. Sort of like a sandbox system on training wheels.
One of the biggest problems I've seen in sandbox games is a lot of freedom and mindsets that are anti-directional. Although you want that open ended feel, you also need to teach players what paths are available to them or even how they can create their own paths. It's important to at least have that direction in the game because it can be very confusing for new users when they first come to the game compared to experience players rolling alts.
Additional rules I would like to see is total FFA with semi-looting or item destructional systems based on some sort of open ended faction system created by the community. The dominate forces of the game would become the dominate factions where you could choose to join one of their factions on character creation for that specific server or shard. As the factions become destroyed and replaced, so would the factions when you create your new characters. Then the factions themselves would be hard-capped at 3 to 5 like how the top political parties are in the USA.
That's all I have for now.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
Yes, there is a massive player base that wants old school types of MMORPG's. Nearly every single MMORPG that has come out in the last 6 years has been aimed squarly at kids... since internet is basically free now.
Back then, the internet cost money and only adults played, thus most games provided challenge and adventure. Now? ..all that recent MMO's seem to only provide "experiences", theme park and rewards.
huoh, what?!
You mean I don't actually have to pay 50$ a month for high-speed internet anymore?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Been playing computers games since Ultima 1 on my Apple ][+ and Mmos' since 1998 Ultima Online.
Played many many games as much of the base here has as well. It's funny all these years later that people are giving names and reason to the types of games I loved to play. I never knew that I liked "sandbox" games until this year. Never even heard the words "sandbox" or "themepark". Just learned all these descriptors , mostly because of these forums. It never accured to me really why I loved UO Pre-AOS and SWG Pre-CU so very much.. And why I didn't like FFXi even though it had great mobs and vistas.
I remember back in the early days of UO everyone would put thier Bartle Test results as thier post signatures. I was something like 75% explorer. Now it is clear to me why I loved the games I did and why I feel so left out in the current breed of games.
My Bartle Score was never more than 10-15% killer so I guess that is why SWG and UO appealed to me so much. I didn't have to look for a fight but I could explore.. So much so in SWG.. Man I loved to explore those worlds. PVP was fun but only if it was for a reason. Me and my mates would kill some of the hardest mobs not because of a quest but because we wanted to know what was on the other side of the mobs, behind that hill. That was our motivation- to explore, be together, gather materials and find special places, mobs and resources that we could then later show other people...
"You have to see this place we just found.." and then drag a few people out there just to check it out. TA-DA ! Woah !
I guess for me a large explorable world with lots of crafting, player houses, but with enough room that I could run 15 mins and come opon someones house in the middle of nowhere. Most of the people here are more articulate than me when it comes to the exact requirements of a sandbox game.. but man let me explore and no arrow questing and no lvl 1-90.. Just the ability to Master the sklls that I like and explore with my freinds and help them build a little place in the world.
I do however like good guys vs the bad guys in games.. Guess that why I didn't like the sims. Collective goals against overwhelming odds to save the world are important to me.
Yes, there is a massive player base that wants old school types of MMORPG's. Nearly every single MMORPG that has come out in the last 6 years has been aimed squarly at kids... since internet is basically free now.
Back then, the internet cost money and only adults played, thus most games provided challenge and adventure. Now? ..all that recent MMO's seem to only provide "experiences", theme park and rewards.
huoh, what?!
You mean I don't actually have to pay 50$ a month for high-speed internet anymore?
*sigh*
Try $150 ~ $300/month in the early 90's.
Uno, back when the early MUDS & MMORPG's were comming out, the internet was on a PER HOUR basis, anywhere from $1.50 ~ $3.50 an hour dude..
You're so funny... you cannot even grasp reality.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
I love wide open worlds with many different options to chose what I want to do. It should be player driven with player controlled cities. The mobs in the areas should react to whats being done in its territories, your not hitting a certain group they become more powerful and expand. They should also be able to attack and sack player towns if left alone long enough.
There should be no set main line quests as when one person does a quest it is finished! To me everyone completing the same quest doesn't add to the immersion factor. Make the quests part of a quest generation that looks at the world at the time of the quest request and hands out something that makes sense for that period of time. Allow some of the tasks to be multiple step/different quests that build on the one before it.
Player towns should be affected by events around it and dynamic. Too many MMO's are static and become boring. I believe in RVR type end games that could include towns in those areas.
Been playing computers games since Ultima 1 on my Apple ][+ and Mmos' since 1998 Ultima Online.
Played many many games as much of the base here has as well. It's funny all these years later that people are giving names and reason to the types of games I loved to play. I never knew that I liked "sandbox" games until this year. Never even heard the words "sandbox" or "themepark". Just learned all these descriptors , mostly because of these forums. It never accured to me really why I loved UO Pre-AOS and SWG Pre-CU so very much.. And why I didn't like FFXi even though it had great mobs and vistas.
I remember back in the early days of UO everyone would put thier Bartle Test results as thier post signatures. I was something like 75% explorer. Now it is clear to me why I loved the games I did and why I feel so left out in the current breed of games.
My Bartle Score was never more than 10-15% killer so I guess that is why SWG and UO appealed to me so much. I didn't have to look for a fight but I could explore.. So much so in SWG.. Man I loved to explore those worlds. PVP was fun but only if it was for a reason. Me and my mates would kill some of the hardest mobs not because of a quest but because we wanted to know what was on the other side of the mobs, behind that hill. That was our motivation- to explore, be together, gather materials and find special places, mobs and resources that we could then later show other people...
"You have to see this place we just found.." and then drag a few people out there just to check it out. TA-DA ! Woah !
I guess for me a large explorable world with lots of crafting, player houses, but with enough room that I could run 15 mins and come opon someones house in the middle of nowhere. Most of the people here are more articulate than me when it comes to the exact requirements of a sandbox game.. but man let me explore and no arrow questing and no lvl 1-90.. Just the ability to Master the sklls that I like and explore with my freinds and help them build a little place in the world.
I do however like good guys vs the bad guys in games.. Guess that why I didn't like the sims. Collective goals against overwhelming odds to save the world are important to me.
I blame you for my new sig.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Wanted to comment on your hardly noone plays ffapvp sandbox games besides eve comment. There's a reason for that. Besides eve no other pvp sandbox developer learned from uo and trammel. Eve lives because it gives players the option to reduce their risk to nill. Sb,df, mo all failed at this.
All I ever hear is "pre-Trammel" this and "pre-NGE" that. There are also plenty of "EQ before PoP/Luclin" and "TBC or WotLK ruined WoW" posts too. What did Eve "learn" from UO and Trammel? What didn't other PvP "sandbox" developers learn? That post is completely vague.
Darkfall and Mortal Online had basically the feature list that UO had pre-Trammel. They didn't have great success (though they had some), because there isn't a huge player base that wants this stuff. Nobody wants to go back to the Dark Ages of MMOs. All these features don't work, because a lot of people just don't find them fun. Aren't sandbox games suppose to be about freedom? Then why do I have to have PvP and griefers shoved down my throat in all of them. Feels more like a prison than freedom.
lol..
Yes, there is a massive player base that wants old school types of MMORPG's. Nearly every single MMORPG that has come out in the last 6 years has been aimed squarly at kids... since internet is basically free now.
Back then, the internet cost money and only adults played, thus most games provided challenge and adventure. Now? ..all that recent MMO's seem to only provide "experiences", theme park and rewards.
that is the best perspective I have heard other than my own (of course) which is basically the same. I have heard that the average age for a TV watcher is 50ish but the target demographic for most TV is 20 and below. The reason from my understanding is productive idenity is formed at a much younger age. For example, once you start buying coke at a young age you are likely to do it forever.
This formula is important for MMO's I would think.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Mystery.
That means having places to explore that you will not be explicitely sent to, nor have every inch of the map put to direct use. Having features that are not completely explained, and thusly there are a lot of things you still learn years down the line. Very little direction and goal orientation, so that it makes you question "what do *I* want to do?" instead of "what are they telling me to do?".
Sandboxes, above all, are for those that have some initiative and come from a curious nature.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Sounds like Second Life.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Agree that this is a top feature. Really, it should be for any game with a world, but particularly for Sandbox games.
I'd add a large, huge, mega, world that's designed for lots of exploration, and discoveries. This is part of "mystery".
That world should also be highly interactive. Players should be able to work things, mechanically, and build such things. They should be able to move things, pull on things, push things, open things, etc. This can work really well with "mysteries", as well as with player construction and generally exploring.
Lots of secret places, hidden places, lost places. Lot's of secret rooms, passages, cubby holes.
Players should be able to build strong social speheres with real depth in organizing and running them. Cities and governments, Temples and religions, Trades and shipping, Guild centers and classes (paladins, thieves, stone masons, whatever), and just about anything you can think of, players should be able to set up using a deep but flexible system.
A good Sandbox should have wondering MOBs with AI, instead of static spawns (except for starting areas or some unique situations).
For a really good Sandbox, you'd want a world with physics and can change. Chopping down trees, carving out tunnels, moving mountains (heh), but this isn't an absolute neccessity. Just that it would make that game that much better, even partially implemented.
Deep lore, with many questions, and clues in the game world to discover. Meaning to the lore. History to the lore and outside of it, too.
Big, bad, evils that want to destroy the players and take over the world. Played by GMs, and using game mechanics that players use to build evil within the player base.
Big, good guys. Played by GMs, and doing the same as the big bads.
The GMs in the above situations would need to keep in the background. Their charaters should be killable, and with perma-death, though also powerful. Examples: Dragon, Liche, Vampire, Unicorn, Demi-god, Ghost, Agents of ancient secret societies.
Once upon a time....
Think about those four games and what they offered the player. I just got hard.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
No fast travel and a huge map, crafting > or = dropped gear
S M A R T "herd"or free roam type AI , just a few i like myself but not necessary sandbox exclusive.
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
Two big ones for me are:
The ability to place or manipulate items in the game world in a creative manner.
A system to allow transferrable player written material. Examples would be paper, books, data discs, and scrolls.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
While i agree with you, having to travel increases the exploration/discovery element. Some players will argue "why i have to walk/run when i could do other things".
And crafting....yes player crafted items must be equal or superior to drop items from raid/dungeon bosses.
And and active economy (player run ofc)
UO...
Seriously i'd look for the following:
Full FFA pvp, everyone flagged to everyone all the time.
Full player looting.
A crafting and market as deep and meaningful as EVE.
A guild driven community with extensive tools and political machination.
An indepth player housing system with the ability to not only create cities (or any player zone) but also the ability to attack and either take over or destroy said cities.
A deep, well thought out skill set to choose from with no crappy generic 'professions'.
Basically a mix of classic UO with Darkfall and EVE in an up to date MMO would be fantastic, especially if you could throw in RvR elements and realm pride ala DAoC.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The game must:
* Be skill based and not level based. (If classes are implemented, they'd have to be done in a unique format)
* Have persistent real time housing (including decorations).
* Have craftable items to trade that aren't simply PvP oriented (ex: Tailoring and dying clothes, Making a box or furniture).
*Prefer*
- Meaningful PVP.
- Full loot and murder count system.
- Other unique systems non-PvP related (ex: Thieving).
- A cool implementation of achivement system.
Basically, I described UO pre-trammel. Anyways...that's what's Important to me.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
My ideal "sandbox" MMO would have minimal PvP in it. If it does need PvP it should be entirely optional. I'm so sick of all these sandbox MMOs with full loot FFA PvP. Everyone claims they want them, yet the market is full of them and I don't see a large number of people playing those games (except EvE). Instead the game would focus on exploration, ability for players to create their own content (a sandbox MMO with a dungeon creator would be great), the ability to carry out changes in the world (terraforming, cutting down trees, creating huge craters with explosives, destroying cities with siege weapons, etc.), and a really robust crafting system that focuses on a player driven economy.
Sandbox is the most overused term on this forum. Every MMO IS a Sandbox game. Yes, even WoW. The idea that you have to divide MMOs up into two seperate genres of themepark and sandbox is just absurd.
There's a reason for that. Besides eve no other pvp sandbox developer learned from uo and trammel. Eve lives because it gives players the option to reduce their risk to nill. Sb,df, mo all failed at this.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
All I ever hear is "pre-Trammel" this and "pre-NGE" that. There are also plenty of "EQ before PoP/Luclin" and "TBC or WotLK ruined WoW" posts too. What did Eve "learn" from UO and Trammel? What didn't other PvP "sandbox" developers learn? That post is completely vague.
Darkfall and Mortal Online had basically the feature list that UO had pre-Trammel. They didn't have great success (though they had some), because there isn't a huge player base that wants this stuff. Nobody wants to go back to the Dark Ages of MMOs. All these features don't work, because a lot of people just don't find them fun. Aren't sandbox games suppose to be about freedom? Then why do I have to have PvP and griefers shoved down my throat in all of them. Feels more like a prison than freedom.
lol..
Yes, there is a massive player base that wants old school types of MMORPG's. Nearly every single MMORPG that has come out in the last 6 years has been aimed squarly at kids... since internet is basically free now.
Back then, the internet cost money and only adults played, thus most games provided challenge and adventure. Now? ..all that recent MMO's seem to only provide "experiences", theme park and rewards.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
I think he was agreeing with you.
EVE learned that you have to give the players a place in the game where they can play without having to PvP all the time. Of course CPP chickened out on this and instead of disabling PvP in empire space, they simply made it much more inconvenient for the attacker.
To me a 'sandbox' indicates a place for creation of new ideas and building new things. Allowing non-consensual destruction of those things goes against that meaning of 'sandbox'. Thus a game with non-consensual PvP can never be a real sandbox for me.
All I ever hear is "pre-Trammel" this and "pre-NGE" that. There are also plenty of "EQ before PoP/Luclin" and "TBC or WotLK ruined WoW" posts too. What did Eve "learn" from UO and Trammel? What didn't other PvP "sandbox" developers learn? That post is completely vague.
Darkfall and Mortal Online had basically the feature list that UO had pre-Trammel. They didn't have great success (though they had some), because there isn't a huge player base that wants this stuff. Nobody wants to go back to the Dark Ages of MMOs. All these features don't work, because a lot of people just don't find them fun. Aren't sandbox games suppose to be about freedom? Then why do I have to have PvP and griefers shoved down my throat in all of them. Feels more like a prison than freedom.
They learned that players want a choice. You don't want pvp rammed down your throut you want options. Let there be looting pvp as the focus but damn it give people the option to opt out of it.
I was si
Ply explaining why eve is successful not disagreeing with you lol.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
If I had the chance to make a sandbox game then I certainly would include SOME degree of direction. However, it would be an option for those who need direction in order to find interesting things to do in-game. I say this because even though the sandbox element is very open in it's core, many players still become bored or lost when it comes to finding things to do. Thus, the direction would act as a supporting role to giving players a push in the right direction that could lead to more open ended content that's true to the sandbox nature. Sort of like a sandbox system on training wheels.
One of the biggest problems I've seen in sandbox games is a lot of freedom and mindsets that are anti-directional. Although you want that open ended feel, you also need to teach players what paths are available to them or even how they can create their own paths. It's important to at least have that direction in the game because it can be very confusing for new users when they first come to the game compared to experience players rolling alts.
Additional rules I would like to see is total FFA with semi-looting or item destructional systems based on some sort of open ended faction system created by the community. The dominate forces of the game would become the dominate factions where you could choose to join one of their factions on character creation for that specific server or shard. As the factions become destroyed and replaced, so would the factions when you create your new characters. Then the factions themselves would be hard-capped at 3 to 5 like how the top political parties are in the USA.
That's all I have for now.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan
Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
Everything made by the players. from a glass of milk to a server wide pvp campaign. everything
huoh, what?!
You mean I don't actually have to pay 50$ a month for high-speed internet anymore?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Been playing computers games since Ultima 1 on my Apple ][+ and Mmos' since 1998 Ultima Online.
Played many many games as much of the base here has as well. It's funny all these years later that people are giving names and reason to the types of games I loved to play. I never knew that I liked "sandbox" games until this year. Never even heard the words "sandbox" or "themepark". Just learned all these descriptors , mostly because of these forums. It never accured to me really why I loved UO Pre-AOS and SWG Pre-CU so very much.. And why I didn't like FFXi even though it had great mobs and vistas.
I remember back in the early days of UO everyone would put thier Bartle Test results as thier post signatures. I was something like 75% explorer. Now it is clear to me why I loved the games I did and why I feel so left out in the current breed of games.
My Bartle Score was never more than 10-15% killer so I guess that is why SWG and UO appealed to me so much. I didn't have to look for a fight but I could explore.. So much so in SWG.. Man I loved to explore those worlds. PVP was fun but only if it was for a reason. Me and my mates would kill some of the hardest mobs not because of a quest but because we wanted to know what was on the other side of the mobs, behind that hill. That was our motivation- to explore, be together, gather materials and find special places, mobs and resources that we could then later show other people...
"You have to see this place we just found.." and then drag a few people out there just to check it out. TA-DA ! Woah !
I guess for me a large explorable world with lots of crafting, player houses, but with enough room that I could run 15 mins and come opon someones house in the middle of nowhere. Most of the people here are more articulate than me when it comes to the exact requirements of a sandbox game.. but man let me explore and no arrow questing and no lvl 1-90.. Just the ability to Master the sklls that I like and explore with my freinds and help them build a little place in the world.
I do however like good guys vs the bad guys in games.. Guess that why I didn't like the sims. Collective goals against overwhelming odds to save the world are important to me.
*sigh*
Try $150 ~ $300/month in the early 90's.
Uno, back when the early MUDS & MMORPG's were comming out, the internet was on a PER HOUR basis, anywhere from $1.50 ~ $3.50 an hour dude..
You're so funny... you cannot even grasp reality.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
I love wide open worlds with many different options to chose what I want to do. It should be player driven with player controlled cities. The mobs in the areas should react to whats being done in its territories, your not hitting a certain group they become more powerful and expand. They should also be able to attack and sack player towns if left alone long enough.
There should be no set main line quests as when one person does a quest it is finished! To me everyone completing the same quest doesn't add to the immersion factor. Make the quests part of a quest generation that looks at the world at the time of the quest request and hands out something that makes sense for that period of time. Allow some of the tasks to be multiple step/different quests that build on the one before it.
Player towns should be affected by events around it and dynamic. Too many MMO's are static and become boring. I believe in RVR type end games that could include towns in those areas.
I blame you for my new sig.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
How long a list can we have? lol
Player housing with all the amenities
Guild housing with all the amenities
Contested PvP option
Meaningful PvP.. There has to be a purpose to get involved
Logical and desirable player crafting economy
PvE quest of all types (race, class, epic, trade etc etc)
No end game.. I want a living evolving world
just my pet issues
that is the best perspective I have heard other than my own (of course) which is basically the same. I have heard that the average age for a TV watcher is 50ish but the target demographic for most TV is 20 and below. The reason from my understanding is productive idenity is formed at a much younger age. For example, once you start buying coke at a young age you are likely to do it forever.
This formula is important for MMO's I would think.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me