Are there any in development that i am just not aware off/ didnt get the memo. Or is everything in the near future themeparkin it up
Thing is the sandbox MMOs don't shut down, which means not as many new ones pop up.
UO and AC are both still running after 11 years for example. Sandbox games just have a loyal group of players. Combine that with all the clueless companies who think the only way to make money is with a WoW clone and the result is new sandbox MMOs are few and far between.
Sandboxes are few and far between cause the vast majority of mmo gamers dont want them.
Indeed, ofc the vast majority of gamers are retards so that's not saying alot really...
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Aion and Lotro are not above EvE in subs. This may change very soon with LotRO's F2P switch though. I don't know in what crazy world you think Aion and LotRO have a ton more subs then 300k, apparently you do not have a realistic view on the MMO market. There is only one MMO that has way more subs then 300k and it is WoW.
Aion, like many new MMOs, started with very high initial numbers and then dropped down significantly.
Aion has 3milion and something I think, you are forgeting about asia.
I'm not forgetting about Asia. As with almost every discussion on these English speaking boards we are discussing MMOs in a western context. Other wise we would also mention games with millions of players such as Lineage.
Ok, then you are right. But you didn't made very clear that you were talking only about the western market.
What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?
If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.
...
True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc
The fact that this defition is on wikipedia don't help at all, if tons of people still disagree with it.
Your whole focus is going to be on the use of the word sandbox? While we're at it let's not use any of these other words since some people have a different take on them when the majority clearly understand the terms:
MMO
AAA
Theme Park
RPG
Instanced
Game
The
While these words could also be discussed, everyone would have very similar definitions about them.
With sandbox the problem is that people can have completely different definitions about it.
EvE is one of the top played MMOs in North America. UO and SWG were both top MMOs in their time (up there with EQ, AC, etc.). If 300k is niche, how many MMOs besides WoW have non-niche numbers in NA? I mean, if we discard WoW for a moment and look at AoC, WAR, TR, Vanguard, etc. - I would say the status quo is not what people want.
Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.
EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.
UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?
UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.
At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?
But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?
And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.
In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.
Sayhing a game has 300k subs is impressive but sayign a game has 300k subs, some of those alt accounts, when there aren't a lot of games and only about 300k players willing to play in a relatively new genre isn't all that impressive. I'm sure I can find 300k people who are into the freakiest things on the net but what they are interested in might still be considered a niche bit of entertaiment.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
EvE is one of the top played MMOs in North America. UO and SWG were both top MMOs in their time (up there with EQ, AC, etc.). If 300k is niche, how many MMOs besides WoW have non-niche numbers in NA? I mean, if we discard WoW for a moment and look at AoC, WAR, TR, Vanguard, etc. - I would say the status quo is not what people want.
Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.
EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.
UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?
UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.
At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?
But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?
And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.
In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.
I agree that there are a lot of factors and just basing things off of numbers is wrong. Yes, SWG initially had the Star Wars appeal, but most people who stayed did so because of the game. I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks SWG was Star Warsy (they like it for different reasons). SWG hovered at 250k-300k for the first year or two. It declined and shot back up around WoW but ultimately died because of many bad decisions by SoE over time. The thing to note (http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/) is that SWG did have a loyal playerbase with subscription numbers that were pretty good at the time. Lineage and WoW are the big exceptions. UO being new is correct, but SWG came out when there were plenty of MMOs - I wouldn't exactly say that it was in a narrow field (WoW came out only a year and a half later).
I think MMORPGs are still considered freakshows. I don't really see a difference in WoW's fame vs. EQ's fame.
As to whether or not these games would be a success if realeased today, I really don't know. The bar is a lot higher than it was back then. Lots of disenfranchised players expect so much because of what has come before. I don't think that money should really define an MMO's success except to the publishers. Besides being a fun game (obviously), an MMO also needs enough subs so that the game world feels like it is populated by a massive amount of people (isn't that why we play these games?). This can be different for each MMO, but there is nothing worse than an MMO with no players. I especially hate MMOs that report high sub numbers yet the games are a ghost town (modern SWG).
Anyways, I just don't think it is accurate to say sandbox games are a niche. There have been a lot of not-quite or bad sandboxes released, but the good ones were successful and I think people would play new ones if they were done right.
Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.
EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.
UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?
UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.
At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?
But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?
And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.
In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.
I agree that there are a lot of factors and just basing things off of numbers is wrong. Yes, SWG initially had the Star Wars appeal, but most people who stayed did so because of the game. I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks SWG was Star Warsy (they like it for different reasons). SWG hovered at 250k-300k for the first year or two. It declined and shot back up around WoW but ultimately died because of many bad decisions by SoE over time. The thing to note (http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/) is that SWG did have a loyal playerbase with subscription numbers that were pretty good at the time. Lineage and WoW are the big exceptions. UO being new is correct, but SWG came out when there were plenty of MMOs - I wouldn't exactly say that it was in a narrow field (WoW came out only a year and a half later).
I think MMORPGs are still considered freakshows. I don't really see a difference in WoW's fame vs. EQ's fame.
As to whether or not these games would be a success if realeased today, I really don't know. The bar is a lot higher than it was back then. Lots of disenfranchised players expect so much because of what has come before. I don't think that money should really define an MMO's success except to the publishers. Besides being a fun game (obviously), an MMO also needs enough subs so that the game world feels like it is populated by a massive amount of people (isn't that why we play these games?). This can be different for each MMO, but there is nothing worse than an MMO with no players. I especially hate MMOs that report high sub numbers yet the games are a ghost town (modern SWG).
Anyways, I just don't think it is accurate to say sandbox games are a niche. There have been a lot of not-quite or bad sandboxes released, but the good ones were successful and I think people would play new ones if they were done right.
Until a sandbox game is released that shows a large number of subscribers as compared to its development cost, it will always be considered a niche product.
Well, until some developer comes up with the "great idea" to make an online world as opposed to a game. These things always tend to be cyclical.
I have to agree that mmo's are still considered freakshows, even with the success of wow.
The thing is, those players who are willing to play an early UO or SWG are still there. However, I bet that some of them would not have the time or inclination to play them today because of how life tends to throw more at you as you live it. Job, family, friends, etc.
And that is why it's a shame that Mortal Online is not as successful as it might be. Same with Darkfall.
It seems that making an mmo just takes so much effort, knowledge, money, time, that creating something that is a "chance" is really difficult.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?
If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.
...
True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc
The fact that this defition is on wikipedia don't help at all, if tons of people still disagree with it.
Your whole focus is going to be on the use of the word sandbox? While we're at it let's not use any of these other words since some people have a different take on them when the majority clearly understand the terms:
MMO
AAA
Theme Park
RPG
Instanced
Game
The
While these words could also be discussed, everyone would have very similar definitions about them.
With sandbox the problem is that people can have completely different definitions about it.
My sarcastic point is that people have very different meanings about all of those words, with the obvious joke of the.
Look how many people argue which games should and should not be on the list here at MMORPG because they feel they are or aren't MMOs. People have different opinions on what every term applied to MMOs means including the term MMO to begin with. It isn't just the word sandbox. You are singling that word out because you are are in the anti-sandbox side of this discussion.
What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?
If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.
...
True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc. Granted, all MMO at least have sub-quests and optional subplots. Still, a sandbox lover can feel themselves being hurled along in a strict linear fashion. So maybe thats up for argument and you might be right
How many sequences do you need for you to consider a game truly 'non-linear'? WoW has at least three unique paths one could take to level to 60 for one faction alone with about 10+ permutations and variations. It's only at endgame that we are forced into a single raiding path to continue playing. So WoW is quite non-linear throughout its leveling process if the player is willing to vary their playstyle.
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Hmm.. this is interesting... By this definition.... Every MMO is in some way a sandbox.... am I wrong in assuming this from this definition? Especially the upcoming hater-magnet SWTOR seems to fit this mold in some way as well. If you think outside the box, then yes, EVERY mmo in one way or another is a sandbox.
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Hmm.. this is interesting... By this definition.... Every MMO is in some way a sandbox.... am I wrong in assuming this from this definition? Especially the upcoming hater-magnet SWTOR seems to fit this mold in some way as well. If you think outside the box, then yes, EVERY mmo in one way or another is a sandbox.
For instance in WoW (and definetly in SWtOR) you start in the newbie area. Then after x amount of quests a quest leads you to the level 10 area. Then you do quests in the level 10 area until you get led to the level 20 area etc etc.
In AC you start off in a town. There are no exclamation points over people's heads. No guy saying hey start with me and then go to that guy. You wander the world and do as you wish. You can go hunt for some levels, or you can go talk to townsfolk seeing if any of them needs help with something. You don't get held by the hand and directed on where to go and what to do and when to do it.
In WoW (and SWtOR) you pick a class at the start. That is your class and now you follow the quest line for that class.
In AC you pick your starting attributes and skills. You get dropped off in the world the same as someone who picked different skills. As you advance you pick which skills you want to learn. You form your character and your identity as you advance, you aren't locked into a class path.
That is the difference between what people refer to as theme park games and sandboxes.
ITT: people think wikipedia is a reliable source of information.
Wikipedia is correct there. However the definition of "sandbox" with regards to MMOs has drifted a bit compared to how it is used with other games, imho.
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Hmm.. this is interesting... By this definition.... Every MMO is in some way a sandbox.... am I wrong in assuming this from this definition? Especially the upcoming hater-magnet SWTOR seems to fit this mold in some way as well. If you think outside the box, then yes, EVERY mmo in one way or another is a sandbox.
For instance in WoW (and definetly in SWtOR) you start in the newbie area. Then after x amount of quests a quest leads you to the level 10 area. Then you do quests in the level 10 area until you get led to the level 20 area etc etc.
In AC you start off in a town. There are no exclamation points over people's heads. No guy saying hey start with me and then go to that guy. You wander the world and do as you wish. You can go hunt for some levels, or you can go talk to townsfolk seeing if any of them needs help with something. You don't get held by the hand and directed on where to go and what to do and when to do it.
In WoW (and SWtOR) you pick a class at the start. That is your class and now you follow the quest line for that class.
In AC you pick your starting attributes and skills. You get dropped off in the world the same as someone who picked different skills. As you advance you pick which skills you want to learn. You form your character and your identity as you advance, you aren't locked into a class path.
That is the difference between what people refer to as theme park games and sandboxes.
I kinda dissagree with that statement above about what sandbox style is, I personally don't believe the game gives the challenges, the players find the challenges, like in AC. You could in all fairness go from level 1 to 250(I think) with out ever completing a quest. Of course you would miss out on alot but you could do it, also you mold your character into something different then everyone else. How about in vanilla AC a Swordmaster with melee defense and only item magic...or the guy who sunk all his exp into his jump skill just to jump higher then everyone else. AC was one of the last GREAT Sandbox games. The levels in AC didn't suggest a path only a marker showing how much you put into the game. It really was only a placeholder for how much exp you had earned to put into skills and stats.
Games like WOW everything is pathed out for you, your choices for talents is a JOKE, there are some minor choices but the you must stay within the box at all times.
Then you have EVE one of the closest things to a sandbox other then AC, problem with EVE is as a world/universe there is no real sandboxish elements. Everything is known, there is not mystery as to what is over the next hill or around that star, Worm holes were an interesting addition to EVE but there implementation I feel was very poor.
As for the true ultimate sandbox well that is Second Life, you can do whatever your heart desires. There is nothing else if you want to do it then do it, but it has no goals except the ones you make, so is it really a game or an augment of reality?
Then you have EVE one of the closest things to a sandbox other then AC, problem with EVE is as a world/universe there is no real sandboxish elements. Everything is known, there is not mystery as to what is over the next hill or around that star, Worm holes were an interesting addition to EVE but there implementation I feel was very poor.
As for the true ultimate sandbox well that is Second Life, you can do whatever your heart desires. There is nothing else if you want to do it then do it, but it has no goals except the ones you make, so is it really a game or an augment of reality?
In EvE the mystery comes mostly from the players.
A static mystery created by a dev would no longer be a mystery as soon as the first player sees it.
And yes, if your definition of sandbox is non-linear gameplay then Second Life is the ultimate sandbox.
There are no more sandboxes because many players cried that they were too tedious.
Players couldn't be bothered to figure things(quests, skill systems) out on their own or make their own arrows, potions, etc. Now we have the opposite end of the spectrum which is mainstream(unfortunately) with quest rings telling you who has a quest, quest pointers to tell you where to go, and bows that shoot magical never ending arrows.
We're stuck with it now because the console market has migrated into the MMO market and that's what the draw is for them.
I'm personally enjoying Fallen Earth, it's sort of sandboxy feeling although not a true sandbox. I'm also waiting to see how The Secret World and Rift turn out.
I'm hoping the pendulum will sing back the other way some day.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?
If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.
...
True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc
The fact that this defition is on wikipedia don't help at all, if tons of people still disagree with it.
Your whole focus is going to be on the use of the word sandbox? While we're at it let's not use any of these other words since some people have a different take on them when the majority clearly understand the terms:
MMO
AAA
Theme Park
RPG
Instanced
Game
The
While these words could also be discussed, everyone would have very similar definitions about them.
With sandbox the problem is that people can have completely different definitions about it.
I agree with SnarlingWolf. People do indeed debate the meaning of "MMO". Many do not consider guild wars to be an MMO for example. I personally dont consider GW or Champions or CoX or any other heavily instanced title to be an "MMO"
Do i think they should be delisted? No. But I do not think of any as an MMO
ITT: people think wikipedia is a reliable source of information.
It is for certain things. For instance, certain professionals rely on it for basic information about Quaternions, basic programming paradigms, software engineering patterns, and so forth. To discount it completely would be like ignoring a library
Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.
EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.
UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?
UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.
At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?
But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?
And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.
In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.
I agree that there are a lot of factors and just basing things off of numbers is wrong. Yes, SWG initially had the Star Wars appeal, but most people who stayed did so because of the game. I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks SWG was Star Warsy (they like it for different reasons). SWG hovered at 250k-300k for the first year or two. It declined and shot back up around WoW but ultimately died because of many bad decisions by SoE over time. The thing to note (http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/) is that SWG did have a loyal playerbase with subscription numbers that were pretty good at the time. Lineage and WoW are the big exceptions. UO being new is correct, but SWG came out when there were plenty of MMOs - I wouldn't exactly say that it was in a narrow field (WoW came out only a year and a half later).
I think MMORPGs are still considered freakshows. I don't really see a difference in WoW's fame vs. EQ's fame.
As to whether or not these games would be a success if realeased today, I really don't know. The bar is a lot higher than it was back then. Lots of disenfranchised players expect so much because of what has come before. I don't think that money should really define an MMO's success except to the publishers. Besides being a fun game (obviously), an MMO also needs enough subs so that the game world feels like it is populated by a massive amount of people (isn't that why we play these games?). This can be different for each MMO, but there is nothing worse than an MMO with no players. I especially hate MMOs that report high sub numbers yet the games are a ghost town (modern SWG).
Anyways, I just don't think it is accurate to say sandbox games are a niche. There have been a lot of not-quite or bad sandboxes released, but the good ones were successful and I think people would play new ones if they were done right.
Until a sandbox game is released that shows a large number of subscribers as compared to its development cost, it will always be considered a niche product.
Well, until some developer comes up with the "great idea" to make an online world as opposed to a game. These things always tend to be cyclical.
I have to agree that mmo's are still considered freakshows, even with the success of wow.
The thing is, those players who are willing to play an early UO or SWG are still there. However, I bet that some of them would not have the time or inclination to play them today because of how life tends to throw more at you as you live it. Job, family, friends, etc.
And that is why it's a shame that Mortal Online is not as successful as it might be. Same with Darkfall.
It seems that making an mmo just takes so much effort, knowledge, money, time, that creating something that is a "chance" is really difficult.
The issue is we just don't have allot of "Sandbox" style of MMOs to compare to. Theme Park game have pretty much been the bread and butter of the MMORPG market. Now that being said I am looking forward to CCP World Of Darkness MMO(if it ever sees the light of day that is) mostly because I have faith in that it will probably be a persistent world type of sandbox MMO. That being said until we actually see "sandbox" style of MMOs come out we really will not be able to tell if they would be successful or not.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?
If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.
...
True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition
"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"
Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc. Granted, all MMO at least have sub-quests and optional subplots. Still, a sandbox lover can feel themselves being hurled along in a strict linear fashion. So maybe thats up for argument and you might be right
How many sequences do you need for you to consider a game truly 'non-linear'? WoW has at least three unique paths one could take to level to 60 for one faction alone with about 10+ permutations and variations. It's only at endgame that we are forced into a single raiding path to continue playing. So WoW is quite non-linear throughout its leveling process if the player is willing to vary their playstyle.
When I last played WoW, if a veteran wanted to come to Barrens and Level they could not gain XP. This defies basic sandbox criteria.
For instance in EVE Online, a veteran can still come to a Level 1 mission and earn cash plus help guildmates. In a linear game like WoW, a veteran earns no xp and is firmly discouraged from going there.
I think the only real definition of sandbox, is going to be a defintion of what a Sandbox is not.
A Sandbox does not have levels.
(Why did you get amazingly stronger after the 30th boar, not incrementally stronger through out.)
A Sandbox does not have classes.
(Why can't i be a stealth/mage/cook)
A Sandbox has less rules than possibilities
(I know this is not an opposite but I believe it is important)
A Sandbox allows you to make your mark on the world.
(Once again not a negative but I feel it is important, A Key element in a sandbox is a difference between what is on shards besides players.) (Example's In UO a Rare Museam on a Certain Shard, an player run auction house on another.)
I think this could be a very interesting discussion, feel free to bash any of my criteria and make your own.
Im sorry if this has already come up, as i didnt feel like reading 3 pages of posts....
I love this topic and the OP......where are all the sandboxes?
Well There is:
Ryzom
Darkfall
Mortal Online
Fallen Earth
All are made by smaller companies (everyone hate SOE/Blizzard or any other mega gaming company remember)
All are in various phases of death, due to lack of support. Not saying that they are or will be dead, just that they are all STRUGGLING.
This is a classic case of gamers wanting sooo bad for indie sandbox games, then, when they dont get the wow stability, or the instant gratification of theme park activities, they uninstall.
So what the larger companies, and other small companies see..... these games not doing well..... they see how they better get cracking on their mega theme park EQ style mmorpg, since those will make them and their investors a return, whereas sandboxes will not.
And rest assured, the half asses, as most would call it, releases of the above mentioned games, and various issues are due to the lack of investment. See when they get desperate for money, and ivestors threaten to pull out or sue, their choice is to scrap the whole project and go under, or immediately release (or as soon as possible) in order to genereate revenue and continue work.
So all you folks out there claiming "if only they would make a sandbox" get ready for nothing of the sort if these current sandboxes, and the few that are in development, fail due to gamers saying they want sandboxes (i dont know is it the trendy thing now?) but voting with their wallets for the themepark.
All of the games i mentioned (aside from mortal online, have yet to play it, but have played all the others and subscribed at least a little) are VERY playable, and offer something diffrent from WOW type games....yet they struggle.
Put your money where your mouth is, its the ONLY thing a business cares about, if you dont tell them with money what you want, they will give you whatever you are willing to pay for. And that is currently low risk cookie cutter wow style theme parks (which im not against by the way)
The only wat to change the trend is to do it yourself.
However we all know that the sandbox crowd is a very small nice crowd and most major developers are not going to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to make a blockbuster sandbox, that will most likely have under 90K subs...its not worth it to them....which is why you really only have indie sandboxes. The indie companies are taking the risk, and are paying dearly for it right now. You guys are the ones proving to the smart money that sandboxes dont work.
Remember how many shitty, barely running themepark mmorpgs people flocked to with their wallets before wow polished their game up? Thats right, just about all of em. Results: more development of what made money and better quality.
Deal with what comes with the idie developers since its not been proven that sandboxes can generate enough revenue to support the investment needed for blockbuster sandbox mmorpgs.
So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all.
You may ignore and continue your flame war over your various definitions of what a sandbox is.
I think the only real definition of sandbox, is going to be a defintion of what a Sandbox is not.
A Sandbox does not have levels.
(Why did you get amazingly stronger after the 30th boar, not incrementally stronger through out.)
A Sandbox does not have classes.
(Why can't i be a stealth/mage/cook)
A Sandbox has less rules than possibilities
(I know this is not an opposite but I believe it is important)
A Sandbox allows you to make your mark on the world.
(Once again not a negative but I feel it is important, A Key element in a sandbox is a difference between what is on shards besides players.) (Example's In UO a Rare Museam on a Certain Shard, an player run auction house on another.)
I think this could be a very interesting discussion, feel free to bash any of my criteria and make your own.
When you said Sandboxes have less rules than possibilities, have you actually played them? Player enforced rules are just as essential as code based rules. I have seen many implementations of such rules, starting in The Sims Online with crime families all the way till now with A Tale in the Desert's justice system. This to me provides WAY more possibilities than a world where you can't even attack your own allies because the system won't let you. Hell in WoW to make the South Park episode they had to remodel a FREAKING orc to allow a human to kill another human in Goldshire. GIVE ME A BREAK. If I want to kill a merchant because I think he over charged me I will. I expect there to be consequences but I'd love to just have a chance to do this. I sometimes wish MUDs had not gone by the wayside... People have no idea now what constitutes freedom in games or sandboxes.
Im sorry if this has already come up, as i didnt feel like reading 3 pages of posts....
I love this topic and the OP......where are all the sandboxes?
Well There is:
Ryzom
Darkfall
Mortal Online
Fallen Earth
All are made by smaller companies (everyone hate SOE/Blizzard or any other mega gaming company remember)
All are in various phases of death, due to lack of support. Not saying that they are or will be dead, just that they are all STRUGGLING.
This is a classic case of gamers wanting sooo bad for indie sandbox games, then, when they dont get the wow stability, or the instant gratification of theme park activities, they uninstall.
So what the larger companies, and other small companies see..... these games not doing well..... they see how they better get cracking on their mega theme park EQ style mmorpg, since those will make them and their investors a return, whereas sandboxes will not.
And rest assured, the half asses, as most would call it, releases of the above mentioned games, and various issues are due to the lack of investment. See when they get desperate for money, and ivestors threaten to pull out or sue, their choice is to scrap the whole project and go under, or immediately release (or as soon as possible) in order to genereate revenue and continue work.
So all you folks out there claiming "if only they would make a sandbox" get ready for nothing of the sort if these current sandboxes, and the few that are in development, fail due to gamers saying they want sandboxes (i dont know is it the trendy thing now?) but voting with their wallets for the themepark.
All of the games i mentioned (aside from mortal online, have yet to play it, but have played all the others and subscribed at least a little) are VERY playable, and offer something diffrent from WOW type games....yet they struggle.
Put your money where your mouth is, its the ONLY thing a business cares about, if you dont tell them with money what you want, they will give you whatever you are willing to pay for. And that is currently low risk cookie cutter wow style theme parks (which im not against by the way)
The only wat to change the trend is to do it yourself.
However we all know that the sandbox crowd is a very small nice crowd and most major developers are not going to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to make a blockbuster sandbox, that will most likely have under 90K subs...its not worth it to them....which is why you really only have indie sandboxes. The indie companies are taking the risk, and are paying dearly for it right now. You guys are the ones proving to the smart money that sandboxes dont work.
Remember how many shitty, barely running themepark mmorpgs people flocked to with their wallets before wow polished their game up? Thats right, just about all of em. Results: more development of what made money and better quality.
Deal with what comes with the idie developers since its not been proven that sandboxes can generate enough revenue to support the investment needed for blockbuster sandbox mmorpgs.
So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all.
You may ignore and continue your flame war over your various definitions of what a sandbox is.
I am pleasantly surprised that someone does indeed lurk here that has the intelligence to understand what really goes on and who is responsible for the state of MMO's in 2010. You sir win the internet.
"I'm not cheap I'm incredibly subconsciously financially optimized" "The worst part of censorship is ------------------"
So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all.
Darkfall/Mortal Online: full PvP. I have zero interest in PvP. That rules them out immediately.
Fallen Earth: I have to admit I may have erred here - I had seen it was post-apocolyptic and had a rather loud trailer so just assumed right away that it too was PvP-heavy without researching any further. Thank you for prodding me into a second look.
Ryzom: ok, this one might end up embarassing me a little. I had honestly never heard of it. Researching it a little, it does look interesting. There are a few alarm bells (like saying that the best resources are available in PvP zones) that tell me that I probably wouldn't be happy there long-term, but on the other hand, the description of the dynamic ecology gives me geeky goosebumps so I may give it a try anyway.
I don't normally thank people rage against a forum, but in this case, you've given exactly the sort of feedback I needed to link threads of my wandering imagination with worlds I have not yet visited. So ... thank you.
Comments
Indeed, ofc the vast majority of gamers are retards so that's not saying alot really...
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Ok, then you are right. But you didn't made very clear that you were talking only about the western market.
While these words could also be discussed, everyone would have very similar definitions about them.
With sandbox the problem is that people can have completely different definitions about it.
Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.
EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.
UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?
UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.
At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?
But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?
And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.
In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.
Sayhing a game has 300k subs is impressive but sayign a game has 300k subs, some of those alt accounts, when there aren't a lot of games and only about 300k players willing to play in a relatively new genre isn't all that impressive. I'm sure I can find 300k people who are into the freakiest things on the net but what they are interested in might still be considered a niche bit of entertaiment.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I agree that there are a lot of factors and just basing things off of numbers is wrong. Yes, SWG initially had the Star Wars appeal, but most people who stayed did so because of the game. I don't think you'll find a single person who thinks SWG was Star Warsy (they like it for different reasons). SWG hovered at 250k-300k for the first year or two. It declined and shot back up around WoW but ultimately died because of many bad decisions by SoE over time. The thing to note (http://www.mmogchart.com/charts/) is that SWG did have a loyal playerbase with subscription numbers that were pretty good at the time. Lineage and WoW are the big exceptions. UO being new is correct, but SWG came out when there were plenty of MMOs - I wouldn't exactly say that it was in a narrow field (WoW came out only a year and a half later).
I think MMORPGs are still considered freakshows. I don't really see a difference in WoW's fame vs. EQ's fame.
As to whether or not these games would be a success if realeased today, I really don't know. The bar is a lot higher than it was back then. Lots of disenfranchised players expect so much because of what has come before. I don't think that money should really define an MMO's success except to the publishers. Besides being a fun game (obviously), an MMO also needs enough subs so that the game world feels like it is populated by a massive amount of people (isn't that why we play these games?). This can be different for each MMO, but there is nothing worse than an MMO with no players. I especially hate MMOs that report high sub numbers yet the games are a ghost town (modern SWG).
Anyways, I just don't think it is accurate to say sandbox games are a niche. There have been a lot of not-quite or bad sandboxes released, but the good ones were successful and I think people would play new ones if they were done right.
Until a sandbox game is released that shows a large number of subscribers as compared to its development cost, it will always be considered a niche product.
Well, until some developer comes up with the "great idea" to make an online world as opposed to a game. These things always tend to be cyclical.
I have to agree that mmo's are still considered freakshows, even with the success of wow.
The thing is, those players who are willing to play an early UO or SWG are still there. However, I bet that some of them would not have the time or inclination to play them today because of how life tends to throw more at you as you live it. Job, family, friends, etc.
And that is why it's a shame that Mortal Online is not as successful as it might be. Same with Darkfall.
It seems that making an mmo just takes so much effort, knowledge, money, time, that creating something that is a "chance" is really difficult.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
My sarcastic point is that people have very different meanings about all of those words, with the obvious joke of the.
Look how many people argue which games should and should not be on the list here at MMORPG because they feel they are or aren't MMOs. People have different opinions on what every term applied to MMOs means including the term MMO to begin with. It isn't just the word sandbox. You are singling that word out because you are are in the anti-sandbox side of this discussion.
How many sequences do you need for you to consider a game truly 'non-linear'? WoW has at least three unique paths one could take to level to 60 for one faction alone with about 10+ permutations and variations. It's only at endgame that we are forced into a single raiding path to continue playing. So WoW is quite non-linear throughout its leveling process if the player is willing to vary their playstyle.
Hmm.. this is interesting... By this definition.... Every MMO is in some way a sandbox.... am I wrong in assuming this from this definition? Especially the upcoming hater-magnet SWTOR seems to fit this mold in some way as well. If you think outside the box, then yes, EVERY mmo in one way or another is a sandbox.
ITT: people think wikipedia is a reliable source of information.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
For instance in WoW (and definetly in SWtOR) you start in the newbie area. Then after x amount of quests a quest leads you to the level 10 area. Then you do quests in the level 10 area until you get led to the level 20 area etc etc.
In AC you start off in a town. There are no exclamation points over people's heads. No guy saying hey start with me and then go to that guy. You wander the world and do as you wish. You can go hunt for some levels, or you can go talk to townsfolk seeing if any of them needs help with something. You don't get held by the hand and directed on where to go and what to do and when to do it.
In WoW (and SWtOR) you pick a class at the start. That is your class and now you follow the quest line for that class.
In AC you pick your starting attributes and skills. You get dropped off in the world the same as someone who picked different skills. As you advance you pick which skills you want to learn. You form your character and your identity as you advance, you aren't locked into a class path.
That is the difference between what people refer to as theme park games and sandboxes.
Wikipedia is correct there. However the definition of "sandbox" with regards to MMOs has drifted a bit compared to how it is used with other games, imho.
I kinda dissagree with that statement above about what sandbox style is, I personally don't believe the game gives the challenges, the players find the challenges, like in AC. You could in all fairness go from level 1 to 250(I think) with out ever completing a quest. Of course you would miss out on alot but you could do it, also you mold your character into something different then everyone else. How about in vanilla AC a Swordmaster with melee defense and only item magic...or the guy who sunk all his exp into his jump skill just to jump higher then everyone else. AC was one of the last GREAT Sandbox games. The levels in AC didn't suggest a path only a marker showing how much you put into the game. It really was only a placeholder for how much exp you had earned to put into skills and stats.
Games like WOW everything is pathed out for you, your choices for talents is a JOKE, there are some minor choices but the you must stay within the box at all times.
Then you have EVE one of the closest things to a sandbox other then AC, problem with EVE is as a world/universe there is no real sandboxish elements. Everything is known, there is not mystery as to what is over the next hill or around that star, Worm holes were an interesting addition to EVE but there implementation I feel was very poor.
As for the true ultimate sandbox well that is Second Life, you can do whatever your heart desires. There is nothing else if you want to do it then do it, but it has no goals except the ones you make, so is it really a game or an augment of reality?
In EvE the mystery comes mostly from the players.
A static mystery created by a dev would no longer be a mystery as soon as the first player sees it.
And yes, if your definition of sandbox is non-linear gameplay then Second Life is the ultimate sandbox.
Second Life is the ultimate sandbox under any definition.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
There are no more sandboxes because many players cried that they were too tedious.
Players couldn't be bothered to figure things(quests, skill systems) out on their own or make their own arrows, potions, etc. Now we have the opposite end of the spectrum which is mainstream(unfortunately) with quest rings telling you who has a quest, quest pointers to tell you where to go, and bows that shoot magical never ending arrows.
We're stuck with it now because the console market has migrated into the MMO market and that's what the draw is for them.
I'm personally enjoying Fallen Earth, it's sort of sandboxy feeling although not a true sandbox. I'm also waiting to see how The Secret World and Rift turn out.
I'm hoping the pendulum will sing back the other way some day.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
I agree with SnarlingWolf. People do indeed debate the meaning of "MMO". Many do not consider guild wars to be an MMO for example. I personally dont consider GW or Champions or CoX or any other heavily instanced title to be an "MMO"
Do i think they should be delisted? No. But I do not think of any as an MMO
It is for certain things. For instance, certain professionals rely on it for basic information about Quaternions, basic programming paradigms, software engineering patterns, and so forth. To discount it completely would be like ignoring a library
The issue is we just don't have allot of "Sandbox" style of MMOs to compare to. Theme Park game have pretty much been the bread and butter of the MMORPG market. Now that being said I am looking forward to CCP World Of Darkness MMO(if it ever sees the light of day that is) mostly because I have faith in that it will probably be a persistent world type of sandbox MMO. That being said until we actually see "sandbox" style of MMOs come out we really will not be able to tell if they would be successful or not.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
When I last played WoW, if a veteran wanted to come to Barrens and Level they could not gain XP. This defies basic sandbox criteria.
For instance in EVE Online, a veteran can still come to a Level 1 mission and earn cash plus help guildmates. In a linear game like WoW, a veteran earns no xp and is firmly discouraged from going there.
I think the only real definition of sandbox, is going to be a defintion of what a Sandbox is not.
A Sandbox does not have levels.
(Why did you get amazingly stronger after the 30th boar, not incrementally stronger through out.)
A Sandbox does not have classes.
(Why can't i be a stealth/mage/cook)
A Sandbox has less rules than possibilities
(I know this is not an opposite but I believe it is important)
A Sandbox allows you to make your mark on the world.
(Once again not a negative but I feel it is important, A Key element in a sandbox is a difference between what is on shards besides players.) (Example's In UO a Rare Museam on a Certain Shard, an player run auction house on another.)
I think this could be a very interesting discussion, feel free to bash any of my criteria and make your own.
Im sorry if this has already come up, as i didnt feel like reading 3 pages of posts....
I love this topic and the OP......where are all the sandboxes?
Well There is:
Ryzom
Darkfall
Mortal Online
Fallen Earth
All are made by smaller companies (everyone hate SOE/Blizzard or any other mega gaming company remember)
All are in various phases of death, due to lack of support. Not saying that they are or will be dead, just that they are all STRUGGLING.
This is a classic case of gamers wanting sooo bad for indie sandbox games, then, when they dont get the wow stability, or the instant gratification of theme park activities, they uninstall.
So what the larger companies, and other small companies see..... these games not doing well..... they see how they better get cracking on their mega theme park EQ style mmorpg, since those will make them and their investors a return, whereas sandboxes will not.
And rest assured, the half asses, as most would call it, releases of the above mentioned games, and various issues are due to the lack of investment. See when they get desperate for money, and ivestors threaten to pull out or sue, their choice is to scrap the whole project and go under, or immediately release (or as soon as possible) in order to genereate revenue and continue work.
So all you folks out there claiming "if only they would make a sandbox" get ready for nothing of the sort if these current sandboxes, and the few that are in development, fail due to gamers saying they want sandboxes (i dont know is it the trendy thing now?) but voting with their wallets for the themepark.
All of the games i mentioned (aside from mortal online, have yet to play it, but have played all the others and subscribed at least a little) are VERY playable, and offer something diffrent from WOW type games....yet they struggle.
Put your money where your mouth is, its the ONLY thing a business cares about, if you dont tell them with money what you want, they will give you whatever you are willing to pay for. And that is currently low risk cookie cutter wow style theme parks (which im not against by the way)
The only wat to change the trend is to do it yourself.
However we all know that the sandbox crowd is a very small nice crowd and most major developers are not going to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to make a blockbuster sandbox, that will most likely have under 90K subs...its not worth it to them....which is why you really only have indie sandboxes. The indie companies are taking the risk, and are paying dearly for it right now. You guys are the ones proving to the smart money that sandboxes dont work.
Remember how many shitty, barely running themepark mmorpgs people flocked to with their wallets before wow polished their game up? Thats right, just about all of em. Results: more development of what made money and better quality.
Deal with what comes with the idie developers since its not been proven that sandboxes can generate enough revenue to support the investment needed for blockbuster sandbox mmorpgs.
So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all.
You may ignore and continue your flame war over your various definitions of what a sandbox is.
When you said Sandboxes have less rules than possibilities, have you actually played them? Player enforced rules are just as essential as code based rules. I have seen many implementations of such rules, starting in The Sims Online with crime families all the way till now with A Tale in the Desert's justice system. This to me provides WAY more possibilities than a world where you can't even attack your own allies because the system won't let you. Hell in WoW to make the South Park episode they had to remodel a FREAKING orc to allow a human to kill another human in Goldshire. GIVE ME A BREAK. If I want to kill a merchant because I think he over charged me I will. I expect there to be consequences but I'd love to just have a chance to do this. I sometimes wish MUDs had not gone by the wayside... People have no idea now what constitutes freedom in games or sandboxes.
I am pleasantly surprised that someone does indeed lurk here that has the intelligence to understand what really goes on and who is responsible for the state of MMO's in 2010. You sir win the internet.
"I'm not cheap I'm incredibly subconsciously financially optimized"
"The worst part of censorship is ------------------"
Darkfall/Mortal Online: full PvP. I have zero interest in PvP. That rules them out immediately.
Fallen Earth: I have to admit I may have erred here - I had seen it was post-apocolyptic and had a rather loud trailer so just assumed right away that it too was PvP-heavy without researching any further. Thank you for prodding me into a second look.
Ryzom: ok, this one might end up embarassing me a little. I had honestly never heard of it. Researching it a little, it does look interesting. There are a few alarm bells (like saying that the best resources are available in PvP zones) that tell me that I probably wouldn't be happy there long-term, but on the other hand, the description of the dynamic ecology gives me geeky goosebumps so I may give it a try anyway.
I don't normally thank people rage against a forum, but in this case, you've given exactly the sort of feedback I needed to link threads of my wandering imagination with worlds I have not yet visited. So ... thank you.