I just want a game that is worth my $60. And in that I mean, I want a game that will take me at least 60 days to finish... so that's 1 dollar per day of play instead of what we have now which is like $10 per day of play or more. But that will never happen in a world where having the mostest with the leastest effort is the driving force of humanity.
If I had to choose I would pick "Show results" lol. Clearly not going to pick one over the other because both have the potentional to be great games and even a combination of the two could be great as well.
Developers THINK WE LIKE THE CRAP THEY ARE PUTING OUT, because box sales are high. They don't read out of game forums like we do. So the next Developer will make there game to follow the last.
SWTOR has some nice features ( for a solo, single player game ) I don't care what anyone says the Voice Acting will kill it as an mmo !!! Yet they will sell millions of copies, and the Starwars fans will last much longer no matter what,,,,,It's Starwars !
So now will have voice acting from every other mmo developer from here on out.
Then again maybe all the big money is really on box sales and first month subs, and they don't really give a rat's nuts about us !
Most developers aren't chasing box sales, they're chasing subscriptions -- a much truer indicator of what players want to play.
What type of MMO had the most subscriptions again?
Also I'm a little confused how you feel voice-acting is bad. Unless it's bad voice-acting or unskippable cutscenes (which is the big concern for SW:ToR) it's not bad.
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
First, I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the idea you propose that Themepark is what players want because that's what they have been playing, despite that fact that that's all there is to play (outside of very lacking productions).
As far as players calling for these sorts of things, there will always be misguided ideas. There have been plenty of others who have posted sound thinking, including in this very thread. You have a wont to ignore those.
But I do agree with the specific examples you just mentioned.
Long travel times should be limited to exploration into the world, but not -out- of said explorations and not as a rule of thumb in the player hub areas UO's marked recall runes are great here). Long travel times should also be required for movement of bulk supplies to foster the caravan and merchant design of a Sandbox World, but attuned to NPC control with player oversight, and where needed, with player protection, and with player options into new expansions of "tamed" lands.
Harsh death penalties similarly are not good as a rule of thumb. They should be limited to rampant PKers so as to limit the PKing while still leaving the possibility of confrontations in a world in conflict. I would also like to see harsh death penalties for "End Game" sorts of designs. If players go after a deity, and there's great rewards for doing so, let there be a greater risk and make it a greater accomplishment. Small death penalties are good as a general rule. Losing gear as a general rule of game play should be accepted as such. Adding some small skill/stat loss as players go against greater things should also be considered. Example of that might be a 5% loss of strength if dying to higher ranks of undead, yet the players should be able to regain their loss in several game play sessions on average.
Anyways, the general idea of what we want has been put out there repeatedly for quite some time now.
When the hell are we going to see someone give us what we want? Stop giving us this excuse, that we don't know what we want. Make it. Do it right. And we'll come and spend many years there. You don't have the option to continue down the present course anymore. That's over. Themepark is stale. We don't want it anymore. Give us what we damn well want, or more and more will stop giving you any money at all.
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
First, I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the idea you propose that Themepark is what players want because that's what they have been playing, despite that fact that that's all there is to play (outside of very lacking productions).
As far as players calling for these sorts of things, there will always be misguided ideas. There have been plenty of others who have posted sound thinking, including in this very thread. You have a wont to ignore those.
But I do agree with the specific examples you just mentioned.
Long travel times should be limited to exploration into the world, but not -out- of said explorations and not as a rule of thumb in the player hub areas UO's marked recall runes are great here). Long travel times should also be required for movement of bulk supplies to foster the caravan and merchant design of a Sandbox World, but attuned to NPC control with player oversight, and where needed, with player protection, and with player options into new expansions of "tamed" lands.
Harsh death penalties similarly are not good as a rule of thumb. They should be limited to rampant PKers so as to limit the PKing while still leaving the possibility of confrontations in a world in conflict. I would also like to see harsh death penalties for "End Game" sorts of designs. If players go after a deity, and there's great rewards for doing so, let there be a greater risk and make it a greater accomplishment. Small death penalties are good as a general rule. Losing gear as a general rule of game play should be accepted as such. Adding some small skill/stat loss as players go against greater things should also be considered. Example of that might be a 5% loss of strength if dying to higher ranks of undead, yet the players should be able to regain their loss in several game play sessions on average.
Anyways, the general idea of what we want has been put out there repeatedly for quite some time now.
When the hell are we going to see someone give us what we want? Stop giving us this excuse, that we don't know what we want. Make it. Do it right. And we'll come and spend many years there. You don't have the option to continue down the present course anymore. That's over. Themepark is stale. We don't want it anymore. Give us what we damn well want, or more and more will stop giving you any money at all.
In the beginning there were just as many sandbox as there were themepark, SWG, UO, AC. There were really only 2 big themepark Daoc and EQ. However EQ had more subs than any of those games.
Then CoH came along and garnered a few hundred thousand subs, then WoW and half a million in a year. It isn't a case of devs are only giving us themepark, the players actively chose themepark and so devs built more of them.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
First, I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the idea you propose that Themepark is what players want because that's what they have been playing, despite that fact that that's all there is to play (outside of very lacking productions).
As far as players calling for these sorts of things, there will always be misguided ideas. There have been plenty of others who have posted sound thinking, including in this very thread. You have a wont to ignore those.
But I do agree with the specific examples you just mentioned.
Long travel times should be limited to exploration into the world, but not -out- of said explorations and not as a rule of thumb in the player hub areas UO's marked recall runes are great here). Long travel times should also be required for movement of bulk supplies to foster the caravan and merchant design of a Sandbox World, but attuned to NPC control with player oversight, and where needed, with player protection, and with player options into new expansions of "tamed" lands.
Harsh death penalties similarly are not good as a rule of thumb. They should be limited to rampant PKers so as to limit the PKing while still leaving the possibility of confrontations in a world in conflict. I would also like to see harsh death penalties for "End Game" sorts of designs. If players go after a deity, and there's great rewards for doing so, let there be a greater risk and make it a greater accomplishment. Small death penalties are good as a general rule. Losing gear as a general rule of game play should be accepted as such. Adding some small skill/stat loss as players go against greater things should also be considered. Example of that might be a 5% loss of strength if dying to higher ranks of undead, yet the players should be able to regain their loss in several game play sessions on average.
Anyways, the general idea of what we want has been put out there repeatedly for quite some time now.
When the hell are we going to see someone give us what we want? Stop giving us this excuse, that we don't know what we want. Make it. Do it right. And we'll come and spend many years there. You don't have the option to continue down the present course anymore. That's over. Themepark is stale. We don't want it anymore. Give us what we damn well want, or more and more will stop giving you any money at all.
In the beginning there were just as many sandbox as there were themepark, SWG, UO, AC. There were really only 2 big themepark Daoc and EQ. However EQ had more subs than any of those games.
Then CoH came along and garnered a few hundred thousand subs, then WoW and half a million in a year. It isn't a case of devs are only giving us themepark, the players actively chose themepark and so devs built more of them.
Venge
Of the games you listed, only UO was a true Sandbox. But it had wide open PvP with no real workable justice system. They almost had one, they were close, but then EA made them go with split realms. And since then, as the old guard left and new came in, they've added more and more leveling to the game. It's still a Sandbox (I've played it until a month ago), but not a very good one now.
SWG, lots of players call it a sandbox. But a key part of a Sandbox world is allowing players to use all the content together, even if some need the help of others. In SWG, they called it a skill based system but it still had the sort of level gaps that divide the content from players.
AC had such a level grind and massive gaps that their PvP server, Darktide, was a waste of time.
These games, being called "Sandbox", yet the players are divided by their "levels" whether they are called that or not. They were not Themeparks of the best kind either. They were something in between. But that doesn't work very well.
DAoC and EQ were true Themeparks, both with some features that we might call "Sandboxy". But their biggest probelm was that they didn't go all out to be Themeparks. It's key that you noted EQ had so many subs. They also had a lot of "Sandboxy" (or "Worldly" might be the better term) stuff. And when you hear players talk about the things they remember, it was these things they talk about. Waiting is one of those, but I don't think it was that so much as the world around them that they waited in, that brings back those fond memories.
Then came along WoW. Blew everyone away. Why? I think, I am certain, that it wasn't the Themepark at all. Rather, it was the "worldly" things. They really went all out on these things, and at the same time they removed all the problems that the other Themeparks went through. The waiting in line at key quests to get needed drops being the biggest one.
Some of the "worldly" things that WoW did so well that they killed the market...
Animations. They did this so well, did everything right here all the way down to how humans jumped "Captain America style".
Huge world that felt alive (reguardless of the Themepark design). The Gryphon rides were a stroke of genius here, make it feel even more like a world, giving players a view of places they had yet to get to, wetting their appetites.
Swimming, holding breath, etc.
Even with zones, they allowed you to feel like they were connected as one world. Heck, you could jump off a cliff from one zone to another. Sure, you died, but it made their world feel like it was one world instead of a bunch of separate zones.
Harvesting felt "worldly".
NPCs added just for flavor, like the children that everyone follows.
A few mysteries, like special pets, like the ghost saber cat.
WoW dominated the market for other reasons too, such as the massive numbers of Blizzard fans who never even heard of MMOs before WoW. But mainly it was because they took Themepark to where it had to go to overcome the problems other games experienced, and they did it so well. And they made so much, so very well.
But the fact of the matter is this. Themeparks get boring. They are repetitive. There is no way around it. Who could go to an amusement park day in and day out and not get bored with that too? People go a few times a year at most. More than that, they'd get bored because they've done it all so much already. Of course there's some exceptions, as always.
And players are tired of it now. It's been time to move on to another style of MMO for several years now. And a Sandbox, worldly game can be very exciting. And the social possibilities that players expect due to these massive numbers in one world have yet to be touched on in any possitive way.
So enough already. Build us a Sandbox world that's great, huge, and full of excitement, mystery, and things happening from both other players as well as developer plotlines.
Voted for new since the first one sounded more like a sandbox and the second is more of a themepark. I'm not really into "doing-whatever-I-want" type of game since I like those that are linear with a good story and a clear goal.
I just want a game that is worth my $60. And in that I mean, I want a game that will take me at least 60 days to finish... so that's 1 dollar per day of play instead of what we have now which is like $10 per day of play or more. But that will never happen in a world where having the mostest with the leastest effort is the driving force of humanity.
Holey cow pmiles thanks,
You just helped me realize why mmo's are going in the direction they are going as of the last few years !!!!
Developers of mmo's are trying to cash in on the non-mmo players too !!!....They are almost to the point of not even caring if people play together or not, just add a few multi player mini games to it, and hope people sub for a few months. After several millions and a few months all they have to do is keep a small team on hand to keep the servers up.
Good solo game is really all thats needed. SWTOR would have made a good off line game too, it would be worth $60 !!!!
In the beginning there were just as many sandbox as there were themepark, SWG, UO, AC. There were really only 2 big themepark Daoc and EQ. However EQ had more subs than any of those games.
Then CoH came along and garnered a few hundred thousand subs, then WoW and half a million in a year. It isn't a case of devs are only giving us themepark, the players actively chose themepark and so devs built more of them.
Venge
I wouldn't call CoX vs. WOW a sandbox vs. themepark case. CoX certainly had more freedom to its character customization, but there wasn't any world manipulation going on. So it was more sandbox-ish, but largely a themepark.
(For that matter, I don't feel Skyrim is a sandbox, despite hinting that I might earlier.)
But yeah the rest of your post is spot-on. Sandboxes started the genre, and it's clear themeparks were chosen by players. As games became more game-like and less world-like, they enjoyed greater success.
Simulation games have always been demanded less, since the beginning of the games industry. So this isn't really a surprising or new discovery.
Which leads to how you probably make a successful sandbox: make a game about world manipulation, but make a great game first, and let world simulation fall by the wayside. If you can make the world simulation better without harming gameplay, that's fine. But as soon as you sacrifice gameplay for better simulation, you take a step away from what most people want.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I just want a game that is worth my $60. And in that I mean, I want a game that will take me at least 60 days to finish... so that's 1 dollar per day of play instead of what we have now which is like $10 per day of play or more. But that will never happen in a world where having the mostest with the leastest effort is the driving force of humanity.
Holey cow pmiles thanks,
You just helped me realize why mmo's are going in the direction they are going as of the last few years !!!!
Developers of mmo's are trying to cash in on the non-mmo players too !!!....They are almost to the point of not even caring if people play together or not, just add a few multi player mini games to it, and hope people sub for a few months. After several millions and a few months all they have to do is keep a small team on hand to keep the servers up.
Good solo game is really all thats needed. SWTOR would have made a good off line game too, it would be worth $60 !!!!
That's where the money is, I played LOTRO, CoH, SWG, WAR, WoW.
Most of the fun I have had is in LOTRO and WoW, WAR was pretty damn fun to but the lack of anyone doing any quests and being solo all the time got old. I actually quit SWG because of KOTOR since clearly the greatest Star Wars adventure was not my own.
More and More people want to play online with their friends but don't want to pay 20,30,40 hours per week. This is where the themepark comes in and this is how WoW had 10 million subs at one point. This is why SWTOR is going the way it's going. The new will always appeal more to the masses than the old that's what people want. I play games to get away from reality not have a second life. Now if they can combine the best of the old and the new you really will have a game changer on your hands.
In the beginning there were just as many sandbox as there were themepark, SWG, UO, AC. There were really only 2 big themepark Daoc and EQ. However EQ had more subs than any of those games.
Then CoH came along and garnered a few hundred thousand subs, then WoW and half a million in a year. It isn't a case of devs are only giving us themepark, the players actively chose themepark and so devs built more of them.
Venge
I wouldn't call CoX vs. WOW a sandbox vs. themepark case. CoX certainly had more freedom to its character customization, but there wasn't any world manipulation going on. So it was more sandbox-ish, but largely a themepark.
(For that matter, I don't feel Skyrim is a sandbox, despite hinting that I might earlier.)
But yeah the rest of your post is spot-on. Sandboxes started the genre, and it's clear themeparks were chosen by players. As games became more game-like and less world-like, they enjoyed greater success.
Simulation games have always been demanded less, since the beginning of the games industry. So this isn't really a surprising or new discovery.
Which leads to how you probably make a successful sandbox: make a game about world manipulation, but make a great game first, and let world simulation fall by the wayside. If you can make the world simulation better without harming gameplay, that's fine. But as soon as you sacrifice gameplay for better simulation, you take a step away from what most people want.
I wasn't implying that CoX was a sandbox, it definately wasn't, especially on release - most definately a themepark (later on with the architect and the bases it become more sandboxy but still largely a themepark). I'm saying that in the beginning there were more sandboxes than themepark but themepark still had more subs and because of that the devs started making themepark games (CoX than Wow...).
CoX was just another example of a game that garnered between 2 and 300k subs for several years, more than many/most/all of the sandboxes, and even before it went f2p still had between 1 and 150k subs again more than many/most/all sandbox.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I prefer to "write" my own characters story than have it told to me by the developers and (using SWTOR as an example) being Imperial agent 1038 with the same backstory.
I actually felt more attached to my SWG, EQ and DAOC character than my Rift, EQ2 or WOW character.
All we need is Darkfall and Mortal Online done well. If these 2 games saw a lot of love and polish then they would be the ultimate games.
not unless you get rid of FFA PVP and full loot, I will never touch those games. I don't believe full loot FFA PVP is needed for a game to be a sandbox.
sure you can say "but the freedom .... " sorry when your freedom overrides my freedom then im not free at all.
All we need is Darkfall and Mortal Online done well. If these 2 games saw a lot of love and polish then they would be the ultimate games.
not unless you get rid of FFA PVP and full loot, I will never touch those games. I don't believe full loot FFA PVP is needed for a game to be a sandbox.
sure you can say "but the freedom .... " sorry when your freedom overrides my freedom then im not free at all.
I agree.
One of the main problems with sandbox gameplay, is the misperception that sandbox gameplay equates to or otherwise requires FFA PvP with or without full looting.
We've yet to actually see a large budget MMO that is actually PvE oriented sandbox. Yet oddly people seem convinced that sandbox MMOs aren't popular, yet this entire facet has been largely ignored. It would be amusing if it wasn't so depressing.
All we need is Darkfall and Mortal Online done well. If these 2 games saw a lot of love and polish then they would be the ultimate games.
not unless you get rid of FFA PVP and full loot, I will never touch those games. I don't believe full loot FFA PVP is needed for a game to be a sandbox.
sure you can say "but the freedom .... " sorry when your freedom overrides my freedom then im not free at all.
I agree.
One of the main problems with sandbox gameplay, is the misperception that sandbox gameplay equates to or otherwise requires FFA PvP with or without full looting.
We've yet to actually see a large budget MMO that is actually PvE oriented sandbox. Yet oddly people seem convinced that sandbox MMOs aren't popular, yet this entire facet has been largely ignored. It would be amusing if it wasn't so depressing.
FFA means nothing if not accompanied by a set of rules.
Also, full loot feeds the industry and it adds risk which is fun per se. Lucky you, you have an overwhelming amount of MMOs not FFA/ not full loot to chose from.
The MMOs of today just plain suck. In fact, I might never buy another one unless a developer has the cohones to get back to the roots, the foundation of it all.
Until then, you can take that shiny yellow floating ! and ? and...
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Blah blah blah blah. Axehilt, go peddle your pro-WoW style, want everything handed to me, make it a console RPG garbage elsewhere. New sure must be what is wanted since it is buried in this poll.
No one is saying they find inconveinience fun. It's only inconveinient to those who don't like to think or work a bit for rewards (Which is also a form of fun and gratification that most new gamers can't seem to grasp). Yet again...this is what seperates MMORPG's from console gaming. You want rewarded and to feel 1337 quickly, go play console games, or stick to WoW.
The inconveniences we're talking about are travel time or time-consuming death penalty or manual group-finding.
Are you really going to sit there and argue that travel time requires "thought" or "work"? That's preposterous.
Actually yeah, travel time in a well designed game world does require thought and work. EQ perfect example of a world that tried to kill you. You couldnt travel certain places if you weren't liked for example you played an Iksar character EVERYONE in norrath hated you and you were kill on sight to NPC's, looks like your iksar monk epic quest now takes a little planning to navigate through freeport for his epic 1.0. Or how about hill giants in commonlands a level 1-15 range with level 35 giants randomly killing low levels. Yeah id say travel time does require a little thought unless your playing WoW, hey let me get on my flying mount and avoid contact with everything... or low level areas you can just run a screen away and a mob stops chasing you like you magically vanished. Were these things annoying? you better believe it, but it made the game world more interesting cause there are actual risks and you cant just run around like a blind idiot. You know what used to happen to shitty players in EQ? they got a reputation for being fucking shitty so no one grouped with them, thats why they all run around WoW now with instant group makers.
Actually yeah, travel time in a well designed game world does require thought and work. EQ perfect example of a world that tried to kill you. You couldnt travel certain places if you weren't liked for example you played an Iksar character EVERYONE in norrath hated you and you were kill on sight to NPC's, looks like your iksar monk epic quest now takes a little planning to navigate through freeport for his epic 1.0. Or how about hill giants in commonlands a level 1-15 range with level 35 giants randomly killing low levels. Yeah id say travel time does require a little thought unless your playing WoW, hey let me get on my flying mount and avoid contact with everything... or low level areas you can just run a screen away and a mob stops chasing you like you magically vanished. Were these things annoying? you better believe it, but it made the game world more interesting cause there are actual risks and you cant just run around like a blind idiot. You know what used to happen to shitty players in EQ? they got a reputation for being fucking shitty so no one grouped with them, thats why they all run around WoW now with instant group makers.
Sure, but the problem is that decision-making tends to not be as interesting as the alternative decisions the player couldb e making. And really we're specifically talking about retracing steps -- you still get all of those bits of challenging content the first time you travel anywhere.
But with fast travel you get to skip the 20th trip through the same level 35 giant area -- and now you're level 40+ and it's just a big tedious hassle because you just want to get to the zone across from this one.
Challenging travel is fantastic the first time. It's the subsequent trips which make it a progressively more dull and excessive time sink.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Actually yeah, travel time in a well designed game world does require thought and work. EQ perfect example of a world that tried to kill you. You couldnt travel certain places if you weren't liked for example you played an Iksar character EVERYONE in norrath hated you and you were kill on sight to NPC's, looks like your iksar monk epic quest now takes a little planning to navigate through freeport for his epic 1.0. Or how about hill giants in commonlands a level 1-15 range with level 35 giants randomly killing low levels. Yeah id say travel time does require a little thought unless your playing WoW, hey let me get on my flying mount and avoid contact with everything... or low level areas you can just run a screen away and a mob stops chasing you like you magically vanished. Were these things annoying? you better believe it, but it made the game world more interesting cause there are actual risks and you cant just run around like a blind idiot. You know what used to happen to shitty players in EQ? they got a reputation for being fucking shitty so no one grouped with them, thats why they all run around WoW now with instant group makers.
Sure, but the problem is that decision-making tends to not be as interesting as the alternative decisions the player couldb e making. And really we're specifically talking about retracing steps -- you still get all of those bits of challenging content the first time you travel anywhere.
But with fast travel you get to skip the 20th trip through the same level 35 giant area -- and now you're level 40+ and it's just a big tedious hassle because you just want to get to the zone across from this one.
Challenging travel is fantastic the first time. It's the subsequent trips which make it a progressively more dull and excessive time sink.
Unless the world changes. Still, I agree with you on this. That's why I love the idea of UO's marked runes system. Once you get there, you can mark a rune and return. Add in a changing world on top of this for those who love to explore and see what's out there, or what's different now, and I think that's the best way to go. And this is for either side of the divide, Sandbox or Themepark. It's just that, like everything else except hand holding, it just works better in a Sandbox.
Fill players' time with quality, meaningful gameplay? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose solo vs. grouping? They'll stay.
Freedom to choose easy vs. hard, and rewarded accordingly? They'll stay.
(Inconveniences are terrrible for gameplay. Challenge is great for gameplay. The point of new MMORPGs is to strip out the inconveniences while leaving the challenge.)
Also were there any early MMORPGs which actually had deep rich dungeons? The dungeons in modern MMORPGs give me bosses so rich that they're minigames unto themselves. The dungeons in old MMORPGs (AC and AO and DAOC) were just mazy corridors with elite mobs. Not even close to what I'd call rich.
Blah blah blah blah. Axehilt, go peddle your pro-WoW style, want everything handed to me, make it a console RPG garbage elsewhere. New sure must be what is wanted since it is buried in this poll.
No one is saying they find inconveinience fun. It's only inconveinient to those who don't like to think or work a bit for rewards (Which is also a form of fun and gratification that most new gamers can't seem to grasp). Yet again...this is what seperates MMORPG's from console gaming. You want rewarded and to feel 1337 quickly, go play console games, or stick to WoW.
How does waiting for hours around for players to fill a group THINKING or WORK? Waiting for your DP to wear off, again how is that THINKING or WORK?
Comments
I just want a game that is worth my $60. And in that I mean, I want a game that will take me at least 60 days to finish... so that's 1 dollar per day of play instead of what we have now which is like $10 per day of play or more. But that will never happen in a world where having the mostest with the leastest effort is the driving force of humanity.
If I had to choose I would pick "Show results" lol. Clearly not going to pick one over the other because both have the potentional to be great games and even a combination of the two could be great as well.
You're not a little confused. You are totally confused. Like all the rest of your developer friends.
You keep pushing this argument. But the fact is that you developers are dealing the cards, and you are stacking the deck. Considering todays technical qualities, and even yesterdays, there is not one Sandbox game out there of any quality at all outside of Eve, and most of us want an avatar and a world to run around in. There is nothing for us to compete against your swill. If we want to play at all, we have to play what you are pushing up our arses.
And that's why I and obviously many others have left the MMO scene. I'm enjoying Skyrim as a single player game (which would not make a good MMO as is), lamenting that there are no MMORPGs with social interactions out there to play, even among the MMOs where that's possible, and not planning on returning for the foreseeable future.
Once upon a time....
A sandbox MMO could be successful, but sandbox forum proponents aren't chasing the type of game mechanics which could make a sandbox successful.
Skyrim is a perfect example, since it has exactly the types of death penalty and travel I've described in this thread and others. Death is an instant reset. Travel is instant. They don't waste your time; they let you experience new content at all times.
I would agree with the sandbox proponents if they were chasing these well-designed mechanics.
Instead, they talk about harsh death penalty, long travel times, and all sorts of ways of letting players ruin other players' fun (full loot PVP). They fixate on the very mechanics which prevent sandbox success.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
First, I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the idea you propose that Themepark is what players want because that's what they have been playing, despite that fact that that's all there is to play (outside of very lacking productions).
As far as players calling for these sorts of things, there will always be misguided ideas. There have been plenty of others who have posted sound thinking, including in this very thread. You have a wont to ignore those.
But I do agree with the specific examples you just mentioned.
Long travel times should be limited to exploration into the world, but not -out- of said explorations and not as a rule of thumb in the player hub areas UO's marked recall runes are great here). Long travel times should also be required for movement of bulk supplies to foster the caravan and merchant design of a Sandbox World, but attuned to NPC control with player oversight, and where needed, with player protection, and with player options into new expansions of "tamed" lands.
Harsh death penalties similarly are not good as a rule of thumb. They should be limited to rampant PKers so as to limit the PKing while still leaving the possibility of confrontations in a world in conflict. I would also like to see harsh death penalties for "End Game" sorts of designs. If players go after a deity, and there's great rewards for doing so, let there be a greater risk and make it a greater accomplishment. Small death penalties are good as a general rule. Losing gear as a general rule of game play should be accepted as such. Adding some small skill/stat loss as players go against greater things should also be considered. Example of that might be a 5% loss of strength if dying to higher ranks of undead, yet the players should be able to regain their loss in several game play sessions on average.
Anyways, the general idea of what we want has been put out there repeatedly for quite some time now.
When the hell are we going to see someone give us what we want? Stop giving us this excuse, that we don't know what we want. Make it. Do it right. And we'll come and spend many years there. You don't have the option to continue down the present course anymore. That's over. Themepark is stale. We don't want it anymore. Give us what we damn well want, or more and more will stop giving you any money at all.
Once upon a time....
In the beginning there were just as many sandbox as there were themepark, SWG, UO, AC. There were really only 2 big themepark Daoc and EQ. However EQ had more subs than any of those games.
Then CoH came along and garnered a few hundred thousand subs, then WoW and half a million in a year. It isn't a case of devs are only giving us themepark, the players actively chose themepark and so devs built more of them.
Venge
Of the games you listed, only UO was a true Sandbox. But it had wide open PvP with no real workable justice system. They almost had one, they were close, but then EA made them go with split realms. And since then, as the old guard left and new came in, they've added more and more leveling to the game. It's still a Sandbox (I've played it until a month ago), but not a very good one now.
SWG, lots of players call it a sandbox. But a key part of a Sandbox world is allowing players to use all the content together, even if some need the help of others. In SWG, they called it a skill based system but it still had the sort of level gaps that divide the content from players.
AC had such a level grind and massive gaps that their PvP server, Darktide, was a waste of time.
These games, being called "Sandbox", yet the players are divided by their "levels" whether they are called that or not. They were not Themeparks of the best kind either. They were something in between. But that doesn't work very well.
DAoC and EQ were true Themeparks, both with some features that we might call "Sandboxy". But their biggest probelm was that they didn't go all out to be Themeparks. It's key that you noted EQ had so many subs. They also had a lot of "Sandboxy" (or "Worldly" might be the better term) stuff. And when you hear players talk about the things they remember, it was these things they talk about. Waiting is one of those, but I don't think it was that so much as the world around them that they waited in, that brings back those fond memories.
Then came along WoW. Blew everyone away. Why? I think, I am certain, that it wasn't the Themepark at all. Rather, it was the "worldly" things. They really went all out on these things, and at the same time they removed all the problems that the other Themeparks went through. The waiting in line at key quests to get needed drops being the biggest one.
Some of the "worldly" things that WoW did so well that they killed the market...
Animations. They did this so well, did everything right here all the way down to how humans jumped "Captain America style".
Huge world that felt alive (reguardless of the Themepark design). The Gryphon rides were a stroke of genius here, make it feel even more like a world, giving players a view of places they had yet to get to, wetting their appetites.
Swimming, holding breath, etc.
Even with zones, they allowed you to feel like they were connected as one world. Heck, you could jump off a cliff from one zone to another. Sure, you died, but it made their world feel like it was one world instead of a bunch of separate zones.
Harvesting felt "worldly".
NPCs added just for flavor, like the children that everyone follows.
A few mysteries, like special pets, like the ghost saber cat.
WoW dominated the market for other reasons too, such as the massive numbers of Blizzard fans who never even heard of MMOs before WoW. But mainly it was because they took Themepark to where it had to go to overcome the problems other games experienced, and they did it so well. And they made so much, so very well.
But the fact of the matter is this. Themeparks get boring. They are repetitive. There is no way around it. Who could go to an amusement park day in and day out and not get bored with that too? People go a few times a year at most. More than that, they'd get bored because they've done it all so much already. Of course there's some exceptions, as always.
And players are tired of it now. It's been time to move on to another style of MMO for several years now. And a Sandbox, worldly game can be very exciting. And the social possibilities that players expect due to these massive numbers in one world have yet to be touched on in any possitive way.
So enough already. Build us a Sandbox world that's great, huge, and full of excitement, mystery, and things happening from both other players as well as developer plotlines.
Once upon a time....
Voted for new since the first one sounded more like a sandbox and the second is more of a themepark. I'm not really into "doing-whatever-I-want" type of game since I like those that are linear with a good story and a clear goal.
edited sorry.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
Old school for sure.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
Holey cow pmiles thanks,
You just helped me realize why mmo's are going in the direction they are going as of the last few years !!!!
Developers of mmo's are trying to cash in on the non-mmo players too !!!....They are almost to the point of not even caring if people play together or not, just add a few multi player mini games to it, and hope people sub for a few months. After several millions and a few months all they have to do is keep a small team on hand to keep the servers up.
Good solo game is really all thats needed. SWTOR would have made a good off line game too, it would be worth $60 !!!!
I wouldn't call CoX vs. WOW a sandbox vs. themepark case. CoX certainly had more freedom to its character customization, but there wasn't any world manipulation going on. So it was more sandbox-ish, but largely a themepark.
(For that matter, I don't feel Skyrim is a sandbox, despite hinting that I might earlier.)
But yeah the rest of your post is spot-on. Sandboxes started the genre, and it's clear themeparks were chosen by players. As games became more game-like and less world-like, they enjoyed greater success.
Simulation games have always been demanded less, since the beginning of the games industry. So this isn't really a surprising or new discovery.
Which leads to how you probably make a successful sandbox: make a game about world manipulation, but make a great game first, and let world simulation fall by the wayside. If you can make the world simulation better without harming gameplay, that's fine. But as soon as you sacrifice gameplay for better simulation, you take a step away from what most people want.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Freedom; let me make my own story.
If I want someone else's story I'll read a book or watch a movie.
That's where the money is, I played LOTRO, CoH, SWG, WAR, WoW.
Most of the fun I have had is in LOTRO and WoW, WAR was pretty damn fun to but the lack of anyone doing any quests and being solo all the time got old. I actually quit SWG because of KOTOR since clearly the greatest Star Wars adventure was not my own.
More and More people want to play online with their friends but don't want to pay 20,30,40 hours per week. This is where the themepark comes in and this is how WoW had 10 million subs at one point. This is why SWTOR is going the way it's going. The new will always appeal more to the masses than the old that's what people want. I play games to get away from reality not have a second life. Now if they can combine the best of the old and the new you really will have a game changer on your hands.
I wasn't implying that CoX was a sandbox, it definately wasn't, especially on release - most definately a themepark (later on with the architect and the bases it become more sandboxy but still largely a themepark). I'm saying that in the beginning there were more sandboxes than themepark but themepark still had more subs and because of that the devs started making themepark games (CoX than Wow...).
CoX was just another example of a game that garnered between 2 and 300k subs for several years, more than many/most/all of the sandboxes, and even before it went f2p still had between 1 and 150k subs again more than many/most/all sandbox.
Venge
I prefer to "write" my own characters story than have it told to me by the developers and (using SWTOR as an example) being Imperial agent 1038 with the same backstory.
I actually felt more attached to my SWG, EQ and DAOC character than my Rift, EQ2 or WOW character.
Old school is the new school.
All we need is Darkfall and Mortal Online done well. If these 2 games saw a lot of love and polish then they would be the ultimate games.
not unless you get rid of FFA PVP and full loot, I will never touch those games. I don't believe full loot FFA PVP is needed for a game to be a sandbox.
sure you can say "but the freedom .... " sorry when your freedom overrides my freedom then im not free at all.
I agree.
One of the main problems with sandbox gameplay, is the misperception that sandbox gameplay equates to or otherwise requires FFA PvP with or without full looting.
We've yet to actually see a large budget MMO that is actually PvE oriented sandbox. Yet oddly people seem convinced that sandbox MMOs aren't popular, yet this entire facet has been largely ignored. It would be amusing if it wasn't so depressing.
FFA means nothing if not accompanied by a set of rules.
Also, full loot feeds the industry and it adds risk which is fun per se. Lucky you, you have an overwhelming amount of MMOs not FFA/ not full loot to chose from.
The MMOs of today just plain suck. In fact, I might never buy another one unless a developer has the cohones to get back to the roots, the foundation of it all.
Until then, you can take that shiny yellow floating ! and ? and...
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Actually yeah, travel time in a well designed game world does require thought and work. EQ perfect example of a world that tried to kill you. You couldnt travel certain places if you weren't liked for example you played an Iksar character EVERYONE in norrath hated you and you were kill on sight to NPC's, looks like your iksar monk epic quest now takes a little planning to navigate through freeport for his epic 1.0. Or how about hill giants in commonlands a level 1-15 range with level 35 giants randomly killing low levels. Yeah id say travel time does require a little thought unless your playing WoW, hey let me get on my flying mount and avoid contact with everything... or low level areas you can just run a screen away and a mob stops chasing you like you magically vanished. Were these things annoying? you better believe it, but it made the game world more interesting cause there are actual risks and you cant just run around like a blind idiot. You know what used to happen to shitty players in EQ? they got a reputation for being fucking shitty so no one grouped with them, thats why they all run around WoW now with instant group makers.
Sure, but the problem is that decision-making tends to not be as interesting as the alternative decisions the player couldb e making. And really we're specifically talking about retracing steps -- you still get all of those bits of challenging content the first time you travel anywhere.
But with fast travel you get to skip the 20th trip through the same level 35 giant area -- and now you're level 40+ and it's just a big tedious hassle because you just want to get to the zone across from this one.
Challenging travel is fantastic the first time. It's the subsequent trips which make it a progressively more dull and excessive time sink.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Unless the world changes. Still, I agree with you on this. That's why I love the idea of UO's marked runes system. Once you get there, you can mark a rune and return. Add in a changing world on top of this for those who love to explore and see what's out there, or what's different now, and I think that's the best way to go. And this is for either side of the divide, Sandbox or Themepark. It's just that, like everything else except hand holding, it just works better in a Sandbox.
Once upon a time....
How does waiting for hours around for players to fill a group THINKING or WORK? Waiting for your DP to wear off, again how is that THINKING or WORK?
SEE HOW THAT WORKS? Do you need me to go on?
Time, if you got it, you can play it!