Maybe, but luckily there are sandbox lovers who hate pvp.
I don't really get it. What is the point of a sandbox without pvp? You could just play a single player sandbox type game if you don't want to compete against other players.
PvP isn't the only difference between themepark and sandbox games.If you really think it is then you can just play a themepark game on a pvp server.I hate pvp but most of the things I want in a game are found only in sandbox games.
Maybe, but luckily there are sandbox lovers who hate pvp.
I don't really get it. What is the point of a sandbox without pvp? You could just play a single player sandbox type game if you don't want to compete against other players.
If by PVP we are referring specfiically to PVP combat, then I can confidently say that there are many players enjoy taking part in the other competitive and collaborative aspects of a sandbox without ever engaging in the PVP aspect. One driving factor is the knowledge that that the things they accomplish, create, change, buy and sell were directly influenced by - and, in turn, directly influence - the course of actions as dictated and determined by the players.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by BigHatLogan Originally posted by Drakha Maybe, but luckily there are sandbox lovers who hate pvp.
I don't really get it. What is the point of a sandbox without pvp? You could just play a single player sandbox type game if you don't want to compete against other players. Sandbox is about creating your own content. That content doesn't always need to be player kllling. It can also be city building, playing the market, crafting a better sword than your competition, designing a museum, hosting a social event, etc. You could do this in a single player game, but it wouldn't be as rewarding as a massive collaboration.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
Maybe, but luckily there are sandbox lovers who hate pvp.
I don't really get it. What is the point of a sandbox without pvp? You could just play a single player sandbox type game if you don't want to compete against other players.
Sandbox is about creating your own content. That content doesn't always need to be player kllling. It can also be city building, playing the market, crafting a better sword than your competition, designing a museum, hosting a social event, etc. You could do this in a single player game, but it wouldn't be as rewarding as a massive collaboration.
Fair enough. But if the next great sandbox comes out (as rare as they are) and is totally PVE based, then I am afraid the nerd rage shall consume me.
Originally posted by BigHatLogan Originally posted by DannyGlover
Originally posted by BigHatLogan
Originally posted by Drakha Maybe, but luckily there are sandbox lovers who hate pvp.
I don't really get it. What is the point of a sandbox without pvp? You could just play a single player sandbox type game if you don't want to compete against other players.
Sandbox is about creating your own content. That content doesn't always need to be player kllling. It can also be city building, playing the market, crafting a better sword than your competition, designing a museum, hosting a social event, etc. You could do this in a single player game, but it wouldn't be as rewarding as a massive collaboration.
Fair enough. But if the next great sandbox comes out (as rare as they are) and is totally PVE based, then I am afraid the nerd rage shall consume me. As long as pvp is voluntary, im all for it.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
Maybe, but luckily there are sandbox lovers who hate pvp.
I don't really get it. What is the point of a sandbox without pvp? You could just play a single player sandbox type game if you don't want to compete against other players.
Sandbox is about creating your own content. That content doesn't always need to be player kllling. It can also be city building, playing the market, crafting a better sword than your competition, designing a museum, hosting a social event, etc. You could do this in a single player game, but it wouldn't be as rewarding as a massive collaboration.
Fair enough. But if the next great sandbox comes out (as rare as they are) and is totally PVE based, then I am afraid the nerd rage shall consume me.
I don't really have a problem with a sandbox game having pvp as long as it isn't forced pvp.As rare as sandbox games may be they're common compared with sandbox games without forced pvp.There are a lot more sandbox games being made for people like you than for people like me.
As I see it can you mix however you want as long as it is well made and fun.
there are already some sandparks out there like Vanguard and while noone really have nailed it yet it have some potential, for one thing could it get rid of the horrible repetetive endgame that plauges themepark games.
You just need a developer with a 50-75 million dollar budget... and convince them to double it.
absolutely rediculous assesment. Especially when you look at indie developers working on games like repopulation with a budget that wouldn't cover biowares launch costs for staff meetings.
You just need a developer with a 50-75 million dollar budget... and convince them to double it.
absolutely rediculous assesment. Especially when you look at indie developers working on games like repopulation with a budget that wouldn't cover biowares launch costs for staff meetings.
We're talking about doing a game RIGHT, not just doing a game... big difference there.
You just need a developer with a 50-75 million dollar budget... and convince them to double it.
I honestly, foolishly evlieved BioWare were going to create an incredible Star Wars universe in which to not only to play, but to 'exist'. Sadly they went full on single-player heavy, themepark.
But just imagine for a moment if they used their supposed 300mil budget and took the best concepts of SWG, the best concepts from KOTOR, and mashed the two together... ah well. They played it very safe and I think it'll burn them in the long run.
Why do I write, create, fantasize, dream and daydream about other worlds? Because I hate what humanity does with this one.
I would love to see a robust crafting system make it in a current gen themepark game. Sadly most crafting nowdays is tacked on. I would play eve if the end game fleet battles were actually interesting but sadly it is not the case.
I want a crafting system like SWG or AC2 in a solid themepark game. Sadly I might be waiting awhile.
You just need a developer with a 50-75 million dollar budget... and convince them to double it.
I honestly, foolishly evlieved BioWare were going to create an incredible Star Wars universe in which to not only to play, but to 'exist'. Sadly they went full on single-player heavy, themepark.
But just imagine for a moment if they used their supposed 300mil budget and took the best concepts of SWG, the best concepts from KOTOR, and mashed the two together... ah well. They played it very safe and I think it'll burn them in the long run.
How could you possibly have believed that you were going to get anything that resembled a sandbox from BioWare? They were very upfront about the game they were developing, and they delivered on that better than most companies manage to do.
Would I have liked more themepark elements? Sure, that would have been great, but that's just not what this game set out to be.
Their budget, however, would need to be even higher. They spent 300 million (or whatever it really is) to develop the game that they did... if you wanted a sandbox built within that, you'd need another huge chunk of money on top of that.
ok, I see you have given this some thought, but I have not seen anything in your post about PvP. Without PvP many sandbox lovers will not play, with PvP many themepark lovers will not play. And please arena/instanced pvp is just wrong, as far as I am concerned. I am a player who likes what Shadowbane and EVE offered - FEAR. Your game does not seem to offer that kind of fear, the knowing that there is a player around out toget your stuff. If you included it and I just do not see it then I apologise . Also I would rather play a game now that offers advancement through your actual actions not grinding and doing kill 10 rat type quests. Don't mind me though, I'm just a lover of sandbox games, second class MMO type.
The thread title is, Can themepark gameplay coexist with a sandbox world?The design is based on themepark gameplay elements with a sandbox world. That is what I was trying to get at. There is no mention for pvp or pve. The vision was for PVE actually and was designed for players who favor themepark over sandbox. My motto i was using was, It's an adventure, not a grind. I was trying to omit the centeralized grinding. And by the way all mmorpgs will have a grind in them, It's how well the grind is disguised.
I see now sorry totally misunderstood the question. Also thought you were speaking hypothetically not that you were creating something specific. Maybe the question should be your motto: How to make a themepark less of a grind and more of an adventure (that's kind of the Million Dollar Question btw :P ). I'm not sure changing the one element you suggested in your original post is going have the effect you want. I would think it would depend on the rest of your games mechanics, progression etc.
Well from what I know from my game design document, yes this could actually work very well. But right now I don't want to take the time to discuss everything because its.. alot. And just because it screams themepark doesn't negate that there won't be a grind.
I see now sorry totally misunderstood the question. Also thought you were speaking hypothetically not that you were creating something specific. Maybe the question should be your motto: How to make a themepark less of a grind and more of an adventure (that's kind of the Million Dollar Question btw :P ). I'm not sure changing the one element you suggested in your original post is going have the effect you want. I would think it would depend on the rest of your games mechanics, progression etc.
Well from what I know from my game design document, yes this could actually work very well. But right now I don't want to take the time to discuss everything because its.. alot. And just because it screams themepark doesn't negate that there won't be a grind.
No problem with not explaining everything. It's past midnight here and my head might explode from info overload I wish you luck on your mmo and I hope we've helped you in some way.
You just need a developer with a 50-75 million dollar budget... and convince them to double it.
absolutely rediculous assesment. Especially when you look at indie developers working on games like repopulation with a budget that wouldn't cover biowares launch costs for staff meetings.
We're talking about doing a game RIGHT, not just doing a game... big difference there.
No, what your doing is over complicating on what you think both game types are. Worst of all, your using your opinion of what "right" is.
Just out of curiousity what game do you believe was done right?
I see now sorry totally misunderstood the question. Also thought you were speaking hypothetically not that you were creating something specific. Maybe the question should be your motto: How to make a themepark less of a grind and more of an adventure (that's kind of the Million Dollar Question btw :P ). I'm not sure changing the one element you suggested in your original post is going have the effect you want. I would think it would depend on the rest of your games mechanics, progression etc.
Well from what I know from my game design document, yes this could actually work very well. But right now I don't want to take the time to discuss everything because its.. alot. And just because it screams themepark doesn't negate that there won't be a grind.
No problem with not explaining everything. It's past midnight here and my head might explode from info overload I wish you luck on your mmo and I hope we've helped you in some way.
I would love to see a robust crafting system make it in a current gen themepark game. Sadly most crafting nowdays is tacked on. I would play eve if the end game fleet battles were actually interesting but sadly it is not the case.
I want a crafting system like SWG or AC2 in a solid themepark game. Sadly I might be waiting awhile.
Ah good sir, I would also like to see this as well. Read my thread of old in which your eyes may feast on and prosper! lol Let me know what ya think!
"Crafting should not only be an incentive but should be a balanced game design element with combat"
I see now sorry totally misunderstood the question. Also thought you were speaking hypothetically not that you were creating something specific. Maybe the question should be your motto: How to make a themepark less of a grind and more of an adventure (that's kind of the Million Dollar Question btw :P ). I'm not sure changing the one element you suggested in your original post is going have the effect you want. I would think it would depend on the rest of your games mechanics, progression etc.
Well from what I know from my game design document, yes this could actually work very well. But right now I don't want to take the time to discuss everything because its.. alot. And just because it screams themepark doesn't negate that there won't be a grind.
No problem with not explaining everything. It's past midnight here and my head might explode from info overload I wish you luck on your mmo and I hope we've helped you in some way.
I do have a lot of stuff, been working on it on and off for seven years. If you're ever interested, or have any questions shoot me a pm
How could you possibly have believed that you were going to get anything that resembled a sandbox from Bioware
Bioware's Damian Schubert said it would be somewhere in the middle.
Massively multiplayer games are not new. One of these questions, still asked today, is whether or not massively multiplayer environments should strive to be games or to be worlds.
Advocates of the world philosophy see the space as a simulation or a sandbox. Fans of this viewpoint favor freedom and realism above all else players have the ability to use and abuse almost anything around them, including other players. In world MMOs, players tend to have a wide range of possible actions, most of which have relatively little depth. The depth of the world MMO comes from the interactions players are urged to explore the world, and to find their own fun. The world MMO hates artificial constraints like classes or level requirements.
The game philosophy is quite the opposite, of course. Advocates of this view favor fun and balance more than anything. The game MMO is often described as being more like a theme park than a virtual world player activity is tightly controlled, in such a way to help maximize the chance the player will have a fun, balanced and interesting combat experience and, in general, not be nasty to each other. The game MMO has no problem with introducing arbitrary rules to provide a tight, visceral gaming experience. Players can perform fewer actions, but these actions tend to have greater depth (such as a deeper, more balanced combat game)
Ive long advocated that moderation is the way to go, and I believe on The Old Republic we are successfully travelling a middle path, a centrist path that takes the strengths of both: provide a directed and balanced game experience inside a lush, free-form Star Wars world.
People don't really "get" themeparks. Not even those who love themepark games. The original pull for them (and I think one that is under-represented in these forums), is the ability to have a great narrative experience (narrative != quests). A themepark focuses on ensuring that all players know they can do something interesting, and provides them, through the world, with a set of challenges to overcome. In this way they are experiencing their story. I will argue very strongly that non of the progression crap that WoW had contributed to its greatness -- it's the quality and narrative of its quests that did so. SW:ToR did not advance this aspect of the genre.
Sandboxes have narrative as well, but this narrative comes largely from the player base. You can do stuff, but the only interesting things that can be done involve working with players and creating/destroying stuff. The idea of an epic adventure in a sandbox is far different than that of a themepark. And having a repeatable story of a world ending monster, or something, just does not make sense in a sandbox, which gets its immersion from realism as opposed to story-telling or moment by moment gameplay.
All other points aside, that is the fundamental area where these two game types diverge (and I know I'm not the first to say it on this thread, though others used different words).
So blending a themepark and a sandbox means taking the narrative style of one, and making sure it is available to the other. Because of this, the only way to truly make a true themepark/sandbox hybrid is to give the players the ability to effect content that is part of the environment.
I can see two ways to accomplish this.
Give players the ability to create content. Neverwinter is already doing this, and it hs been mentioned already on this thread. However, this is important, there needs to be some gameplay system tied into the creation of content as well, or else the chartiable supply of content will be far out done by demand. (Economics don't work if there's no money.) I personally envision a game that mixes the gameplay of dungeon keeper, with its own form of progression, with MMORPGs.
Create a dynamic story telling engine that can dynamically create "quests" based off of player actions. Previously mentioned giant, world threatening monster might come into an area (as decided procedurally), and a slew of new quests could be made up by the system -- quests about the creature's weaknesses and to build something to defeat it, quests to gather support from other cities, quests to defeat its spawnlings, quests to find out where it came from (also procedurally generated) and how to stop it from happening again. Because this is all developed by an engine, there is no limit to the amount of branching that is available, and things could tie into each other. Perhaps the way the monster was killed causes some other, unforeseen consequence.
Comments
PvP isn't the only difference between themepark and sandbox games.If you really think it is then you can just play a themepark game on a pvp server.I hate pvp but most of the things I want in a game are found only in sandbox games.
If by PVP we are referring specfiically to PVP combat, then I can confidently say that there are many players enjoy taking part in the other competitive and collaborative aspects of a sandbox without ever engaging in the PVP aspect. One driving factor is the knowledge that that the things they accomplish, create, change, buy and sell were directly influenced by - and, in turn, directly influence - the course of actions as dictated and determined by the players.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Sandbox is about creating your own content. That content doesn't always need to be player kllling. It can also be city building, playing the market, crafting a better sword than your competition, designing a museum, hosting a social event, etc. You could do this in a single player game, but it wouldn't be as rewarding as a massive collaboration.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
Fair enough. But if the next great sandbox comes out (as rare as they are) and is totally PVE based, then I am afraid the nerd rage shall consume me.
I don't really get it. What is the point of a sandbox without pvp? You could just play a single player sandbox type game if you don't want to compete against other players.
Sandbox is about creating your own content. That content doesn't always need to be player kllling. It can also be city building, playing the market, crafting a better sword than your competition, designing a museum, hosting a social event, etc. You could do this in a single player game, but it wouldn't be as rewarding as a massive collaboration.
Fair enough. But if the next great sandbox comes out (as rare as they are) and is totally PVE based, then I am afraid the nerd rage shall consume me.
As long as pvp is voluntary, im all for it.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I don't really have a problem with a sandbox game having pvp as long as it isn't forced pvp.As rare as sandbox games may be they're common compared with sandbox games without forced pvp.There are a lot more sandbox games being made for people like you than for people like me.
Absolutely. One day, a developer will get it right.
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
As I see it can you mix however you want as long as it is well made and fun.
there are already some sandparks out there like Vanguard and while noone really have nailed it yet it have some potential, for one thing could it get rid of the horrible repetetive endgame that plauges themepark games.
You just need a developer with a 50-75 million dollar budget... and convince them to double it.
absolutely rediculous assesment. Especially when you look at indie developers working on games like repopulation with a budget that wouldn't cover biowares launch costs for staff meetings.
The fundamental difference between Themeparks and Sandboxes boils down to what you are building.
With a sandbox, your focus is on your world as much as your own character.
With a theme park, "They" have already built your world. You get to play in it. You build your character in it.
The extend that you have a hybrid is the extent to whcih the world has already been fashioned vs what needs to be established by players.
We're talking about doing a game RIGHT, not just doing a game... big difference there.
I came into this world and it was already up and running
but I still have my chance to make my impact.
A game can have (and probably SHOULD have) all of the restrictions that the real world gives us and still be a sandbox.
I honestly, foolishly evlieved BioWare were going to create an incredible Star Wars universe in which to not only to play, but to 'exist'. Sadly they went full on single-player heavy, themepark.
But just imagine for a moment if they used their supposed 300mil budget and took the best concepts of SWG, the best concepts from KOTOR, and mashed the two together... ah well. They played it very safe and I think it'll burn them in the long run.
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
I would love to see a robust crafting system make it in a current gen themepark game. Sadly most crafting nowdays is tacked on. I would play eve if the end game fleet battles were actually interesting but sadly it is not the case.
I want a crafting system like SWG or AC2 in a solid themepark game. Sadly I might be waiting awhile.
How could you possibly have believed that you were going to get anything that resembled a sandbox from BioWare? They were very upfront about the game they were developing, and they delivered on that better than most companies manage to do.
Would I have liked more themepark elements? Sure, that would have been great, but that's just not what this game set out to be.
Their budget, however, would need to be even higher. They spent 300 million (or whatever it really is) to develop the game that they did... if you wanted a sandbox built within that, you'd need another huge chunk of money on top of that.
Well from what I know from my game design document, yes this could actually work very well. But right now I don't want to take the time to discuss everything because its.. alot. And just because it screams themepark doesn't negate that there won't be a grind.
Man if I only won that mega millions jackpot by my self.. lol
No problem with not explaining everything. It's past midnight here and my head might explode from info overload
I wish you luck on your mmo and I hope we've helped you in some way.
the poster formerly known as melangel :P
No, what your doing is over complicating on what you think both game types are. Worst of all, your using your opinion of what "right" is.
Just out of curiousity what game do you believe was done right?
Thank you good sir!
Ah good sir, I would also like to see this as well. Read my thread of old in which your eyes may feast on and prosper! lol Let me know what ya think!
"Crafting should not only be an incentive but should be a balanced game design element with combat"
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/315650/page/1
I do have a lot of stuff, been working on it on and off for seven years. If you're ever interested, or have any questions shoot me a pm
Bioware's Damian Schubert said it would be somewhere in the middle.
Massively multiplayer games are not new. One of these questions, still asked today, is whether or not massively multiplayer environments should strive to be games or to be worlds.
Advocates of the world philosophy see the space as a simulation or a sandbox. Fans of this viewpoint favor freedom and realism above all else players have the ability to use and abuse almost anything around them, including other players. In world MMOs, players tend to have a wide range of possible actions, most of which have relatively little depth. The depth of the world MMO comes from the interactions players are urged to explore the world, and to find their own fun. The world MMO hates artificial constraints like classes or level requirements.
The game philosophy is quite the opposite, of course. Advocates of this view favor fun and balance more than anything. The game MMO is often described as being more like a theme park than a virtual world player activity is tightly controlled, in such a way to help maximize the chance the player will have a fun, balanced and interesting combat experience and, in general, not be nasty to each other. The game MMO has no problem with introducing arbitrary rules to provide a tight, visceral gaming experience. Players can perform fewer actions, but these actions tend to have greater depth (such as a deeper, more balanced combat game)
Ive long advocated that moderation is the way to go, and I believe on The Old Republic we are successfully travelling a middle path, a centrist path that takes the strengths of both: provide a directed and balanced game experience inside a lush, free-form Star Wars world.People don't really "get" themeparks. Not even those who love themepark games. The original pull for them (and I think one that is under-represented in these forums), is the ability to have a great narrative experience (narrative != quests). A themepark focuses on ensuring that all players know they can do something interesting, and provides them, through the world, with a set of challenges to overcome. In this way they are experiencing their story. I will argue very strongly that non of the progression crap that WoW had contributed to its greatness -- it's the quality and narrative of its quests that did so. SW:ToR did not advance this aspect of the genre.
Sandboxes have narrative as well, but this narrative comes largely from the player base. You can do stuff, but the only interesting things that can be done involve working with players and creating/destroying stuff. The idea of an epic adventure in a sandbox is far different than that of a themepark. And having a repeatable story of a world ending monster, or something, just does not make sense in a sandbox, which gets its immersion from realism as opposed to story-telling or moment by moment gameplay.
All other points aside, that is the fundamental area where these two game types diverge (and I know I'm not the first to say it on this thread, though others used different words).
So blending a themepark and a sandbox means taking the narrative style of one, and making sure it is available to the other. Because of this, the only way to truly make a true themepark/sandbox hybrid is to give the players the ability to effect content that is part of the environment.
I can see two ways to accomplish this.
Give players the ability to create content. Neverwinter is already doing this, and it hs been mentioned already on this thread. However, this is important, there needs to be some gameplay system tied into the creation of content as well, or else the chartiable supply of content will be far out done by demand. (Economics don't work if there's no money.) I personally envision a game that mixes the gameplay of dungeon keeper, with its own form of progression, with MMORPGs.
Create a dynamic story telling engine that can dynamically create "quests" based off of player actions. Previously mentioned giant, world threatening monster might come into an area (as decided procedurally), and a slew of new quests could be made up by the system -- quests about the creature's weaknesses and to build something to defeat it, quests to gather support from other cities, quests to defeat its spawnlings, quests to find out where it came from (also procedurally generated) and how to stop it from happening again. Because this is all developed by an engine, there is no limit to the amount of branching that is available, and things could tie into each other. Perhaps the way the monster was killed causes some other, unforeseen consequence.