People keep saying it's a great themepark, and even the best themepark.
Here's an important question: Do these people actually like themeparks? Or are they sandbox fans and just go "oh, well, good enough for a themepark" in a knock on the themepark design in general? Like they used to say: "Bon pour l'orient!" (Meaning, "good for the East" - this was obviously said by the "West")
I actually like themeparks. (I also like sandboxes. Happens, there are more of us out there. :P)
When I play themeparks, I'm OK with being made to go through rides, I'm OK with being limited, I'm even OK with not having impact on the world.
So a themepark must be judged on its own terms. On the quality of its content - not how freeform it is.
So, are people saying GW2 is a good themepark game because it's less "limited?" Or because it actually has better directed content, like story content, dungeon content, etc.? To me, it doesn't surpass other games in this regard. TSW and SWTOR easily has better story and character, while many other games have better dungeons, in my opinion.
So no, I wouldn't say GW2 is the best themepark or even "great for a themepark". After all, freeform gameplay is not why I play themeparks. I play EVE for that!
Why do we have to separate MMORPGs into ThemeParks and Sandboxes? Does it say on the GW 2 that this game is a ThemePark and as such cannot have feature X, Y, Z because of it?
No it does not and I dont accept that as an excuse of not creating an MMORPG with depth and longetivity. ThemePark or not, MMORPGs are persistant worlds and as such should not be limited by what content the developers put in it.
In Brisbane Wildlands, there is a huge underground Skritt city - Skrittsburg, iirc. It is a full-blown city, complete with vendors and crafting stations.
I was just exploring in there, and found the Skritt King - cool.
I was up poking around, when all of a sudden, the king was attacked by bandit intruders - intent on kidnapping him. Dynamic Event - it was not a heart quest, it just was a random occurance (maybe it triggers every so many minutes/hours, maybe it triggered because I walked by, I don't know).
It was just me in the area, I got my ass kicked, they captured the king.
The entire city was then locked down. The bandits shut the gates. No one - not me, or anyone else, could get back inside the city.
So while peeking around the gates, the bandits were outside trying to kidnap more Skritt. Not a heart quest, just another dynamic event, as a result of the city being captured. Myself along with a few other people repelled this attack, and forced them to reopen the gates. We were able to then retake the city.
So - Here's an example of a dynamic event. Sure, it may be scripted in some manner, but it wasn't a heart quest with a big marker on a map saying "GO TO HERE". It had a real impact on the world: no one could go into this city; no one could get the vistas or skill points located inside the city. It took a consolidated effort of several people to rectify the problem and reopen the city. Had I succeeded in repelling the original bandits, then perhaps none of it would have occured at all, or maybe a different set of events entirely would have fallen into place (maybe instead of the bandits locking us all out, the Skritt themselves would have shut the doors and barred themselves in until the attack was repelled, same event then in terms of mechanics, just different story to go with it, idk).
This area is a L15-25 area, so it's not an advanced high level area, this directly impacted players who potentially have not been playing long.
So there is just one concrete example of an event which: a) Was dynamic - it didn't have any obvious starting marker (no exclamation point quest start, no heart marker, nothing) b) It had real-world consequences (the loss of use of an entire city and services) c) It happened in a low level area, so it would impact casual players alike d) (possibly - maybe a solo player better than myself could have done it, but I couldn't) required coordination of several players in which to affect the outcome
People keep saying it's a great themepark, and even the best themepark.
Here's an important question: Do these people actually like themeparks? Or are they sandbox fans and just go "oh, well, good enough for a themepark" in a knock on the themepark design in general? Like they used to say: "Bon pour l'orient!" (Meaning, "good for the East" - this was obviously said by the "West")
I actually like themeparks. (I also like sandboxes. Happens, there are more of us out there. :P)
When I play themeparks, I'm OK with being made to go through rides, I'm OK with being limited, I'm even OK with not having impact on the world.
So a themepark must be judged on its own terms. On the quality of its content - not how freeform it is.
So, are people saying GW2 is a good themepark game because it's less "limited?" Or because it actually has better directed content, like story content, dungeon content, etc.? To me, it doesn't surpass other games in this regard. TSW and SWTOR easily has better story and character, while many other games have better dungeons, in my opinion.
So no, I wouldn't say GW2 is the best themepark or even "great for a themepark". After all, freeform gameplay is not why I play themeparks. I play EVE for that!
Why do we have to separate MMORPGs into ThemeParks and Sandboxes? Does it say on the GW 2 that this game is a ThemePark and as such cannot have feature X, Y, Z because of it?
No it does not and I dont accept that as an excuse of not creating an MMORPG with depth and longetivity. ThemePark or not, MMORPGs are persistant worlds and as such should not be limited by what content the developers put in it.
We don't have to separate them. But we need to accept that an MMO with directed gameplay, purely developer-created, story-heavy content, and even one without impact on the world is valid design.
Freedom doesn't mean depth, by the way. Novels have depth and they're not free.
I also challenge that an MMO needs longetivity. Nothing in massively multiplayer says you need to play it for a year. I actually find that kind of game design is usually abusive.
There are people that want an alternative reality to be lost in and there are people that want a good game but know their life exists outside the game, with a vast number of people in between.
People that want a game that resembles a world (scenarie not how it works) will like games like GW2.
People that want an alternative reality won't like/wont be fullfiled by GW2.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
People keep saying it's a great themepark, and even the best themepark.
Here's an important question: Do these people actually like themeparks? Or are they sandbox fans and just go "oh, well, good enough for a themepark" in a knock on the themepark design in general? Like they used to say: "Bon pour l'orient!" (Meaning, "good for the East" - this was obviously said by the "West")
I actually like themeparks. (I also like sandboxes. Happens, there are more of us out there. :P)
When I play themeparks, I'm OK with being made to go through rides, I'm OK with being limited, I'm even OK with not having impact on the world.
So a themepark must be judged on its own terms. On the quality of its content - not how freeform it is.
So, are people saying GW2 is a good themepark game because it's less "limited?" Or because it actually has better directed content, like story content, dungeon content, etc.? To me, it doesn't surpass other games in this regard. TSW and SWTOR easily has better story and character, while many other games have better dungeons, in my opinion.
So no, I wouldn't say GW2 is the best themepark or even "great for a themepark". After all, freeform gameplay is not why I play themeparks. I play EVE for that!
Why do we have to separate MMORPGs into ThemeParks and Sandboxes? Does it say on the GW 2 that this game is a ThemePark and as such cannot have feature X, Y, Z because of it?
No it does not and I dont accept that as an excuse of not creating an MMORPG with depth and longetivity. ThemePark or not, MMORPGs are persistant worlds and as such should not be limited by what content the developers put in it.
We don't have to separate them. But we need to accept that an MMO with directed gameplay, purely developer-created, story-heavy content, and even one without impact on the world is valid design.
Freedom doesn't mean depth, by the way. Novels have depth and they're not free.
I also challenge that an MMO needs longetivity. Nothing in massively multiplayer says you need to play it for a year. I actually find that kind of game design is usually abusive.
MMORPGs have always been without start and end so they are, or should be, by design such a way that they have longetivity. That does not mean you need to play it for a year but that should be supported.
As for purely developer-created content by a valid design. I am sure it is but it is a design which has been reused way too much in the last few years and one I feel need to be challenged or atleast innovated. SW:TOR was like that and it lost 90% of its initial user base, similar with TERA, Secret World etc. So is this what the devs want? The players? I doubt it.
People keep saying it's a great themepark, and even the best themepark.
Here's an important question: Do these people actually like themeparks? Or are they sandbox fans and just go "oh, well, good enough for a themepark" in a knock on the themepark design in general? Like they used to say: "Bon pour l'orient!" (Meaning, "good for the East" - this was obviously said by the "West")
I actually like themeparks. (I also like sandboxes. Happens, there are more of us out there. :P)
When I play themeparks, I'm OK with being made to go through rides, I'm OK with being limited, I'm even OK with not having impact on the world.
So a themepark must be judged on its own terms. On the quality of its content - not how freeform it is.
So, are people saying GW2 is a good themepark game because it's less "limited?" Or because it actually has better directed content, like story content, dungeon content, etc.? To me, it doesn't surpass other games in this regard. TSW and SWTOR easily has better story and character, while many other games have better dungeons, in my opinion.
So no, I wouldn't say GW2 is the best themepark or even "great for a themepark". After all, freeform gameplay is not why I play themeparks. I play EVE for that!
Why do we have to separate MMORPGs into ThemeParks and Sandboxes? Does it say on the GW 2 that this game is a ThemePark and as such cannot have feature X, Y, Z because of it?
No it does not and I dont accept that as an excuse of not creating an MMORPG with depth and longetivity. ThemePark or not, MMORPGs are persistant worlds and as such should not be limited by what content the developers put in it.
We don't have to separate them. But we need to accept that an MMO with directed gameplay, purely developer-created, story-heavy content, and even one without impact on the world is valid design.
Freedom doesn't mean depth, by the way. Novels have depth and they're not free.
I also challenge that an MMO needs longetivity. Nothing in massively multiplayer says you need to play it for a year. I actually find that kind of game design is usually abusive.
MMORPGs have always been without start and end so they are, or should be, by design such a way that they have longetivity. That does not mean you need to play it for a year but that should be supported.
As for purely developer-created content by a valid design. I am sure it is but it is a design which has been reused way too much in the last few years and one I feel need to be challenged or atleast innovated. SW:TOR was like that and it lost 90% of its initial user base, similar with TERA, Secret World etc. So is this what the devs want? The players? I doubt it.
Considering the several million people playing themeparks vs maybe 1-2m spread between the bigger sandbox games, yes it is what the players want. Youre confusing what YOU want with what everyone else wants. You like certain features, to others they dont matter.
I think its kind of funny seeng people complain about it not having this feature or that feature, usually a sandbox feature, and then saying things like not seperating into themeparks and sandboxes. But the thing is, if every game started putting those features in, then you would be turning around and complaining about every game that does it and saying "yhis game sucks because it has the same features that every other game has too".
We have subgenres for a reason, they give us a variety of games to play all with diferent features. If you want to play a sandbox, then go play a sandbox instead of playing a themepark game then complaining its not a sandbox. Its about as retarded as people who hate PvP going into a PvP game, like Darkfall, and complaining about all the PvP features and wanting it to be a PvE game. Or learning about EVE, and it being a sci-fi MMO, then playing it for a few weeks and whining that there arent fairies,elves, dwarves, etc and writing up reviews about how EVE sucks because it doesnt have Elves and WoW and all these other games do.
People keep saying it's a great themepark, and even the best themepark.
Here's an important question: Do these people actually like themeparks? Or are they sandbox fans and just go "oh, well, good enough for a themepark" in a knock on the themepark design in general? Like they used to say: "Bon pour l'orient!" (Meaning, "good for the East" - this was obviously said by the "West")
I actually like themeparks. (I also like sandboxes. Happens, there are more of us out there. :P)
When I play themeparks, I'm OK with being made to go through rides, I'm OK with being limited, I'm even OK with not having impact on the world.
So a themepark must be judged on its own terms. On the quality of its content - not how freeform it is.
So, are people saying GW2 is a good themepark game because it's less "limited?" Or because it actually has better directed content, like story content, dungeon content, etc.? To me, it doesn't surpass other games in this regard. TSW and SWTOR easily has better story and character, while many other games have better dungeons, in my opinion.
So no, I wouldn't say GW2 is the best themepark or even "great for a themepark". After all, freeform gameplay is not why I play themeparks. I play EVE for that!
Why do we have to separate MMORPGs into ThemeParks and Sandboxes? Does it say on the GW 2 that this game is a ThemePark and as such cannot have feature X, Y, Z because of it?
No it does not and I dont accept that as an excuse of not creating an MMORPG with depth and longetivity. ThemePark or not, MMORPGs are persistant worlds and as such should not be limited by what content the developers put in it.
We don't have to separate them. But we need to accept that an MMO with directed gameplay, purely developer-created, story-heavy content, and even one without impact on the world is valid design.
Freedom doesn't mean depth, by the way. Novels have depth and they're not free.
I also challenge that an MMO needs longetivity. Nothing in massively multiplayer says you need to play it for a year. I actually find that kind of game design is usually abusive.
MMORPGs have always been without start and end so they are, or should be, by design such a way that they have longetivity. That does not mean you need to play it for a year but that should be supported.
As for purely developer-created content by a valid design. I am sure it is but it is a design which has been reused way too much in the last few years and one I feel need to be challenged or atleast innovated. SW:TOR was like that and it lost 90% of its initial user base, similar with TERA, Secret World etc. So is this what the devs want? The players? I doubt it.
Considering the several million people playing themeparks vs maybe 1-2m spread between the bigger sandbox games, yes it is what the players want. Youre confusing what YOU want with what everyone else wants. You like certain features, to others they dont matter.
I think its kind of funny seeng people complain about it not having this feature or that feature, usually a sandbox feature, and then saying things like not seperating into themeparks and sandboxes. But the thing is, if every game started putting those features in, then you would be turning around and complaining about every game that does it and saying "yhis game sucks because it has the same features that every other game has too".
We have subgenres for a reason, they give us a variety of games to play all with diferent features. If you want to play a sandbox, then go play a sandbox instead of playing a themepark game then complaining its not a sandbox. Its about as retarded as people who hate PvP going into a PvP game, like Darkfall, and complaining about all the PvP features and wanting it to be a PvE game. Or learning about EVE, and it being a sci-fi MMO, then playing it for a few weeks and whining that there arent fairies,elves, dwarves, etc and writing up reviews about how EVE sucks because it doesnt have Elves and WoW and all these other games do.
You are making the assumption that because more people are playing ThemeParks over Sandboxes then that automatically means that people dont want longetivity, that is a huge assumption on your part.
As for variety, there is not a single big budget sandbox MMO, not one. So your comparison is invalid, it is basically like comparing a 100k Jeep to a 10k station wagon and saying look the Jeep is better. Well ofcourse it is, it cost 10x as much.
And I still dont agree with your distinction of sandbox and themepark so I repeat again. Where does it say on the GW 2 website that it is a ThemePark and as such must be limited to what you perceive ThemeParks be? You are making that distinction to support your arguments and invalidating other peoples.
GW 2 is an MMO and I reviewed it as such, no more and no less.
People keep saying it's a great themepark, and even the best themepark.
Here's an important question: Do these people actually like themeparks? Or are they sandbox fans and just go "oh, well, good enough for a themepark" in a knock on the themepark design in general? Like they used to say: "Bon pour l'orient!" (Meaning, "good for the East" - this was obviously said by the "West")
I actually like themeparks. (I also like sandboxes. Happens, there are more of us out there. :P)
When I play themeparks, I'm OK with being made to go through rides, I'm OK with being limited, I'm even OK with not having impact on the world.
So a themepark must be judged on its own terms. On the quality of its content - not how freeform it is.
So, are people saying GW2 is a good themepark game because it's less "limited?" Or because it actually has better directed content, like story content, dungeon content, etc.? To me, it doesn't surpass other games in this regard. TSW and SWTOR easily has better story and character, while many other games have better dungeons, in my opinion.
So no, I wouldn't say GW2 is the best themepark or even "great for a themepark". After all, freeform gameplay is not why I play themeparks. I play EVE for that!
Why do we have to separate MMORPGs into ThemeParks and Sandboxes? Does it say on the GW 2 that this game is a ThemePark and as such cannot have feature X, Y, Z because of it?
No it does not and I dont accept that as an excuse of not creating an MMORPG with depth and longetivity. ThemePark or not, MMORPGs are persistant worlds and as such should not be limited by what content the developers put in it.
We don't have to separate them. But we need to accept that an MMO with directed gameplay, purely developer-created, story-heavy content, and even one without impact on the world is valid design.
Freedom doesn't mean depth, by the way. Novels have depth and they're not free.
I also challenge that an MMO needs longetivity. Nothing in massively multiplayer says you need to play it for a year. I actually find that kind of game design is usually abusive.
MMORPGs have always been without start and end so they are, or should be, by design such a way that they have longetivity. That does not mean you need to play it for a year but that should be supported.
As for purely developer-created content by a valid design. I am sure it is but it is a design which has been reused way too much in the last few years and one I feel need to be challenged or atleast innovated. SW:TOR was like that and it lost 90% of its initial user base, similar with TERA, Secret World etc. So is this what the devs want? The players? I doubt it.
Considering the several million people playing themeparks vs maybe 1-2m spread between the bigger sandbox games, yes it is what the players want. Youre confusing what YOU want with what everyone else wants. You like certain features, to others they dont matter.
I think its kind of funny seeng people complain about it not having this feature or that feature, usually a sandbox feature, and then saying things like not seperating into themeparks and sandboxes. But the thing is, if every game started putting those features in, then you would be turning around and complaining about every game that does it and saying "yhis game sucks because it has the same features that every other game has too".
We have subgenres for a reason, they give us a variety of games to play all with diferent features. If you want to play a sandbox, then go play a sandbox instead of playing a themepark game then complaining its not a sandbox. Its about as retarded as people who hate PvP going into a PvP game, like Darkfall, and complaining about all the PvP features and wanting it to be a PvE game. Or learning about EVE, and it being a sci-fi MMO, then playing it for a few weeks and whining that there arent fairies,elves, dwarves, etc and writing up reviews about how EVE sucks because it doesnt have Elves and WoW and all these other games do.
You are making the assumption that because more people are playing ThemeParks over Sandboxes then that automatically means that people dont want longetivity, that is a huge assumption on your part.
As for variety, there is not a single big budget sandbox MMO, not one. So your comparison is invalid, it is basically like comparing a 100k Jeep to a 10k station wagon and saying look the Jeep is better. Well ofcourse it is, it cost 10x as much.
And I still dont agree with your distinction of sandbox and themepark so I repeat again. Where does it say on the GW 2 website that it is a ThemePark and as such must be limited to what you perceive ThemeParks be? You are making that distinction to support your arguments and invalidating other peoples.
GW 2 is an MMO and I reviewed it as such, no more and no less.
When was the last time you saw any game advertise itsef as a themepark? WoW, WAR, LOTRO, SWTOR, etc. All themeparks, but none of them have it advertised on their site "This is a themepark game". They advertise features of the game, and those who know what a themepark or sandbox is know what type of game it is by those features without needing a company to advertise "Hey come play this themepark game". After all, it is those features that determine the type of game it is, not what a developer says it is. Blizzard could advertise on their site that WoW is a sandbox game, but that doesnt mean it is.
As for longevity. I never said people dont want longevity. Your 2nd paragraph was developer created content (as opposed to player driven / created content). That is what players want. No, not me personally. I love a good sandbox. But considering the sheer number of players in themeparks vs sandboxes, its pretty clear people are fine with that type of content. Im not saying thats a good thing. Its just that a large portion of players in MMOs now are not the same group of people from a decade ago, and they desire different things and tend to also like having content spoon fed to them.
Just look at the typesof very easy & simple mechanics that people have issues understanding in themepark games, and the rage that ensues when people find things to actually be challenging in a game. Could you imagine some of those people trying to play games like Darkfall, EVE, Xsyon, etc where you actually need to kind of break out on your own instead of following a scripted storyline and the games tend to be less forgiving regarding things like death.
When was the last time you saw any game advertise itsef as a themepark? WoW, WAR, LOTRO, SWTOR, etc. All themeparks, but none of them have it advertised on their site "This is a themepark game". They advertise features of the game, and those who know what a themepark or sandbox is know what type of game it is by those features without needing a company to advertise "Hey come play this themepark game". After all, it is those features that determine the type of game it is, not what a developer says it is. Blizzard could advertise on their site that WoW is a sandbox game, but that doesnt mean it is.
As for longevity. I never said people dont want longevity. Your 2nd paragraph was developer created content (as opposed to player driven / created content). That is what players want. No, not me personally. I love a good sandbox. But considering the sheer number of players in themeparks vs sandboxes, its pretty clear people are fine with that type of content. Im not saying thats a good thing. Its just that a large portion of players in MMOs now are not the same group of people from a decade ago, and they desire different things and tend to also like having content spoon fed to them.
Just look at the typesof very easy & simple mechanics that people have issues understanding in themepark games, and the rage that ensues when people find things to actually be challenging in a game. Could you imagine some of those people trying to play games like Darkfall, EVE, Xsyon, etc where you actually need to kind of break out on your own instead of following a scripted storyline and the games tend to be less forgiving regarding things like death.
You are making the same misstake that so many other developers are doing. They see WoW as a massive success so then they automatically try to ape it, thinking the way WoW does it must be superior. I.e. ThemePark.
However none of the MMORPGs trying to ape WoW, LOTRO, WAR, AOC etc has come close to get a subscriber base of WoW but as the idiots they are they keep trying over and over again.
I am claiming it is not the ThemePark concept that is great, it is just that WoW happens to follow the ThemePark concept and it happens to be huge. So when you are comparing indy games like Darkfall, Eve etc you are comparing apples to oranges where the fact is that not a single big budget MMO has been based on the sandbox concept so I dont accept that somehow most people want spoon fed, developer created content because it is only in WoW that it has been a massive success.
When we finally do get an MMO which is not based on being spoonfed developer content and which is a big budget one, the we will truly put it to the test but for now, there are no such games. ArcheAge might be the first one, which is fairly big budget, and is mixing dev. created content with player created one and I think it will be a massive success, atleast in the East which seems to be its primary market. Eastern games rarely do well in the West.
Comments
Why do we have to separate MMORPGs into ThemeParks and Sandboxes? Does it say on the GW 2 that this game is a ThemePark and as such cannot have feature X, Y, Z because of it?
No it does not and I dont accept that as an excuse of not creating an MMORPG with depth and longetivity. ThemePark or not, MMORPGs are persistant worlds and as such should not be limited by what content the developers put in it.
My gaming blog
I just did an event this morning
In Brisbane Wildlands, there is a huge underground Skritt city - Skrittsburg, iirc. It is a full-blown city, complete with vendors and crafting stations.
I was just exploring in there, and found the Skritt King - cool.
I was up poking around, when all of a sudden, the king was attacked by bandit intruders - intent on kidnapping him. Dynamic Event - it was not a heart quest, it just was a random occurance (maybe it triggers every so many minutes/hours, maybe it triggered because I walked by, I don't know).
It was just me in the area, I got my ass kicked, they captured the king.
The entire city was then locked down. The bandits shut the gates. No one - not me, or anyone else, could get back inside the city.
So while peeking around the gates, the bandits were outside trying to kidnap more Skritt. Not a heart quest, just another dynamic event, as a result of the city being captured. Myself along with a few other people repelled this attack, and forced them to reopen the gates. We were able to then retake the city.
So - Here's an example of a dynamic event. Sure, it may be scripted in some manner, but it wasn't a heart quest with a big marker on a map saying "GO TO HERE". It had a real impact on the world: no one could go into this city; no one could get the vistas or skill points located inside the city. It took a consolidated effort of several people to rectify the problem and reopen the city. Had I succeeded in repelling the original bandits, then perhaps none of it would have occured at all, or maybe a different set of events entirely would have fallen into place (maybe instead of the bandits locking us all out, the Skritt themselves would have shut the doors and barred themselves in until the attack was repelled, same event then in terms of mechanics, just different story to go with it, idk).
This area is a L15-25 area, so it's not an advanced high level area, this directly impacted players who potentially have not been playing long.
So there is just one concrete example of an event which:
a) Was dynamic - it didn't have any obvious starting marker (no exclamation point quest start, no heart marker, nothing)
b) It had real-world consequences (the loss of use of an entire city and services)
c) It happened in a low level area, so it would impact casual players alike
d) (possibly - maybe a solo player better than myself could have done it, but I couldn't) required coordination of several players in which to affect the outcome
We don't have to separate them. But we need to accept that an MMO with directed gameplay, purely developer-created, story-heavy content, and even one without impact on the world is valid design.
Freedom doesn't mean depth, by the way. Novels have depth and they're not free.
I also challenge that an MMO needs longetivity. Nothing in massively multiplayer says you need to play it for a year. I actually find that kind of game design is usually abusive.
There are people that want an alternative reality to be lost in and there are people that want a good game but know their life exists outside the game, with a vast number of people in between.
People that want a game that resembles a world (scenarie not how it works) will like games like GW2.
People that want an alternative reality won't like/wont be fullfiled by GW2.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
MMORPGs have always been without start and end so they are, or should be, by design such a way that they have longetivity. That does not mean you need to play it for a year but that should be supported.
As for purely developer-created content by a valid design. I am sure it is but it is a design which has been reused way too much in the last few years and one I feel need to be challenged or atleast innovated. SW:TOR was like that and it lost 90% of its initial user base, similar with TERA, Secret World etc. So is this what the devs want? The players? I doubt it.
My gaming blog
Considering the several million people playing themeparks vs maybe 1-2m spread between the bigger sandbox games, yes it is what the players want. Youre confusing what YOU want with what everyone else wants. You like certain features, to others they dont matter.
I think its kind of funny seeng people complain about it not having this feature or that feature, usually a sandbox feature, and then saying things like not seperating into themeparks and sandboxes. But the thing is, if every game started putting those features in, then you would be turning around and complaining about every game that does it and saying "yhis game sucks because it has the same features that every other game has too".
We have subgenres for a reason, they give us a variety of games to play all with diferent features. If you want to play a sandbox, then go play a sandbox instead of playing a themepark game then complaining its not a sandbox. Its about as retarded as people who hate PvP going into a PvP game, like Darkfall, and complaining about all the PvP features and wanting it to be a PvE game. Or learning about EVE, and it being a sci-fi MMO, then playing it for a few weeks and whining that there arent fairies,elves, dwarves, etc and writing up reviews about how EVE sucks because it doesnt have Elves and WoW and all these other games do.
You are making the assumption that because more people are playing ThemeParks over Sandboxes then that automatically means that people dont want longetivity, that is a huge assumption on your part.
As for variety, there is not a single big budget sandbox MMO, not one. So your comparison is invalid, it is basically like comparing a 100k Jeep to a 10k station wagon and saying look the Jeep is better. Well ofcourse it is, it cost 10x as much.
And I still dont agree with your distinction of sandbox and themepark so I repeat again. Where does it say on the GW 2 website that it is a ThemePark and as such must be limited to what you perceive ThemeParks be? You are making that distinction to support your arguments and invalidating other peoples.
GW 2 is an MMO and I reviewed it as such, no more and no less.
My gaming blog
When was the last time you saw any game advertise itsef as a themepark? WoW, WAR, LOTRO, SWTOR, etc. All themeparks, but none of them have it advertised on their site "This is a themepark game". They advertise features of the game, and those who know what a themepark or sandbox is know what type of game it is by those features without needing a company to advertise "Hey come play this themepark game". After all, it is those features that determine the type of game it is, not what a developer says it is. Blizzard could advertise on their site that WoW is a sandbox game, but that doesnt mean it is.
As for longevity. I never said people dont want longevity. Your 2nd paragraph was developer created content (as opposed to player driven / created content). That is what players want. No, not me personally. I love a good sandbox. But considering the sheer number of players in themeparks vs sandboxes, its pretty clear people are fine with that type of content. Im not saying thats a good thing. Its just that a large portion of players in MMOs now are not the same group of people from a decade ago, and they desire different things and tend to also like having content spoon fed to them.
Just look at the typesof very easy & simple mechanics that people have issues understanding in themepark games, and the rage that ensues when people find things to actually be challenging in a game. Could you imagine some of those people trying to play games like Darkfall, EVE, Xsyon, etc where you actually need to kind of break out on your own instead of following a scripted storyline and the games tend to be less forgiving regarding things like death.
You are making the same misstake that so many other developers are doing. They see WoW as a massive success so then they automatically try to ape it, thinking the way WoW does it must be superior. I.e. ThemePark.
However none of the MMORPGs trying to ape WoW, LOTRO, WAR, AOC etc has come close to get a subscriber base of WoW but as the idiots they are they keep trying over and over again.
I am claiming it is not the ThemePark concept that is great, it is just that WoW happens to follow the ThemePark concept and it happens to be huge. So when you are comparing indy games like Darkfall, Eve etc you are comparing apples to oranges where the fact is that not a single big budget MMO has been based on the sandbox concept so I dont accept that somehow most people want spoon fed, developer created content because it is only in WoW that it has been a massive success.
When we finally do get an MMO which is not based on being spoonfed developer content and which is a big budget one, the we will truly put it to the test but for now, there are no such games. ArcheAge might be the first one, which is fairly big budget, and is mixing dev. created content with player created one and I think it will be a massive success, atleast in the East which seems to be its primary market. Eastern games rarely do well in the West.
My gaming blog