And yet the PvP croud seems to be fishing for the idea that sandboxes and PvP are synonyms. But yet there's nothing in sand that says go kill your neighbour.
I supposed I would consider myself part of the pvp crowd and I disagree with the idea they are required to be together, but I"m likely in the minority. SWG was a sandbox that was not FFA and thank god it wasn't. When I wanted pvp my guild would go special forces and look for a fight and when I just wanted to hang out with friends and quest I could do that too. I doubt I'll ever enjoy a system as much as I enjoyed SWG's.
That's because the game had real open world pvp where everyone that showed up wanted to be there and wanted to fight. the best battles were when a group of people all fought over an area like a space port on anchor head. All the lame battle modes they force into games, where there in the open world of swg. King of the hill, "flag " capture ( bases ) etc... all you really needed was the right terrain and we did the rest.
Flagging as always offered the best battles because that type of pvp keeps people around on the server to actually have them.
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
Neither was on time. Neither actually implemented all of the advertised features at launch. Budgets for both MO and DF would have been considerably higher than ATitD's budget. Darkfall did eventually get their game running right, but I don't think Mortal Online is running right to this day, though a lot of that could be blamed on the mods.
Well... both didn't advertised features at all. The community of both hoped, wished for a lot more features.. and the indy developer hinted that some features could be implemented at one point or the other.. Both are pure indy games.. there was no announced feature set.
Yeap.. Budget was most probably a little bit higher than ATITD, as their sub base.. doesn't change anything at all.
AtitD met goals and expectations. ATitD got more players than expected. MO & DF did not meet goals or expectations. MO & DF did not get as many players as hoped or expected. MO & DF had more money to play with than ATitD.
Someone else will have to compare Istaria & MO/DF. I know zip about Istaria.
You asked what the difference was. That's the answer.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players. There have been sandbox games without PvP, and with PvP flags that seemed to work just fine, economy and all. Sandbox does not equal PvP. PvP is not required for a sandbox to not only be workable, but to have a fully functional "world".
**
Does anyone else notice the parallels here between ATitD v. MO/DF and, say, Eve v. SWToR?
And from where did you hear or know that MO or DF did not meet their expectations? Most probably not from the DF team(don't know enough about MO), because they were rather happy about their success. Made even a second game, expanded their development team. It could be called a tiny success story.. Though a lot of fans expected more.. feature wise, state of the game.. but well.. that's more or less true for any game.
And where do you get that more players want PvE Sandboxes, or that they sell less copies?.. ATITD with their 3,500 sub base guaranteed didn't prove that. As any other PvE Sandbox couldn't prove that.
And what sandbox game without PvP worked just fine, with economy and all?
And yes.. there is a parallel between those.. you can't compare games with completely different budgets, with a complete different size and experience of developers, with a lot of advertisement and all.. or no advertisement at all. And therefor i already said before.. that those comparsion are bullshit.. and therefore i brought up the ATITD comparsion... because it is bullshit, too. Now you get the picture? So.. let MO and DF rest in peace and stop claiming stupid "facts" out of even more stupid comparsions.
And.. i never said anything like pvp is required for a sandbox, or pvp equals a sandbox.. i just said the comparsions and conclusions, which a lot of you made are bullshit.. like figuring out of two games.. DF and MO that pvp sandbox can not be successful.. and as i showed.. with the same stupid comparsion with PvE and PvE sandboxes.. PvE sandboxes can't be successful, too.. and showed furthermore that any such kind of comparsion is bullshit. And yes.. any comparsion with WoW and any other game is even more ridiculous.. so shall we stop with making bad comparsions and even more bad conclusions?
Ohh.. and about another bullshit conclusion:
Originally posted by lizardbones
Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players.
Yeap..
And now i do the same the other way around.
Player have demonstrated since EvE and any PvE MMO out there.. if you don't offer EvE like PvP(FFA) and stuff you can't keep your players.. and will lose players over time.
See what i did there? Yeah.. EvE is the only MMO not losing any players over time.. but to draw a fishy conclusion out of it is just bullshit.. as the conclusion above from you.
But as much as i care you can believe, and talk whatever you want. Yeah.. PvE is superior. PvP will result in insta failure. PvP players are evil. PvE players are angels and good-will people. And whatever you want.
All that won't change anything.. all that will not prevent the development of another pvp game or pve game, sandbox or themepark.. because.. the big AAA companies don't listen to us(me and you and everyone here) anyway.
We do see movement in sandbox gaming, and sandbox MMOs, because of two games, and non of them is a MMO. DayZ and Minecraft. And both offer FFA pvp.. just bytheway. And yeah.. granted, Minecraft offers a PvE only experience, too. But again.. nothing about PvP or PvE is proved out of that.. just that there is some money earned in sandbox games.. and that is the only message publisher understand anyway.
I said developers need to offer players a choice. I did not say PvE was superior to PvP. I don't think I even said that PvP wasn't important.
UO opened Trammel, offering players a choice through PvP flags and guess what? Most of the player auction houses were on Trammel, not Felucca. I wonder why that was? Oh, because there wasn't much incentive to walk into an auction house if someone killed you as soon as you bought something really nice.
SWG offered players a choice through PvP flags and it seemed to do just fine too. Up to a point anyway.
Finally, Eve offers players a choice as well. Eve seems to be doing just fine too.
The major, successful sandbox MMORPGs all offer(ed) players a choice about PvP.
I'll retract my statement about Darkfall. It seemed to do very well post launch, even though it had pre-launch issues including an 8 year development cycle. I've stated in the past on these forums that Darkfall seems successful and couldn't have launched another game if it weren't successful. It runs at a larger scale than ATitD, but a smaller scale than the other sandbox games listed above at their peak(s). My statements on MO still stand.
MO is n ot doing that bad, its pretty much on par with Darkfall, which means theyre both not really booming with population but not certainly ghost towns like some ppl on this forums suggest. Thing is, there really isnt any game out there like this too (eve doesnt count because not everyone likes sci fi and the combat is bad) so there is always gonna be a market, unless a new open pvp game in a fantasy setting comes out more polished and with better combat than those 2.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard The OP should have precised "a good looking sandbox with high production quality for adults". Hello Kitty, Free Realms, Wurm, etc.. all those don't fit that description since they either look like crap or are too childish to endure for more than 5 minute for anyone past 18.
It's possible that's because developers can make a non-PVP sandbox for people who don't bring all their unreasonable MMO criteria and unrelated EQ/WOW baggage to the game. Maybe the 'anyone past 18' crowd of MMO gamers have whined themselves into a corner.
And, HEY NOW... I've been playing Free Realms for years now. It rocks. You just fear its awesomeness.
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
I have not "noticed" one since FFXI,ALL of these games are just follow the leader quest hubs,everyone following the exact same path.About the best anyone has done is create more than one starting area so that 50% are following one set of quests and the other 50% the other but same games are not even showing that much effort.
When i played FFXI there were a multitude of places you could take a group to level up and you did not have to follow a said path of levels,you could have a level 10 group and fight level 10>18 if you wanted.Quest hub games you pretty much have to follow each one after another in specific order,it is really weak gaming imo.
IMO producers and developers are not doing a very good job if we believe the costs they claim.100 million is a LOT of money,i would expect to see nothing less than an EPIC game with that kind of budget,there seems to be a lot of wasted money in MMORPG projects.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Two words/phrases that are so over used I want to stab people in the eye that use them....(except myself in this case)
1. Carebear. My lord people, no I do not want to play a game where normal playing means I run around, hacking and slashing at every player I see, so I can tea bag them, or <censored censored> them. This does not make me a carebear, it makes me NOT a psychopath. Also the fact that I don't enjoy running around a game hoping my little level 1 doesn't get violently beaten by something 1000000 levels higher than me again, doesn't make me a 'carebear' I have never had the urge to run around and hug everyone in a game, nor have I shot rainbows out of my belly.
2. "WoW clone" People seem to use this word to describe any MMO that has ANY aspect close to World of Warcraft. "OMG it has health bars? OMFG a wow clone!" or If the game has a row of hot keys with a 3rd ish person view "OMG another wow clone" News flash people, the 'ultimate mmo' is one that anyone who plays other mmos (ANY other ones) can sit down, and surprisingly can already move around and know basic commands. This makes game transition easy so people might leave their old game for the new one. EVERY MMO does this to some degree.
I have seen 2 true 'wow clones' in my beta testing experience, one was some 'eastern grind fest F2P' that almost even had the same fonts as WoW. The other was something else I beta tested that I thought "This isnt going to last long before they are sued" WoW was not the first MMO
As for the original idea, nope can't think of any that have not been said already....though Hello Kitty wasn't the first one mentioned
To me, sandbox means maximizing player driven content, exploration, and options. Minimizing the metagame and much of what gets in the way of immersion. Making the world feel like a living breathing thing with a vast number of goals, and obstacles.
For me, personally, this means open world PVP. There is no greater threat than a real player who could be out there trying to kill me while I'm gathering resources, exploring, or what have you. This makes exploring and every menial task that much more exciting. Mining, for instance, can be boring.... but gathering with a few friends who are ready to help you fight off thieves and carry the loot home, that's an adventure. The added threat makes the reward of making it get home worth attaining.
Minecraft in creative mode was never fun for me.... and in the long run, I think a sandbox game without open pvp is just this. I also think splitting the playerbase with pvp/pve servers skews the playerbase too much for it to be much fun for either server. This is also because the developer will have to pick one type of game to focus and balance. I'm a "good" player, and it took me some time to realize that without the frustrations of being killed by another player, a sandbox really does become much less meaningful. I have no doubt the only two successful sandbox games eve and UO, were successful for this very reason.
Sure, there have been some really crappy sandbox MMO's with open pvp, I'm looking at you Mortal and Darkfall. That's because they put too much focus on pvp.... and, well, the games were just not well put together. So, I'm not saying gung-ho no rules pvp, some sort of karma system to encourage and reward players for not being violent is needed.
Personally, I've never been a evil/pk player. I'm the adventuring type. I even quit UO for a month once because I was fed up with being killed. I went to the forums and complained like everyone else and eventually came back. Talk about watch out for what you wish for though... that game lost ALL of it's meaning when they took PVP away and compartmentalized it.
Comments
That's because the game had real open world pvp where everyone that showed up wanted to be there and wanted to fight. the best battles were when a group of people all fought over an area like a space port on anchor head. All the lame battle modes they force into games, where there in the open world of swg. King of the hill, "flag " capture ( bases ) etc... all you really needed was the right terrain and we did the rest.
Flagging as always offered the best battles because that type of pvp keeps people around on the server to actually have them.
MO is n ot doing that bad, its pretty much on par with Darkfall, which means theyre both not really booming with population but not certainly ghost towns like some ppl on this forums suggest. Thing is, there really isnt any game out there like this too (eve doesnt count because not everyone likes sci fi and the combat is bad) so there is always gonna be a market, unless a new open pvp game in a fantasy setting comes out more polished and with better combat than those 2.
It's possible that's because developers can make a non-PVP sandbox for people who don't bring all their unreasonable MMO criteria and unrelated EQ/WOW baggage to the game. Maybe the 'anyone past 18' crowd of MMO gamers have whined themselves into a corner.
And, HEY NOW... I've been playing Free Realms for years now. It rocks. You just fear its awesomeness.
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
I have not "noticed" one since FFXI,ALL of these games are just follow the leader quest hubs,everyone following the exact same path.About the best anyone has done is create more than one starting area so that 50% are following one set of quests and the other 50% the other but same games are not even showing that much effort.
When i played FFXI there were a multitude of places you could take a group to level up and you did not have to follow a said path of levels,you could have a level 10 group and fight level 10>18 if you wanted.Quest hub games you pretty much have to follow each one after another in specific order,it is really weak gaming imo.
IMO producers and developers are not doing a very good job if we believe the costs they claim.100 million is a LOT of money,i would expect to see nothing less than an EPIC game with that kind of budget,there seems to be a lot of wasted money in MMORPG projects.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
SHow me one real life sandbox where I cant obliterate what others have made.
End discussion.
Two words/phrases that are so over used I want to stab people in the eye that use them....(except myself in this case)
1. Carebear. My lord people, no I do not want to play a game where normal playing means I run around, hacking and slashing at every player I see, so I can tea bag them, or <censored censored> them. This does not make me a carebear, it makes me NOT a psychopath. Also the fact that I don't enjoy running around a game hoping my little level 1 doesn't get violently beaten by something 1000000 levels higher than me again, doesn't make me a 'carebear' I have never had the urge to run around and hug everyone in a game, nor have I shot rainbows out of my belly.
2. "WoW clone" People seem to use this word to describe any MMO that has ANY aspect close to World of Warcraft. "OMG it has health bars? OMFG a wow clone!" or If the game has a row of hot keys with a 3rd ish person view "OMG another wow clone" News flash people, the 'ultimate mmo' is one that anyone who plays other mmos (ANY other ones) can sit down, and surprisingly can already move around and know basic commands. This makes game transition easy so people might leave their old game for the new one. EVERY MMO does this to some degree.
I have seen 2 true 'wow clones' in my beta testing experience, one was some 'eastern grind fest F2P' that almost even had the same fonts as WoW. The other was something else I beta tested that I thought "This isnt going to last long before they are sued" WoW was not the first MMO
As for the original idea, nope can't think of any that have not been said already....though Hello Kitty wasn't the first one mentioned
To me, sandbox means maximizing player driven content, exploration, and options. Minimizing the metagame and much of what gets in the way of immersion. Making the world feel like a living breathing thing with a vast number of goals, and obstacles.
For me, personally, this means open world PVP. There is no greater threat than a real player who could be out there trying to kill me while I'm gathering resources, exploring, or what have you. This makes exploring and every menial task that much more exciting. Mining, for instance, can be boring.... but gathering with a few friends who are ready to help you fight off thieves and carry the loot home, that's an adventure. The added threat makes the reward of making it get home worth attaining.
Minecraft in creative mode was never fun for me.... and in the long run, I think a sandbox game without open pvp is just this. I also think splitting the playerbase with pvp/pve servers skews the playerbase too much for it to be much fun for either server. This is also because the developer will have to pick one type of game to focus and balance. I'm a "good" player, and it took me some time to realize that without the frustrations of being killed by another player, a sandbox really does become much less meaningful. I have no doubt the only two successful sandbox games eve and UO, were successful for this very reason.
Sure, there have been some really crappy sandbox MMO's with open pvp, I'm looking at you Mortal and Darkfall. That's because they put too much focus on pvp.... and, well, the games were just not well put together. So, I'm not saying gung-ho no rules pvp, some sort of karma system to encourage and reward players for not being violent is needed.
Personally, I've never been a evil/pk player. I'm the adventuring type. I even quit UO for a month once because I was fed up with being killed. I went to the forums and complained like everyone else and eventually came back. Talk about watch out for what you wish for though... that game lost ALL of it's meaning when they took PVP away and compartmentalized it.