Originally posted by Quirhid Yeah you might be able to clear a spot in the woods, build a house with the wood you've collected, plant a crop, hunt, gather and craft, and then what? What happens next? Do you continue grinding materials for a bigger house, keep yourself fed etc. What do you do when you don't have to struggle anymore? Is that the endgame?Thoughts?
Gaining experience (not just numbers), skill/ability progression, treasure hunting, monster hunting, raiding, dungeons, rare hunting, exploring (the world should be massive, with places you can only access by mountain/wall climbing etc), politics, professions (separate from classes and/or crafting), discovery (not just in exploration but in crafting, magic (mages should have legendary spells available that takes a year to learn) combat, etc), and as many features as possible as long as they are well made, the possibilities are endless.It's no just just building a house and chopping down wood, but I guess these indie studios dont really have resources to do something great, and making a great sandbox requires resources, until then we chop down wood and build houses?
I find myself in agreement here.
Basically, a sandbox is defined boundaries (the box) with sand (the world) in it. You can have pails and shovels for activities. Sometimes, players will use the shovel to hit other players. Other times, players will use the shovel to dig out sand and use the pail to build things.
What I am saying is that "sandbox" games are just boundaries set by the developers. Whatever they decide to throw in for activities (shovels, pails, boxes for bricks) and rulesets (can a player hit another player with the shovel?) they include is totally up to developers.
Want to include exploring? Make the sandox big. Want to include fighting? Throw a cat or two in the box. Want discovery? Throw another cat or two into the box (for buried treasure) Throw in some army men and firecrackers and now the game gets interesting
In my mind, a "sandbox" is a world laid out with the ruleset and the players are "let loose" in the game. The developers can include/NOT include whatever they wish to make their game more "fun."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Wurm Online is really a good example to use on how verbose a sandbox model is. The game play itself might not be up to some peoples standards but it does show how a sandbox can have content that literally last years to master.
case in point, I have been working on my property for a year now and I still havent had time to complete it yet alone my clean up project which is my personal end game (clean up all the unused space.
After a year of training my armour, my weapons, my healing skills, my fighting skills I STILL cant fight by myself out in the wild.
"...What do you do when you don't have to struggle anymore? Is that the endgame? Thoughts?"
I strongly believe that a sandbox mmorpg should have a team of intelligent and dedicated game masters, just like the old pen & paper role-playing games.
Without them, you are playing in a fully scripted world in which your very existence and achievements are meaningless.
There are a rare few of these.
Game Masters can introduce and alter epic story lines to accommodate involved players in meaningful and rewarding ways.
Any mmorpg that does not have game masters is just a very elaborate pinball machine.
My computer beats me in Strip Poker, but doesn't stand a chance against my Kick Boxing! >: D 3
Both themepark and sandbox games have massive problems. What needs to be done is with skill use of procedural content generation/AI/ as well as some themepark and sandbox elements is to move past these current games.
I see gw2 events as a very tentative step in that direction - Storybricks promises more. Its possible to create a best of both worlds kind of scenario. Bethesda's single player games are a stab at this.. There is some underlying story but you are given a lot of freedom in how you accomplish this.. Who you make friends with and such. and what 'quests' you undertake. Same with a few other single player games..
But game makers seem to fear the complexity of trying to make this kind of more complex game work in an MMO. It can though - the faction system in EQ was a stab at that.. We can do even better today and hopefully some game company will. Its the same with procedural content. You need some hand developed content but having say a landscape procedurally generated can add a lot of spice to the world..
I played GW2 and didn't like the fact some content was missed because I wasn't around to do it. Then I got to thinking that maybe, limited content is exactly what MMO's need. So instead of a static dungeon or storyline being available forever, why not make it one time events. That way, people could come across a procedurally generated one time content.
Let's say you and some friends were out exploring and came across a dungeon. As you go inside, you find it's inhabited by a clan of Drow or something. As you clear the dungeon out, section by section, it turns out it was more than just a dwelling for Drow, but some significant villain. You and your friends were successful though and vanquished this Lord of the Drow and cleared the dungeon. Loot dropped would be one of a kind in stats and appearance. Almost like playing Diablo but in an open world setting. Add in the fact that content is never repeatable, but rather randomly generated throughout the world.
I agree. Themepark MMOs have fallen into a very predictable and repetitive format and it really seems like developers aren't even TRYING to overcome this. GW2 took a modest stab at it but was scared to push it very far. EQ was probably the most innovative this way (sadly) with their faction system - they also added procedural dungeons..
My g/f played a human monk in EQ - and she was able via some patient gameplay to turn in some quest items to these enemy faction guys until she got this hammer that would teleport her back to a safe location.. This was her favorite item because she had made friends with some guys that almost everyone hated. Her character was able to 'choose' its own destiny. EQ also let you kill whoever you want. Some guy had killed a done of the Qeynos guards and was hated by them.
Developers are basically scared of making a game 'tough' on a player and so we get a rather watered down and boring effort out of this desire to please everyone. It's just one chain of quests with obvious good guys and obvious bad guys - and you really can't vary it.
I remember sometimes in GW2 I kinda wanted to help the 'bad' guys.. But in that game its just oh these guys are snuffing the rebellion you can only kill those guys. Giving people freedom but with consquences is really the key to getting beyond that kind of dullsville gameplay..
We should at the very least have a 'multi-state' NPC that might hate you - love you - or be indifferent to you. This would allow a kind of branching questline that would vary depending on what you did in the game. Mix in those kind of 'complicated' NPCs with some intelligent use of procedural content and we could have a more interesting gaming world.
It's probably going to have to start with an indy game - that will essentially 'pave' the way for a more modern MMO because right now developers are scared to implement any features that will potentially give the gamer a hard time - even if it potentially means a more interesting experience. The MMO industry has to move beyond this 'do no harm' model. In addition they seem unwilling to work on NPC/Game world AI because they fear the added complications will make these 'impossible' with multiple players. it's a shame..
I reject the sandbox vs. themepark division. Sandboxes don't 'solve' themepark problems. People who played RPGs with pencil and paper know not having a dungeon master doesn't solve the problem of having a shitty one. And themeparks don't solve the 'sandbox' issues either.. You do not have endless things to do because you don't really need to do anything in the first place.
If you found your self stuck in a world with just sand and a portion of food and water you would get pretty bored pretty fast. MMO designers need to rethink the 'guts' of their MMO design and come up with ways to be more interesting and varied depending on the choices the player makes. Instead what we are getting now is a reduction of choices because of the fear that people won't like the consquences of making bad ones.
Why is this topic sandbox specific? I ask myself the same question with pretty much all mmorpg's. I hit max level, I have decent gear... now what?
My answer is usually, "quit".
What I'm seeing is that MMORPGs nowadays have become about the self. Me, me, me! What is in it for me? How much loot can I get? What kind of loot can I get?
I thought MMORPGs were about the interaction with others. Loot is finite. Content is finite. The relationships built go beyond that and the game becomes about community, instead of selfish reasons.
I know, I've struggled with this myself but I'm finding my path now.
Well I'd say you're finding what you can see, or discover yourself, because even themeparks aren't about that for me, I really don't care about the loot, nor the levels, I just like adventuring in a world. I also like PVP, hence why both a sandbox like SWG as well as a themepark like ESO can work for me.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And then what? That's the question developers always fail to address.
The answers are simple, but very difficult to implement.
Give the players the tools to shape their own adventures.
Restrict and limit the players with these tools.
Neverwinter's Foundry, and EQ2's Dungeon Maker, are good steps in the right direction.
Admins in the FPS genre, can customize their own servers, with their own set of rules. This is why certain servers are so popular, because it's sort of like a sandbox with custom rulesets and custom mods.
Now imagine an MMO, which gave players or guilds, that kind of control, for their own private instances, whether it's for pvp, raiding, dungeons, or just questing. It wouldn't necessarily have to be instanced, or private either. It could be open to everyone with a rating system.
There are many drawbacks though. One can only hope.
What I'm seeing is that MMORPGs nowadays have become about the self. Me, me, me! What is in it for me? How much loot can I get? What kind of loot can I get?
I thought MMORPGs were about the interaction with others. Loot is finite. Content is finite. The relationships built go beyond that and the game becomes about community, instead of selfish reasons.
I know, I've struggled with this myself but I'm finding my path now.
You thought wrong.
MMORPGs are just entertainment products .. they are not about anything. Players can use them anyway they see fit.
If they want to solo, and focus on their own fun, it is their prerogative. Devs can always cater to someone else if they don't like their audience (although it seems they do want to cater to solo-centric people who don't care much about "community").
No he doesn't think wrong, MMO stands for massively multiplayer online - the ability to interact with lots of real people online is part of that definition. Designing a game to be MMO then introducing masses of functionality to do be a single player is a design flaw. Either be a mmO or not, try to be both and you satisfy no one. As I've said before its no different to trying to force games that are designed with solO players in mind to force group activity.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
And again games at designed with a target audiance in mind. If the game is called 'football' and a game is stopped because 1 players picks up the ball and starts playing basketball does not make that person right - they just ruined the game.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
What I'm seeing is that MMORPGs nowadays have become about the self. Me, me, me! What is in it for me? How much loot can I get? What kind of loot can I get?
I thought MMORPGs were about the interaction with others. Loot is finite. Content is finite. The relationships built go beyond that and the game becomes about community, instead of selfish reasons.
I know, I've struggled with this myself but I'm finding my path now.
You thought wrong.
MMORPGs are just entertainment products .. they are not about anything. Players can use them anyway they see fit.
If they want to solo, and focus on their own fun, it is their prerogative. Devs can always cater to someone else if they don't like their audience (although it seems they do want to cater to solo-centric people who don't care much about "community").
understanding of group contribution is woefully misunderstood. In an MMO that doesnt suck balls (like most of them) a player can be a solo player and at the same time contribute to the larger group they are in or even just to the game world. This satisifes introverts in ways that being completely alone does not nor in ways that most extraverts can even begin to understand.
It worked for Minecraft apparently, but in my opinion, no, it shouldn't end there. Sandbox style games should always have some sort of option for territorial control. A way to exert your dominance in an area for rare resources or bonuses to your guild / faction or whatever. I see a lot of people complaining about how Sandbox games are always too much PvP. Well, if you don't add PvP and rely strictly on PvE, it won't make for a very good Sandbox as the OP is trying to point out.
No conflict = Stale or stagnant gameplay
PvE is best left to Themepark style MMOs. At least until a gaming company comes up with AI that imitates human intelligence.
I disagree.. I think a sandbox PvE game is very feasible and fun.. HOWEVER, you need devs that can think outside the box, and producers willing to pony up the cash to create and support the game.. PvP is often used because it's the cheapest form of content to support.. Designing and running NPC's takes more effort = $$$$$.. In a sandbox type of PvE game, the devs have to focus on creating a world that encourages the community to work together.. Honestly I haven't seen anything like that in forever.. Every game I have played since the turn of the century has somehow focused on putting player against player.. Either directly as esport PvP, or indirectly like "rankings & gear" to prove you are better then your neighbor.. (Gear Score?) lol
But then will a community support such a game that doesn't promote epeens?
But the thing is that dev created content is themepark, not sandbox. Unless of course you allow players to create npcs which is an interesting thought and would be sandboxy indeed.
And guildowned dungeons with a fee to enter and for dying but with good loot would be pretty cool.
Leveless system or FFA PvP have nothing at all to do with sandboxes, themeparks can have that as well. the difference is that in a sanbox you create the content yourself, the devs makes the tools for that.
Originally posted by ikcin All of you must understand one very simple point - sandbox RPG and sandbox MMO are two different things. And sandbox does not mean control, like making your own rules and servers, it means freedom, like rules and mechanics that give you the opportunity to choose your own unique way in the game. I read your posts, and I just see you have no idea what you are talking about.
Please forgive us, ikcin? We want to be experts just like you some day. Teach us the way, ikcin. Show us the light.
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 ikcin All of you must understand one very simple point - sandbox RPG and sandbox MMO are two different things. And sandbox does not mean control, like making your own rules and servers, it means freedom, like rules and mechanics that give you the opportunity to choose your own unique way in the game. I read your posts, and I just see you have no idea what you are talking about.
That doesn't mean that they don't have similarities. So, and I assume you are responding to my post, choosing to go out in the world and find your fun as opposed to following the prescribed quests is not dependent on the game being mmo or single player.
As far as your second point, that's true, it does mean being able to choose your own unique way in the game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I was doing some introspection on this subject and I realized that though I hate Pure Theme Parks, I love Theme Park activities within a sandbox game. I feel that quests and all of that have much more weight and significance to them when they are meshed into a sandbox world. I have never seen a Theme Park World contain a sandbox, but I have seen the opposite and I loved it.
So I feel that part of the answer is for Sandboxes to be able to deliver some of the dev created content within their open world. As long as you don't chronically introduce things through questing that invalidate the economy/power balance/function of the rest of the world then Theme Parks within a Sandbox are good imo.
They can also be tuned for "Endgame" players so that the content is a struggle to beat.
Requiring:
The right Gear (Ropes, ladders, a gold statue for the Ape God to let you pass)
The right Team (Hacker skill to get you past the Security Locks, a Loremancer to help you with curses that are on the doors)
Maybe achievements accrued in-game that flag you for NPC help in certain spots (Helped out Old Frank [maybe Old Frank Faction]--> Frank is the head of the Searcher's Guild, he gives you the aid of ten men)
The Rewards of such content have to be randomized from Loot tables to a high degree imo. Sure you can have the end item be something static and known (Lightbringer, Schematic: Customized A-34 Banshee, Red Dragon Egg), but other things should be random drops of a certain level of quality to make it worthwhile. All items should be non-bind on pickup.
Finally Theme Park content should link back to Sandbox World. Completing the Quest may require that you travel to a waypoint or terrain feature in the dangerous Arahadi Desert and place the Crown on the statue of Bharguin, or build a temple in the land of Seltaria.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Pure themepark MMOs are doomed, but pure sandbox MMOs aren't games. Pure themepark MMOs are made for interacting with formulaic worlds and provide an almost passive experience. Pure sandbox MMOs are simply environments furnished with tools, and as such are completely reliant on the quality of the players... which predictably yields a generic bell curve of results. Not so great.
I think what we are seeing now in the developer cadre is a common migration to try and find a synthesis that will adequately respond to most players' needs. We're also seeing some down-sizing of the projects as the developers attempt to right-size the scope of what they are attempting, scaling to the outlay the investors (whether private or crowd) are willing to consider.
Similarly I think we may see some hybridization of single-player and MMO. From recent titles like SWTOR which were pretty much solo-with-friends to more current designs like Chris Robert's Squadron 42 leading into a multiplayer persistent universe, we seem to find a Thesis-Antithesis: Synthesis dialectic progression evolving right in front of us within game design.
Pure themepark MMOs are doomed, but pure sandbox MMOs aren't games. Pure themepark MMOs are made for interacting with formulaic worlds and provide an almost passive experience. Pure sandbox MMOs are simply environments furnished with tools, and as such are completely reliant on the quality of the players... which predictably yields a generic bell curve of results. Not so great.
I think what we are seeing now in the developer cadre is a common migration to try and find a synthesis that will adequately respond to most players' needs. We're also seeing some down-sizing of the projects as the developers attempt to right-size the scope of what they are attempting, scaling to the outlay the investors (whether private or crowd) are willing to consider.
Similarly I think we may see some hybridization of single-player and MMO. From recent titles like SWTOR which were pretty much solo-with-friends to more current designs like Chris Robert's Squadron 42 leading into a multiplayer persistent universe, we seem to find a Thesis-Antithesis: Synthesis dialectic progression evolving right in front of us within game design.
I have to agree with you that at some point the distinctions will hopefully be vestigial. I was playing Pen and Paper with my teenage boys last night and they wouldn't progress in the game because they wouldn't commit to an action and wanted me to feed them their actions. I refused and just stopped talking. They realized that they needed to do something but wouldn't do it. I feel like sandbox games sometimes suffer from this problem with players but in a different way. Players must be proactive, competent, and require drama to use the Fate doctrine.
Sandbox games would seem to need this as well. Players have to be Acting in situations that show their Competence and induce stress in the form of player death or hard choices. Inactivity, lack of stress, and decisions that are made for you are three ways to make a game awful. Some sandbox games have inactivity as a problem, lack of stress and choices are the things that most current theme parks provide that helps players to quit.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Comments
Basically, a sandbox is defined boundaries (the box) with sand (the world) in it. You can have pails and shovels for activities. Sometimes, players will use the shovel to hit other players. Other times, players will use the shovel to dig out sand and use the pail to build things.
What I am saying is that "sandbox" games are just boundaries set by the developers. Whatever they decide to throw in for activities (shovels, pails, boxes for bricks) and rulesets (can a player hit another player with the shovel?) they include is totally up to developers.
Want to include exploring? Make the sandox big.
Want to include fighting? Throw a cat or two in the box.
Want discovery? Throw another cat or two into the box (for buried treasure)
Throw in some army men and firecrackers and now the game gets interesting
In my mind, a "sandbox" is a world laid out with the ruleset and the players are "let loose" in the game. The developers can include/NOT include whatever they wish to make their game more "fun."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Wurm Online is really a good example to use on how verbose a sandbox model is. The game play itself might not be up to some peoples standards but it does show how a sandbox can have content that literally last years to master.
case in point, I have been working on my property for a year now and I still havent had time to complete it yet alone my clean up project which is my personal end game (clean up all the unused space.
After a year of training my armour, my weapons, my healing skills, my fighting skills I STILL cant fight by myself out in the wild.
Obviously Dave is in the same boat as the OP.
And many more I would assume. Guys....sandboxes just aren't your games!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
"...What do you do when you don't have to struggle anymore? Is that the endgame? Thoughts?"
I strongly believe that a sandbox mmorpg should have a team of intelligent and dedicated game masters, just like the old pen & paper role-playing games.
Without them, you are playing in a fully scripted world in which your very existence and achievements are meaningless.
There are a rare few of these.
Game Masters can introduce and alter epic story lines to accommodate involved players in meaningful and rewarding ways.
Any mmorpg that does not have game masters is just a very elaborate pinball machine.
My computer beats me in Strip Poker, but doesn't stand a chance against my Kick Boxing! >: D 3
I agree. Themepark MMOs have fallen into a very predictable and repetitive format and it really seems like developers aren't even TRYING to overcome this. GW2 took a modest stab at it but was scared to push it very far. EQ was probably the most innovative this way (sadly) with their faction system - they also added procedural dungeons..
My g/f played a human monk in EQ - and she was able via some patient gameplay to turn in some quest items to these enemy faction guys until she got this hammer that would teleport her back to a safe location.. This was her favorite item because she had made friends with some guys that almost everyone hated. Her character was able to 'choose' its own destiny. EQ also let you kill whoever you want. Some guy had killed a done of the Qeynos guards and was hated by them.
Developers are basically scared of making a game 'tough' on a player and so we get a rather watered down and boring effort out of this desire to please everyone. It's just one chain of quests with obvious good guys and obvious bad guys - and you really can't vary it.
I remember sometimes in GW2 I kinda wanted to help the 'bad' guys.. But in that game its just oh these guys are snuffing the rebellion you can only kill those guys. Giving people freedom but with consquences is really the key to getting beyond that kind of dullsville gameplay..
We should at the very least have a 'multi-state' NPC that might hate you - love you - or be indifferent to you. This would allow a kind of branching questline that would vary depending on what you did in the game. Mix in those kind of 'complicated' NPCs with some intelligent use of procedural content and we could have a more interesting gaming world.
It's probably going to have to start with an indy game - that will essentially 'pave' the way for a more modern MMO because right now developers are scared to implement any features that will potentially give the gamer a hard time - even if it potentially means a more interesting experience. The MMO industry has to move beyond this 'do no harm' model. In addition they seem unwilling to work on NPC/Game world AI because they fear the added complications will make these 'impossible' with multiple players. it's a shame..
I reject the sandbox vs. themepark division. Sandboxes don't 'solve' themepark problems. People who played RPGs with pencil and paper know not having a dungeon master doesn't solve the problem of having a shitty one. And themeparks don't solve the 'sandbox' issues either.. You do not have endless things to do because you don't really need to do anything in the first place.
If you found your self stuck in a world with just sand and a portion of food and water you would get pretty bored pretty fast. MMO designers need to rethink the 'guts' of their MMO design and come up with ways to be more interesting and varied depending on the choices the player makes. Instead what we are getting now is a reduction of choices because of the fear that people won't like the consquences of making bad ones.
Well I'd say you're finding what you can see, or discover yourself, because even themeparks aren't about that for me, I really don't care about the loot, nor the levels, I just like adventuring in a world. I also like PVP, hence why both a sandbox like SWG as well as a themepark like ESO can work for me.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And then what? That's the question developers always fail to address.
The answers are simple, but very difficult to implement.
You thought wrong.
MMORPGs are just entertainment products .. they are not about anything. Players can use them anyway they see fit.
If they want to solo, and focus on their own fun, it is their prerogative. Devs can always cater to someone else if they don't like their audience (although it seems they do want to cater to solo-centric people who don't care much about "community").
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
understanding of group contribution is woefully misunderstood. In an MMO that doesnt suck balls (like most of them) a player can be a solo player and at the same time contribute to the larger group they are in or even just to the game world. This satisifes introverts in ways that being completely alone does not nor in ways that most extraverts can even begin to understand.
But the thing is that dev created content is themepark, not sandbox. Unless of course you allow players to create npcs which is an interesting thought and would be sandboxy indeed.
And guildowned dungeons with a fee to enter and for dying but with good loot would be pretty cool.
Leveless system or FFA PvP have nothing at all to do with sandboxes, themeparks can have that as well. the difference is that in a sanbox you create the content yourself, the devs makes the tools for that.
Whoa! +1 for that obscure reference!
(and great series)
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Please forgive us, ikcin? We want to be experts just like you some day. Teach us the way, ikcin. Show us the light.
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
That doesn't mean that they don't have similarities. So, and I assume you are responding to my post, choosing to go out in the world and find your fun as opposed to following the prescribed quests is not dependent on the game being mmo or single player.
As far as your second point, that's true, it does mean being able to choose your own unique way in the game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I was doing some introspection on this subject and I realized that though I hate Pure Theme Parks, I love Theme Park activities within a sandbox game. I feel that quests and all of that have much more weight and significance to them when they are meshed into a sandbox world. I have never seen a Theme Park World contain a sandbox, but I have seen the opposite and I loved it.
So I feel that part of the answer is for Sandboxes to be able to deliver some of the dev created content within their open world. As long as you don't chronically introduce things through questing that invalidate the economy/power balance/function of the rest of the world then Theme Parks within a Sandbox are good imo.
They can also be tuned for "Endgame" players so that the content is a struggle to beat.
Requiring:
The right Gear (Ropes, ladders, a gold statue for the Ape God to let you pass)
The right Team (Hacker skill to get you past the Security Locks, a Loremancer to help you with curses that are on the doors)
Maybe achievements accrued in-game that flag you for NPC help in certain spots (Helped out Old Frank [maybe Old Frank Faction]--> Frank is the head of the Searcher's Guild, he gives you the aid of ten men)
The Rewards of such content have to be randomized from Loot tables to a high degree imo. Sure you can have the end item be something static and known (Lightbringer, Schematic: Customized A-34 Banshee, Red Dragon Egg), but other things should be random drops of a certain level of quality to make it worthwhile. All items should be non-bind on pickup.
Finally Theme Park content should link back to Sandbox World. Completing the Quest may require that you travel to a waypoint or terrain feature in the dangerous Arahadi Desert and place the Crown on the statue of Bharguin, or build a temple in the land of Seltaria.
Pure themepark MMOs are doomed, but pure sandbox MMOs aren't games. Pure themepark MMOs are made for interacting with formulaic worlds and provide an almost passive experience. Pure sandbox MMOs are simply environments furnished with tools, and as such are completely reliant on the quality of the players... which predictably yields a generic bell curve of results. Not so great.
I think what we are seeing now in the developer cadre is a common migration to try and find a synthesis that will adequately respond to most players' needs. We're also seeing some down-sizing of the projects as the developers attempt to right-size the scope of what they are attempting, scaling to the outlay the investors (whether private or crowd) are willing to consider.
Similarly I think we may see some hybridization of single-player and MMO. From recent titles like SWTOR which were pretty much solo-with-friends to more current designs like Chris Robert's Squadron 42 leading into a multiplayer persistent universe, we seem to find a Thesis-Antithesis: Synthesis dialectic progression evolving right in front of us within game design.
To dream, perhaps to be.
I have to agree with you that at some point the distinctions will hopefully be vestigial. I was playing Pen and Paper with my teenage boys last night and they wouldn't progress in the game because they wouldn't commit to an action and wanted me to feed them their actions. I refused and just stopped talking. They realized that they needed to do something but wouldn't do it. I feel like sandbox games sometimes suffer from this problem with players but in a different way. Players must be proactive, competent, and require drama to use the Fate doctrine.
Sandbox games would seem to need this as well. Players have to be Acting in situations that show their Competence and induce stress in the form of player death or hard choices. Inactivity, lack of stress, and decisions that are made for you are three ways to make a game awful. Some sandbox games have inactivity as a problem, lack of stress and choices are the things that most current theme parks provide that helps players to quit.