There have only been 3 AAA sandbox MMORPG. ONE is from 1996, UO. One is shut down due to IP, SWG. One is dominated by the cash shop, Archeage. You can include Eve in this as a space sim. I would say those games were and are successful.
The indie ones not so much. But how many indie MMORPG have been successful?
Maybe after Wow dies next expansion all of these themparkers will move on to MOBAs and other notmmorpgs and the rest of us can have our genre back.
My opinion that the shift has begun from going back to focusing on the advantages of MMORPG. The casual market will go back to being more hybrid multiplayer games like Destiny or just coop. There is no need for the MMORPG infrastructure to play single player games.
There is no need for the MMORPG infrastructure to play single player games.
This is why I never really understood why Bioware decided to make The Old Republic an MMO. I mean...unless it was mandated by EA, of course (and it probably was). The added cost in terms of development and infrastructure was insane, and it was all for a game that would plummet to free to play status more quickly than pretty much any game in that cost bracket (I don't actually think any other MMO has really even been in that cost bracket). They could have made it a single-player game for less money, and it likely would have turned out better as a result.
Sandbox demand time if you one sandbox without grind or time consume its not Sandbox , in this case you create hybrid with fews essence sandbox
And peoples dont want anymore this Peoples want sandbox but WAIT , same peoples dont have time and desire to play to stay Equal with some others hardcores
People seem to want a sandbox but they are all dead compared
to other mmo's. [...]
I want a sandbox in many respects, but I also want detailed questlines, handcrafted dungeons, varied classes, compex combat systems, and in general - a challenge.
To me, the "good" part of sandbox means for example: - open world, you can go whereever you want, no "gaming on rails" - no instancing - seamless gameworld - I can change the world - ideally: sportive PvP, able to build, conquer and destroy cities and nations, and having in general guild and guild alliance wars - I can craft whatever I want - the crafting system is complex and powerful - The game starts at level 1, not at maxlevel in the socalled "endgame". Leveling is slow. If raids exist, they start early. There is no actual maxlevel, basically you just level slower and slower and each level gives diminishing returns.
Anything you want can be done by a theme park. Perhaps you dont understand what a sandbox is. Only "Sandbox"-Element in your post maybe conquering cities and nations. And those things could be "added" as mode to themepark.
I guess if you ask 100 people what they think a sandbox is results in 100 different replies. If i did a game with everything you asked for perhaps 75% in this forum would argue it isnt a sandbox.
I guess if you ask 100 people what they think a sandbox is results in 100 different replies. If i did a game with everything you asked for perhaps 75% in this forum would argue it isnt a sandbox.
If you start with the baseline that real life is a sandbox, then it's sort of possible to work backwards towards the closest approximation of what should be considered a sandbox. How many of the meaningful decisions we make in real life can be systematically abstracted into video game format? Choices about how to earn our income, the relationships we want to form and how we want them to progress, the things we want to own, the things we want to do with our downtime...these things can all be abstracted systematically. The amount of options we have in each choice are required to be systematically more limited than real life, of course, but it's entirely possible for all of those choices to be given within a game.
The question is how we go about making them meaningful choices. If a choice isn't meaningful, we'll almost immediately find the default and go that way. In Darkfall the choice to PVP or not PVP isn't a meaningful choice, because open world free for all PVP creates a default state that invalidates all of the other options. For a choice to be meaningful, it has to be comprised of a variety of equally valid options.
So let's go back to that list.
- How to earn our income? This is almost by default a universally worthless concept in MMOs. Income in and of itself is worthless in most of them. (This is due in large part to an unlimited supply of never-ending currency being circulated into the economy, but that's another discussion altogether.) Perhaps we could argue that currency has to have a value in order for a game to be truly sandbox (since we are using real life as the baseline and all). If we do make that leap, then we can assume looting PVE/crafting and selling/stealing/playing the marketplace/questing are all more or less equally valid means of obtaining income all other things equal. As long as currency has enough purpose and utility to the game at hand, this will inherently be a meaningful player decision because it is a matter of how one wishes to play the game.
- The relationships we want to form and how we want them to progress? Most MMOs already give us this freedom to one degree or another. I'm no more restricted about who I do/don't talk to in any given MMO than I am about who I do/don't talk to in real life (barring the difference in population, of course). The varying degrees of those relationships is something, however, that seems rarely explored in any meaningful way in MMOs. Most MMOs seem to default all relationships to friend or foe. I'm surprised we haven't seen more MMOs explore the idea of dating and marriage within the virtual world. Right now the most meaningful decision most MMOs give us in terms of our social relationships is "Do I like you, or do I not like you?", and that's not really an adequate spectrum of possibilities.
- The things we want to own? This is always one of the things I find most lacking in traditional themepark games. You are given a checklist of the best gear in the game, and there is no meaningful choice about what you want to own. But this can definitely be abstracted systematically; we just have to change how we think about virtual goods. We need to have more horizontal trade-offs and less vertical upgrades. In the real world if I want to buy a car, I have a lot more horizontal options than I do vertical upgrades, and the vertical upgrades are only important once I've made a decision about which item I want. Additionally there's the matter of the number of things to which we can claim ownership. Housing? Decorative items? Consumables? Transportation? Luxury items? Across all these categories, a sandbox should have a meaningful space of possibilities to explore and consider.
- The things we want to do with our downtime? This is to say: What are you doing for any reason other than to generate currency? In most MMOs currently this is primarily what we do (due to the aforementioned lack of currency value in most MMOs today). This currently includes things like raiding, PVP, socializing, anything really. These things may generate currency, but it's secondary to the fact that you're just doing it because you can. In a sandbox this could potentially cover anything we do for currency plus anything that doesn't have a currency value. This, like that, is inherently a meaningful decision because it dictates how we play the game.
I think that should provide a fair baseline for what we consider to be a sandbox game. It's largely just an abstraction of real world concepts and ideas boiled down to game form.
If you're dumb enough to make a blanket statement where "OWPVP makes games fail" and stand by it, you're dumb.
The reason why you're dumb is because you're taking a personal feeling and trying to twist it into a factoid. This is dumb, you're doing a dumb thing and doubling down on it solidifies it isn't an innocent isolated mistake it's who and what you are.
Stop doing that.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
There is no need for the MMORPG infrastructure to play single player games.
This is why I never really understood why Bioware decided to make The Old Republic an MMO. I mean...unless it was mandated by EA, of course (and it probably was). The added cost in terms of development and infrastructure was insane, and it was all for a game that would plummet to free to play status more quickly than pretty much any game in that cost bracket (I don't actually think any other MMO has really even been in that cost bracket). They could have made it a single-player game for less money, and it likely would have turned out better as a result.
they made it into an mmo, because they wanted a piece of that juicy pie
i live in a town, because i like the convenience of it
does that mean, that i should stop, and shake hands with every person on the street?
that is why the older hardcore players want the old times back
they were in a village community , where everybody knew each other
If you're dumb enough to make a blanket statement where "OWPVP makes games fail" and stand by it, you're dumb.
The reason why you're dumb is because you're taking a personal feeling and trying to twist it into a factoid. This is dumb, you're doing a dumb thing and doubling down on it solidifies it isn't an innocent isolated mistake it's who and what you are.
Stop doing that.
true..the word is "niche"
FYI , even a REAL battle isnt OWPVP
there is something called "rules of engagement"
surprisingly many soldiers gets into trouble with that
If you're dumb enough to make a blanket statement where "OWPVP makes games fail" and stand by it, you're dumb.
The reason why you're dumb is because you're taking a personal feeling and trying to twist it into a factoid. This is dumb, you're doing a dumb thing and doubling down on it solidifies it isn't an innocent isolated mistake it's who and what you are.
Stop doing that.
I personally wouldn't say OWPVP makes a game fail, but I would say it needs to be re-evaluated if we want to make it a legitimate part of a sandbox experience. As it stands currently OWPVP gives all the power of choice to those that wish to engage in it, and it strips all the power of choice from those that don't wish to engage in it. If a player can attack me rather I like it or not, then I'm being forced to be a part of PVP against my will. This wouldn't be so bad in actuality (any random Joe in real life can just decide for no reason to attack me while I'm walking down the street, but that wouldn't make real life less of a sandbox), but there ramifications that curb that behavior in real life. Most OWPVP games (especially those with full loot) are actually incentivizing and rewarding players for forcing their desire to PVP on others, which is quite contrary to the way the world actually works. I think the point is OWPVP needs to have actual consequences for players that choose to assault other players that don't wish to engage in PVP for no reason instead of rewarding it.
If you're dumb enough to make a blanket statement where "OWPVP makes games fail" and stand by it, you're dumb.
The reason why you're dumb is because you're taking a personal feeling and trying to twist it into a factoid. This is dumb, you're doing a dumb thing and doubling down on it solidifies it isn't an innocent isolated mistake it's who and what you are.
Stop doing that.
I personally wouldn't say OWPVP makes a game fail, but I would say it needs to be re-evaluated if we want to make it a legitimate part of a sandbox experience. As it stands currently OWPVP gives all the power of choice to those that wish to engage in it, and it strips all the power of choice from those that don't wish to engage in it. If a player can attack me rather I like it or not, then I'm being forced to be a part of PVP against my will. This wouldn't be so bad in actuality (any random Joe in real life can just decide for no reason to attack me while I'm walking down the street, but that wouldn't make real life less of a sandbox), but there ramifications that curb that behavior in real life. Most OWPVP games (especially those with full loot) are actually incentivizing and rewarding players for forcing their desire to PVP on others, which is quite contrary to the way the world actually works. I think the point is OWPVP needs to have actual consequences for players that choose to assault other players that don't wish to engage in PVP for no reason instead of rewarding it.
Actually I think trying to have the best of both worlds messes with both systems. If a game is OWPVP it should be meaningful and always on. It should be integral to the game. If you don't want to participate in it you simply don't play the game.
Darkfall had a good OWPVP system. It was tons of fun and scared the crap out of you when playing the game.
Games like WoW on a PVP server or the majority of Archeage PVP are just meaningless ganks that waste everybody's time.
The concept of trials in Archeage was an interesting concept but in reality did nothing (not that they should have- ganking was a profitless venture to begin with).
If you're dumb enough to make a blanket statement where "OWPVP makes games fail" and stand by it, you're dumb.
The reason why you're dumb is because you're taking a personal feeling and trying to twist it into a factoid. This is dumb, you're doing a dumb thing and doubling down on it solidifies it isn't an innocent isolated mistake it's who and what you are.
Stop doing that.
I personally wouldn't say OWPVP makes a game fail, but I would say it needs to be re-evaluated if we want to make it a legitimate part of a sandbox experience. As it stands currently OWPVP gives all the power of choice to those that wish to engage in it, and it strips all the power of choice from those that don't wish to engage in it. If a player can attack me rather I like it or not, then I'm being forced to be a part of PVP against my will. This wouldn't be so bad in actuality (any random Joe in real life can just decide for no reason to attack me while I'm walking down the street, but that wouldn't make real life less of a sandbox), but there ramifications that curb that behavior in real life. Most OWPVP games (especially those with full loot) are actually incentivizing and rewarding players for forcing their desire to PVP on others, which is quite contrary to the way the world actually works. I think the point is OWPVP needs to have actual consequences for players that choose to assault other players that don't wish to engage in PVP for no reason instead of rewarding it.
Actually I think trying to have the best of both worlds messes with both systems. If a game is OWPVP it should be meaningful and always on. It should be integral to the game. If you don't want to participate in it you simply don't play the game.
Darkfall had a good OWPVP system. It was tons of fun and scared the crap out of you when playing the game.
Games like WoW on a PVP server or the majority of Archeage PVP are just meaningless ganks that waste everybody's time.
The concept of trials in Archeage was an interesting concept but in reality did nothing (not that they should have- ganking was a profitless venture to begin with).
I respectfully disagree. I don't see any reason OWPVP has to be all-inclusive all the time. Honestly I don't want to maintain three or four different MMOs that I keep in rotation depending on my mood, and it seems that the vast majority find that to be a problematic system if the negativity surrounding MMO hopping is to be believed. I want one MMO that I can play rather I'm in the mood for PVP or PVE or crafting or whatever, and if I want something besides PVP I'd like to be able to do it in peace.
But more to the point of the topic, I think from a sandbox point of view the Jack of all trades approach is actually the best approach. It's not important that it has the best PVP or the best PVE or the best crafting; it's more important that it does all those things at least well, and that it can do all of those things in one game. That's really the power of the sandbox, I think.
If you're dumb enough to make a blanket statement where "OWPVP makes games fail" and stand by it, you're dumb.
The reason why you're dumb is because you're taking a personal feeling and trying to twist it into a factoid. This is dumb, you're doing a dumb thing and doubling down on it solidifies it isn't an innocent isolated mistake it's who and what you are.
Stop doing that.
I personally wouldn't say OWPVP makes a game fail, but I would say it needs to be re-evaluated if we want to make it a legitimate part of a sandbox experience. As it stands currently OWPVP gives all the power of choice to those that wish to engage in it, and it strips all the power of choice from those that don't wish to engage in it. If a player can attack me rather I like it or not, then I'm being forced to be a part of PVP against my will. This wouldn't be so bad in actuality (any random Joe in real life can just decide for no reason to attack me while I'm walking down the street, but that wouldn't make real life less of a sandbox), but there ramifications that curb that behavior in real life. Most OWPVP games (especially those with full loot) are actually incentivizing and rewarding players for forcing their desire to PVP on others, which is quite contrary to the way the world actually works. I think the point is OWPVP needs to have actual consequences for players that choose to assault other players that don't wish to engage in PVP for no reason instead of rewarding it.
Actually I think trying to have the best of both worlds messes with both systems. If a game is OWPVP it should be meaningful and always on. It should be integral to the game. If you don't want to participate in it you simply don't play the game.
Darkfall had a good OWPVP system. It was tons of fun and scared the crap out of you when playing the game.
Games like WoW on a PVP server or the majority of Archeage PVP are just meaningless ganks that waste everybody's time.
The concept of trials in Archeage was an interesting concept but in reality did nothing (not that they should have- ganking was a profitless venture to begin with).
I respectfully disagree. I don't see any reason OWPVP has to be all-inclusive all the time. Honestly I don't want to maintain three or four different MMOs that I keep in rotation depending on my mood, and it seems that the vast majority find that to be a problematic system if the negativity surrounding MMO hopping is to be believed. I want one MMO that I can play rather I'm in the mood for PVP or PVE or crafting or whatever, and if I want something besides PVP I'd like to be able to do it in peace.
But more to the point of the topic, I think from a sandbox point of view the Jack of all trades approach is actually the best approach. It's not important that it has the best PVP or the best PVE or the best crafting; it's more important that it does all those things at least well, and that it can do all of those things in one game. That's really the power of the sandbox, I think.
Yeah I disagree. If a game is about PVP, let it really be about PVP.
PVE is a weird thing in sandboxes. By definition of it being a sandbox, you don't want to have handholding questlines or anything like that. But what else is there to PVE? The best DEVs have come up with so far is building and/or farming.
I think there could be more than that but I can't think of what it would be.
In any case if I was really into building and/or farming, I'd probably want it in a separate game from my pvp game, because I probably wouldn't want people to wreck/steal stuff I had worked on.
Like I said the best OWPVP I've experienced was in Darkfall, and there was very little safety in that game, and when you died you dropped everything. This enhanced the game greatly and added tons of great tension to any activity because you never knew if someone was right about to jump your bones.
You can't have that same kind of experience in a game that punishes the same behavior that made the game so great (note that Darkfall had TONS of problems besides this- I'm not saying Darkfall was a pinnacle of sandbox or anything).
I also don't think OWPVP is a requirement for a good sandbox game. Like I said I just can't think of what else would be good besides that (and the OWPVP sandboxy feel of Darkfall was definitely good- the rest of the game not so much).
Yeah I disagree. If a game is about PVP, let it really be about PVP.
PVE is a weird thing in sandboxes. By definition of it being a sandbox, you don't want to have handholding questlines or anything like that. But what else is there to PVE? The best DEVs have come up with so far is building and/or farming.
I think there could be more than that but I can't think of what it would be.
In any case if I was really into building and/or farming, I'd probably want it in a separate game from my pvp game, because I probably wouldn't want people to wreck/steal stuff I had worked on.
Like I said the best OWPVP I've experienced was in Darkfall, and there was very little safety in that game, and when you died you dropped everything. This enhanced the game greatly and added tons of great tension to any activity because you never knew if someone was right about to jump your bones.
You can't have that same kind of experience in a game that punishes the same behavior that made the game so great (note that Darkfall had TONS of problems besides this- I'm not saying Darkfall was a pinnacle of sandbox or anything).
"Yeah I disagree. If a game is about PVP, let it really be about PVP."
I kind of agree with this despite it seeming like I was suggesting to the contrary. In a general sense an unfocused game is going to be worse than a focused game, but then again maybe that's an issue with the entire concept of a sandbox game.
"PVE is a weird thing in sandboxes. By definition of it being a sandbox,
you don't want to have handholding questlines or anything like that.
But what else is there to PVE? The best DEVs have come up with so far
is building and/or farming.
I think there could be more than that but I can't think of what it would be."
A sandbox is just about choice. I don't inherently think quests make an MMO less of a sandbox despite what most people would insist. I think quests being the driving and only option for progression makes an MMO less of a sandbox.
"Like I said the best OWPVP I've experienced was in Darkfall, and there
was very little safety in that game, and when you died you dropped
everything. This enhanced the game greatly and added tons of great
tension to any activity because you never knew if someone was right
about to jump your bones.
You can't have that same kind of
experience in a game that punishes the same behavior that made the game
so great (note that Darkfall had TONS of problems besides this- I'm not
saying Darkfall was a pinnacle of sandbox or anything)."
I don't really think of Darkfall as a sandbox at all. I played both Darkfall and Unholy Wars, and I found in both cases it was more of an open world arena game than a sandbox. I don't really hate on Darkfall as a PVP game; I enjoyed it well enough when I played it. I just couldn't at all see it as a true example of a sandbox. It was a one trick pony, which I think by definition is not a sandbox.
What I'd like to see and what I loved in Minecrafts PvE is the ability of killing mobs in different ways.
The most basic being craft armour/weapons and go whack some. What you do in most games.
The most advanced being Mob Traps. Where I can either find a dungeon spawner and build one around that or build my own by manipulating spawn mechanics.
You could build a lot of different types of traps aswell. You could drown them, burn them, crush them etc.
People who claim to like sandbox games are setting impossible standards for developers. Where a sandbox was once just a general statement made about having many options or forms of gameplay in a game, today a game cannot have anything except terrain, resources and a skill system.
Does nobody see the problem with such a design? Who is going to be compelled to play a game with such a dull world? The answer is, next to no one - and that is exactly who plays them.
I'd settle for a SWG type sandbox. It has been done before, how hard can it be?
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
A 2002 MMO cost you $15-$30 a month but you had 100 times the options when it came to gameplay.
I'm not seeing that.
I'm a fan of many of the older MMOs, especially the ones around that time, but to suggest that EQ or DAoC had more options than Battle of Immortals, ArcheAge, RIFT, NWN, or Trove ... I'm just not seeing it.
This is especially true when you consider that you have - depending on one's criteria for "MMO" - 40-200 MMOs to choose from instead of just about a dozen or so.
I'll take that challenge. Can you harvest resources with a quality that affects end crafting product nowadays? Not just rares but actual stats. Can you take objects from inventory and use them as objects in the 3d space? Can you make a character that is what you want but is not a balanced class for content? Can you sit down in Chairs? Can you explore vast areas and find something other than a floating icon at the top of a jumping puzzle? Can you get awesome gear that is the most interesting but isn't on a cash shop? Can you have stats like an rpg for your toon? Can you experience the need for community in most activities? Can you build factions as a profile of your personal adventures? Some of these things still exist, but where they do they are watered down or so balanced as to be insignificant. Newer games are so tuned that I find them robotic and boring.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
So we actually got more than 1 "REAL" sandbox besides EVE-Online? Never heard of them after 20 years of playing MMOs.
I think EVE was made based on that old quote about space being months of boredom punctuated by seconds of stark screaming pvp death. EVE doesn't even need graphics, its just a game about antisocial accountants set in space. Poor ambassador for sandboxes imo
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
But more to the point of the topic, I think from a sandbox point of view the Jack of all trades approach is actually the best approach. It's not important that it has the best PVP or the best PVE or the best crafting; it's more important that it does all those things at least well, and that it can do all of those things in one game. That's really the power of the sandbox, I think.
That power is its disadvantage. It is hard to do PvP and PvE well in the same game. WoW essentially makes those into two different games (instances + different gear set). D3 basically tried, and decides to scrap pvp.
There is a reason why recent games are much more focus .. and do fewer things (like WoT on pvp, warframe on pve, and so on ...).
But more to the point of the topic, I think from a sandbox point of view the Jack of all trades approach is actually the best approach. It's not important that it has the best PVP or the best PVE or the best crafting; it's more important that it does all those things at least well, and that it can do all of those things in one game. That's really the power of the sandbox, I think.
That power is its disadvantage. It is hard to do PvP and PvE well in the same game. WoW essentially makes those into two different games (instances + different gear set). D3 basically tried, and decides to scrap pvp.
There is a reason why recent games are much more focus .. and do fewer things (like WoT on pvp, warframe on pve, and so on ...).
I think that is an equation that can be distributed though. You could have a game with a lot of parts that work well and give players a sense of exploration of activities within the game, or you can make a lot of games that focus on each of those things. It depends on the brand that the shell has and if it is compelling enough to hold all of the parts. Right now I imagine the overarching shell for most people is Steam, but you get my meaning right? I think that game nomads need new games, but there are some of us who want to build walls and grow crops too. I would like to have a few games (3-4) that I could use for my MMORPG needs through a period of 6-12 years.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I think that is an equation that can be distributed though. You could have a game with a lot of parts that work well and give players a sense of exploration of activities within the game, or you can make a lot of games that focus on each of those things.
Not that EACH dev does not need to make a lot of games. We have many devs to make many games. Since every dev has strength and weaknesses, it is not ideal for a single devs to make games with lots of parts. They should focus on what they are good at.
I would much rather pick up a different focus games that get all the pieces in one game.
Comments
The indie ones not so much. But how many indie MMORPG have been successful?
This is why I never really understood why Bioware decided to make The Old Republic an MMO. I mean...unless it was mandated by EA, of course (and it probably was). The added cost in terms of development and infrastructure was insane, and it was all for a game that would plummet to free to play status more quickly than pretty much any game in that cost bracket (I don't actually think any other MMO has really even been in that cost bracket). They could have made it a single-player game for less money, and it likely would have turned out better as a result.
and i going why
Sandbox demand time
if you one sandbox without grind or time consume
its not Sandbox , in this case you create hybrid with fews essence sandbox
And peoples dont want anymore this
Peoples want sandbox but WAIT , same peoples dont have time and desire to play to stay
Equal with some others hardcores
Only "Sandbox"-Element in your post maybe conquering cities and nations. And those things could be "added" as mode to themepark.
I guess if you ask 100 people what they think a sandbox is results in 100 different replies.
If i did a game with everything you asked for perhaps 75% in this forum would argue it isnt a sandbox.
If you start with the baseline that real life is a sandbox, then it's sort of possible to work backwards towards the closest approximation of what should be considered a sandbox. How many of the meaningful decisions we make in real life can be systematically abstracted into video game format? Choices about how to earn our income, the relationships we want to form and how we want them to progress, the things we want to own, the things we want to do with our downtime...these things can all be abstracted systematically. The amount of options we have in each choice are required to be systematically more limited than real life, of course, but it's entirely possible for all of those choices to be given within a game.
The question is how we go about making them meaningful choices. If a choice isn't meaningful, we'll almost immediately find the default and go that way. In Darkfall the choice to PVP or not PVP isn't a meaningful choice, because open world free for all PVP creates a default state that invalidates all of the other options. For a choice to be meaningful, it has to be comprised of a variety of equally valid options.
So let's go back to that list.
- How to earn our income? This is almost by default a universally worthless concept in MMOs. Income in and of itself is worthless in most of them. (This is due in large part to an unlimited supply of never-ending currency being circulated into the economy, but that's another discussion altogether.) Perhaps we could argue that currency has to have a value in order for a game to be truly sandbox (since we are using real life as the baseline and all). If we do make that leap, then we can assume looting PVE/crafting and selling/stealing/playing the marketplace/questing are all more or less equally valid means of obtaining income all other things equal. As long as currency has enough purpose and utility to the game at hand, this will inherently be a meaningful player decision because it is a matter of how one wishes to play the game.
- The relationships we want to form and how we want them to progress? Most MMOs already give us this freedom to one degree or another. I'm no more restricted about who I do/don't talk to in any given MMO than I am about who I do/don't talk to in real life (barring the difference in population, of course). The varying degrees of those relationships is something, however, that seems rarely explored in any meaningful way in MMOs. Most MMOs seem to default all relationships to friend or foe. I'm surprised we haven't seen more MMOs explore the idea of dating and marriage within the virtual world. Right now the most meaningful decision most MMOs give us in terms of our social relationships is "Do I like you, or do I not like you?", and that's not really an adequate spectrum of possibilities.
- The things we want to own? This is always one of the things I find most lacking in traditional themepark games. You are given a checklist of the best gear in the game, and there is no meaningful choice about what you want to own. But this can definitely be abstracted systematically; we just have to change how we think about virtual goods. We need to have more horizontal trade-offs and less vertical upgrades. In the real world if I want to buy a car, I have a lot more horizontal options than I do vertical upgrades, and the vertical upgrades are only important once I've made a decision about which item I want. Additionally there's the matter of the number of things to which we can claim ownership. Housing? Decorative items? Consumables? Transportation? Luxury items? Across all these categories, a sandbox should have a meaningful space of possibilities to explore and consider.
- The things we want to do with our downtime? This is to say: What are you doing for any reason other than to generate currency? In most MMOs currently this is primarily what we do (due to the aforementioned lack of currency value in most MMOs today). This currently includes things like raiding, PVP, socializing, anything really. These things may generate currency, but it's secondary to the fact that you're just doing it because you can. In a sandbox this could potentially cover anything we do for currency plus anything that doesn't have a currency value. This, like that, is inherently a meaningful decision because it dictates how we play the game.
I think that should provide a fair baseline for what we consider to be a sandbox game. It's largely just an abstraction of real world concepts and ideas boiled down to game form.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The reason why you're dumb is because you're taking a personal feeling and trying to twist it into a factoid. This is dumb, you're doing a dumb thing and doubling down on it solidifies it isn't an innocent isolated mistake it's who and what you are.
Stop doing that.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
they made it into an mmo, because they wanted a piece of that juicy pie
i live in a town, because i like the convenience of it
does that mean, that i should stop, and shake hands with every person on the street?
that is why the older hardcore players want the old times back
they were in a village community , where everybody knew each other
you cant do that in a mega city
true..the word is "niche"
FYI , even a REAL battle isnt OWPVP
there is something called "rules of engagement"
surprisingly many soldiers gets into trouble with that
I personally wouldn't say OWPVP makes a game fail, but I would say it needs to be re-evaluated if we want to make it a legitimate part of a sandbox experience. As it stands currently OWPVP gives all the power of choice to those that wish to engage in it, and it strips all the power of choice from those that don't wish to engage in it. If a player can attack me rather I like it or not, then I'm being forced to be a part of PVP against my will. This wouldn't be so bad in actuality (any random Joe in real life can just decide for no reason to attack me while I'm walking down the street, but that wouldn't make real life less of a sandbox), but there ramifications that curb that behavior in real life. Most OWPVP games (especially those with full loot) are actually incentivizing and rewarding players for forcing their desire to PVP on others, which is quite contrary to the way the world actually works. I think the point is OWPVP needs to have actual consequences for players that choose to assault other players that don't wish to engage in PVP for no reason instead of rewarding it.
Darkfall had a good OWPVP system. It was tons of fun and scared the crap out of you when playing the game.
Games like WoW on a PVP server or the majority of Archeage PVP are just meaningless ganks that waste everybody's time.
The concept of trials in Archeage was an interesting concept but in reality did nothing (not that they should have- ganking was a profitless venture to begin with).
I respectfully disagree. I don't see any reason OWPVP has to be all-inclusive all the time. Honestly I don't want to maintain three or four different MMOs that I keep in rotation depending on my mood, and it seems that the vast majority find that to be a problematic system if the negativity surrounding MMO hopping is to be believed. I want one MMO that I can play rather I'm in the mood for PVP or PVE or crafting or whatever, and if I want something besides PVP I'd like to be able to do it in peace.
But more to the point of the topic, I think from a sandbox point of view the Jack of all trades approach is actually the best approach. It's not important that it has the best PVP or the best PVE or the best crafting; it's more important that it does all those things at least well, and that it can do all of those things in one game. That's really the power of the sandbox, I think.
PVE is a weird thing in sandboxes. By definition of it being a sandbox, you don't want to have handholding questlines or anything like that. But what else is there to PVE? The best DEVs have come up with so far is building and/or farming.
I think there could be more than that but I can't think of what it would be.
In any case if I was really into building and/or farming, I'd probably want it in a separate game from my pvp game, because I probably wouldn't want people to wreck/steal stuff I had worked on.
Like I said the best OWPVP I've experienced was in Darkfall, and there was very little safety in that game, and when you died you dropped everything. This enhanced the game greatly and added tons of great tension to any activity because you never knew if someone was right about to jump your bones.
You can't have that same kind of experience in a game that punishes the same behavior that made the game so great (note that Darkfall had TONS of problems besides this- I'm not saying Darkfall was a pinnacle of sandbox or anything).
I also don't think OWPVP is a requirement for a good sandbox game. Like I said I just can't think of what else would be good besides that (and the OWPVP sandboxy feel of Darkfall was definitely good- the rest of the game not so much).
"Yeah I disagree. If a game is about PVP, let it really be about PVP."
I kind of agree with this despite it seeming like I was suggesting to the contrary. In a general sense an unfocused game is going to be worse than a focused game, but then again maybe that's an issue with the entire concept of a sandbox game.
"PVE is a weird thing in sandboxes. By definition of it being a sandbox, you don't want to have handholding questlines or anything like that. But what else is there to PVE? The best DEVs have come up with so far is building and/or farming.
I think there could be more than that but I can't think of what it would be."
A sandbox is just about choice. I don't inherently think quests make an MMO less of a sandbox despite what most people would insist. I think quests being the driving and only option for progression makes an MMO less of a sandbox.
"Like I said the best OWPVP I've experienced was in Darkfall, and there was very little safety in that game, and when you died you dropped everything. This enhanced the game greatly and added tons of great tension to any activity because you never knew if someone was right about to jump your bones.
You can't have that same kind of experience in a game that punishes the same behavior that made the game so great (note that Darkfall had TONS of problems besides this- I'm not saying Darkfall was a pinnacle of sandbox or anything)."
I don't really think of Darkfall as a sandbox at all. I played both Darkfall and Unholy Wars, and I found in both cases it was more of an open world arena game than a sandbox. I don't really hate on Darkfall as a PVP game; I enjoyed it well enough when I played it. I just couldn't at all see it as a true example of a sandbox. It was a one trick pony, which I think by definition is not a sandbox.
The most basic being craft armour/weapons and go whack some. What you do in most games.
The most advanced being Mob Traps. Where I can either find a dungeon spawner and build one around that or build my own by manipulating spawn mechanics.
You could build a lot of different types of traps aswell. You could drown them, burn them, crush them etc.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
There is a reason why recent games are much more focus .. and do fewer things (like WoT on pvp, warframe on pve, and so on ...).
I would much rather pick up a different focus games that get all the pieces in one game.