As I've alluded to in previous posts, imo the lines are blurring. Simulations are making a comeback and we're seeing MMO mechanics in them.
As the two merge, our games will be more sim than MMO and the "theme
park" aspect of our games will be the pre-generated content by
developers, like missions and randomly spawned points of interest.
The rest will be player driven, in a game world that follows real world physics and rules of government with other social entities, like a police force, markets and trading.
Then theme parkers can go about their lives unmolested by the sand boxers, because the game will police itself.
Personally, I love the idea behind sandbox MMOs, but there's one thing that always puts me off them vs themepark MMOs: Forced PVP.
Not only forced PVP, but the absolute, vehement hatred that some Sandbox communities have for people who dislike it. And if you have have the ~nerve~ to even suggest a PVE server, well... Gods help you.
Now don't get me wrong, I do like me some PVP on occasion. And I'm willing to accept that it could be possible to do a forced PVP MMO in a good way. But I think Archeage is the game that really turned me off this the most. I adored that game... Right up until I hit level 35 and reached the first PVP zone. Literally not even one hour went past before I was ganked by a horde of red-named players - almost all of whom were max level - and had my corpse kicked around like a football while I waited for the respawn timer.
It was just downhill from there, unfortunately. Pretty much anything good that the sandbox nature of the game enabled (farming, trade-routes, exploration, housing...) was tarnished by the PVP. I mean, it was possible to stay in the below lvl30 areas and avoid the PVP entirely, but that effectively bars you from accessing 75% of the game + pretty much every major content patch.
It's such a shame, too. I tried, I really tried, to like Archeage past level 30. I levelled myself up to to the (at the time) cap of 50, I bought a house, furnished it all nice and pretty. Owned a boat, did trade runs, did crafting, all that good stuff... But no matter where I went or what I did, I was always looking over my damn shoulder. It was especially bad in some of the later game areas, where entire roving kill-squads would roam the map, buffed to hell-and-back on cash-shop potions that made them virtually impossible to kill or defend against. These guys would just roll around, murdering indiscriminately, and the game would actually reward these players for their wanton slaughter of every and any player they came across.
It wasn't even that the PVP itself was inherently bad or anything. It was just that it was always on, no matter what. The only reprieve you had was to go to the occasional safe zone. All of which were small, early-game areas with very little in the way of things to do or resources to gather. And naturally, getting a house there would cost you a mint.
Oh how I would have loved a PVE server for Archeage. I'd have even tolerated the godaweful microtransactions and skinnerbox crap that they forced into the game, it was that much fun to play! But the PVP being always on, all the time, in most of the game absolutely killed it for me.
Well, that and the horrendously toxic community, but that was a slightly different issue.
But the moment anybody even mentioned the idea of a PVE server for AA, they'd essentially get shouted out of the forums. They'd get called "Carebears" or "Casuals" and told vehemently that "the whole game is based around PVP!!!". No mercy, no amiability, just anger and vitriol.
I was also looking into Black Desert Online recently, but apparently that devolves into the exact same damn thing once you hit the endgame, so that effectively killed my interest in that game, too.
Sorry for the huge rant, everybody. Also hi, I'm new around here, thought I'd throw some posts around to get enough points to make the thread I want to make.
I would much rather have BOTH a themepark and a sandbox MMO. Themepark for story and maybe a little "intro" to game mechanics but the sandbox to go beyond and have something to actually do once that storyline is finished.
I prefer sandbox over themepark anyday. My first mmo was sandbox I didn't start playing themepark mmos seriously until swtor came out which was a disappointment considering my sandbox expectations cause I was stupid at the time, if I wasnt so arrogant against WoW I would have played WoW first then take a look at swtor gameplay videos again and back out of purchasing that game.
Its not that I'm tired of themeparks so I want sandbox, its "I started with sandbox and I want to stick with that type of game." When I was playing SWG back in the day during CU/NGE, I gave WoW 1-3 months chance in the vanilla BC days and I didn't like it at all. WoW was so weird to me, I was honestly like, wtf is this game.
But today I am a bit more open minded and I'm not as critical to themepark mmos anymore and in fact I'm playing WoW right now cause its fun and the repopulation, star citizen, and divergence online are on my radar but they seem pretty far off right now so WoW is all I got right now lol.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Personally, I love the idea behind sandbox MMOs, but there's one thing that always puts me off them vs themepark MMOs: Forced PVP.
Not only forced PVP, but the absolute, vehement hatred that some Sandbox communities have for people who dislike it. And if you have have the ~nerve~ to even suggest a PVE server, well... Gods help you.
Archeage I think is just a fake sandbox mmo, its an asian mmo I think so I assume the stereotype of it being grindy. Sandbox mmos that I have played didn't have forced pvp and they didnt really have pve either, it wasn't pve progression, it was more player progression if that makes any sense at all. I think sandbox communities are just very passionate about promoting their mmo type. I personally don't care how much more players play themepark mmos, completely sandbox mmos will always be better in my mind. The number is irrelavant unless it affects my game experience in a negative way or unless I'm the CEO of the company that made the game and I want to track profits for my company.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Well, this thread has gone far. But one thing comes out of it. There seems to be a awful lot of different definitions of what a sandbox game is.
And a couple of years ago I believe I found a very plausible explanation why during a discussion attempting to come up with a good definition of a Sandbox game.
So for the record. The final definition and explanation why there are so many Sanbox definitions were:
Definition:
"<<<<A Sandbox Design consists of a World build by the Designers/Devs encompassing various elements and Tools players can use (Items, game mechanics, various systems such as housing crafting etc) in a non linear gameplay fashion.
The players then populate this world and build in game societies (Social Structures) with the elements and tools the devs put in place, and engage in interaction (Adventuring, PvP Crafting Trading, Role play etc) among them.
From this interaction emerges the gameplay experience. - by Duke Suraknar & Ghoest, Nov 21, 2014 >>>>
Analysis:
Lets Enumerate the Pillars of a Sandbox game:
- The world, with own mechanics, elements and tools. - Non linear gameplay/Open ended Gameplay Design - Player built Social structures - Player Interaction - Emergent Gameplay Experience
And that is basically it,
Explanation:
And the reason why there are many apparent definitions of what is a sandbox game from players is because of the nature of non linear gameplay. Because the characteristic of nonlinear gameplay is that various challenges are presented to the players which can be completed in different sequences and represent the gameplay experience. Furthermore, the majority of these challenges actually emerge from the interaction of the players with one another using the available tools within the defined mechanics of the world. As such not all challenges are seen by all the players at all times or even ever. Which imprints each player with a slightly different experience of the game and thus contributes to shape their own definition of what is a Sandbox game when asked."
Feel free to comment.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I haven't seen a good sandbox vs themepark argument for a long time... at least more and more people are accepting that there are some good sandbox games, it took awhile for that.
Its the opposite situation for me, started with sandboxes and I am becoming more accepting to themeparks than I ever have before. idk about the other sandbox players might be full on exclusive sandbox idk.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
I haven't seen a good sandbox vs themepark argument for a long time... at least more and more people are accepting that there are some good sandbox games, it took awhile for that.
Its the opposite situation for me, started with sandboxes and I am becoming more accepting to themeparks than I ever have before. idk about the other sandbox players might be full on exclusive sandbox idk.
I started on themepark (at least for MMOs) and hated it from the very first experience as I recall very well but I kept playing because I was not aware of alternatives. Once I found options then I went sand and never went back
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Personally, I love the idea behind sandbox MMOs, but there's one thing that always puts me off them vs themepark MMOs: Forced PVP.
--snipped for space--
This is an argument I see commonly, and even though I love open-world "forced" PvP, I can absolutely see the problem with the way it's implemented in Archeage.
My biggest problem with free-for-all world pvp, especially in a sandbox scenario, is level scaling and power gaps. I haven't actually played Archeage yet, but from what I've heard it doesn't seem like it's balanced at all, and balance is one of the most important factors in any PvP activity. Also, it doesn't seem like there's any risk involved in being in one of these rampaging murder groups, which is also a fault in the game.
When high level players are impossible to kill for lower level players, simply because they have superior stats, all balance runs down the drain.
The best example I've seen of this done well on an MMO scale is in Planetside2. Granted, it is an MMOFPS, but still. Even as a freshly spawned rank 1 scrub, you can kill a rank 100 veteran all the same. If you're against a whole squad of enemies, provided you're good enough, you could totally manage to take out a few of them before they get you themselves, and so on. The kill potential needs to be equal on both sides, and the potential punishment or loss when dying should also be equal.
I think if these roaming death squads in Archeage could be killed as easily as they kill other people, they'd be rarer, and probably more fun when they do show up. Because you know you have a chance against them, even as a single person.
Personally, I love the idea behind sandbox MMOs, but there's one thing that always puts me off them vs themepark MMOs: Forced PVP.
Not only forced PVP, but the absolute, vehement hatred that some Sandbox communities have for people who dislike it. And if you have have the ~nerve~ to even suggest a PVE server, well... Gods help you.
Now don't get me wrong, I do like me some PVP on occasion. And I'm willing to accept that it could be possible to do a forced PVP MMO in a good way. But I think Archeage is the game that really turned me off this the most. I adored that game... Right up until I hit level 35 and reached the first PVP zone. Literally not even one hour went past before I was ganked by a horde of red-named players - almost all of whom were max level - and had my corpse kicked around like a football while I waited for the respawn timer.
It was just downhill from there, unfortunately. Pretty much anything good that the sandbox nature of the game enabled (farming, trade-routes, exploration, housing...) was tarnished by the PVP. I mean, it was possible to stay in the below lvl30 areas and avoid the PVP entirely, but that effectively bars you from accessing 75% of the game + pretty much every major content patch.
It's such a shame, too. I tried, I really tried, to like Archeage past level 30. I levelled myself up to to the (at the time) cap of 50, I bought a house, furnished it all nice and pretty. Owned a boat, did trade runs, did crafting, all that good stuff... But no matter where I went or what I did, I was always looking over my damn shoulder. It was especially bad in some of the later game areas, where entire roving kill-squads would roam the map, buffed to hell-and-back on cash-shop potions that made them virtually impossible to kill or defend against. These guys would just roll around, murdering indiscriminately, and the game would actually reward these players for their wanton slaughter of every and any player they came across.
It wasn't even that the PVP itself was inherently bad or anything. It was just that it was always on, no matter what. The only reprieve you had was to go to the occasional safe zone. All of which were small, early-game areas with very little in the way of things to do or resources to gather. And naturally, getting a house there would cost you a mint.
Oh how I would have loved a PVE server for Archeage. I'd have even tolerated the godaweful microtransactions and skinnerbox crap that they forced into the game, it was that much fun to play! But the PVP being always on, all the time, in most of the game absolutely killed it for me.
Well, that and the horrendously toxic community, but that was a slightly different issue.
But the moment anybody even mentioned the idea of a PVE server for AA, they'd essentially get shouted out of the forums. They'd get called "Carebears" or "Casuals" and told vehemently that "the whole game is based around PVP!!!". No mercy, no amiability, just anger and vitriol.
I was also looking into Black Desert Online recently, but apparently that devolves into the exact same damn thing once you hit the endgame, so that effectively killed my interest in that game, too.
Sorry for the huge rant, everybody. Also hi, I'm new around here, thought I'd throw some posts around to get enough points to make the thread I want to make.
Sandbox can have infinite player created endgame, hands down. Its open to missuse by hackers, bots etc- take archeage for example.
Themepark is easy to set up and play, but it lacks endgame content most of the times. Its more casual and less depth oriented.
the very word 'end game' comes from themepark games
a true sandbox shoudn't have a endgame..at all. endgame is just another name for "grind to make people login even if the game has no more content to offer"
Majority of the MMO playerbase is themepark as sad as it is, the fact is just the sandbox crowd is now niche more than ever. But if there were no sandboxes I'd play Star Citizen or various space flight games over what this genre has to currently offer.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Majority of the MMO playerbase is themepark as sad as it is, the fact is just the sandbox crowd is now niche more than ever. But if there were no sandboxes I'd play Star Citizen or various space flight games over what this genre has to currently offer.
If every sandbox was not a PVP arena gank fest there might be more interest.
Ok, I have to get this out of the way first. Some one compared EQ as being a sand box, while someone else disagreed. I didnt feel like calling these peeps out so I didnt quote them. Everquest when it first came out and most mmos of that time,IE Ultima Online, Asherons Call,were more like a sandbox, even though the term wasnt very popular than( i never heard that term back than). Those games back than werent true sand boxes but had features that you would see in a modern Sandbox today though we dont have many of them to draw an example. Everquest of today is a Theme park in that there is really no argument. P99 or P2002 will still give you that EQ..sand boxish fixed.
The term sand box is drawing from an example of a boy or a girl playing in a true sand box. They play in the define boundaries of the box and the only content that they have is the toys that they have and their imagination. The above example compared to a game is that the game world is the Sandbox and its boundaries are set and what happens in that world and how that game can succeed or fail depends on what toys(tools) they Devs provided us to aid us in our imaginations. The best example of this is Eve, even though this is a space opera type game..most of the content is really how the players react to each other in game, this game is a success because of the tools that the Devs provide for the players. A great example of a fantasy sandbox would be Albion Online, there are more but I dont have much experience with them.
Now there are some that would say Archage and Black Desert would be great example of a sand box and Im not saying their wrong but I dont consider those two games tru sandboxes. They are what I call Sand-Parks, they have in some degree a theme park in them though they are mostly sandboxes. A true Sand box will not have quest lines that are similar to Wow to hold your hand or to guide you though the world. A true sand box will just thrust you in the world not explain anything or hold your hand to get you started. In a sand box what you want to do or become in the game is completly up to you. How you deal with other players,to be friend or foe is up to you..I dont think you could have a true sand box that wasnt world pvp. Player interation is crucial in a sand box, just like it is in EVE. I have been waiting for a long time for a good fantasy mmo that is similar to Eve. That is implemented right with the right tools.
Now Im not saying that Archage and Bdo werent unique and are completely different than most theme parks. I played both and really like both atleast for a bit. Archage, I really really could see the potential in this game but Trion just didnt seem to care, but enough on that. Black Desert, well I really enjoyed the combat (though wish it was more challenging) I didnt like the gender locks, or the closed trading system, though it did have some good sandbox feature that I really did like, only if it had a naval system like Archage, or a open trading with other players.
Anyway, just my ramblings and my 2 cents.
If at first you dont succeed, call it version 1.0
Majority of the MMO playerbase is themepark as sad as it is, the fact is just the sandbox crowd is now niche more than ever. But if there were no sandboxes I'd play Star Citizen or various space flight games over what this genre has to currently offer.
If every sandbox was not a PVP arena gank fest there might be more interest.
Yea I know, this is the thing, I don't remember back in the day where you were constantly flagged for PvP, you either chose to flag yourself or went into a pvp flagged zone. From what I remember there were no PvP or PvE Servers, just servers indicating which Region or Coast and the name of each servers.
Currently it looks like imposter sandboxes have "forced pvp" which doesn't even make it sandbox to begin with. Sandbox gives you the option to do what you want, if they are forcing you to do something its not sandbox in my eyes.
I think people emphasize PvP so much in sandboxes because of all the good times they did it with their server community setting all that up or just checking in a pvp flagged zone to see if anyone is there to fight. But they all forget that sandboxes are meant to be complex, not PvP focused. If it was PvP focused the rest of the game would probably be really bland.
But theres much more to it than that. Also I think you mean, "If most sandboxes was not a PvP arena gank fest there might be more interest.".
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
1) A sandbox game, rely ON offering the player 'player options'
while
2) A theme park game, rely ON NOT offering the player 'player options'
So, this wouldn't about a game seemingly "having" player options, but instead, if the game is designed around giving the player 'player options'.
Another thing about 'player options': Given how anything 'strategic' is about achieving goals, any game that rely on you SIMPLY accomplishing given goals, would be akin to being a 'theme park' game, as opposed to a game in which you can do other things, than simply achieving some given goal.
So, in a sense, having lots of 'tactical' options in a game is good for any sand box game. Simply achieving things isn't good enough.
Yea I know, this is the thing, I don't remember back in the day where you were constantly flagged for PvP, you either chose to flag yourself or went into a pvp flagged zone. From what I remember there were no PvP or PvE Servers, just servers indicating which Region or Coast and the name of each servers.
Currently it looks like imposter sandboxes have "forced pvp" which doesn't even make it sandbox to begin with. Sandbox gives you the option to do what you want, if they are forcing you to do something its not sandbox in my eyes.
I think people emphasize PvP so much in sandboxes because of all the good times they did it with their server community setting all that up or just checking in a pvp flagged zone to see if anyone is there to fight. But they all forget that sandboxes are meant to be complex, not PvP focused. If it was PvP focused the rest of the game would probably be really bland.
But theres much more to it than that. Also I think you mean, "If most sandboxes was not a PvP arena gank fest there might be more interest.".
Eh, sandboxes aren't "meant" to be anything. They just have to be a game that's more characterized by player authorship than dev authorship. That's literally the only criteria to be considered a sandbox. That broad criteria allows for plenty of dev-created rules (it wasn't a player who create the Redstone material type in Minecraft; it was a developer.) After all, if there are no dev rules at all then it isn't a sandbox game, it's just like...drawing art or writing literature or similar completely-freeform creative activities (none of which are games; games need rules).
I agree with Horusra's intent, given that there's tremendous potential for PVE cooperative sandbox games and meanwhile it's well-known that open world PVP is casual trash that few players seem interested in (compared with the very strong interest in skill-focused PVP in genres like RTS, FPS, and fighting games).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Eh, sandboxes aren't "meant" to be anything. They just have to be a game that's more characterized by player authorship than dev authorship. That's literally the only criteria to be considered a sandbox. That broad criteria allows for plenty of dev-created rules (it wasn't a player who create the Redstone material type in Minecraft; it was a developer.) After all, if there are no dev rules at all then it isn't a sandbox game, it's just like...drawing art or writing literature or similar completely-freeform creative activities (none of which are games; games need rules).
I agree with Horusra's intent, given that there's tremendous potential for PVE cooperative sandbox games and meanwhile it's well-known that open world PVP is casual trash that few players seem interested in (compared with the very strong interest in skill-focused PVP in genres like RTS, FPS, and fighting games).
To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.
As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.
And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.
As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.
And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.
That's not what sandboxes are.
Sandbox justimplies player authorship. Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference. It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.
Pure sandboxes aren't games. They're things like writing a book, drawing a painting, etc. They're freeform experiences with no rules. The lack of rules is what makes them pure sandboxes (you're completely free to author the experience in its entirety) and it's why they're not games (you can't be a game without rules).
Also note that pure sandboxes aren't automatically boring. Painting can be enjoyable for the same core reason games are fun (pattern mastery: figuring out how to quickly create an aesthetically appealing piece of art). But yes, a giant empty world where all you can do is wander it makes for a very boring experience (and also isn't especially sandbox-like if you can't actually author (ie change) the world). Exploration involves too little mastery on its own without purposes to the various locations you can explore. Exploration is still a light form of pattern-mastery (you're gaining the knowledge of what exists and where it exists) but without additional game systems to provide relevance to that knowledge (and provide many additional patterns which are much harder to master than simply traveling to places) it's flat and boring.
My comments on open world PVP aren't an emotional backlash. I'm not describing my individual subjective experience. I'm making simple statements of fact based on the objective game rules.
Most PVP games are focused on skillful competition: if you're the more skilled player or team, you win.
World PVP is not: instead of the skilled player/team always winning, players can use non-skill factors like progression and population to gain huge advantages over their opponents.
By extension this makes the skill-based decisions less important, which results in PVP where casual players can do much better. A team of scrubs in Overwatch matched against a team of better players will always lose (unless they exhibit more skill than their opponents). Whereas a scrub in EVE can join a giant group of players to utterly crush a smaller force.
The common, fallacious counter-argument to the EVE situation is that a small group of skilled players can sometimes beat a larger one. But everyone understands those situations to be incredibly rare and it doesn't dispute the core problem, which is that when teams and skill are even I can always bring 100 more friends and win the fight with substantially less skill than my opponents.
(CS:GO is sort of trash amongst FPS games, because hitscan shooters require less skill than shooters with projectile weapons. It's still a pretty skill-intensive game, but really if you can double-click a Windows icon super accurately, you can score a headshot consistently in CS:GO and so it's a lower bar than the better shooters out there.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sandbox justimplies player authorship. Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference. It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.
Pure sandboxes aren't games. They're things like writing a book, drawing a painting, etc. They're freeform experiences with no rules. The lack of rules is what makes them pure sandboxes (you're completely free to author the experience in its entirety) and it's why they're not games (you can't be a game without rules).
I think there's a difference between a regular sandbox game than a sandbox mmo. The way I'm always going to define a sandbox mmo is always going to be about the freedom, more choices, more tools, player driven, and a really complex game.(tldr; a second life) Now a regular sandbox game on the other hand its simple as having the freedom to do what you want.
Note, not alot of sandbox mmos fit my description of a sandbox mmo exactly.
Sandbox are games.....minecraft.
When I think of Sandbox PvP, I think of PvP, I don't nitpick at a pvp feature. From a themepark player I guess I understand where your coming from. Sandbox pvp has lately been known as OWPvP but overshadows the rest of the PvP in the game. Nevermind I guess since sandbox mmos these days only have OPvP and no other pvp which sets a bad example imo, of a sandbox mmo.
I'm starting to think that the people who want OPvP as a feature they want to see in an mmo are people new to the subgenre of sandboxes they probably aren't even sandbox players to begin with, I'm just saying man......I really don't know though.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Comments
Simulations are making a comeback and we're seeing MMO mechanics in them.
As the two merge, our games will be more sim than MMO and the "theme park" aspect of our games will be the pre-generated content by developers, like missions and randomly spawned points of interest.
The rest will be player driven, in a game world that follows real world physics and rules of government with other social entities, like a police force, markets and trading.
Then theme parkers can go about their lives unmolested by the sand boxers, because the game will police itself.
Not only forced PVP, but the absolute, vehement hatred that some Sandbox communities have for people who dislike it. And if you have have the ~nerve~ to even suggest a PVE server, well... Gods help you.
Now don't get me wrong, I do like me some PVP on occasion. And I'm willing to accept that it could be possible to do a forced PVP MMO in a good way. But I think Archeage is the game that really turned me off this the most. I adored that game... Right up until I hit level 35 and reached the first PVP zone. Literally not even one hour went past before I was ganked by a horde of red-named players - almost all of whom were max level - and had my corpse kicked around like a football while I waited for the respawn timer.
It was just downhill from there, unfortunately. Pretty much anything good that the sandbox nature of the game enabled (farming, trade-routes, exploration, housing...) was tarnished by the PVP. I mean, it was possible to stay in the below lvl30 areas and avoid the PVP entirely, but that effectively bars you from accessing 75% of the game + pretty much every major content patch.
It's such a shame, too. I tried, I really tried, to like Archeage past level 30. I levelled myself up to to the (at the time) cap of 50, I bought a house, furnished it all nice and pretty. Owned a boat, did trade runs, did crafting, all that good stuff... But no matter where I went or what I did, I was always looking over my damn shoulder. It was especially bad in some of the later game areas, where entire roving kill-squads would roam the map, buffed to hell-and-back on cash-shop potions that made them virtually impossible to kill or defend against. These guys would just roll around, murdering indiscriminately, and the game would actually reward these players for their wanton slaughter of every and any player they came across.
It wasn't even that the PVP itself was inherently bad or anything. It was just that it was always on, no matter what. The only reprieve you had was to go to the occasional safe zone. All of which were small, early-game areas with very little in the way of things to do or resources to gather. And naturally, getting a house there would cost you a mint.
Oh how I would have loved a PVE server for Archeage. I'd have even tolerated the godaweful microtransactions and skinnerbox crap that they forced into the game, it was that much fun to play! But the PVP being always on, all the time, in most of the game absolutely killed it for me.
Well, that and the horrendously toxic community, but that was a slightly different issue.
But the moment anybody even mentioned the idea of a PVE server for AA, they'd essentially get shouted out of the forums. They'd get called "Carebears" or "Casuals" and told vehemently that "the whole game is based around PVP!!!". No mercy, no amiability, just anger and vitriol.
I was also looking into Black Desert Online recently, but apparently that devolves into the exact same damn thing once you hit the endgame, so that effectively killed my interest in that game, too.
Sorry for the huge rant, everybody. Also hi, I'm new around here, thought I'd throw some posts around to get enough points to make the thread I want to make.
Cheers.
• Being able to add and remove game features (like Eve online) without having the game breaking.
Let's party like it is 1863!
Please explain, how would a theme park + sandbox game look to you?
I am asking this because I don't think you can mix generalizations this way
Its not that I'm tired of themeparks so I want sandbox, its "I started with sandbox and I want to stick with that type of game." When I was playing SWG back in the day during CU/NGE, I gave WoW 1-3 months chance in the vanilla BC days and I didn't like it at all. WoW was so weird to me, I was honestly like, wtf is this game.
But today I am a bit more open minded and I'm not as critical to themepark mmos anymore and in fact I'm playing WoW right now cause its fun and the repopulation, star citizen, and divergence online are on my radar but they seem pretty far off right now so WoW is all I got right now lol.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
And a couple of years ago I believe I found a very plausible explanation why during a discussion attempting to come up with a good definition of a Sandbox game.
So for the record. The final definition and explanation why there are so many Sanbox definitions were:
Definition:
"<<<<A Sandbox Design consists of a World build by the Designers/Devs encompassing various elements and Tools players can use (Items, game mechanics, various systems such as housing crafting etc) in a non linear gameplay fashion.
The players then populate this world and build in game societies (Social Structures) with the elements and tools the devs put in place, and engage in interaction (Adventuring, PvP Crafting Trading, Role play etc) among them.
From this interaction emerges the gameplay experience. - by Duke Suraknar & Ghoest, Nov 21, 2014 >>>>
Analysis:
Lets Enumerate the Pillars of a Sandbox game:
- The world, with own mechanics, elements and tools.
- Non linear gameplay/Open ended Gameplay Design
- Player built Social structures
- Player Interaction
- Emergent Gameplay Experience
And that is basically it,
Explanation:
And the reason why there are many apparent definitions of what is a sandbox game from players is because of the nature of non linear gameplay. Because the characteristic of nonlinear gameplay is that various challenges are presented to the players which can be completed in different sequences and represent the gameplay experience. Furthermore, the majority of these challenges actually emerge from the interaction of the players with one another using the available tools within the defined mechanics of the world. As such not all challenges are seen by all the players at all times or even ever. Which imprints each player with a slightly different experience of the game and thus contributes to shape their own definition of what is a Sandbox game when asked."
Feel free to comment.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
My biggest problem with free-for-all world pvp, especially in a sandbox scenario, is level scaling and power gaps. I haven't actually played Archeage yet, but from what I've heard it doesn't seem like it's balanced at all, and balance is one of the most important factors in any PvP activity. Also, it doesn't seem like there's any risk involved in being in one of these rampaging murder groups, which is also a fault in the game.
When high level players are impossible to kill for lower level players, simply because they have superior stats, all balance runs down the drain.
The best example I've seen of this done well on an MMO scale is in Planetside2. Granted, it is an MMOFPS, but still.
Even as a freshly spawned rank 1 scrub, you can kill a rank 100 veteran all the same. If you're against a whole squad of enemies, provided you're good enough, you could totally manage to take out a few of them before they get you themselves, and so on. The kill potential needs to be equal on both sides, and the potential punishment or loss when dying should also be equal.
I think if these roaming death squads in Archeage could be killed as easily as they kill other people, they'd be rarer, and probably more fun when they do show up. Because you know you have a chance against them, even as a single person.
What do you think?
i suggest an pvp instants. like gw2 wvw map.
so pve and pvp will be separated.
endgame is just another name for "grind to make people login even if the game has no more content to offer"
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
If every sandbox was not a PVP arena gank fest there might be more interest.
The term sand box is drawing from an example of a boy or a girl playing in a true sand box. They play in the define boundaries of the box and the only content that they have is the toys that they have and their imagination. The above example compared to a game is that the game world is the Sandbox and its boundaries are set and what happens in that world and how that game can succeed or fail depends on what toys(tools) they Devs provided us to aid us in our imaginations. The best example of this is Eve, even though this is a space opera type game..most of the content is really how the players react to each other in game, this game is a success because of the tools that the Devs provide for the players. A great example of a fantasy sandbox would be Albion Online, there are more but I dont have much experience with them.
Now there are some that would say Archage and Black Desert would be great example of a sand box and Im not saying their wrong but I dont consider those two games tru sandboxes. They are what I call Sand-Parks, they have in some degree a theme park in them though they are mostly sandboxes. A true Sand box will not have quest lines that are similar to Wow to hold your hand or to guide you though the world. A true sand box will just thrust you in the world not explain anything or hold your hand to get you started. In a sand box what you want to do or become in the game is completly up to you. How you deal with other players,to be friend or foe is up to you..I dont think you could have a true sand box that wasnt world pvp. Player interation is crucial in a sand box, just like it is in EVE. I have been waiting for a long time for a good fantasy mmo that is similar to Eve. That is implemented right with the right tools.
Now Im not saying that Archage and Bdo werent unique and are completely different than most theme parks. I played both and really like both atleast for a bit. Archage, I really really could see the potential in this game but Trion just didnt seem to care, but enough on that. Black Desert, well I really enjoyed the combat (though wish it was more challenging) I didnt like the gender locks, or the closed trading system, though it did have some good sandbox feature that I really did like, only if it had a naval system like Archage, or a open trading with other players.
Anyway, just my ramblings and my 2 cents.
If at first you dont succeed, call it version 1.0
Currently it looks like imposter sandboxes have "forced pvp" which doesn't even make it sandbox to begin with. Sandbox gives you the option to do what you want, if they are forcing you to do something its not sandbox in my eyes.
I think people emphasize PvP so much in sandboxes because of all the good times they did it with their server community setting all that up or just checking in a pvp flagged zone to see if anyone is there to fight. But they all forget that sandboxes are meant to be complex, not PvP focused. If it was PvP focused the rest of the game would probably be really bland.
But theres much more to it than that. Also I think you mean, "If most sandboxes was not a PvP arena gank fest there might be more interest.".
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
still don't understand why bother with great looking textures and models while the gameplay itself in modern mmos is bad.
1) A sandbox game, rely ON offering the player 'player options'
while
2) A theme park game, rely ON NOT offering the player 'player options'
So, this wouldn't about a game seemingly "having" player options, but instead, if the game is designed around giving the player 'player options'.
Another thing about 'player options': Given how anything 'strategic' is about achieving goals, any game that rely on you SIMPLY accomplishing given goals, would be akin to being a 'theme park' game, as opposed to a game in which you can do other things, than simply achieving some given goal.
So, in a sense, having lots of 'tactical' options in a game is good for any sand box game. Simply achieving things isn't good enough.
I agree with Horusra's intent, given that there's tremendous potential for PVE cooperative sandbox games and meanwhile it's well-known that open world PVP is casual trash that few players seem interested in (compared with the very strong interest in skill-focused PVP in genres like RTS, FPS, and fighting games).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To me Sandbox MMOs have to be complex and intricate on every aspect of the game because that is where they are strongest. Without the complexity I would just play WoW or something instead of some bland sandbox mmo without its strongest features. Sandbox can't just be about freedom to do what you want otherwise it would be boring af.
As for OPvP, I am really curious why you keep mentioning that, were you ganked and spawn camped or something. I think your inexperienced with Sandbox PvP or played the wrong sandboxes. I mean it depends on the game whether or not its trashy but you sound outright ridiculous. Mine as well call CS:GO trash while your at it. PvP is PvP, I only ever heard of the term open world pvp when I went to swtor because people needed to distinguish between that and instanced. Either way PvP is PvP. You fail to mention PvP as a whole, you instead decide to point out OPvP based on your experience. And obviously your upset about that experience.
And you seem to think 500k+ players is a few. ok.....lol.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Sandbox just implies player authorship. Anything else isn't what sandboxes are "supposed" to be, it's just a personal preference. It's fine to have preferences, but claiming that's what sandboxes are "supposed" to be is nonsense.
Pure sandboxes aren't games. They're things like writing a book, drawing a painting, etc. They're freeform experiences with no rules. The lack of rules is what makes them pure sandboxes (you're completely free to author the experience in its entirety) and it's why they're not games (you can't be a game without rules).
Also note that pure sandboxes aren't automatically boring. Painting can be enjoyable for the same core reason games are fun (pattern mastery: figuring out how to quickly create an aesthetically appealing piece of art). But yes, a giant empty world where all you can do is wander it makes for a very boring experience (and also isn't especially sandbox-like if you can't actually author (ie change) the world). Exploration involves too little mastery on its own without purposes to the various locations you can explore. Exploration is still a light form of pattern-mastery (you're gaining the knowledge of what exists and where it exists) but without additional game systems to provide relevance to that knowledge (and provide many additional patterns which are much harder to master than simply traveling to places) it's flat and boring.
My comments on open world PVP aren't an emotional backlash. I'm not describing my individual subjective experience. I'm making simple statements of fact based on the objective game rules.
- Most PVP games are focused on skillful competition: if you're the more skilled player or team, you win.
- World PVP is not: instead of the skilled player/team always winning, players can use non-skill factors like progression and population to gain huge advantages over their opponents.
By extension this makes the skill-based decisions less important, which results in PVP where casual players can do much better. A team of scrubs in Overwatch matched against a team of better players will always lose (unless they exhibit more skill than their opponents). Whereas a scrub in EVE can join a giant group of players to utterly crush a smaller force.The common, fallacious counter-argument to the EVE situation is that a small group of skilled players can sometimes beat a larger one. But everyone understands those situations to be incredibly rare and it doesn't dispute the core problem, which is that when teams and skill are even I can always bring 100 more friends and win the fight with substantially less skill than my opponents.
(CS:GO is sort of trash amongst FPS games, because hitscan shooters require less skill than shooters with projectile weapons. It's still a pretty skill-intensive game, but really if you can double-click a Windows icon super accurately, you can score a headshot consistently in CS:GO and so it's a lower bar than the better shooters out there.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Note, not alot of sandbox mmos fit my description of a sandbox mmo exactly.
Sandbox are games.....minecraft.
When I think of Sandbox PvP, I think of PvP, I don't nitpick at a pvp feature. From a themepark player I guess I understand where your coming from. Sandbox pvp has lately been known as OWPvP but overshadows the rest of the PvP in the game. Nevermind I guess since sandbox mmos these days only have OPvP and no other pvp which sets a bad example imo, of a sandbox mmo.
I'm starting to think that the people who want OPvP as a feature they want to see in an mmo are people new to the subgenre of sandboxes they probably aren't even sandbox players to begin with, I'm just saying man......I really don't know though.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.