"Sandbox" MMO's can NOT succeed...

brihtwulf

There seems to be frequent talk and reference to "sandbox" MMO's being the way developers should go.  However, I believe there are many reasons this cannot and will not work, and that an MMO made in that fashion will not be successful.  I will, however, concede from the beginning that an "indie" MMO could be made in this way as a small-scale niche game so long as it didn't require much investment or funding to maintain.  Here are my reasonings why I think an mainstream MMO can't be "sandbox":

Players want/need to achieve/progress - People play games for a variety of minor reasons, but most importantly it comes down to "fun".  Social interaction aside (as there are some people who play MMO's just to chat with others), there would be no reason to play a game that didn't offer some kind of progression.  In an MMO, players create a character/characters and expect them to change over time in their persistant world.  This is one of the main things that sets apart the MMO genre from others such as the FPS games like Halo, etc.

Without character development and progression of some kind, there is nothing to demonstrate a reward for the time invested in the game.  In single-player games this is also true.  There may often be a number of ways to achieve your goals or to progress, but there is ALWAYS something to achieve or obtain.  Even in a FPS game the player gains a "fun" factor through defeating others via skill or tactics (or cheating).  But in the mythical "sandbox" MMO, players should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the "restrictions" of levelling, points, advancement, etc.

Computer programs are not infinite - When considering what a game SHOULD be, players often don't understand the limitations on what a game CAN be.  It simply isn't viable, or often possible, for a game to be everything to everyone, or to offer limitless possibilities.  Content development alone, such as models, textures, and other physical representations, take a LONG time to create.  It's not as if developers can simply create thousands of entities for everyone's possible interactions.  It's not as easy as you might think.

And it would take a massive undertaking to try and create an "open" world where players could do nearly anything they wanted, and this was possible for all other players as well.  The more possibilities you have, the more ways something can be done, the more difficult the programming becomes.  And it doesn't simply ADD to the complexity, but it increases it EXPONENTIALLY.  It isn't to say that something like that isn't possible, but it would take more time than players would be willing to wait and more investment than a company would be willing to give.  Developers have enough trouble with the existing level of AI and options in MMO's.

... So, it's not to say that the MMO genre doesn't need a breath of fresh air and more innovation.  But to expect this kind of "sandbox" gameplay is, for lack of a better word, "fantasy".  And any MMO claiming to be "sandbox" is either using the term as a ploy to attract bored players, or just plain lying to sound different.  Perhaps an indie project could create something PARTIALLY sandbox on a small scale, but even that would take a massive amount of skill and would likely not offer enough incentive for players to remain (aside from those who play for social purposes only).

I'm sure there are many who disagree, and I look forward to your thoughts...

Raora

I would kill for another great sandbox game about right now

 

 

Wolfenpride

Eve online = sci fi sandbox mmo = major success

What makes you think a sandbox mmo can't have progression? SWG-preCU did an excellent job with their tier skilled system, an easy enough system to implent in any mmo if the dev's wanted to. Their are also plenty of ways to "progress" through your actions and the role you take in the game. Ill use eve as an example, as a pirate hunter I earned money by taking on missions to hunt down pirates and earning their bounty. I used the money to buy better ships and gear. Thats progression in its own way.

Yes a game will have limitations that is unfortunate, however again using eve, look at the number of ways you could play the game and compare it to lets say WoW or Lotro. In eve i could become a miner and join a mining/research coorp and help build ships/etc. I could become a pirate hunter, a pirate, join numerous coorps that have their own individual goals and such, or I could start my own coorp and seek out w/e it is I want to do in Eve. I may not even join a coorp and just go and try and make a name for myself. In WoW your only purpose is to level up pretty much

Eve is a perfect example of how good a sandbox mmo can be, it is more difficult to pull off probably for the dev's I would imagine though, and im sure from their perspective its a risk that might not be worth any lost money.

 

Kevyne-Shandris

Originally posted by Raora


I would kill for another great sandbox game about right now
 
 

 

Don't know about killing for it, but more and more I read it's more like what I prefer. Openess, and the ability to "get off the script". The immersion factor alone is tempting.

musicmann

Originally posted by brihtwulf


There seems to be frequent talk and reference to "sandbox" MMO's being the way developers should go.  However, I believe there are many reasons this cannot and will not work, and that an MMO made in that fashion will not be successful.  I will, however, concede from the beginning that an "indie" MMO could be made in this way as a small-scale niche game so long as it didn't require much investment or funding to maintain.  Here are my reasonings why I think an mainstream MMO can't be "sandbox":
Players want/need to achieve/progress - People play games for a variety of minor reasons, but most importantly it comes down to "fun".  Social interaction aside (as there are some people who play MMO's just to chat with others), there would be no reason to play a game that didn't offer some kind of progression.  In an MMO, players create a character/characters and expect them to change over time in their persistant world.  This is one of the main things that sets apart the MMO genre from others such as the FPS games like Halo, etc.
Without character development and progression of some kind, there is nothing to demonstrate a reward for the time invested in the game.  In single-player games this is also true.  There may often be a number of ways to achieve your goals or to progress, but there is ALWAYS something to achieve or obtain.  Even in a FPS game the player gains a "fun" factor through defeating others via skill or tactics (or cheating).  But in the mythical "sandbox" MMO, players should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the "restrictions" of levelling, points, advancement, etc.
Computer programs are not infinite - When considering what a game SHOULD be, players often don't understand the limitations on what a game CAN be.  It simply isn't viable, or often possible, for a game to be everything to everyone, or to offer limitless possibilities.  Content development alone, such as models, textures, and other physical representations, take a LONG time to create.  It's not as if developers can simply create thousands of entities for everyone's possible interactions.  It's not as easy as you might think.
And it would take a massive undertaking to try and create an "open" world where players could do nearly anything they wanted, and this was possible for all other players as well.  The more possibilities you have, the more ways something can be done, the more difficult the programming becomes.  And it doesn't simply ADD to the complexity, but it increases it EXPONENTIALLY.  It isn't to say that something like that isn't possible, but it would take more time than players would be willing to wait and more investment than a company would be willing to give.  Developers have enough trouble with the existing level of AI and options in MMO's.
... So, it's not to say that the MMO genre doesn't need a breath of fresh air and more innovation.  But to expect this kind of "sandbox" gameplay is, for lack of a better word, "fantasy".  And any MMO claiming to be "sandbox" is either using the term as a ploy to attract bored players, or just plain lying to sound different.  Perhaps an indie project could create something PARTIALLY sandbox on a small scale, but even that would take a massive amount of skill and would likely not offer enough incentive for players to remain (aside from those who play for social purposes only).
I'm sure there are many who disagree, and I look forward to your thoughts...

 

For a person who has SWG on the top of their list of mmo's played as well as being a pre pub 9 jedi, i would think you would understand how stale and repetative mmo's have become. I am also a SWG pre pub 9 vet and still to this day long for that type of gameplay.

I never once sat in front of my monitor while playing SWG and thought that i was never accomplishing nothing. You are correct in saying that the word sandbox is getting thrown around alot these days, without many new mmo gamers actually ever playing one.

Some even go out on a limb and think games such as WOW and LOTR are true sandbox mmo's. I think that mmo gamers of today have been brainwashed to think that the only type of content that will please the masses is dev spoonfed.

This type of thinking has done more damage to the genre than anything else in the last 3 or 4 yrs. The other situation that has made mmo's more horrible than ever is dev companies who think they can make a game that can appeal to both fps and traditional type gamers.

If you want to see proof of ultimate fail for this type of game, look no further than SWG-NGE.  Since the SOE debacle, their devs have introduced the spoonfed, instanced content with lvls and predetermened classes, and what has it gotten them. Empty servers and an mmo that is hanging on by a thread. It wasn't like that in the pre-cu days.

I have a feeling that you are basing your thoughts on this subject from a WOW standpoint, in which no mmo then and into the future will ever do what it has done, ever again. It was an anomily nothing more or less.

Games in the past such as, UO, SWG pre-cu, EVE, and all other's that were sandbox games did very well with sub numbers, and they weren't niche games at all. To think that a new sandbox mmo couldn't attract a huge fanbase is subjective and speculation and is kind of being a little short sighted.

If you want another example, look at AOC. This mmo had the chance to be a phenom of a mmo, but it being so linear and the world of Hyboria being so small and closed off, with instancing out the yahoo, it turned masses of people off from the get go.

If AOC would have been built in the true vain of a open sandbox, and actually been released with all the things that the devs had promised, it could have had well over a million players not hitting the cancel button after their free month is up.

A open sandbox mmo can be successful, but only if it is done properly and not rushed out the door before it is fined tuned and highly polished. I will go out on a limb and say the majority of mmo gamer's are sick and tired of these hold your hand dev spoonfed content type of mmo's that have plagued the genre for way to long.

 

MarleVVLL

It is opinion and it is also depends on what 'successful' means.

I LOVE sandbox type games. I LOVED to play Wurm. However, there were lacking areas so I quit for the time being. If they fixed some stuff, I'd be back in a moment.

I'm also in the process of designing a MMO, and I even find 1,000 players a success. I don't care if I get 100k - 1 million subs. Yeah, that'd be nice, but 1k X $8 a month = 8k a month. Now, I'd have to pay this guy that pay that fee for network etc etc, but if you look at raw income, that is NICE.

Most people are out for the big money. I am out for offering a great gameplay experience. Not to say I do not want 10 million players, but I'd be fine with *MUCH* less.

Blessings,

Unknown

1. UO may or may not be considered a mainstream MMO, but it was a sandbox, and was very good. If you have noticed...it is ranked i think 8.1 on this website, and the graphicsa re horrid. The game is beating most current games, and I believe that is because you can do what you want...when you want.

2. You do not have to create infinite coded programs...you just have to program the world to work. Let the world seem alive, and let you be able to do what you could do in real life. If it was the problem with infinite coding then Sandboxes in general would be impossible to make, but they have been made before.

paulscott

the investment that took to make EvE  begs to differ, especially compared to it's sucess.

SecondLife is also getting ready to land on your property to boot as well.  This thing really prints out the money.

the very indy game that is WurmOnline begs to differ as well.  if it were an everclone game it would have 15 players online at any one time.

Edit:

I'd be willing to shove Runescape as being sandbox enough as well.   there are no required paths in it at all.  and it's more popular than everclone(s), even if that sucess can be attributed to other things it's still that stinking gorrilla in the corner.   (note players will typically look for games similar to their first)

Unknown

Originally posted by paulscott


the investment that took to make EvE  begs to differ, especially compared to it's sucess.
SecondLife is also getting ready to land on your property to boot as well.  This thing really prints out the money.
the very indy game that is WurmOnline begs to differ as well.  if it were an everclone game it would have 15 players online at any one time.
Edit:
I'd be willing to shove Runescape as being sandbox enough as well.   there are no required paths in it at all.  and it's more popular than everclone(s), even if that sucess can be attributed to other things it's still that stinking gorrilla in the corner.   (note players will typically look for games similar to their first)

 

Yes, I used to play Wurm Online, and actually I had more fun doing whatever I felt like then I ever had with any of these more linear games. I had fun immediately. See, you do still get a sense of progression. You just get it with your own goals. For example: In Wurm online, I wanted to made a pot. Well in that game you have to get the clay, water and and the stuff to make it. I was digging to get the clay, then the water and such. Once I completed the pot...I was satisfied and I felt like I progressed and accomplished something. You still get the same feeling of progression, but it something that you want to do instead of something that you more feel like your being forced to do.

Tiller

Sandbox MMOs do just fine, they are just to hard and to expensive to build properly so most MMO developers don't even bother trying. You either get all sandbox MMO, or all game play MMO, to mix the 2 and balance them together and make it bug free is one big headache. Once someone figures out how to do it correctly it'll become the best thing since pizza and beer.

Forcan

Originally posted by brihtwulf


There seems to be frequent talk and reference to "sandbox" MMO's being the way developers should go.  However, I believe there are many reasons this cannot and will not work, and that an MMO made in that fashion will not be successful.  I will, however, concede from the beginning that an "indie" MMO could be made in this way as a small-scale niche game so long as it didn't require much investment or funding to maintain.  Here are my reasonings why I think an mainstream MMO can't be "sandbox":
Interesting statements, and I will try to counter your points to the best of my ability and with the knowledge that I have as a gamer and a student who will be graduating next year and looking for jobs in the MMO industry...
Players want/need to achieve/progress - People play games for a variety of minor reasons, but most importantly it comes down to "fun".  Social interaction aside (as there are some people who play MMO's just to chat with others), there would be no reason to play a game that didn't offer some kind of progression.  In an MMO, players create a character/characters and expect them to change over time in their persistant world.  This is one of the main things that sets apart the MMO genre from others such as the FPS games like Halo, etc.
Without character development and progression of some kind, there is nothing to demonstrate a reward for the time invested in the game.  In single-player games this is also true.  There may often be a number of ways to achieve your goals or to progress, but there is ALWAYS something to achieve or obtain.  Even in a FPS game the player gains a "fun" factor through defeating others via skill or tactics (or cheating).  But in the mythical "sandbox" MMO, players should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the "restrictions" of levelling, points, advancement, etc.
1.) Interesting...  I don't believe that anyone stated that sandbox doesn't allow player to progress and develop of their character.  It just isn't as visible, and/or limiting as the class/level design used in so many MMORPGs.  For example, I see you play SWG, and you unlocked Jedi.  But when you exclude Jedi from the character progression system in that game, you would still end up with many many combinations which give players freedoms to experiment and at the same time not limiting players to a point they end up being "useless" or out of the "norm" of the player-base.
The idea of sandbox is limited restriction in the character design, for in order to have an living, evolving world, it must reflect the real world in some way, and by using skills rather than classes, the design offers greater combination and abilities for players to find their play-style (and trust me, most people play somewhat different than others, and that should be encouraged, and it is much more easier to do so in sandbox MMO). 
As for the character level part, in a design point of view it is easier to create the game for it.  Since you can use such to limit access of the game and give player a sense of achievement and progression through the ability to take on higher level contents.  But by doing so, it takes the immersion away, and also without a design to encourage group play between the higher level and lower level, you end up with a game with skewed population at the higher level the longer it is around, and it becomes a battle to pull new blood into the game (hence WoW keep lowering and adjusting the experiences needed to level in the first 60 level, so newer players can go through these levels until they end up at the high level and have more people to play with.)
 
Computer programs are not infinite - When considering what a game SHOULD be, players often don't understand the limitations on what a game CAN be.  It simply isn't viable, or often possible, for a game to be everything to everyone, or to offer limitless possibilities.  Content development alone, such as models, textures, and other physical representations, take a LONG time to create.  It's not as if developers can simply create thousands of entities for everyone's possible interactions.  It's not as easy as you might think.
And it would take a massive undertaking to try and create an "open" world where players could do nearly anything they wanted, and this was possible for all other players as well.  The more possibilities you have, the more ways something can be done, the more difficult the programming becomes.  And it doesn't simply ADD to the complexity, but it increases it EXPONENTIALLY.  It isn't to say that something like that isn't possible, but it would take more time than players would be willing to wait and more investment than a company would be willing to give.  Developers have enough trouble with the existing level of AI and options in MMO's.

2.) Of course, there isn't any possible way to create limitless possibilities for any computer software, game or not.  But the idea is that the hard limitations are taken away and yet you still keep that final limitations to keep the game workable.  The development of contents are based on the core design, and when the core design focus on creating multiple possibilities (not limitless, but multiple), the content design would have a better idea on what to design for different possibilities to be put into the game.
Yes, the more complex the game it, the more difficult the programming becomes.  But again, It's in the core design.  If the core has most of the basic system done (and tested it), all the contents are doing is to create various contents based on the core.  In OOP (Object-Oriented Programming) and the use of scripting, it would still be difficult to program, but it is doable, and it is capable to do so.
About Game AI, I have to say that (since I just finish my course in Game AI), it isn't what people think (if they are not into programming and/or AI field...).  But to keep it short, it doesn't need to be modify as much as people think when it come to game, but more varieties (and situational).

... So, it's not to say that the MMO genre doesn't need a breath of fresh air and more innovation.  But to expect this kind of "sandbox" gameplay is, for lack of a better word, "fantasy".  And any MMO claiming to be "sandbox" is either using the term as a ploy to attract bored players, or just plain lying to sound different.  Perhaps an indie project could create something PARTIALLY sandbox on a small scale, but even that would take a massive amount of skill and would likely not offer enough incentive for players to remain (aside from those who play for social purposes only).
You are basing your statement on one version of the "sandbox" definition.  I wonder, what IS your definition of a "sandbox" game?  Because I believe that many have some idea behind it, but are missing the core of functional sandbox game...  I'll state what I see as the core design of functional sandbox game (MMO-genre)

1.) Dynamic world - where what you, the player, do matter and affect the world.  May it be through the combat system, crafting system, or political system.

2.) Freedom in character design - which means you can choose your own playstyle, and design your character as such.  If you want, you can go from a combat character to non-combat character, or if you want, you can be just a crafter and have other supply you with materials and in return, you give them items which help on their own game play.

3.) Community-based game play - where most, if not all, systems focus on the ability of players coming together to build the game world, and these systems give players the abilities to creates an evolving world rather than just a game.

Some may argue about my definition of it, but so far the games (and I mean MMO) with "sandbox" label fit the core design I mentioned above, so until there is a "sandbox" MMO not having these core design, I believe the above core designs ARE the foundation of a functional sandbox MMO.

I'm sure there are many who disagree, and I look forward to your thoughts...

 

FikusOfAhazi

Even if it was made by Blizzard?

Antarious

Well one of the longest running "main stream" MMO's is a sandbox MMO... which has outlasted a few of the clones of the "games that succeed" I guess.

The funny thing is even tho I haven't played UO in *ponder* 5 years... Until it shuts down none of these newer games will ever last longer.

Success of sandbox games is exactly the same as level/class/uber loot.

If you don't fix issues, or make radical changes etc.. you lose customers.

Have we seen a polished sandbox MMO that actually sticks to what it was advertised? um no

Course we haven't exactly seen to many of those from the other side.

There is one thing that would make it difficult.

People have gotten so used to raids, uber loot and no player economy.

If you actually had to buy stuff from other players *gasp* and it would wear out.. or could be lost so that you had to buy more *gasp* thus keeping the player economy alive..

ya I think that would be hard for many to deal with.. as they have never seen it.

As far as development goes... The exact same "clone of success" is one of the worst development paths you could take for a MMO.  From every possible aspect.. other than "what the masses expect".

Yeebo

If you aim for EVE  numbers in terms of development resources, I don't see why we couldn't have a ton more moderately successful sandboxes.  On the other hand if you throw a WoW budget at one, you will probably take a bath.

For a sandbox to be a mainstream success, it needs to have some directed content available to get folks started exploring the world and interacting with the systems (ala Morrowind).  A  tutorial is not nearly enough to get most players engaged.  Give players something fun to do while they are learning the basics of movement, combat, and NPC interaction. Then  gradually encourage them to get deeper into your systems with optional side-quests. 

Whatever you do,  don't force players to go past the limits of their interest in any particular system.  This is generally exactly what comprehensive tutorials do.  An hour+ tutorial when you are trying to decide if you are even interested in a game or not is especially painful.

Evilsam

Most of the sandbox games that were around died either out or down due to mismanagement or in the case of SWG were out right murdered..UO seems to be acyualy picking up a bit,AC is same as dead,third party programs pretty much killed it,But it's still around after 9 years.

 the people running Eve seemed to have learned form the mistakes of most of the others.I would probably be playing it except for the fact that i have pvp.UO in the early days ruined me from ever wanting to pvp.Almost killed their game too.

 It isn't just the "sandbox" games that have come close to dieing out,they all will sooner or later.

iZakaroN

Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi


Even if it was made by Blizzard?

 

After Blizzard become biggest disappointment for me with WoW, I still hope that their next MMO will be great sandbox game (at lest they promise to release something entirely new, and as we know everything new is well forgiven old)

Vesavius

Originally posted by brihtwulf


There seems to be frequent talk and reference to "sandbox" MMO's being the way developers should go.  However, I believe there are many reasons this cannot and will not work, and that an MMO made in that fashion will not be successful.  I will, however, concede from the beginning that an "indie" MMO could be made in this way as a small-scale niche game so long as it didn't require much investment or funding to maintain.  Here are my reasonings why I think an mainstream MMO can't be "sandbox":
Players want/need to achieve/progress - People play games for a variety of minor reasons, but most importantly it comes down to "fun".  Social interaction aside (as there are some people who play MMO's just to chat with others), there would be no reason to play a game that didn't offer some kind of progression.  In an MMO, players create a character/characters and expect them to change over time in their persistant world.  This is one of the main things that sets apart the MMO genre from others such as the FPS games like Halo, etc.
Without character development and progression of some kind, there is nothing to demonstrate a reward for the time invested in the game.  In single-player games this is also true.  There may often be a number of ways to achieve your goals or to progress, but there is ALWAYS something to achieve or obtain.  Even in a FPS game the player gains a "fun" factor through defeating others via skill or tactics (or cheating).  But in the mythical "sandbox" MMO, players should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the "restrictions" of levelling, points, advancement, etc.
Computer programs are not infinite - When considering what a game SHOULD be, players often don't understand the limitations on what a game CAN be.  It simply isn't viable, or often possible, for a game to be everything to everyone, or to offer limitless possibilities.  Content development alone, such as models, textures, and other physical representations, take a LONG time to create.  It's not as if developers can simply create thousands of entities for everyone's possible interactions.  It's not as easy as you might think.
And it would take a massive undertaking to try and create an "open" world where players could do nearly anything they wanted, and this was possible for all other players as well.  The more possibilities you have, the more ways something can be done, the more difficult the programming becomes.  And it doesn't simply ADD to the complexity, but it increases it EXPONENTIALLY.  It isn't to say that something like that isn't possible, but it would take more time than players would be willing to wait and more investment than a company would be willing to give.  Developers have enough trouble with the existing level of AI and options in MMO's.
... So, it's not to say that the MMO genre doesn't need a breath of fresh air and more innovation.  But to expect this kind of "sandbox" gameplay is, for lack of a better word, "fantasy".  And any MMO claiming to be "sandbox" is either using the term as a ploy to attract bored players, or just plain lying to sound different.  Perhaps an indie project could create something PARTIALLY sandbox on a small scale, but even that would take a massive amount of skill and would likely not offer enough incentive for players to remain (aside from those who play for social purposes only).
I'm sure there are many who disagree, and I look forward to your thoughts...

 

I'm not gonna get into the whole argument here about what is a 'sandbox' game, but I personally believe a true sandbox game hasnt ever been made and that the term has been watered down in general use to the point it dosent mean anything. I personally maintain that most people calling out for a 'sandbox' game actually would hate a true sandbox game. What I think they really want is a traditional MMORPG with a few watered down sandbox elements. Eve is a great example of this type of game, which dosent make it any less of a quality product or indeed not a great game, it just dosent make it 100% sandbox.

To answer the OP with this in mind, no I don't think the 'mass market' wants a true sandbox game. Even the more sandbox-like games as Eve are niche affairs.

I think the mass market wants linear, simplified, barely interactive theme parks where they do what they are told. If they can achieve this without actually having to interact with anyone else in this superficially shared world, then all the better.

The post-WoW mass market sees anyone that would put more then 1 hour a day into playing a game or those that want to invest anymore into a shared community then turning up for an hour a day and running around solo doing GPS led-ex quests as 'hardcore', and in the current climate 'hardcore' is a bad bad thing.

True sandbox gaming will require 2 things from it's player base; imaginaton and investment. Neither of these are in abundance out there I am afraid.

Maybe games like Spore will open up the public imagination to player created content, which is 100% necessary to a modern sandbox game in my eyes, and maybe that will lead to somehting more exciting then what we are seeing now, though I won't hold my breath... Theme park gaming is the ideal switch off gaming for people who just wnt to forget about their crappy day. It dosent requre more then 1% interaction or more then 10% skill. It dosent require investment beyond firing the game up. It's barely beyond watching TV, and thats how the 'mass market' apparently likes it.

 

Adamantine

Originally posted by Raora


I would kill for another great sandbox game about right now

What I fail to understand is that there have been sandbox games in th epast. Really, if one reads the definition of "sandbox game" over at Wikipedia, the only possible conclusion is "they have yet to be made".

For example, in the MMO I'm currently playing, Vanguard, the "sandbox" part is limited to creating a single house in the game. Thats all you can change about the gameworld itself.

 

Pynda

OP's Point 1 - Limited sense of progression in sandbox/skill based games? I'd say the exact opposite is true, and that it's the linear, class based, everyone is maxed out in 1 month games that fail so miserably to provide any continuing sense of progression or achievement.

UO and SWG have already been honorably mentioned by other posters, and I'll bring up another - AC1. I played the same character on AC1 for over three years and I was still working on my build (there effectively was no max level), still roaming the countryside looking for unique and kewl lewt (randomly generated items), and there were still quests, dungeons and other areas of the game I had yet to explore. And add to this that my character was only nerfed once during all those years - it was a minor and fair nerf - and that we used to get new content in AC1 free of charge every month.

OP's Point 2 - Sandbox games hard to make? Yes, but people here like me are saying it has been done before. IMHO what we are seeing now with modern MMORPGs is simply the meeting of the 'I don't want to read or think generation' - those who demand instant gratification - with publishers who are perfectly willing to design in simple mode and hopefully sell their slickly packaged watery gruel for even greater profits. But what I'm hoping is that even the common man is capable of discovering that steak tastes better than slop. And that these publishers will soon discover they are going to have to start giving us better as far as game design goes. At least if they want to keep retention rates high.

Vesavius

Originally posted by Adamantine

Originally posted by Raora


I would kill for another great sandbox game about right now

What I fail to understand is that there have been sandbox games in th epast. Really, if one reads the definition of "sandbox game" over at Wikipedia, the only possible conclusion is "they have yet to be made".

For example, in the MMO I'm currently playing, Vanguard, the "sandbox" part is limited to creating a single house in the game. Thats all you can change about the gameworld itself.

 

 

Exactly.

Zerocool032

Originally posted by brihtwulf


There seems to be frequent talk and reference to "sandbox" MMO's being the way developers should go.  However, I believe there are many reasons this cannot and will not work, and that an MMO made in that fashion will not be successful.  I will, however, concede from the beginning that an "indie" MMO could be made in this way as a small-scale niche game so long as it didn't require much investment or funding to maintain.  Here are my reasonings why I think an mainstream MMO can't be "sandbox":
Players want/need to achieve/progress - People play games for a variety of minor reasons, but most importantly it comes down to "fun".  Social interaction aside (as there are some people who play MMO's just to chat with others), there would be no reason to play a game that didn't offer some kind of progression.  In an MMO, players create a character/characters and expect them to change over time in their persistant world.  This is one of the main things that sets apart the MMO genre from others such as the FPS games like Halo, etc.
Without character development and progression of some kind, there is nothing to demonstrate a reward for the time invested in the game.  In single-player games this is also true.  There may often be a number of ways to achieve your goals or to progress, but there is ALWAYS something to achieve or obtain.  Even in a FPS game the player gains a "fun" factor through defeating others via skill or tactics (or cheating).  But in the mythical "sandbox" MMO, players should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the "restrictions" of levelling, points, advancement, etc.
Computer programs are not infinite - When considering what a game SHOULD be, players often don't understand the limitations on what a game CAN be.  It simply isn't viable, or often possible, for a game to be everything to everyone, or to offer limitless possibilities.  Content development alone, such as models, textures, and other physical representations, take a LONG time to create.  It's not as if developers can simply create thousands of entities for everyone's possible interactions.  It's not as easy as you might think.
And it would take a massive undertaking to try and create an "open" world where players could do nearly anything they wanted, and this was possible for all other players as well.  The more possibilities you have, the more ways something can be done, the more difficult the programming becomes.  And it doesn't simply ADD to the complexity, but it increases it EXPONENTIALLY.  It isn't to say that something like that isn't possible, but it would take more time than players would be willing to wait and more investment than a company would be willing to give.  Developers have enough trouble with the existing level of AI and options in MMO's.
... So, it's not to say that the MMO genre doesn't need a breath of fresh air and more innovation.  But to expect this kind of "sandbox" gameplay is, for lack of a better word, "fantasy".  And any MMO claiming to be "sandbox" is either using the term as a ploy to attract bored players, or just plain lying to sound different.  Perhaps an indie project could create something PARTIALLY sandbox on a small scale, but even that would take a massive amount of skill and would likely not offer enough incentive for players to remain (aside from those who play for social purposes only).
I'm sure there are many who disagree, and I look forward to your thoughts...

 

Endless possibilities and conflicts an only occur in a sandbox game. You use the same thinking you would in real life.  Sandboxes are extremely immersive and their not for everyone because everyone doesn't have an immagination.

 

Ozmodan

What a load of bunk!

UO, AC1, SWG pre NGE were all very successful sandbox games.  Where have you been?

Eve today is a very good sandbox game.

Know your subject before spouting nonsense.

The problem with the current MMO offerings is that the it is hard to get investors to sign up for something that differs from the Wow formula.  The big companies don't want to take a chance on a flop, yet they keep producing flops anyways.  Eventually they will learn.

thamighty213

Originally posted by Ozmodan


What a load of bunk!
UO, AC1, SWG pre NGE were all very successful sandbox games.  Where have you been?
Eve today is a very good sandbox game.
Know your subject before spouting nonsense.
The problem with the current MMO offerings is that the it is hard to get investors to sign up for something that differs from the Wow formula.  The big companies don't want to take a chance on a flop, yet they keep producing flops anyways.  Eventually they will learn.

 

Very well said If I won the lotto tomorrow i would go knock on Raph Koster's door give him however much he wanted to make a sci-fi game with his origonal vision of what SWG should have been a Sandbox MMO with a glorified social networking side to it.

 

Pre-Cu for me anyway was how a MMO should be your living a alternative identity  not just striving for gear.

 

The day we have a MMO that is Sandbox is Skillbased and you have to visit market's taverns etc to eat and go to sleep at logout is the day i will find a true home.

eccoton

Originally posted by Ozmodan


What a load of bunk!
UO, AC1, SWG pre NGE were all very successful sandbox games.  Where have you been?
Eve today is a very good sandbox game.
Know your subject before spouting nonsense.
The problem with the current MMO offerings is that the it is hard to get investors to sign up for something that differs from the Wow formula.  The big companies don't want to take a chance on a flop, yet they keep producing flops anyways.  Eventually they will learn.

 

I have to agree with Ozmodan. I read this thread and the OP and have to say while long with lots of words and well written it is totally wrong. I disagree with the OP and history of MMOs proves him wrong. Now we can hem and haw about the definition of snadbox mmos but I think most of us here know what that is. Sandbox mmos can and have succeeded. The company who makes the right one next will be a huge success.

summitus

Would be nice if someone actually posted what exactly a Sandbox Mmo is , because I'm sure most Mmo's have some Sandbox element to them at least. So how about a Sandbox Mmo checklist from one of you experts out there ?  

Cute_SpyGirl

Did you try EvE Online?  The best MMO ever...