I am a theme park gal. I enjoy what other people have to say about a story and I enjoy being led by one. May sound sad and unimaginative but I was one of those people who was never very abstract and was better at maths then philosophy. I do not like classical music and I do not have an appreciation for art either. I am however incredibly practical and I am always very orientated with a goal in mind.
I am the type of person that enjoys a good story and I love it unfolding before me and I enjoy having choices on how that story may turn out but you give me a blank slate and I get bored, I cannot fill it up. People like me exist so that the other types of people can tell us stories. I am not ashamed to admit it either that a lot of times I don't get a piece of art or some vague principal in jurisprudence...god I damn near failed that subject but we all have something we are good at and what we enjoy and I don't enjoy sandboxes.
I used to hate art it was mandatory in primary school and the class I hated more than the normal art class was when the teacher would tell us to paint anything. What the devil is anything ? I would be stumped for so long until I came up with the idea of doing letters. Geometrical patterns now that I can understand. There was this girl in my class she could fill a canvass in no time during that class and every corner of her painting something was happening. I would just watch her rather than do anything else. Years later after having lost touch with almost all my primary schoolmates I met her in university and I was surprised to discover her not doing art. What an utter waste I thought. She was practical she said no money in it when I asked.
I also do not agree with the OP's premise that when you get choices in an single player game it is sandboxy. When you get choices that fact that your choices are limited which inevitably they are and you are forced to choose then it is no longer the freedom of a sandbox. Sandbox do not limit you to a-e choices. The games you picked to illustrate your idea of a sandbox all steer you to a conclusion granted they are one of many if at all but to a definite type of conclusion. Unless I have misunderstood what sandbox means the single player games all have a goal and story in mind. How you go about achieving that story can be linear and more rail like but others give you some freedom but ultimately you have to take steps to complete the story. So how can it be a sandbox then when you do not get complete freedom on how to end the story ?
It is funny how easy it would be to think of this in the cliche terms of those that enjoy the journey versus those that enjoy the destination...
This is definetly part of the problem. I like to think of myself as a 'journey' type of gamer. I've played WoW for years because I love the journey it provides. In turn I quit pre-CU SWG and EVE because they turned out to be too much 'destination' forcused.
There is a big difference between "sandboxes" like GTA, RDR, or FO3 and "sandboxes" like UO or Eve.
In the GTA vein, you have a game type more like a themepark than an MMO sandbox, it just has a more freeroaming map and more nonlinear gameplay, but it is a game that has a clear focus, in GTA you are a criminal, in RDR you are a lawman or criminal, in Fallout 3 you are a wasteland survivor that either saves or destroys DC. None of these games really allow you to anything but those, you can't for instance forgo combat and found your own city in the wasteland to open up a burger joint. These games may have a lot of variety and minigames to them but it is all variety within the scope and focus of the game. If anything I would consider these types of games to be an evolution of a more "themepark" style of game rather than sandbox, even though people use the same word and make it confusing.
Sandboxes like Eve or UO for example, have little focus, other than a "virtual world" where you are supose to be able to choose from all kinds of types of gameplay, as a result you don't get as tight of an experience as say Fallout 3 because th game has to support all kinds of different gameplay rather than focusing on one type in depth. So I think sandboxes like this are more for people that want to do a lot of things wihin one game rather than focus on a particual thing, like being a criminal.
Do I think there will be "sandbox" MMOs like Fallout 3? Yes and I think they will do rather well, but to get to that point I think you have to pick up where current themepark games left off and find ways to make it more open and nonlinear. I do not think "sandboxes" or world simulations like UO or Eve will ever do that well, Eve is probably that most popular one in that respect, but largely these games are simulation games and sim games don't have that big of a market. Really though if sandbox games just went straight sim game I think they would do better, now they just strattle the fence between RPG and sim and don't do either that well, if they were straight up sim games I think they would find their audience.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
There is a big difference between "sandboxes" like GTA, RDR, or FO3 and "sandboxes" like UO or Eve.
In the GTA vein, you have a game type more like a themepark than an MMO sandbox, it just has a more freeroaming map and more nonlinear gameplay, but it is a game that has a clear focus, in GTA you are a criminal, in RDR you are a lawman or criminal, in Fallout 3 you are a wasteland survivor that either saves or destroys DC. None of these games really allow you to anything but those, you can't for instance forgo combat and found your own city in the wasteland to open up a burger joint. These games may have a lot of variety and minigames to them but it is all variety within the scope and focus of the game. If anything I would consider these types of games to be an evolution of a more "themepark" style of game rather than sandbox, even though people use the same word and make it confusing.
Sandboxes like Eve or UO for example, have little focus, other than a "virtual world" where you are supose to be able to choose from all kinds of types of gameplay, as a result you don't get as tight of an experience as say Fallout 3 because th game has to support all kinds of different gameplay rather than focusing on one type in depth. So I think sandboxes like this are more for people that want to do a lot of things wihin one game rather than focus on a particual thing, like being a criminal.
Do I think there will be "sandbox" MMOs like Fallout 3? Yes and I think they will do rather well, but to get to that point I think you have to pick up where current themepark games left off and find ways to make it more open and nonlinear. I do not think "sandboxes" or world simulations like UO or Eve will ever do that well, Eve is probably that most popular one in that respect, but largely these games are simulation games and sim games don't have that big of a market. Really though if sandbox games just went straight sim game I think they would do better, now they just strattle the fence between RPG and sim and don't do either that well, if they were straight up sim games I think they would find their audience.
I wouldn't call games like FO3 or GTA sanboxes, they're what I call free-roaming. They give you the option to go about doing what ever you feel like at a given time, within the confines of the game. While you can turn FO3 into a true sandbox with MODS, it is not a sandbox, however, you can forgo the path of FO3 and found your own city. With the right mod of course (Real Time Settler, RTS).
Sandboxes are all about tools, with no tools, there is no sandbox. The question of whether sandboxes attract casual gamers is an easy one to answer. There is no game more sandbox oriented than the Sims IMO. Which is the leading product on the PC for the casual market.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I wouldn't call games like FO3 or GTA sanboxes, they're what I call free-roaming. They give you the option to go about doing what ever you feel like at a given time, within the confines of the game. While you can turn FO3 into a true sandbox with MODS, it is not a sandbox, however, you can forgo the path of FO3 and found your own city. With the right mod of course (Real Time Settler, RTS).
Thats the point, people keep calling them games like that sandbox games but they really aren't and it is unduely confusing.
Sandboxes are all about tools, with no tools, there is no sandbox. The question of whether sandboxes attract casual gamers is an easy one to answer. There is no game more sandbox oriented than the Sims IMO. Which is the leading product on the PC for the casual market.
I actually wouldn't call the Sims a sandbox game, it is a sim game no doubt, albeit a rather sim-lite game, but I don't see how it is a sandbox. The game is actually rather narrowly focused, it is all about suburban life as Joe McAverage, you can build stuff sure, but it doesn't have nowhere near enough gameplay variety and world simulation to be a sandbox.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Look at popular sandbox single player games, Red Dead Redemption, GTA series, Elder Scrolls series, Fallout series.
These games are EXTREMELY popular and what sets them apart is the fact that hey all offer a non-linear sandbox experience. Sure they all have stories, sometimes great stories, but that's not what makes the game truly great. If you removed the sandbox elements from these games, they would all just be mediocre linear mission games.
RDR, Fallout and GTA are all really hybrids instead of true sandboxes. These games have stories and endings, they give you a direction, and quests. They have a strong sandbox foundation.
There are differences between these games and Sandbox MMOs. First, take a sandbox style game, which some could argue is a niche -- but for the purpose of this argument, lets say Sandbox = Themepark.
Most sandbox style games aren't JUST sandbox games... they continue down the path with FFAPVP and sometimes FULL Loot or, god forbid, permadeath.
So now you don't just have a Sandbox game, but you now chop that up to Sandbox + FFAPVP+Full Loot and where once Sandbox = Themepark, now its been sliced to become a niche yet once again. Many players don't like nor can handle the idea of FFAPVP.. they don't want to be attacked everywhere... they don't want to lose their stuff when they die.
Sandbox games are great, but a true sandbox with all of these things incorporated not only can't but WILL NOT appeal to the masses. The closest thing we will ever see is a clean cut hybridization of the genres. Too many developers think it has to be one or the other, but a mesh of the two I believe will yield greater results. Currently we have more themeparks trying to implement Sandbox elements... I hope to see more sandbox frameworks adding slight themepark elements for MMOs in the future.
Well, I think the basic reason why you don't see many popular sandbox MMO's is simply because resource wise it's ALOT harder and more complex to make a GOOD quality sandbox game then it is to make a GOOD quality theme-park game...so most big developers being risk averse tend to avoid them.
For example it's alot easier to create a system that can handle... "You are in a room with 3 doors. Do you open Door A, Door B or Door C ?". Then it is to create one that can handle.... "You are in a room. What do you do?"
I have little doubt that MOST players would actually prefer a sandbox game, IF designed well.... it's just alot harder to achieve that.
With the MMO market becoming more crowded and competitive...I think you WILL see more MMO Developers try to introduce more sandbox style elements into thier games...in order to differentiate from the competition and capture under-served markets. What you see with GW2 and it's Dynamic Events System is an example. Note that while that system is not a complete sandbox....it is alot more reflective of it then the traditional themepark MMO mechanics. In GW2, the players actions WILL have an effect on the game world.... That's a sandbox principle.... it's just that there will be some strict parameters which will control the boundaries of exactly what that effect will be (probably a good thing).
Note that GOOD sandbox designs don't neccesarly have to leave the players directionless. A good design will have lots of story/event hooks which can SUGGEST to a player what path they may take.... they just don't FORCE a player to take ONLY that path. That's the real difference between sandbox and theme-park. A sandbox CAN have rails...but it lets you go off the rails if you want to do so.
Furthermore, it's not even true that sandbox games can't have any boundaries that they enforce. A sandbox game can prevent players from being purple-unicorn-vampires who make a living by growing grapefruit at the North Pole...just as the real world does.... some things will work and some things just wont....and actions have meaningfull consequences.
I wouldn't call games like FO3 or GTA sanboxes, they're what I call free-roaming. They give you the option to go about doing what ever you feel like at a given time, within the confines of the game. While you can turn FO3 into a true sandbox with MODS, it is not a sandbox, however, you can forgo the path of FO3 and found your own city. With the right mod of course (Real Time Settler, RTS).
Thats the point, people keep calling them games like that sandbox games but they really aren't and it is unduely confusing.
Sandboxes are all about tools, with no tools, there is no sandbox. The question of whether sandboxes attract casual gamers is an easy one to answer. There is no game more sandbox oriented than the Sims IMO. Which is the leading product on the PC for the casual market.
I actually wouldn't call the Sims a sandbox game, it is a sim game no doubt, albeit a rather sim-lite game, but I don't see how it is a sandbox. The game is actually rather narrowly focused, it is all about suburban life as Joe McAverage, you can build stuff sure, but it doesn't have nowhere near enough gameplay variety and world simulation to be a sandbox.
You're right about that for the most part, though the SIMS 3 does have a broader focus, maybe I should have said this in regard to that game in particular. I was more or less pointing out the similarities in what the sims offers and what a traditional sandbox should. The opportunity to change the world and create your own content/focus.
A correlation that casual players tend to love having these abilities within their games, and that the popular casual games usually have more in common with sandboxes, than they do themeparks, was my overall point. Just look at farmville.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You're right about that for the most part, though the SIMS 3 does have a broader focus, maybe I should have said this in regard to that game in particular. I was more or less pointing out the similarities in what the sims offers and what a traditional sandbox should. The opportunity to change the world and create your own content/focus.
A correlation that casual players tend to love having these abilities within their games, and that the popular casual games usually have more in common with sandboxes, than they do themeparks, was my overall point. Just look at farmville.
The big difference is that in the Sims, I can make a house in this little editor that gives me lots of options, so it is both easy to use and powerfull. Or take a game like Wurm where to make a house requires you to grind up a skill first then stick build the house for a couple of hours, less user friendly and less power and overall less fun since there are few options to customize your house.
This is why I say sandbox MMOs should evolve into sim games, because sim games are all about the tools and editors to let the player simulate stuff. Right now sandbox games have tools that are neither powerful nor fun, just grindy.
People want to build houses give them a sims house tool, people want to build cities, give them a sim city tool, people want to make a faction, give them a civ tool., people want to make content give them a LBP tool. Most of the "content creation" in sandboxes now is just pretend because the players don't actually the tools to do anything worthwhile, so all you got is rather grindy gameplay with imaginary content creation.
If a sandbox game really dedicated itself to the simulation concept and left themeparks to be RPGs, then I think you could have a really fun game. If they keep going as is then they will never make it, and no ammount of polish or hybridizing going to save them. I also think it is unfortunate that sandboxes have thrown in with the FFA PKs, because this negatively impacts their appeal.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
The big difference is that in the Sims, I can make a house in this little editor that gives me lots of options, so it is both easy to use and powerfull. Or take a game like Wurm where to make a house requires you to grind up a skill first then stick build the house for a couple of hours, less user friendly and less power and overall less fun since there are few options to customize your house.
This is why I say sandbox MMOs should evolve into sim games, because sim games are all about the tools and editors to let the player simulate stuff. Right now sandbox games have tools that are neither powerful nor fun, just grindy.
People want to build houses give them a sims house tool, people want to build cities, give them a sim city tool, people want to make a faction, give them a civ tool., people want to make content give them a LBP tool. Most of the "content creation" in sandboxes now is just pretend because the players don't actually the tools to do anything worthwhile, so all you got is rather grindy gameplay with imaginary content creation.
If a sandbox game really dedicated itself to the simulation concept and left themeparks to be RPGs, then I think you could have a really fun game. If they keep going as is then they will never make it, and no ammount of polish or hybridizing going to save them. I also think it is unfortunate that sandboxes have thrown in with the FFA PKs, because this negatively impacts their appeal.
Very true, for the casuals there has to be a streamlined approach with semi-instant access to the tools needed to create. Progression could come in the form of better upgrades over time.
The true problem with todays sandbox games is that, the barrier to entry. As well as the constant ffa focus, these things are what hold this side of the genre back.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
While I don't really disagree with you, OP, methinx most pro-sandbox folks would argue that your examples aren't really sandboxes, aside from being able to go anywhere in the game world.
Fallout 3, the game most familiar to me(obviously) has next to no crafting, and aside from being able to blow Megaton off the map, you can't really build what you want within the gaming world. Your actions have some consequences, but not much extending beyond consequence A or B.
Methinx the reasons behind there being little sandbox support from major studios are many and varied. Sandboxes are more difficult to make, more difficult to make FUN, more difficult to maintain and balance, and more difficult to predict success for.
Eve survives and does pretty well, because as others have said, they handled PVP pretty well. Also, you can do things of various intensity in the game. You can stay docked for hours and do things, or put yourself in a system with 100 of your best buds and scrap with 200 of your worst enemies. All this, and lots in between. And don't forget it started out very small when the genre was smaller and grew as the MMO genre grew. It's probably harder to convince investors that "smaller is fine" in the market at its current size.
Anyhoo, the different levels of intensity in Eve is the key, IMO, and I think is why FFA PvP games don't penetrate. One level of intensity... paranoia.
A new sandbox will require those levels of gameplay, methinx... and the patience to let the game and the sub numbers grow over time.
But I think this argument is bunk. I think that the majority of players DO like a sandbox experience, and my case in point is single player games. Look at popular sandbox single player games, Red Dead Redemption, GTA series, Elder Scrolls series, Fallout series.
The games you reference have one thing in common. They let the player impact the game world. In Fallout, for example, I can blow up an entire town. Or save it. And my choice is real, nad permanent. If I blow up the town, it's gone, for good. And when I kill something, it's dead. Forever. It doesn't respawn.
And that's easy, when there's one player. How do you do that when there are thousands of players in the same world? That's the problem.
I'll go out into left field here and point out that it does not matter what the majority of the population likes. Honestly, what the majority likes is generally a completely lackluster compromise of whatever form of media or art is involved.
The majority likes Transformers2, American Idol, McDonald's and Justin Bieber. These are far from the "best" anything. It is merely a symptom of this MMO industry's youth that most games are still judged solely by their sales numbers.
We need to get to a point that most mature art/media industries are at - where it is possible to produce a high-quality targeted product. I don't want to say "niche" because that implies really small and it need not be. We need to get to the point where developers that want to create an MMO "for the art of it" are able to do it, do it in high quality and still make some money back if it doesn't suck.
What we have in the MMO industry today is the equivalent of a film industry where THE ONLY way to get a film made is for $200 million and the only way for it to succeed is to gross $500 million. The film industry is mature enough that a film can be produced for 1-20 million and easily surpass a 200 million dollar film in every possible way. The same is true in publishing, in music, in TV.
The MMO industry simply needs to evolve to the same point. Because today, it seems that the only way to produce a AAA MMO is for 50+ million and it has to get a million subs to be successful. This isn't possible or sustainable unless those Bieber fans suddenly turn to MMOs.
CCP has shown the way with EVE. I'm not talking about the mechanics of EVE or about it being sandbox or FFA PvP or anything like that. i"m talking about producing a high-quality product, with a vision in mind for that product that is uncompromising in what it is trying to achieve "artistically" and after building it, having it take off to its desired audience. It will never be WoW. It will never match WoW. It will never be "what the majority wants". But it neither tries nor wants to be. That's the point. More EVEs, less WoWs please. Not that there isn't room for a blockbuster, there always is - here comes TOR! But a blockbuster isn't the ONLY thing there is room for. That too is the point.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Really it boils down to the fact that the types of developers that are giving this style of game play to the players are sub-par and really not up to the task of really delivering a true game inside a sandbox.
I have to agree. Me not liking sandbox games isn't because there are no "clear goals", "instant gratification" or other gibberish. It is because sandbox games tend to be sub-par games. I have yet to see a sandbox MMORPG with a good game in its core. Many sandboxy single player RPGs have this.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I'll go out into left field here and point out that it does not matter what the majority of the population likes. Honestly, what the majority likes is generally a completely lackluster compromise of whatever form of media or art is involved.
The majority likes Transformers2, American Idol, McDonald's and Justin Bieber. These are far from the "best" anything. It is merely a symptom of this MMO industry's youth that most games are still judged solely by their sales numbers.
We need to get to a point that most mature art/media industries are at - where it is possible to produce a high-quality targeted product. I don't want to say "niche" because that implies really small and it need not be. We need to get to the point where developers that want to create an MMO "for the art of it" are able to do it, do it in high quality and still make some money back if it doesn't suck.
What we have in the MMO industry today is the equivalent of a film industry where THE ONLY way to get a film made is for $200 million and the only way for it to succeed is to gross $500 million. The film industry is mature enough that a film can be produced for 1-20 million and easily surpass a 200 million dollar film in every possible way. The same is true in publishing, in music, in TV.
The MMO industry simply needs to evolve to the same point. Because today, it seems that the only way to produce a AAA MMO is for 50+ million and it has to get a million subs to be successful. This isn't possible or sustainable unless those Bieber fans suddenly turn to MMOs.
CCP has shown the way with EVE. I'm not talking about the mechanics of EVE or about it being sandbox or FFA PvP or anything like that. i"m talking about producing a high-quality product, with a vision in mind for that product that is uncompromising in what it is trying to achieve "artistically" and after building it, having it take off to its desired audience. It will never be WoW. It will never match WoW. It will never be "what the majority wants". But it neither tries nor wants to be. That's the point. More EVEs, less WoWs please. Not that there isn't room for a blockbuster, there always is - here comes TOR! But a blockbuster isn't the ONLY thing there is room for. That too is the point.
I think thats really a minor argument. People don't like things that are "popular" just because they are popular. Some people might, but ultimately the higher the production value, the more polished the product is. Small budget companies can still make great games, noone is denying that, but this relies on a different company mindset instead of a different consumer mindset.
I don't need to change my affection for well built, polished and fun games, regardless of costs.
Like it or not, MMO companies are trying to bring in gamers and even non gamers from other Genres. This is one of the successes WoW accomplished that not many others have had the chance to do. In order to do that, accessibility is key, not so much art. Garnering any kind of foothold in a volatile MMO market is tough enough with a large budget, smaller less known games are rarely able to contend.
I also find it interesting that you bring up TOR as a blockbuster, yet you also mention that you wish games would produce " a high-quality product, with a vision in mind for that product that is uncompromising in what it is trying to achieve "artistically" and after building it, having it take off to its desired audience. "
Whereas TOR takes a lot of flack for their artistic view of the universe, the clear views on Space Combat, and class interpretations as well as story structure. I think BioWare is the best case of a company producing a high quality produce with a very specific vision in mind, geared towards its very specific audiences.
What does this all have to do with Sandbox games? Well, again, pretending they are not niche, production values across the sandbox style gameplay have been low traditionally. This leads to buggy games. On top of this, as I stated earlier, they break it down further with mechanics that are ONLY geared towards specific players. Whereas this isn't bad if you determine success based on it fulfilling that role for your demographic -- many times these demographics aren't large enough to sustain a profitable playerbase -- and that seems to be the biggest issue.
Thats why many companies diversify their directions, or take an initially exciting concept and make it bland to appeal to all types of gamers.
I wouldn't call games like FO3 or GTA sanboxes, they're what I call free-roaming. They give you the option to go about doing what ever you feel like at a given time, within the confines of the game. While you can turn FO3 into a true sandbox with MODS, it is not a sandbox, however, you can forgo the path of FO3 and found your own city. With the right mod of course (Real Time Settler, RTS).
Sandboxes are all about tools, with no tools, there is no sandbox. The question of whether sandboxes attract casual gamers is an easy one to answer. There is no game more sandbox oriented than the Sims IMO. Which is the leading product on the PC for the casual market.
If there was ever a MMO like Fallout 3, Morrowind or Oblivion (GTA and RDR too, but I haven't played those two)...I would never leave the house again lol. Okay maybe I would, but you get my point :P This will be a long post...I'm probably add this to my blog too.
Excuse the rambling rant...my mind is scattered today, I'm on pain killers...and tired as heck...
Sure Fallout 3/Oblivion/Morrowind aren't TRUE sandbox games. They are more of a hybrid. But, with player made mods (as mentioned) you can easily turn then into sandbox games. I built a pretty large settlement in FO3 with mods. But this is what I imagine would do really good in a MMO. A hybrid MMO, like Fallout 3 or Oblivion. I actually prefer Oblivion a bit more than FO3, but both are awesome. But the point is, I'll be talking about Oblivion a bit more.
In Oblivion, you are really free to do whatever. But before I get to that, I'm going to get to the actual meat of why these games last so long on the PC version. Console versions of these from what I've seen have a lot less life expectancy, but don't quote me on that. Thats just what I've personally seen with friends, their friends, family, etc. I've racked up 100s and 100s (more like thousands) of hours in Oblivion. 100s and 100s in Fallout 3, and unknown amount in Morrowind. Way more than I have any MMO (WoW, EVE and Asheron's Call being my longest played MMOs).
AC for 2-3 years
WoW 4 or so years
EVE for about a year, and I still play EVE.
But, why does Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Morrowind last so long? Because I can download mods, I can download texture packs to improve the graphics, I can change the very game itself. Take Nehrim in Oblivion, a Total Conversion. Its like Oblivion, but at the same time a whole new experience. But lets talk about the mods that change the actual game. Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul, a game changer that imo really really improves vanilla Oblivion. My favorite mod ever (outside Nehrim)...Mart's Mutant Mod (Fallout 3), Mart's Monster Mod (Oblivion)...why? Because it adds SO much new monsters and everything. MMM adds tons of stuff to FO3 and Oblivion.
Then real time settler (FO3), an awesome mod that lets you build stuff...pretty self explanatory
My point? I can talk about mods all day...but the point I'm getting to...I can't change a MMO to fit my needs or wants. I can't upgrade the graphics with player made mods, I can't download mods that add new monsters to the game word. I can't change ANYTHING with a MMO. I can suggest to the devs to change something, but with 1000s or millions of people, I have a better chance at winning the lottery than single handedly getting something changed in a MMO. Now a large group of people can make a change, which is what a MMO is about...large groups of people...but my change might anger 10s of thousands if not more. The closest I can do that, is with EVE and Ultima Online and SWG before it got destroyed. And those aren't really the same, but they are (or were in SWG case), my favorite MMOs ever. In EVE, I can build on planets (do note, I haven't tried this feature yet, took a break from EVE)...in UO I could build my own house and do whatever. In SWG, well...I hate talking about SWG because it was so awesome, and so much freedom that I always get upset it got destroyed.
But mods I just don't see working for a MMO. I mean, they could very well work, players make changes/additions, developers look over it, and decide to or not to implement it...it would have to be different than in Oblivion or Fallout 3. The closest I can think of that would work universally would be graphics enhancers...but many MMO ban anything that changes graphics. Like, if I want a nudity mod (and yeah yeah yeah, call me a perv...but...)...if Blizzard knew I used one, boom...BAN STICK. Not like nudity mods are any good with WoW, doesn't work at all. In fact, its really disturbing to use for WoW, and no I've never used one for WoW, but I did look at screenshots. But that isn't really my point. Now take Fallout 3, it makes perfect sense to have a nudity mod...just take a freakin look at the setting. Would a MMO company allow it though, even if it fit the game universe? Even if it was totally optional and up to the player? Probably not. The MMO developers hate anything that changes something for the player. They BAN STICK you in seconds as soon as they see you changed something. Even if it affects NO ONE around you, except yourself. Yes, I'm looking at you Blizzard. But to summarise the mod experience, if it wasn't for player made mods in FO3 and Oblivion, I would have LONG ago stopped.
And that is what sucks about most MMO companies. Which brings me out of modding talk. They allow no freedom to the player. A player gets banned for having any sort of texture or graphics mod, nudity or not. Not like there are actually mods that upgrade graphics to a MMO (that would be a lot of work), but I know there are minor things that don't involve nudity, and player(s) get banned for those too. On top of that, take Blizzard...a group of people took a raid boss into Stormwind...everyone had fun, but a bunch of whiny kids complained...the group of people that took the raid boss (most fun thing I ever got to experience in WoW)...were all BANNED! For it. Also, remember how you could jump on top of buildings and climb mountains and stuff? Blizzard nerfed that too. No freedom to the player.
Take EVE though. UO too, and vanilla SWG...but my memory is a bit rusty on the last two. In EVE, I can scam someone (definitely banned in a certain other MMO), I can grief someone (banned in a certain other MMO)...or I can go the "nice" and "carebear" I guess is a word I could use for that, approach...but the point is, CCP and EVE are one of the very few companies that allow FREEDOM in a MMO. Now, there are exploits not meant to be used, like that one corperation that took advantage of an exploit in wormhole space, I can understand fixing that...there always needs to be a point to freedom, otherwise it turns to Anarchy. Nothing can be truly free. But certain other MMOs just take the freedom away from you, and give you a dictatorship. Find something fun? Like climbing onto buildings? Oh, lets "fix" that. Raid boss into a city, which is uber awesome. Griefing, lets ban them all. Well, at least I have a CHOICE not to give them my money.
So to summarize this whole thing, that turned into a random rant...
The problem with MMO companies is they do not allow FREEDOM to do what you want (at least to a point). Themepark MMOs are the biggest culprit in this. Most sandbox games I've played allow a lot of freedom (like in EVE). But the problem with sandbox MMOs...they need some guidance to the player. Fallout 3 and Oblivion allow great freedom to do whatever (especially with mods), but I also get a choice to do quests and follow a story. Heck, in Oblivion I only finished the story once in about 20 hours in...all other 100s if not 1000s of hours were exploring the world, downloading quest packs, downloading NEW lands to play in. I only touched the main story once, all other times I played it more or less like a sandbox game (that has quests).
Now, Fallen Earth I believe tried to do something similar. It had a free roam world, a lot of sandbox elements, but a lot themepark elements too. The problem? The game was TOO themepark like. And I hated having to grind AP from quests (and yes, you had to if you wanted to PvP with the big boys), I love quests, but if it feels FORCED, then I hate it. Not to talk about the horrible economy in FE, where every single thing could be bought from vendors...that was the deal breaker for me.
Fallout 3, Oblivion, even WoW really...the quests never felt forced on you. At least it didn't feel like that to me. I had the choice to do them or not. In WoW, I didn't really have a choice, but it never felt forced...if that makes sense.
So, my question is....what can MMO developers do, to copy the genre (be that free roam, or sandbox, or whatever you want to call it)...of Morrowind, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion, Fallout 3...if a MMO comes out that is like any of them, in my opinion, it would be a HUGE hit. That is, if it actually comes out with good quality, a good release (WoW had an awesome release, the main problem with WoW was, they did not expect so many people to buy it, it was polished though and wasn't rushed out of the door to release because of lack of funding. No MMO company I know of (lol SOE) takes Blizzards "release when its ready" approach, and that is a big mistake many make, and why most fail). Well, LOTRO had a great release from what I remember...but I don't know much about Turbine's past releases.
Anyway, thats it from this rambling rant...
Check out my nature/animal/relaxing music channel on Youtube!
Comments
I am a theme park gal. I enjoy what other people have to say about a story and I enjoy being led by one. May sound sad and unimaginative but I was one of those people who was never very abstract and was better at maths then philosophy. I do not like classical music and I do not have an appreciation for art either. I am however incredibly practical and I am always very orientated with a goal in mind.
I am the type of person that enjoys a good story and I love it unfolding before me and I enjoy having choices on how that story may turn out but you give me a blank slate and I get bored, I cannot fill it up. People like me exist so that the other types of people can tell us stories. I am not ashamed to admit it either that a lot of times I don't get a piece of art or some vague principal in jurisprudence...god I damn near failed that subject but we all have something we are good at and what we enjoy and I don't enjoy sandboxes.
I used to hate art it was mandatory in primary school and the class I hated more than the normal art class was when the teacher would tell us to paint anything. What the devil is anything ? I would be stumped for so long until I came up with the idea of doing letters. Geometrical patterns now that I can understand. There was this girl in my class she could fill a canvass in no time during that class and every corner of her painting something was happening. I would just watch her rather than do anything else. Years later after having lost touch with almost all my primary schoolmates I met her in university and I was surprised to discover her not doing art. What an utter waste I thought. She was practical she said no money in it when I asked.
I also do not agree with the OP's premise that when you get choices in an single player game it is sandboxy. When you get choices that fact that your choices are limited which inevitably they are and you are forced to choose then it is no longer the freedom of a sandbox. Sandbox do not limit you to a-e choices. The games you picked to illustrate your idea of a sandbox all steer you to a conclusion granted they are one of many if at all but to a definite type of conclusion. Unless I have misunderstood what sandbox means the single player games all have a goal and story in mind. How you go about achieving that story can be linear and more rail like but others give you some freedom but ultimately you have to take steps to complete the story. So how can it be a sandbox then when you do not get complete freedom on how to end the story ?
This is definetly part of the problem. I like to think of myself as a 'journey' type of gamer. I've played WoW for years because I love the journey it provides. In turn I quit pre-CU SWG and EVE because they turned out to be too much 'destination' forcused.
There is a big difference between "sandboxes" like GTA, RDR, or FO3 and "sandboxes" like UO or Eve.
In the GTA vein, you have a game type more like a themepark than an MMO sandbox, it just has a more freeroaming map and more nonlinear gameplay, but it is a game that has a clear focus, in GTA you are a criminal, in RDR you are a lawman or criminal, in Fallout 3 you are a wasteland survivor that either saves or destroys DC. None of these games really allow you to anything but those, you can't for instance forgo combat and found your own city in the wasteland to open up a burger joint. These games may have a lot of variety and minigames to them but it is all variety within the scope and focus of the game. If anything I would consider these types of games to be an evolution of a more "themepark" style of game rather than sandbox, even though people use the same word and make it confusing.
Sandboxes like Eve or UO for example, have little focus, other than a "virtual world" where you are supose to be able to choose from all kinds of types of gameplay, as a result you don't get as tight of an experience as say Fallout 3 because th game has to support all kinds of different gameplay rather than focusing on one type in depth. So I think sandboxes like this are more for people that want to do a lot of things wihin one game rather than focus on a particual thing, like being a criminal.
Do I think there will be "sandbox" MMOs like Fallout 3? Yes and I think they will do rather well, but to get to that point I think you have to pick up where current themepark games left off and find ways to make it more open and nonlinear. I do not think "sandboxes" or world simulations like UO or Eve will ever do that well, Eve is probably that most popular one in that respect, but largely these games are simulation games and sim games don't have that big of a market. Really though if sandbox games just went straight sim game I think they would do better, now they just strattle the fence between RPG and sim and don't do either that well, if they were straight up sim games I think they would find their audience.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I wouldn't call games like FO3 or GTA sanboxes, they're what I call free-roaming. They give you the option to go about doing what ever you feel like at a given time, within the confines of the game. While you can turn FO3 into a true sandbox with MODS, it is not a sandbox, however, you can forgo the path of FO3 and found your own city. With the right mod of course (Real Time Settler, RTS).
Sandboxes are all about tools, with no tools, there is no sandbox. The question of whether sandboxes attract casual gamers is an easy one to answer. There is no game more sandbox oriented than the Sims IMO. Which is the leading product on the PC for the casual market.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
RDR, Fallout and GTA are all really hybrids instead of true sandboxes. These games have stories and endings, they give you a direction, and quests. They have a strong sandbox foundation.
There are differences between these games and Sandbox MMOs. First, take a sandbox style game, which some could argue is a niche -- but for the purpose of this argument, lets say Sandbox = Themepark.
Most sandbox style games aren't JUST sandbox games... they continue down the path with FFAPVP and sometimes FULL Loot or, god forbid, permadeath.
So now you don't just have a Sandbox game, but you now chop that up to Sandbox + FFAPVP+Full Loot and where once Sandbox = Themepark, now its been sliced to become a niche yet once again. Many players don't like nor can handle the idea of FFAPVP.. they don't want to be attacked everywhere... they don't want to lose their stuff when they die.
Sandbox games are great, but a true sandbox with all of these things incorporated not only can't but WILL NOT appeal to the masses. The closest thing we will ever see is a clean cut hybridization of the genres. Too many developers think it has to be one or the other, but a mesh of the two I believe will yield greater results. Currently we have more themeparks trying to implement Sandbox elements... I hope to see more sandbox frameworks adding slight themepark elements for MMOs in the future.
Um, no. It was a general reflection upon the difference between those that possibly enjoy sandboxes and those that enjoy themeparks.
Just a random thought I had out while smoking a ciggy.
My apologies for not reading the rest of your post...just wanted to clarify that it was not to you nor anybody in particular or even in general.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Well, I think the basic reason why you don't see many popular sandbox MMO's is simply because resource wise it's ALOT harder and more complex to make a GOOD quality sandbox game then it is to make a GOOD quality theme-park game...so most big developers being risk averse tend to avoid them.
For example it's alot easier to create a system that can handle... "You are in a room with 3 doors. Do you open Door A, Door B or Door C ?". Then it is to create one that can handle.... "You are in a room. What do you do?"
I have little doubt that MOST players would actually prefer a sandbox game, IF designed well.... it's just alot harder to achieve that.
With the MMO market becoming more crowded and competitive...I think you WILL see more MMO Developers try to introduce more sandbox style elements into thier games...in order to differentiate from the competition and capture under-served markets. What you see with GW2 and it's Dynamic Events System is an example. Note that while that system is not a complete sandbox....it is alot more reflective of it then the traditional themepark MMO mechanics. In GW2, the players actions WILL have an effect on the game world.... That's a sandbox principle.... it's just that there will be some strict parameters which will control the boundaries of exactly what that effect will be (probably a good thing).
Note that GOOD sandbox designs don't neccesarly have to leave the players directionless. A good design will have lots of story/event hooks which can SUGGEST to a player what path they may take.... they just don't FORCE a player to take ONLY that path. That's the real difference between sandbox and theme-park. A sandbox CAN have rails...but it lets you go off the rails if you want to do so.
Furthermore, it's not even true that sandbox games can't have any boundaries that they enforce. A sandbox game can prevent players from being purple-unicorn-vampires who make a living by growing grapefruit at the North Pole...just as the real world does.... some things will work and some things just wont....and actions have meaningfull consequences.
You're right about that for the most part, though the SIMS 3 does have a broader focus, maybe I should have said this in regard to that game in particular. I was more or less pointing out the similarities in what the sims offers and what a traditional sandbox should. The opportunity to change the world and create your own content/focus.
A correlation that casual players tend to love having these abilities within their games, and that the popular casual games usually have more in common with sandboxes, than they do themeparks, was my overall point. Just look at farmville.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The big difference is that in the Sims, I can make a house in this little editor that gives me lots of options, so it is both easy to use and powerfull. Or take a game like Wurm where to make a house requires you to grind up a skill first then stick build the house for a couple of hours, less user friendly and less power and overall less fun since there are few options to customize your house.
This is why I say sandbox MMOs should evolve into sim games, because sim games are all about the tools and editors to let the player simulate stuff. Right now sandbox games have tools that are neither powerful nor fun, just grindy.
People want to build houses give them a sims house tool, people want to build cities, give them a sim city tool, people want to make a faction, give them a civ tool., people want to make content give them a LBP tool. Most of the "content creation" in sandboxes now is just pretend because the players don't actually the tools to do anything worthwhile, so all you got is rather grindy gameplay with imaginary content creation.
If a sandbox game really dedicated itself to the simulation concept and left themeparks to be RPGs, then I think you could have a really fun game. If they keep going as is then they will never make it, and no ammount of polish or hybridizing going to save them. I also think it is unfortunate that sandboxes have thrown in with the FFA PKs, because this negatively impacts their appeal.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Very true, for the casuals there has to be a streamlined approach with semi-instant access to the tools needed to create. Progression could come in the form of better upgrades over time.
The true problem with todays sandbox games is that, the barrier to entry. As well as the constant ffa focus, these things are what hold this side of the genre back.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
While I don't really disagree with you, OP, methinx most pro-sandbox folks would argue that your examples aren't really sandboxes, aside from being able to go anywhere in the game world.
Fallout 3, the game most familiar to me(obviously) has next to no crafting, and aside from being able to blow Megaton off the map, you can't really build what you want within the gaming world. Your actions have some consequences, but not much extending beyond consequence A or B.
Methinx the reasons behind there being little sandbox support from major studios are many and varied. Sandboxes are more difficult to make, more difficult to make FUN, more difficult to maintain and balance, and more difficult to predict success for.
Eve survives and does pretty well, because as others have said, they handled PVP pretty well. Also, you can do things of various intensity in the game. You can stay docked for hours and do things, or put yourself in a system with 100 of your best buds and scrap with 200 of your worst enemies. All this, and lots in between. And don't forget it started out very small when the genre was smaller and grew as the MMO genre grew. It's probably harder to convince investors that "smaller is fine" in the market at its current size.
Anyhoo, the different levels of intensity in Eve is the key, IMO, and I think is why FFA PvP games don't penetrate. One level of intensity... paranoia.
A new sandbox will require those levels of gameplay, methinx... and the patience to let the game and the sub numbers grow over time.
I'll go out into left field here and point out that it does not matter what the majority of the population likes. Honestly, what the majority likes is generally a completely lackluster compromise of whatever form of media or art is involved.
The majority likes Transformers2, American Idol, McDonald's and Justin Bieber. These are far from the "best" anything. It is merely a symptom of this MMO industry's youth that most games are still judged solely by their sales numbers.
We need to get to a point that most mature art/media industries are at - where it is possible to produce a high-quality targeted product. I don't want to say "niche" because that implies really small and it need not be. We need to get to the point where developers that want to create an MMO "for the art of it" are able to do it, do it in high quality and still make some money back if it doesn't suck.
What we have in the MMO industry today is the equivalent of a film industry where THE ONLY way to get a film made is for $200 million and the only way for it to succeed is to gross $500 million. The film industry is mature enough that a film can be produced for 1-20 million and easily surpass a 200 million dollar film in every possible way. The same is true in publishing, in music, in TV.
The MMO industry simply needs to evolve to the same point. Because today, it seems that the only way to produce a AAA MMO is for 50+ million and it has to get a million subs to be successful. This isn't possible or sustainable unless those Bieber fans suddenly turn to MMOs.
CCP has shown the way with EVE. I'm not talking about the mechanics of EVE or about it being sandbox or FFA PvP or anything like that. i"m talking about producing a high-quality product, with a vision in mind for that product that is uncompromising in what it is trying to achieve "artistically" and after building it, having it take off to its desired audience. It will never be WoW. It will never match WoW. It will never be "what the majority wants". But it neither tries nor wants to be. That's the point. More EVEs, less WoWs please. Not that there isn't room for a blockbuster, there always is - here comes TOR! But a blockbuster isn't the ONLY thing there is room for. That too is the point.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
I have to agree. Me not liking sandbox games isn't because there are no "clear goals", "instant gratification" or other gibberish. It is because sandbox games tend to be sub-par games. I have yet to see a sandbox MMORPG with a good game in its core. Many sandboxy single player RPGs have this.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think thats really a minor argument. People don't like things that are "popular" just because they are popular. Some people might, but ultimately the higher the production value, the more polished the product is. Small budget companies can still make great games, noone is denying that, but this relies on a different company mindset instead of a different consumer mindset.
I don't need to change my affection for well built, polished and fun games, regardless of costs.
Like it or not, MMO companies are trying to bring in gamers and even non gamers from other Genres. This is one of the successes WoW accomplished that not many others have had the chance to do. In order to do that, accessibility is key, not so much art. Garnering any kind of foothold in a volatile MMO market is tough enough with a large budget, smaller less known games are rarely able to contend.
I also find it interesting that you bring up TOR as a blockbuster, yet you also mention that you wish games would produce " a high-quality product, with a vision in mind for that product that is uncompromising in what it is trying to achieve "artistically" and after building it, having it take off to its desired audience. "
Whereas TOR takes a lot of flack for their artistic view of the universe, the clear views on Space Combat, and class interpretations as well as story structure. I think BioWare is the best case of a company producing a high quality produce with a very specific vision in mind, geared towards its very specific audiences.
What does this all have to do with Sandbox games? Well, again, pretending they are not niche, production values across the sandbox style gameplay have been low traditionally. This leads to buggy games. On top of this, as I stated earlier, they break it down further with mechanics that are ONLY geared towards specific players. Whereas this isn't bad if you determine success based on it fulfilling that role for your demographic -- many times these demographics aren't large enough to sustain a profitable playerbase -- and that seems to be the biggest issue.
Thats why many companies diversify their directions, or take an initially exciting concept and make it bland to appeal to all types of gamers.
THAT is a very good point.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
If there was ever a MMO like Fallout 3, Morrowind or Oblivion (GTA and RDR too, but I haven't played those two)...I would never leave the house again lol. Okay maybe I would, but you get my point :P This will be a long post...I'm probably add this to my blog too.
Excuse the rambling rant...my mind is scattered today, I'm on pain killers...and tired as heck...
Sure Fallout 3/Oblivion/Morrowind aren't TRUE sandbox games. They are more of a hybrid. But, with player made mods (as mentioned) you can easily turn then into sandbox games. I built a pretty large settlement in FO3 with mods. But this is what I imagine would do really good in a MMO. A hybrid MMO, like Fallout 3 or Oblivion. I actually prefer Oblivion a bit more than FO3, but both are awesome. But the point is, I'll be talking about Oblivion a bit more.
In Oblivion, you are really free to do whatever. But before I get to that, I'm going to get to the actual meat of why these games last so long on the PC version. Console versions of these from what I've seen have a lot less life expectancy, but don't quote me on that. Thats just what I've personally seen with friends, their friends, family, etc. I've racked up 100s and 100s (more like thousands) of hours in Oblivion. 100s and 100s in Fallout 3, and unknown amount in Morrowind. Way more than I have any MMO (WoW, EVE and Asheron's Call being my longest played MMOs).
AC for 2-3 years
WoW 4 or so years
EVE for about a year, and I still play EVE.
But, why does Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Morrowind last so long? Because I can download mods, I can download texture packs to improve the graphics, I can change the very game itself. Take Nehrim in Oblivion, a Total Conversion. Its like Oblivion, but at the same time a whole new experience. But lets talk about the mods that change the actual game. Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul, a game changer that imo really really improves vanilla Oblivion. My favorite mod ever (outside Nehrim)...Mart's Mutant Mod (Fallout 3), Mart's Monster Mod (Oblivion)...why? Because it adds SO much new monsters and everything. MMM adds tons of stuff to FO3 and Oblivion.
Then real time settler (FO3), an awesome mod that lets you build stuff...pretty self explanatory
My point? I can talk about mods all day...but the point I'm getting to...I can't change a MMO to fit my needs or wants. I can't upgrade the graphics with player made mods, I can't download mods that add new monsters to the game word. I can't change ANYTHING with a MMO. I can suggest to the devs to change something, but with 1000s or millions of people, I have a better chance at winning the lottery than single handedly getting something changed in a MMO. Now a large group of people can make a change, which is what a MMO is about...large groups of people...but my change might anger 10s of thousands if not more. The closest I can do that, is with EVE and Ultima Online and SWG before it got destroyed. And those aren't really the same, but they are (or were in SWG case), my favorite MMOs ever. In EVE, I can build on planets (do note, I haven't tried this feature yet, took a break from EVE)...in UO I could build my own house and do whatever. In SWG, well...I hate talking about SWG because it was so awesome, and so much freedom that I always get upset it got destroyed.
But mods I just don't see working for a MMO. I mean, they could very well work, players make changes/additions, developers look over it, and decide to or not to implement it...it would have to be different than in Oblivion or Fallout 3. The closest I can think of that would work universally would be graphics enhancers...but many MMO ban anything that changes graphics. Like, if I want a nudity mod (and yeah yeah yeah, call me a perv...but...)...if Blizzard knew I used one, boom...BAN STICK. Not like nudity mods are any good with WoW, doesn't work at all. In fact, its really disturbing to use for WoW, and no I've never used one for WoW, but I did look at screenshots. But that isn't really my point. Now take Fallout 3, it makes perfect sense to have a nudity mod...just take a freakin look at the setting. Would a MMO company allow it though, even if it fit the game universe? Even if it was totally optional and up to the player? Probably not. The MMO developers hate anything that changes something for the player. They BAN STICK you in seconds as soon as they see you changed something. Even if it affects NO ONE around you, except yourself. Yes, I'm looking at you Blizzard. But to summarise the mod experience, if it wasn't for player made mods in FO3 and Oblivion, I would have LONG ago stopped.
And that is what sucks about most MMO companies. Which brings me out of modding talk. They allow no freedom to the player. A player gets banned for having any sort of texture or graphics mod, nudity or not. Not like there are actually mods that upgrade graphics to a MMO (that would be a lot of work), but I know there are minor things that don't involve nudity, and player(s) get banned for those too. On top of that, take Blizzard...a group of people took a raid boss into Stormwind...everyone had fun, but a bunch of whiny kids complained...the group of people that took the raid boss (most fun thing I ever got to experience in WoW)...were all BANNED! For it. Also, remember how you could jump on top of buildings and climb mountains and stuff? Blizzard nerfed that too. No freedom to the player.
Take EVE though. UO too, and vanilla SWG...but my memory is a bit rusty on the last two. In EVE, I can scam someone (definitely banned in a certain other MMO), I can grief someone (banned in a certain other MMO)...or I can go the "nice" and "carebear" I guess is a word I could use for that, approach...but the point is, CCP and EVE are one of the very few companies that allow FREEDOM in a MMO. Now, there are exploits not meant to be used, like that one corperation that took advantage of an exploit in wormhole space, I can understand fixing that...there always needs to be a point to freedom, otherwise it turns to Anarchy. Nothing can be truly free. But certain other MMOs just take the freedom away from you, and give you a dictatorship. Find something fun? Like climbing onto buildings? Oh, lets "fix" that. Raid boss into a city, which is uber awesome. Griefing, lets ban them all. Well, at least I have a CHOICE not to give them my money.
So to summarize this whole thing, that turned into a random rant...
The problem with MMO companies is they do not allow FREEDOM to do what you want (at least to a point). Themepark MMOs are the biggest culprit in this. Most sandbox games I've played allow a lot of freedom (like in EVE). But the problem with sandbox MMOs...they need some guidance to the player. Fallout 3 and Oblivion allow great freedom to do whatever (especially with mods), but I also get a choice to do quests and follow a story. Heck, in Oblivion I only finished the story once in about 20 hours in...all other 100s if not 1000s of hours were exploring the world, downloading quest packs, downloading NEW lands to play in. I only touched the main story once, all other times I played it more or less like a sandbox game (that has quests).
Now, Fallen Earth I believe tried to do something similar. It had a free roam world, a lot of sandbox elements, but a lot themepark elements too. The problem? The game was TOO themepark like. And I hated having to grind AP from quests (and yes, you had to if you wanted to PvP with the big boys), I love quests, but if it feels FORCED, then I hate it. Not to talk about the horrible economy in FE, where every single thing could be bought from vendors...that was the deal breaker for me.
Fallout 3, Oblivion, even WoW really...the quests never felt forced on you. At least it didn't feel like that to me. I had the choice to do them or not. In WoW, I didn't really have a choice, but it never felt forced...if that makes sense.
So, my question is....what can MMO developers do, to copy the genre (be that free roam, or sandbox, or whatever you want to call it)...of Morrowind, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion, Fallout 3...if a MMO comes out that is like any of them, in my opinion, it would be a HUGE hit. That is, if it actually comes out with good quality, a good release (WoW had an awesome release, the main problem with WoW was, they did not expect so many people to buy it, it was polished though and wasn't rushed out of the door to release because of lack of funding. No MMO company I know of (lol SOE) takes Blizzards "release when its ready" approach, and that is a big mistake many make, and why most fail). Well, LOTRO had a great release from what I remember...but I don't know much about Turbine's past releases.
Anyway, thats it from this rambling rant...
Check out my nature/animal/relaxing music channel on Youtube!
My game channel on Youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/vendayn