Atm i feel that the words "themepark" and "sandbox" do not cover the possibilities of the meaning of "Virtual World". MMORPGing for me is adventuring in a virtual world that has a rich history and therefore adventures that not belong only to players trying to "green thumb" a sand desert but also to the lore of the virtual world offered by the old inhabitants (npcs) of this world that have to ignore, coop, struggle, fight with the desertlovers of different type.
I want back the entertainment in the virtual world setting!
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
For me MMORPG's were supposed to offer virtual worlds in which the players were the focus. Having started out as a PnP player, then on to muds and such it was clear that the trend was towards greater detail and greater fidelity to a virtual world, greater immersion. Highly instanced, zoned worlds in which the players have little to no impact on the world and even worse the focus of player interaction has trended away from player-to-player, towards player-to-npc, have stopped the trend towards greater fidelity and immersion and in some cases has reversed it.
Bottomline: I don't avoid themeparks.When they come out, I've tried them. I've played WoW, AoC, LoTRo, FFXIV (and if I can get a free trial for Rift, I'll try that one too). And so far when I've tried them, their offering when compared to my expectation of the genre just makes them too shallow to hold my interest for more than a month or two.
Games need to be based on gear, because if you base them on players' skills, since this planet is full of dumb idiots, only few who have brains (i'm not in the category btw) will be able to succeed, and ofc the big audience will turn away.
if you remember in the far past, games were for the skilled ones and only few could state they could beat them- and they were entertainement only for nerds and geek.. not enough customers to invest huge amount of monay and make big profits.
So, expect to have game based on gear grinding until tecnology will provide tools to replace this mechanic, because business wants big audience and big audience is dumb.
Games need to be based on gear, because if you base them on players' skills, since this planet is full of dumb idiots, only few who have brains (i'm not in the category btw) will be able to succeed, and ofc the big audience will turn away.
if you remember in the far past, games were for the skilled ones and only few could state they could beat them- and they were entertainement only for nerds and geek.. not enough customers to invest huge amount of monay and make big profits.
So, expect to have game based on gear grinding until tecnology will provide tools to replace this mechanic, because business wants big audience and big audience is dumb.
I rememebr games on my NES that I couldn't ever beat, but now you can play through the average game in 6 hours.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
My concern with Rift has never been that it's a themepark. If you want to class games like LotRO in with themeparks then I could quite happily say I can enjoy themepark style MMOs. I suspect you would also include games such as EQ2 which I enjoyed. I prefer a game built around a complex world but I can have fun in simpler games.
Rift has taken things to a whole new level. Where as LotRO and EQ2 were quest-based adventures they also had much more going for them in the form of some difficulty, meaningful grouping and alternative levelling paths. Rift doesn't. Rift strips the genre down in almost every area. Where the game does show signs of innovation is in the class system and the dynamic events but both are wasted in a shallow game.
So I might long for a truly innovative sandox title but I can have fun in themeparks, and I have done so in the past. Rift really is a disappointment for themeparks though, let alone MMOs in general. Sure I'd like more from my games. I'd love to see the final end of quest based games and I'd like to see games somewhat more challenging and focus on promoting fun at all levels rather than just the end ones. I often say the state of MMOs is bad, and it's not great really. Rift really puts the ball firmly in the court of a downhill trend if you ask me.
From where I am sat I can not help but feel it is a little stereotypical of MMORPG.com to be so defining the distinction between possible types of MMO gamer. Is it yet another defence of Rift in the face of much displeasure? Didn't another staff member write a blog on the subject of stereotyping of players within this genre very recently?
The thing is, Sandbox players always complain there aren't sandbox games. And when one gets released, like Darkfall, they cry about how it's not polished and complete enough.
But hello, pretty much all MMORPGs suffer from that problem.
All the major theme park MMORPGs launched in the last few years were lacking in content and/or polish or just flawed. Age of Conan, WAR, even Lotro...
Sandboxers keep looking for the perfect game that will live up to their rose color tinted memories of past sandbox games. But nothing can. So they need to get behind the games that do exist (like Darkfall) and support them...
The simple reason why theme parks are more preferable and successful in the MMO field is that people, especially younger people, have become extremely mentally lazy in the last 10 or so years. As an IT specialist I can tell you that in 99% of the situations I see, an individual having a manual for a piece of equipment is a total waste because they won't read it. They want knowledge, success, experience served to them on a silver platter by a tuxedo wearing servant. They want to come out of college with a $50-80k job waiting for them. This carries over into the MMO world.
Spend 5 minutes reading the general chat on WoW or most other theme park games and you'll see that. They ask ridiculous questions that could easily be answered by spending 5 minutes on Google, or even reading the online instructions provided by the manufacturer.
The other reason is just the phenomenal success of WoW has convinced developers that the WoW, theme park approach is the one that works. Of course, they forget that EQ1, DoAC and UO preceded WoW and were all successful in their own right and for the most part, had very few theme park aspects, and that WoW is really the ONLY hugely successful theme park game. All others have had to go FTP or have very low populations.
But WoW figured out a long time ago what drives the average MMO gamer...pretty much the same thing that drives most people...elitism. The idea that "I'm better than you" or "I have something you don't have." For example, they have "vanity" pets, hard to acquire, very expensive or special "rewards" . The very thing that drives away serious gamers, the elitism, childish power trips and whatnot, is what fuels their huge player base. It's not really about the game experience, per se, it's about getting to the top as fast and as easy as possible and then being the most uber, powerful, unbeatable, whatever class you are in the world!!! And of course, that's driven by gear acquisition. So, it's all about "keeping up with the Joneses" and the content is relatively meaningless except as a means to that end. Crafting, rather than being something that really drives the economy is little more than a time distraction because in most cases, it generates little net income because the loot drops far exceed the value of most crafted items. Blizzard knows that today's "average" player of an MMO wants everything handed to them and they do just that.
They've lowered the prices on all the "elitist" items players used to have..mounts, flying mounts, dual specs, etc to levels even a newb can afford so that instead of a player feeling like "I can't wait to get to 40 for my mount" and "I'd better start saving for it", you now get it at 20 and it's only 10 gold as opposed to 100. Player classes like Paladins and Warlocks who used to have to do involved, expensive quests, requiring help from friends or guildies, now get their epic mounts from their trainers with no quests.
Every expansion completely negates all previous content because the common loot drops far exceed the "epic" gear of the previous levels. Again, it's not about content, it's about the loot you get from it. This, in my opinion, will eventually be the downfall of WoW. And newer players will never experience what, at one time, was some of the best content in the game..Molten Core, Dire Maul, etc which now are totally unnecessary for level growth.
The worst thing missing from theme park games is tactics. No longer does a party have to plan it's attacks with care because even if you wipe, it's just a short run back to the dungeon and no harm done with the exception of having to pay a few gold for repairs later. And once you have epic gear, even the toughest bosses become ho hum.
Contrast this with EQ1, the Lost Dungeons of Norrath, where you had to move carefully from room to room, hallway to hallway because if you died, you were out unless you got rezzed and if the party wiped, then you start the whole shooting match over from square 1.
Frankly, I just don't see any company taking a chance on a theme park game with today's player base. Those of us who prefer that kind of game are a very small minority of the MMO world, I'm afraid.
The simple reason why theme parks are more preferable and successful in the MMO field is that people, especially younger people, have become extremely mentally lazy in the last 10 or so years. As an IT specialist I can tell you that in 99% of the situations I see, an individual having a manual for a piece of equipment is a total waste because they won't read it. They want knowledge, success, experience served to them on a silver platter by a tuxedo wearing servant. They want to come out of college with a $50-80k job waiting for them. This carries over into the MMO world.
Spend 5 minutes reading the general chat on WoW or most other theme park games and you'll see that. They ask ridiculous questions that could easily be answered by spending 5 minutes on Google, or even reading the online instructions provided by the manufacturer.
The other reason is just the phenomenal success of WoW has convinced developers that the WoW, theme park approach is the one that works. Of course, they forget that EQ1, DoAC and UO preceded WoW and were all successful in their own right and for the most part, had very few theme park aspects, and that WoW is really the ONLY hugely successful theme park game. All others have had to go FTP or have very low populations.
But WoW figured out a long time ago what drives the average MMO gamer...pretty much the same thing that drives most people...elitism. The idea that "I'm better than you" or "I have something you don't have." For example, they have "vanity" pets, hard to acquire, very expensive or special "rewards" . The very thing that drives away serious gamers, the elitism, childish power trips and whatnot, is what fuels their huge player base. It's not really about the game experience, per se, it's about getting to the top as fast and as easy as possible and then being the most uber, powerful, unbeatable, whatever class you are in the world!!! And of course, that's driven by gear acquisition. So, it's all about "keeping up with the Joneses" and the content is relatively meaningless except as a means to that end. Crafting, rather than being something that really drives the economy is little more than a time distraction because in most cases, it generates little net income because the loot drops far exceed the value of most crafted items. Blizzard knows that today's "average" player of an MMO wants everything handed to them and they do just that.
They've lowered the prices on all the "elitist" items players used to have..mounts, flying mounts, dual specs, etc to levels even a newb can afford so that instead of a player feeling like "I can't wait to get to 40 for my mount" and "I'd better start saving for it", you now get it at 20 and it's only 10 gold as opposed to 100. Player classes like Paladins and Warlocks who used to have to do involved, expensive quests, requiring help from friends or guildies, now get their epic mounts from their trainers with no quests.
Every expansion completely negates all previous content because the common loot drops far exceed the "epic" gear of the previous levels. Again, it's not about content, it's about the loot you get from it. This, in my opinion, will eventually be the downfall of WoW. And newer players will never experience what, at one time, was some of the best content in the game..Molten Core, Dire Maul, etc which now are totally unnecessary for level growth.
The worst thing missing from theme park games is tactics. No longer does a party have to plan it's attacks with care because even if you wipe, it's just a short run back to the dungeon and no harm done with the exception of having to pay a few gold for repairs later. And once you have epic gear, even the toughest bosses become ho hum.
Contrast this with EQ1, the Lost Dungeons of Norrath, where you had to move carefully from room to room, hallway to hallway because if you died, you were out unless you got rezzed and if the party wiped, then you start the whole shooting match over from square 1.
Frankly, I just don't see any company taking a chance on a theme park game with today's player base. Those of us who prefer that kind of game are a very small minority of the MMO world, I'm afraid.
Nice post and a good read, Branes.
Arguably I don't think this is a case of themepark versus sandbox. I think those two terms are way too generalised and any good game should look to overlap boundaries and encompass something of everything. The situation we see in MMO gaming is just what you describe with WoW. We've gone through a series of steps from fleshed out games of the EQ generation to games that evaporate it all down to the simplest form, in Rift.
For all the comments WoW gets I would happily state that it was in the middle of this trend. I played the game close to release and I enjoyed seeing the new places and travelling the world and I enjoyed the PvP and group content with friends. It all started to drain heavily on me around the 40th level though. Other games from around that time, and since, have faired similiarly. Then Rift came along and I experienced the whole ride in a few beta tests. Rift is the culmination of the removal of detail and the addition of easy gratification in MMOs. MMOs can not go further down the path than Rift, they can only rise again. That gives me hope for the likes of GW2. Developers are, I think, starting to see what we have come to and where MMOs need to return to.
Worlds over pathways/tracks/rollercoasters, or whatever you want to call them, is what needs to be adressed. Not themepark or sandbox. EQ and even WoW, in its early days, were worlds. Since then there has been a steady downwards progression to the rollercoaster rides that are games like Rift. Rift is the simplest, straightest and least scary rollercoaster ride yet.
Anyone notice that MMOs prior to WoW never - or at least very seldom - ever had all these big debates and discussions about "what was wrong with the genre" brought about by them?
EA created UO. People played it. Many people found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
Turbine made Asheron's Call. People played it. Many found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
SOE made EQ. People played it. Many found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
CCP made Eve. People played it. Many found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
SE with FFXI. Funcom with Anarchy Online... and on and on and on...
Each MMO brought its own flavor and theme and approach to the MMO genre. Beyond the basic staples of levels, quests, gear, and killing stuff... they were each their own unique experiences. People played the MMO whose design they preferred and ignored those they didn't. Everyone interested in MMOs at all could find a game they enjoyed. Everyone was happy.
WoW comes along and blows MMOs into the mainstream to the point that people who hadn't even known what a MMO was knew about WoW.
Companies who previously showed no interest in MMOs at all suddenly were hopping on the bandwagon, trying to get their piece of the MMO pie. As typically happens in the aftermath of that trend, MMOs have become progressively less and less original and more and more derivative.
Here we are now debating about "what the problems are in the MMO genre" and "how should MMOs be made" and "who should be given more attention, Theme Park or Sandbox players...". Everyone's more concerned about whether or not "new MMO x" is going to be "The WoW Killer", than they are in whether or not they'd even enjoy it; giving the idea undue significance. Nothing has to be a WoW killer. It just has to be a good enough game to get people interested in playing, and provide enough to keep them playing. That's it.
Looking back to the pre-WoW days and how straightforward it was by comparison... it seems to me that we're tackling an issue that needn't exist. It's a "problem" that people have created and developers are perpetuating, IMO.
Maybe we need to stop needlessly complicating things, rewind back to the pre-WoW days when developers simply identified a genre they were interested in, designed the kind of game they wanted to create, created it and then open the doors to the players who would come to call it "home".
I might over-simplify the situation and miss some of the nuances of it... but I think the general concept is solid.
Between players, developers and publishers, things have become so convoluted and ridiculous.. it's no wonder the genre's been in such a crappy state. Everyone's going nuts trying to "figure out what players want so they can make the perfect MMO that appeals to everyone", when all they really need to do, and should do in my opinion, is create a really good, solid game that appeals to a specific cross-section of MMO players. Make it the best damn incarnation of that kind of game they can, and do so unapologetically.
If you want to attract a solid, loyal sci-fi fanbase, you do it by making a solid sci-fi movie that caters specifically to what Sci-Fi fans are looking for. You don't worry about what the people who like romance, fantasy, drama and horror "think you should include" so it's more appealing to them. They aren't your core audience.
If you're a progressive Metal band, you cater to that type of fan-base by creating very progressive music, and doing it unapologetically. Don't worry about what pop, rock, classic or new-age fans "think you should make" so it's more appealing to them. They aren't your core audience.
I just think developers have gotten away from that fundamental concept. I think players have - generally speaking - been so bombarded with "what's the best type of game style" in all its varieties, that it's become more difficult than it should be to decide which one is the most ideal for them. We've been barraged with marketing and PR for various MMO's saying "Those other MMOs have it all wrong. A good MMO has "a, b and c" and does "x, y and z". Ours has that. Theirs doesn't". And on and on.
Let's just get back to basics, where developers focused simply on making unique and interesting *games* - not gimmicky tech-demos - that targeted specific playstyles. Enough of this "catering to everyone" crap.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
My problem with themparks is I don't want to go on a ride. I want to earn something, to risk somethinhg, to have a earned sense of accomplishment. Theme park MMO's deliver none of this. Playing a theme park MMO is like bragging how you rode a mechanical bull that you were duct taped down to.
None of these games, None Of Them requires much more than time spent playing. It doesn't matter if you're playing Eve, UO or WoW. You aren't earning anything but more pixels on the screen. What's the difference between endlessly raiding for purples in WoW and endlessly mining for ore in Eve?
I agree with you 100%. There is this myth that some games are more complex by default and offer more accomplishment. But if you look at how most of the players play those games, then there is not much difference with the way how players play games like WoW or LOTRO.
In EVE and SWG Ive noticed many players who are not even interested in the more complex features like crafting (SWG)or trading/exploring (EVE). They stick to just PVE combat for example, but still act as if they are playing this complex game compared to the themepark stuff there is out there. Its very hypocrite behaviour sometimes.
The gamers that really dive into all features of games like EVE, SWG, are not many. Actually, if you restrict yourself just to PVE/PVP combat in EVE/SWG kind of games, there is not more challenge or accomplishment. If any.
Because they actually are still playing a more complex game.
They may be doing similar things as they would in a thmepark game like WoW. The difference is that their 'farming' mobs actually yields items and resources that are required by crafters. In turn, crafters trade/sell combat characters better equipment.
In a themepark MMO, combat characters just kill mobs and get drops.
It's not hypocritical behavior in the least, because even combat plays a role in a greater interdependency between players in sandbox MMOs than in themepark MMOs.
The same thing happens in themepark MMOs. Players gather mats needed for crafting for pve or pvp gear. It's no different.
First off, let's get introductions out of the way and what it means to be a social mechanic.
I am a die hard, forum lurking, community-centric, player based killing machine. A pvper, a guild soldier, a story teller, a dreamer, and a good guy many consider a true friend.
I turned a pvper while playing a theme park game which was my first mmo and at that time there were no distinctions between sandbox and theme park. While admittedly Everquest does not epitomize what pvp can be nor what a sandbox is. I came to realize very quickly why i despised such a trend and why sandbox was not a universally accepted standard.
I pvp therefore i believe in player driven game mechanics and story. Theme parks are limiting, they are linear and controlling, designed with a super market layout and structure ladened system to corral and feed thousands. The theme park is the buffet, while sand box is fine dinning requiring far more sophisticated game play and knowledge.
I am a social mechanic, because through my actions and my choices i can actually affect the gaming world in a sand box. In a theme park there is only the illusion of change. Your choices are not reflected in the world you live in, and thus there is no realism to that world.
Some might cite that they don't want realism in a fantasy world meant for relaxation or fun. Then i would have to ask you what do the letters mmoRPG stands for?
We as a gaming society have forgotten the meaning of the last three letters. A rpg element means you should not only define a role for yourself in a game, but then also have the ability to make choices while playing that role. Theme parks don't do this anymore. The developers make all the choices for you and you just follow the bread crumb trails.
I can kill four live opponents, which has farther reaching consequences, i can build assets proclaiming the gory of my guild for all to see, i can do what i choose to do and fill any role i want to project onto my enemies.
Nothing is scripted, nothing is preplanned, nothing is certain, just like in life. This adds a element of unknown to gaming sand box style which makes for a far more exciting experience. No theme park can deliver these things, most people run bots, boring apps or addons to alleviate the tedious boredom of a theme park, i know people who've slept through raids, or know the raids down to every step and second.
That's fun, how so? I define that as a monotonous exercise in wasting time for a small trinket. How does something so large as a raid in so massive as a world for so small a reward rate in comparison? When in sandbox a reward is anything you set your mind to accomplish, and the effort large or small can change that world.
The reasons theme parks are winning the debate, is because we who pvp and/or want sandbox are not as vocal a group most often. Industry trends and standards precieved, the money mechanics behind making and running these games and the biased nature concerning sandbox. Very few if anyone has ever thrown money to really try and build one, even fewer completely understand a sandbox design, and no one will listen to those who have the principle aspects laid out from experience.
Thus to answer this articles overall question is the reasons sandbox isn't popular is because not enough of them are being made, especially not any quality ones, so gamers are not being exsposed to them and thus they only know what the industry inadvertently tells them, that sandbox is bad.
My biggest problem with hand holding, liner, simple MMOs is that there's an illusion of chioce. And the elitism that comes from gear progression baffles me. Seeing someone get booted from taking part in an event because their pants don't have enough +douche points on it is a terrible innovation that isn't fun for anyone and it needs addressed.
Actual critical thinking, tactics, and choice needs to be a part of the development model for MMORPGs.
Instead we're given shells of game systems that evryone seems to forgive because 1,000s people can all kill the same 1 boss over and over and somehow this is supposed to be on par with actual innovation taking place in other video games like Red Dead Redemption's open world or even Dishwasher's combat system.
It's not okay that millions choose the lesser. It's unethical of game designers to stagnate their business.
Couldnt have said it any better myself =P
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
The argument that sandbox is no different in some aspects such as crafting and leveling is completely false, sandboxers craft and level as a means to a end, they do it for survival and to be self sufficient, whereas in a theme park its for wealth and status and completely meaningless in game, especially end game where your drops will provide better equipment and more money. Either way i live or die by the quality of my gear, my gear has to hold up in a much more dynamic and diverse arena, whereas theme coasters gear is more for looks, status, and stat augmentation to ungimp players...or help you survive pre planned and rehearsed encounters. Mine has to cover my sandbox butt through all sorts of conditions and situations and if i am gimped i stay gimped no fancy butt saving piece of gear.
I definately think its possible to create a MMO that uses the good from both MMO types. Fallen Earth is already an attempt at that, but unfortunately made by an Indy company. This makes their content updates quite slow. Many features for that reason are not even worked on yet.
So I dont understand why the sandbox fans and themepark fans keep acting as if one type excludes the other. You can have a sandbox game with premade content for the players that like that. But also with the freedom of a skillsystem like AO or UO and other sandbox elements. With tools for players to create their own content and playercities ala SWG.
The problem is that its just a massive undertaking to create such an MMO. One that hasnt been done yet. Not with the required polish at release anyway.
Oh btw, I dont see FFA PVP as a requirement for a sandbox game. If a sandbox is about freedom, then a player should be able to chose wanting to PVP or not. Battleground type PVP is the other side of the spectrum, so thats not a good solution either. Mechanics for guilds to be at war with each other, or content that requires you to set a PVP flag and that can take place anywhere, could be viable for this I think.
Also, although there is probably a niche in the market for this, if you want high sub numbers, FFA PVP is definately NOT the way to go.
Free for all pvp is goes hand in hand with the choices sandbox offers otherwise it wouldn't really be a sandbox and it defeats the purpose of players being able to make choices in the first place.
Game designers have been trying to seperate the ffa pvp mechanics and sandbox environments since the dawn of online gaming and i can tell you that the train wrecks that have resulted from those experiments have killed more games then they have helped.
Battle grounds, arenas, and instanced combat is not true pure pvp, and is not a solution but a band aid fix in search of higher design element needed to make pvp, especially ffa pvp fair for all. Pvp battle grounds is like having a knife fight in a telephone booth, it's meaningless, over too quickly and requires no presence of mind or tactical discipline, not to mention matching and grouping flaws to the idea
Well to focus a microscope on one aspect, such as choice is to do the same by saying the word loot epitomizes a themed design game. Sandbox offers diversity too, and it's not just choices that upholds the sandbox idea, but the x factor as some else had put so well. A virtual environment can be so much more when your not faced with following the same paths tread by a thousand other players, its a difference between chutes and ladders and risk, i liked both games when i was young but i still play risk. Can choice be a bad thing? Sure it can, but i would rather take that risk then not have it at all.
Well to focus a microscope on one aspect, such as choice is to do the same by saying the word loot epitomizes a themed design game. Sandbox offers diversity too, and it's not just choices that upholds the sandbox idea, but the x factor as some else had put so well. A virtual environment can be so much more when your not faced with following the same paths tread by a thousand other players, its a difference between chutes and ladders and risk, i liked both games when i was young but i still play risk. Can choice be a bad thing? Sure it can, but i would rather take that risk then not have it at all.
Even in a sandbox thousands of other players still do the same activities for the same goal in the same areas. So I don't see the difference. Hoping for an MMO that lets you do something that another player hasn't is far fetched. The only thing you can do differently is create your stories and experience, which is possible in both types of MMOs.
The choices made in Risk and other stratgey games are all based on resaon and logic. They are calculated choices to achieve a known goal. Its the same in a sandbox and themepark MMO. I would use Minecraft as a good example of a game with real choice because you don't know what you will find the farther or deeper you go in that world. Exploration has an unknown ending, which makes it exciting. But still, both types of MMOs can create this expereince. For some this expereince fades as the zones become based off paths and players use guides/wikis to help them.
IMO, I've always looked at MMOs as will this game and its current features provide the entertainment of fun, whether it is for 15 minutes or hours. I'm not so keen on the idea of achieving great things in an MMO because it's all fantasy in a virtual world that will eventually disappear. Do you know the name of the guild that down the first boss in MC in WoW? I don't as I never played WoW.
"If you're going to act like a noob, I'll treat you like one." -Caskio
No but i still remember every battle i've fought, the exploits of my guild and the great betrayals of our enemies. Some memories so dammed heroic as to be known by several guilds, some defeats so crushing that even our enemies felt sorry for us. A sandbox game is a on going story made by the choices of the players which can change on a daily basis i may not be able to recall what happens in wow because basically the same things happen every day, the same cannot be said of a sandbox as you have stated, and while sometimes many players tread the same paths in a sandbox as in a themed game it happends much less frequently and unless it offers some advantage to do so players in sandbox won't continue doing so, which also brings up the fact that for every action there is a reaction, you go ahead and follow the beaten path for too long and there could be consequences, which prompts unconventional problem solving skills and challenges not always found in theme park design
The only point I'll disagree with is the same one I've disagreed with in Jon's article.
Truth is WE are not really the ones guiding the ship. It's the executives at the big publishing houses and to an extent the investors who do. THEY are the ones who determine which projects get proper funding and which ones don't. They do that based upon thier PERCEPTION of where the market is at..... which is definately NOT the same as where the market is actualy at. To state that the market has actualy determined what's getting released by the AAA Houses assumes that the decision makers at those houses have perfect perception of the market. I would offer that the number of big budget releases in recent years that have seen lackluster returns is proof that the decision makers understanding of the market is cloudy at best.
Simply put, no one knows what the market for a polished, big budget, AAA sandbox might be....because no one has attempted it yet. There does seem to be at least some market for it though...otherwise a game like EVE shouldn't exist...regardless of how long it's taken to get where it is.
Note, I'm not neccesarly against Themeparks...as I do enjoy playing them also... what I'm against is the "lemming-think" that you must neccesarly follow formula - X with very little derivation in order to have a success that seems to have prevaded the industry in recent years.
Free for all pvp is goes hand in hand with the choices sandbox offers otherwise it wouldn't really be a sandbox and it defeats the purpose of players being able to make choices in the first place.
Game designers have been trying to seperate the ffa pvp mechanics and sandbox environments since the dawn of online gaming and i can tell you that the train wrecks that have resulted from those experiments have killed more games then they have helped.
Battle grounds, arenas, and instanced combat is not true pure pvp, and is not a solution but a band aid fix in search of higher design element needed to make pvp, especially ffa pvp fair for all. Pvp battle grounds is like having a knife fight in a telephone booth, it's meaningless, over too quickly and requires no presence of mind or tactical discipline, not to mention matching and grouping flaws to the idea
Disagree, FFA PvP is an ENTIRELY seperate design consideration then sandbox. It really has nothing to do with sandbox at all....and the fact that the 2 have been so closely linked together has (IMO) been the fall of many sandbox style games.
In point of fact, sandbox doesn't even neccesarly have anything to do with combat. You can have sandbox style games that don't feature ANY combat whatsoever .... look at the Tale in the Desert series as an example.
My problem with themparks is I don't want to go on a ride. I want to earn something, to risk somethinhg, to have a earned sense of accomplishment. Theme park MMO's deliver none of this. Playing a theme park MMO is like bragging how you rode a mechanical bull that you were duct taped down to.
None of these games, None Of Them requires much more than time spent playing. It doesn't matter if you're playing Eve, UO or WoW. You aren't earning anything but more pixels on the screen. What's the difference between endlessly raiding for purples in WoW and endlessly mining for ore in Eve?
I agree with you 100%. There is this myth that some games are more complex by default and offer more accomplishment. But if you look at how most of the players play those games, then there is not much difference with the way how players play games like WoW or LOTRO.
In EVE and SWG Ive noticed many players who are not even interested in the more complex features like crafting (SWG)or trading/exploring (EVE). They stick to just PVE combat for example, but still act as if they are playing this complex game compared to the themepark stuff there is out there. Its very hypocrite behaviour sometimes.
The gamers that really dive into all features of games like EVE, SWG, are not many. Actually, if you restrict yourself just to PVE/PVP combat in EVE/SWG kind of games, there is not more challenge or accomplishment. If any.
Because they actually are still playing a more complex game.
They may be doing similar things as they would in a thmepark game like WoW. The difference is that their 'farming' mobs actually yields items and resources that are required by crafters. In turn, crafters trade/sell combat characters better equipment.
In a themepark MMO, combat characters just kill mobs and get drops.
It's not hypocritical behavior in the least, because even combat plays a role in a greater interdependency between players in sandbox MMOs than in themepark MMOs.
The same thing happens in themepark MMOs. Players gather mats needed for crafting for pve or pvp gear. It's no different.
Except for the fact that in pretty much every themepark MMO crafted gear is largely optional and usually irrelevant, as MOB drops and quest rewards usually always trump anything that players can craft.
In themepark MMOs crafting is a sidegame suppliment to combat that anyone can pickup, but consequently any crafting that can be done is marginalized by the fact that near anyone can do it, and additionally that what can be made has trivial use compared to quest and dungeon drops
In sandbox MMOs, if you want to be good at crafting you need to focus on crafting to the detriment of combat ability. Furthermore if you're a combat character looking for decent equipment, you need to barter with a player who specializes in crafting for that equipment.
As such, sandbox MMOs create an economic dynamic between players where only players who specialize in crafting can provide decent crafted items for combat characters, and combat characters can provide resources needed by crafters.
In themepark MMOs, players are largely self-sufficient, and rarely if ever need to rely on other players outside of pre-defined combat grouping (dungeons,raids, BGs, etc.).
Themepark MMOs severely lack in player interdependency, economic complexity, and as a result crafting is largely trivialized in themepark MMOs.
So it actually is vastly different from a broader perspective.
True, however what's the point of making a sandbox game then if your combat system is either nonexsistant, or based on fighting ai? The reasons you impliment a system should be supported by the overall design. If you create this fabulous sandbox environment yet players have nothing to do in it or certain aspects or choices are mysteriously missing then that really isnt a sandbox now is it?
If i am playing in this sandbox, which to my knowledge means i am free to make my own choices in the game, and i want to kill my neighbor for stealing my chickens while i was offline but the game won't allow pvp, then how can the game be classified as a sandbox?
What you really have is another theme park, sandbox is not just a classification but several systems and design elements in place. Your combat systems and rulesets combined with your advancement system such as skills, abilities and whether you have classes or not, crafting etc. Theme parks have all these elements too but there are limitations to them, just like the combat system example.
"You cant kill this but you can kill that" does not apply in a sandbox, in a sandbox you can kill anything
True, however what's the point of making a sandbox game then if your combat system is either nonexsistant, or based on fighting ai? The reasons you impliment a system should be supported by the overall design. If you create this fabulous sandbox environment yet players have nothing to do in it or certain aspects or choices are mysteriously missing then that really isnt a sandbox now is it?
If i am playing in this sandbox, which to my knowledge means i am free to make my own choices in the game, and i want to kill my neighbor for stealing my chickens while i was offline but the game won't allow pvp, then how can the game be classified as a sandbox?
What you really have is another theme park, sandbox is not just a classification but several systems and design elements in place. Your combat systems and rulesets combined with your advancement system such as skills, abilities and whether you have classes or not, crafting etc. Theme parks have all these elements too but there are limitations to them, just like the combat system example.
"You cant kill this but you can kill that" does not apply in a sandbox, in a sandbox you can kill anything
Just because you play in a sandbox, does not mean everyone else who is wants other players to be able to kick their sand castles down, even if they can do so in retribution.
FFA PvP does not a sandbox MMO make.
There is still a point to making a sandbox MMO that's non-combat based or based around PvE. The point is that you can still be playing to shape the game world around your own and others actions. The difference is that the game promotes working together rather than against each other.
That's not to say there still can't be PvP in a not FFA MMO, sandbox, themepark, or otherwise. There very much still can be PvP, but it takes place in the form of economic conflict rather than character combat where gear/spec can often be the deciding factor in seconds long combat.
True, however what's the point of making a sandbox game then if your combat system is either nonexsistant, or based on fighting ai? The reasons you impliment a system should be supported by the overall design. If you create this fabulous sandbox environment yet players have nothing to do in it or certain aspects or choices are mysteriously missing then that really isnt a sandbox now is it?
If i am playing in this sandbox, which to my knowledge means i am free to make my own choices in the game, and i want to kill my neighbor for stealing my chickens while i was offline but the game won't allow pvp, then how can the game be classified as a sandbox?
What you really have is another theme park, sandbox is not just a classification but several systems and design elements in place. Your combat systems and rulesets combined with your advancement system such as skills, abilities and whether you have classes or not, crafting etc. Theme parks have all these elements too but there are limitations to them, just like the combat system example.
"You cant kill this but you can kill that" does not apply in a sandbox, in a sandbox you can kill anything
Only partially true. Most people will agree that EVE is a sandbox game, and while you can be killed anywhere, there are "limiters" put into place to control the amount/rate of killing in order to prevent it from turning into a FFA gank fest which appeals to only a very small subset of the player base. I personally think this is the most brilliant aspect of EVE and explains its continuing success.
As to the OP, I agree, I take the approach that I'll find the fun in the current themepark games while still holding out hope for a well made sandbox one day.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Atm i feel that the words "themepark" and "sandbox" do not cover the possibilities of the meaning of "Virtual World".
MMORPGing for me is adventuring in a virtual world that has a rich history and therefore adventures that not belong only to players trying to "green thumb" a sand desert but also to the lore of the virtual world offered by the old inhabitants (npcs) of this world that have to ignore, coop, struggle, fight with the desertlovers of different type.
I want back the entertainment in the virtual world setting!
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
For me MMORPG's were supposed to offer virtual worlds in which the players were the focus. Having started out as a PnP player, then on to muds and such it was clear that the trend was towards greater detail and greater fidelity to a virtual world, greater immersion. Highly instanced, zoned worlds in which the players have little to no impact on the world and even worse the focus of player interaction has trended away from player-to-player, towards player-to-npc, have stopped the trend towards greater fidelity and immersion and in some cases has reversed it.
Bottomline: I don't avoid themeparks.When they come out, I've tried them. I've played WoW, AoC, LoTRo, FFXIV (and if I can get a free trial for Rift, I'll try that one too). And so far when I've tried them, their offering when compared to my expectation of the genre just makes them too shallow to hold my interest for more than a month or two.
Games need to be based on gear, because if you base them on players' skills, since this planet is full of dumb idiots, only few who have brains (i'm not in the category btw) will be able to succeed, and ofc the big audience will turn away.
if you remember in the far past, games were for the skilled ones and only few could state they could beat them- and they were entertainement only for nerds and geek.. not enough customers to invest huge amount of monay and make big profits.
So, expect to have game based on gear grinding until tecnology will provide tools to replace this mechanic, because business wants big audience and big audience is dumb.
I rememebr games on my NES that I couldn't ever beat, but now you can play through the average game in 6 hours.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
My concern with Rift has never been that it's a themepark. If you want to class games like LotRO in with themeparks then I could quite happily say I can enjoy themepark style MMOs. I suspect you would also include games such as EQ2 which I enjoyed. I prefer a game built around a complex world but I can have fun in simpler games.
Rift has taken things to a whole new level. Where as LotRO and EQ2 were quest-based adventures they also had much more going for them in the form of some difficulty, meaningful grouping and alternative levelling paths. Rift doesn't. Rift strips the genre down in almost every area. Where the game does show signs of innovation is in the class system and the dynamic events but both are wasted in a shallow game.
So I might long for a truly innovative sandox title but I can have fun in themeparks, and I have done so in the past. Rift really is a disappointment for themeparks though, let alone MMOs in general. Sure I'd like more from my games. I'd love to see the final end of quest based games and I'd like to see games somewhat more challenging and focus on promoting fun at all levels rather than just the end ones. I often say the state of MMOs is bad, and it's not great really. Rift really puts the ball firmly in the court of a downhill trend if you ask me.
From where I am sat I can not help but feel it is a little stereotypical of MMORPG.com to be so defining the distinction between possible types of MMO gamer. Is it yet another defence of Rift in the face of much displeasure? Didn't another staff member write a blog on the subject of stereotyping of players within this genre very recently?
.
The thing is, Sandbox players always complain there aren't sandbox games. And when one gets released, like Darkfall, they cry about how it's not polished and complete enough.
But hello, pretty much all MMORPGs suffer from that problem.
All the major theme park MMORPGs launched in the last few years were lacking in content and/or polish or just flawed. Age of Conan, WAR, even Lotro...
Sandboxers keep looking for the perfect game that will live up to their rose color tinted memories of past sandbox games. But nothing can. So they need to get behind the games that do exist (like Darkfall) and support them...
R.I.P. City of Heroes and my 17 characters there
The simple reason why theme parks are more preferable and successful in the MMO field is that people, especially younger people, have become extremely mentally lazy in the last 10 or so years. As an IT specialist I can tell you that in 99% of the situations I see, an individual having a manual for a piece of equipment is a total waste because they won't read it. They want knowledge, success, experience served to them on a silver platter by a tuxedo wearing servant. They want to come out of college with a $50-80k job waiting for them. This carries over into the MMO world.
Spend 5 minutes reading the general chat on WoW or most other theme park games and you'll see that. They ask ridiculous questions that could easily be answered by spending 5 minutes on Google, or even reading the online instructions provided by the manufacturer.
The other reason is just the phenomenal success of WoW has convinced developers that the WoW, theme park approach is the one that works. Of course, they forget that EQ1, DoAC and UO preceded WoW and were all successful in their own right and for the most part, had very few theme park aspects, and that WoW is really the ONLY hugely successful theme park game. All others have had to go FTP or have very low populations.
But WoW figured out a long time ago what drives the average MMO gamer...pretty much the same thing that drives most people...elitism. The idea that "I'm better than you" or "I have something you don't have." For example, they have "vanity" pets, hard to acquire, very expensive or special "rewards" . The very thing that drives away serious gamers, the elitism, childish power trips and whatnot, is what fuels their huge player base. It's not really about the game experience, per se, it's about getting to the top as fast and as easy as possible and then being the most uber, powerful, unbeatable, whatever class you are in the world!!! And of course, that's driven by gear acquisition. So, it's all about "keeping up with the Joneses" and the content is relatively meaningless except as a means to that end. Crafting, rather than being something that really drives the economy is little more than a time distraction because in most cases, it generates little net income because the loot drops far exceed the value of most crafted items. Blizzard knows that today's "average" player of an MMO wants everything handed to them and they do just that.
They've lowered the prices on all the "elitist" items players used to have..mounts, flying mounts, dual specs, etc to levels even a newb can afford so that instead of a player feeling like "I can't wait to get to 40 for my mount" and "I'd better start saving for it", you now get it at 20 and it's only 10 gold as opposed to 100. Player classes like Paladins and Warlocks who used to have to do involved, expensive quests, requiring help from friends or guildies, now get their epic mounts from their trainers with no quests.
Every expansion completely negates all previous content because the common loot drops far exceed the "epic" gear of the previous levels. Again, it's not about content, it's about the loot you get from it. This, in my opinion, will eventually be the downfall of WoW. And newer players will never experience what, at one time, was some of the best content in the game..Molten Core, Dire Maul, etc which now are totally unnecessary for level growth.
The worst thing missing from theme park games is tactics. No longer does a party have to plan it's attacks with care because even if you wipe, it's just a short run back to the dungeon and no harm done with the exception of having to pay a few gold for repairs later. And once you have epic gear, even the toughest bosses become ho hum.
Contrast this with EQ1, the Lost Dungeons of Norrath, where you had to move carefully from room to room, hallway to hallway because if you died, you were out unless you got rezzed and if the party wiped, then you start the whole shooting match over from square 1.
Frankly, I just don't see any company taking a chance on a theme park game with today's player base. Those of us who prefer that kind of game are a very small minority of the MMO world, I'm afraid.
Nice post and a good read, Branes.
Arguably I don't think this is a case of themepark versus sandbox. I think those two terms are way too generalised and any good game should look to overlap boundaries and encompass something of everything. The situation we see in MMO gaming is just what you describe with WoW. We've gone through a series of steps from fleshed out games of the EQ generation to games that evaporate it all down to the simplest form, in Rift.
For all the comments WoW gets I would happily state that it was in the middle of this trend. I played the game close to release and I enjoyed seeing the new places and travelling the world and I enjoyed the PvP and group content with friends. It all started to drain heavily on me around the 40th level though. Other games from around that time, and since, have faired similiarly. Then Rift came along and I experienced the whole ride in a few beta tests. Rift is the culmination of the removal of detail and the addition of easy gratification in MMOs. MMOs can not go further down the path than Rift, they can only rise again. That gives me hope for the likes of GW2. Developers are, I think, starting to see what we have come to and where MMOs need to return to.
Worlds over pathways/tracks/rollercoasters, or whatever you want to call them, is what needs to be adressed. Not themepark or sandbox. EQ and even WoW, in its early days, were worlds. Since then there has been a steady downwards progression to the rollercoaster rides that are games like Rift. Rift is the simplest, straightest and least scary rollercoaster ride yet.
.
Here's what gets me.
Anyone notice that MMOs prior to WoW never - or at least very seldom - ever had all these big debates and discussions about "what was wrong with the genre" brought about by them?
EA created UO. People played it. Many people found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
Turbine made Asheron's Call. People played it. Many found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
SOE made EQ. People played it. Many found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
CCP made Eve. People played it. Many found it not to their liking. Many others liked it and stuck around.
SE with FFXI. Funcom with Anarchy Online... and on and on and on...
Each MMO brought its own flavor and theme and approach to the MMO genre. Beyond the basic staples of levels, quests, gear, and killing stuff... they were each their own unique experiences. People played the MMO whose design they preferred and ignored those they didn't. Everyone interested in MMOs at all could find a game they enjoyed. Everyone was happy.
WoW comes along and blows MMOs into the mainstream to the point that people who hadn't even known what a MMO was knew about WoW.
Companies who previously showed no interest in MMOs at all suddenly were hopping on the bandwagon, trying to get their piece of the MMO pie. As typically happens in the aftermath of that trend, MMOs have become progressively less and less original and more and more derivative.
Here we are now debating about "what the problems are in the MMO genre" and "how should MMOs be made" and "who should be given more attention, Theme Park or Sandbox players...". Everyone's more concerned about whether or not "new MMO x" is going to be "The WoW Killer", than they are in whether or not they'd even enjoy it; giving the idea undue significance. Nothing has to be a WoW killer. It just has to be a good enough game to get people interested in playing, and provide enough to keep them playing. That's it.
Looking back to the pre-WoW days and how straightforward it was by comparison... it seems to me that we're tackling an issue that needn't exist. It's a "problem" that people have created and developers are perpetuating, IMO.
Maybe we need to stop needlessly complicating things, rewind back to the pre-WoW days when developers simply identified a genre they were interested in, designed the kind of game they wanted to create, created it and then open the doors to the players who would come to call it "home".
I might over-simplify the situation and miss some of the nuances of it... but I think the general concept is solid.
Between players, developers and publishers, things have become so convoluted and ridiculous.. it's no wonder the genre's been in such a crappy state. Everyone's going nuts trying to "figure out what players want so they can make the perfect MMO that appeals to everyone", when all they really need to do, and should do in my opinion, is create a really good, solid game that appeals to a specific cross-section of MMO players. Make it the best damn incarnation of that kind of game they can, and do so unapologetically.
If you want to attract a solid, loyal sci-fi fanbase, you do it by making a solid sci-fi movie that caters specifically to what Sci-Fi fans are looking for. You don't worry about what the people who like romance, fantasy, drama and horror "think you should include" so it's more appealing to them. They aren't your core audience.
If you're a progressive Metal band, you cater to that type of fan-base by creating very progressive music, and doing it unapologetically. Don't worry about what pop, rock, classic or new-age fans "think you should make" so it's more appealing to them. They aren't your core audience.
I just think developers have gotten away from that fundamental concept. I think players have - generally speaking - been so bombarded with "what's the best type of game style" in all its varieties, that it's become more difficult than it should be to decide which one is the most ideal for them. We've been barraged with marketing and PR for various MMO's saying "Those other MMOs have it all wrong. A good MMO has "a, b and c" and does "x, y and z". Ours has that. Theirs doesn't". And on and on.
Let's just get back to basics, where developers focused simply on making unique and interesting *games* - not gimmicky tech-demos - that targeted specific playstyles. Enough of this "catering to everyone" crap.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The same thing happens in themepark MMOs. Players gather mats needed for crafting for pve or pvp gear. It's no different.
First off, let's get introductions out of the way and what it means to be a social mechanic.
I am a die hard, forum lurking, community-centric, player based killing machine. A pvper, a guild soldier, a story teller, a dreamer, and a good guy many consider a true friend.
I turned a pvper while playing a theme park game which was my first mmo and at that time there were no distinctions between sandbox and theme park. While admittedly Everquest does not epitomize what pvp can be nor what a sandbox is. I came to realize very quickly why i despised such a trend and why sandbox was not a universally accepted standard.
I pvp therefore i believe in player driven game mechanics and story. Theme parks are limiting, they are linear and controlling, designed with a super market layout and structure ladened system to corral and feed thousands. The theme park is the buffet, while sand box is fine dinning requiring far more sophisticated game play and knowledge.
I am a social mechanic, because through my actions and my choices i can actually affect the gaming world in a sand box. In a theme park there is only the illusion of change. Your choices are not reflected in the world you live in, and thus there is no realism to that world.
Some might cite that they don't want realism in a fantasy world meant for relaxation or fun. Then i would have to ask you what do the letters mmoRPG stands for?
We as a gaming society have forgotten the meaning of the last three letters. A rpg element means you should not only define a role for yourself in a game, but then also have the ability to make choices while playing that role. Theme parks don't do this anymore. The developers make all the choices for you and you just follow the bread crumb trails.
I can kill four live opponents, which has farther reaching consequences, i can build assets proclaiming the gory of my guild for all to see, i can do what i choose to do and fill any role i want to project onto my enemies.
Nothing is scripted, nothing is preplanned, nothing is certain, just like in life. This adds a element of unknown to gaming sand box style which makes for a far more exciting experience. No theme park can deliver these things, most people run bots, boring apps or addons to alleviate the tedious boredom of a theme park, i know people who've slept through raids, or know the raids down to every step and second.
That's fun, how so? I define that as a monotonous exercise in wasting time for a small trinket. How does something so large as a raid in so massive as a world for so small a reward rate in comparison? When in sandbox a reward is anything you set your mind to accomplish, and the effort large or small can change that world.
The reasons theme parks are winning the debate, is because we who pvp and/or want sandbox are not as vocal a group most often. Industry trends and standards precieved, the money mechanics behind making and running these games and the biased nature concerning sandbox. Very few if anyone has ever thrown money to really try and build one, even fewer completely understand a sandbox design, and no one will listen to those who have the principle aspects laid out from experience.
Thus to answer this articles overall question is the reasons sandbox isn't popular is because not enough of them are being made, especially not any quality ones, so gamers are not being exsposed to them and thus they only know what the industry inadvertently tells them, that sandbox is bad.
- A Social Mechanic
Couldnt have said it any better myself =P
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
I definately think its possible to create a MMO that uses the good from both MMO types. Fallen Earth is already an attempt at that, but unfortunately made by an Indy company. This makes their content updates quite slow. Many features for that reason are not even worked on yet.
So I dont understand why the sandbox fans and themepark fans keep acting as if one type excludes the other. You can have a sandbox game with premade content for the players that like that. But also with the freedom of a skillsystem like AO or UO and other sandbox elements. With tools for players to create their own content and playercities ala SWG.
The problem is that its just a massive undertaking to create such an MMO. One that hasnt been done yet. Not with the required polish at release anyway.
Oh btw, I dont see FFA PVP as a requirement for a sandbox game. If a sandbox is about freedom, then a player should be able to chose wanting to PVP or not. Battleground type PVP is the other side of the spectrum, so thats not a good solution either. Mechanics for guilds to be at war with each other, or content that requires you to set a PVP flag and that can take place anywhere, could be viable for this I think.
Also, although there is probably a niche in the market for this, if you want high sub numbers, FFA PVP is definately NOT the way to go.
Game designers have been trying to seperate the ffa pvp mechanics and sandbox environments since the dawn of online gaming and i can tell you that the train wrecks that have resulted from those experiments have killed more games then they have helped.
Battle grounds, arenas, and instanced combat is not true pure pvp, and is not a solution but a band aid fix in search of higher design element needed to make pvp, especially ffa pvp fair for all. Pvp battle grounds is like having a knife fight in a telephone booth, it's meaningless, over too quickly and requires no presence of mind or tactical discipline, not to mention matching and grouping flaws to the idea
I've noticed a lot of people throwing the word 'choice' out there in regards to sandbox and themepark MMOs.
I wanted to share this artile from Extra Credits on Choice and Conflict.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2590-Choice-and-Conflict
I believe a lot of people don't understand how choice can be used to create a fun experience as well as a boring one.
"If you're going to act like a noob, I'll treat you like one." -Caskio
Adventurers wear fancy pants!!!
Even in a sandbox thousands of other players still do the same activities for the same goal in the same areas. So I don't see the difference. Hoping for an MMO that lets you do something that another player hasn't is far fetched. The only thing you can do differently is create your stories and experience, which is possible in both types of MMOs.
The choices made in Risk and other stratgey games are all based on resaon and logic. They are calculated choices to achieve a known goal. Its the same in a sandbox and themepark MMO. I would use Minecraft as a good example of a game with real choice because you don't know what you will find the farther or deeper you go in that world. Exploration has an unknown ending, which makes it exciting. But still, both types of MMOs can create this expereince. For some this expereince fades as the zones become based off paths and players use guides/wikis to help them.
IMO, I've always looked at MMOs as will this game and its current features provide the entertainment of fun, whether it is for 15 minutes or hours. I'm not so keen on the idea of achieving great things in an MMO because it's all fantasy in a virtual world that will eventually disappear. Do you know the name of the guild that down the first boss in MC in WoW? I don't as I never played WoW.
"If you're going to act like a noob, I'll treat you like one." -Caskio
Adventurers wear fancy pants!!!
The only point I'll disagree with is the same one I've disagreed with in Jon's article.
Truth is WE are not really the ones guiding the ship. It's the executives at the big publishing houses and to an extent the investors who do. THEY are the ones who determine which projects get proper funding and which ones don't. They do that based upon thier PERCEPTION of where the market is at..... which is definately NOT the same as where the market is actualy at. To state that the market has actualy determined what's getting released by the AAA Houses assumes that the decision makers at those houses have perfect perception of the market. I would offer that the number of big budget releases in recent years that have seen lackluster returns is proof that the decision makers understanding of the market is cloudy at best.
Simply put, no one knows what the market for a polished, big budget, AAA sandbox might be....because no one has attempted it yet. There does seem to be at least some market for it though...otherwise a game like EVE shouldn't exist...regardless of how long it's taken to get where it is.
Note, I'm not neccesarly against Themeparks...as I do enjoy playing them also... what I'm against is the "lemming-think" that you must neccesarly follow formula - X with very little derivation in order to have a success that seems to have prevaded the industry in recent years.
Disagree, FFA PvP is an ENTIRELY seperate design consideration then sandbox. It really has nothing to do with sandbox at all....and the fact that the 2 have been so closely linked together has (IMO) been the fall of many sandbox style games.
In point of fact, sandbox doesn't even neccesarly have anything to do with combat. You can have sandbox style games that don't feature ANY combat whatsoever .... look at the Tale in the Desert series as an example.
Except for the fact that in pretty much every themepark MMO crafted gear is largely optional and usually irrelevant, as MOB drops and quest rewards usually always trump anything that players can craft.
In themepark MMOs crafting is a sidegame suppliment to combat that anyone can pickup, but consequently any crafting that can be done is marginalized by the fact that near anyone can do it, and additionally that what can be made has trivial use compared to quest and dungeon drops
In sandbox MMOs, if you want to be good at crafting you need to focus on crafting to the detriment of combat ability. Furthermore if you're a combat character looking for decent equipment, you need to barter with a player who specializes in crafting for that equipment.
As such, sandbox MMOs create an economic dynamic between players where only players who specialize in crafting can provide decent crafted items for combat characters, and combat characters can provide resources needed by crafters.
In themepark MMOs, players are largely self-sufficient, and rarely if ever need to rely on other players outside of pre-defined combat grouping (dungeons,raids, BGs, etc.).
Themepark MMOs severely lack in player interdependency, economic complexity, and as a result crafting is largely trivialized in themepark MMOs.
So it actually is vastly different from a broader perspective.
If i am playing in this sandbox, which to my knowledge means i am free to make my own choices in the game, and i want to kill my neighbor for stealing my chickens while i was offline but the game won't allow pvp, then how can the game be classified as a sandbox?
What you really have is another theme park, sandbox is not just a classification but several systems and design elements in place. Your combat systems and rulesets combined with your advancement system such as skills, abilities and whether you have classes or not, crafting etc. Theme parks have all these elements too but there are limitations to them, just like the combat system example.
"You cant kill this but you can kill that" does not apply in a sandbox, in a sandbox you can kill anything
Just because you play in a sandbox, does not mean everyone else who is wants other players to be able to kick their sand castles down, even if they can do so in retribution.
FFA PvP does not a sandbox MMO make.
There is still a point to making a sandbox MMO that's non-combat based or based around PvE. The point is that you can still be playing to shape the game world around your own and others actions. The difference is that the game promotes working together rather than against each other.
That's not to say there still can't be PvP in a not FFA MMO, sandbox, themepark, or otherwise. There very much still can be PvP, but it takes place in the form of economic conflict rather than character combat where gear/spec can often be the deciding factor in seconds long combat.
Only partially true. Most people will agree that EVE is a sandbox game, and while you can be killed anywhere, there are "limiters" put into place to control the amount/rate of killing in order to prevent it from turning into a FFA gank fest which appeals to only a very small subset of the player base. I personally think this is the most brilliant aspect of EVE and explains its continuing success.
As to the OP, I agree, I take the approach that I'll find the fun in the current themepark games while still holding out hope for a well made sandbox one day.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon