Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

We dont want games - we want worlds.

LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,051Member Uncommon

I think that its high time for game companies that want to make MMOs to understand one simple thing about MMO player :

We dont want games - we want worlds.

 

We have millions of games - Halo , Super Mario , Starcraft , Monkey Island , Baldurs Gate ... to note few genre stars.

Now they want to take these games and add multiplayer aspect - and slap brand this MMORPG.

This my friends is the themepark world. And the direction its moving ( we are seeing mmofps , mmo platformer , mmo sport , even mmo adventure - beside more traditional mmorpg approach )

 

But this is not what we are here for ... not what we wanted...

When I played games before the era of internet , this was not what I dreamed of - Super Mario with oter people playing.

No.

What I dreamed was Ultima Online

This dream was shared in developer community that was young and not GREED oriented as today.

And than it stopped. Because its easier to just make a game and add multiplayer element.

And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.

This. That much is obvious - will not fly anymore.

 

We want worlds.

You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.

Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.

 

Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.

The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.

 

Will we ever see it ?

 

 

Update:

There have been lot of discussion in this topic pondering over fun aspects of "Sandbox" and "Themepark" concepts.

For me sandbox represents dead world where nothing grows unless a player places it there. Its a system that came out of limitation. Same on oposite spectrum is themepark which is dead world inhabited by stage props. They provide resemblance of something happening. You can only look at it (do the quests) but can not influence it in any other way.

Virtual world is living world where NPCs actually live and have needs. Its a jungle instead of sandbox. And it provides both sandbox and themepark elements that are created and influenced by player actions

 

Here is a great example taken from Elite:Dangerous dev diary 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uKD1ap5hsI&feature=youtu.be

 

Its still unclear if Elite:Dangerous will be MMO (or will even get kickstarted) and I am not trying to promote it. But this is exactly the idea I am talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

image

«13456730

Comments

  • IronfungusIronfungus Florence, AZPosts: 519Member
    If it proves to be profitable then we might see it happen.
  • FromHellFromHell NY, NYPosts: 1,311Member

    very very true!!

     

    /signed

    Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. ! :D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw

    Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
    .


    .
    The Return of ELITE !
    image

  • rynocrynoc atlanta, GAPosts: 1Member
    I agree 100 percent with this! I have been an mmo player for going on 10 years now and the only true  engrossing mmo experience i have had is SWG. For all the games faults it def felt like a world onto itself and not a really big console rpg. Lotro had similar qualities but the housing was so fail that it lost some of its luster. Not sure why more devs dont impliment open world housing and player built cities in their designs because it makes the social aspects of games so much better. Hopefully some company will come along and raise the bar to the level it once was. In the meantime looks like we are all stuck with these shiney 'MMOs" that have no real depth... le sigh...
  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member

    As long as $$$ made in 'sandbox' is smaller than 'themeparks', sandbox will be a niche.

    I always ask topic makers this question; if you like 'sandbox' MMOs do you spend $$$ on sandbox MMOs?

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • MagterMagter Spokane, WAPosts: 289Member

    Then the next time I play a MMO, I don't want to hear someone say "it's just a game"

     

    It's a world now, a living one.

    Purpose in life is not to gain things, but experience. - Rover64dd

  • ThaneThane berlinPosts: 2,232Member Uncommon

    if it's soooo easy to "Just add multiplayer" to a game, tell me why there are like 4 or 5 coop shooters max?

     

    what people want is what they pay for. nowadays kids pay for everything enough of their "friends" are playing.

    you wanna know what the real prob is?

     

    having 3k facebook friends you gotta satisfie by playing some game you dont even like.

    back in the "good old days" we just hang out with people we actually knew and liked. THAT changed.

     

     

     

    and to name some examples of the "good old days":

     

    * daoc having active game content (pvp) up to 12 or 1 am. after that, servers were empty (unless you had a ninja relic raid).

    * wow crashing on every 3rd mining try, resulting in you being stuck in that animation till logout or even longer.

    * pings of 500 being normal.

    * mmo servers with like 1 or 2k players MAX (not online at the same time, at all).

     

     

    are you sure that's what you are looking for?? are you REALLY sure you remember that good old times propperly. and not like your first time sex ("damn that was soooooo goood.... and daahaaamn, I was good!")?

     

     

    when i see posts like this one, i usualy just smile, and move on, but since you guys decided to post one of those every 4 days now.... comment be done.

     

     

    maybe people should just stop to claim to know what everyone ELSE wants [mod edit] and try to find out what YOU really want.

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • MetentsoMetentso BarcelonaPosts: 1,436Member Common
    Remember EQ "You are in our world now". Developers where the Gods in that world. We adapted to what they chosed, not the other way around like today.
  • ThaneThane berlinPosts: 2,232Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Metentso
    Remember EQ "You are in our world now". Developers where the Gods in that world. We adapted to what they chosed, not the other way around like today.

    exactly. not the whiney mmo crowd we have to day. they all know what they dont want, but ask em what EXACTLY they want. they can't tell you.

    usualy they just flame wow abit (to get the likes of the masses) and then go on by naming it's features on their want-list :)

     

     

    "back in the good old days" we were gamers, just playing our games. not whiney little crybabies.

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,051Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Thane

    "back in the good old days" we were gamers, just playing our games. not whiney little crybabies.

    I think this is true also. But its completely different topic

    image

  • TraugarTraugar Robbinsville, NCPosts: 183Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jpnz

    As long as $$$ made in 'sandbox' is smaller than 'themeparks', sandbox will be a niche.

    I always ask topic makers this question; if you like 'sandbox' MMOs do you spend $$$ on sandbox MMOs?

    I would be more than happy to if there was one out there that had been made with a decent budget.  Eve isn't my thing, as I am not into being the ship.  I like having an avatar.  

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by Thane
    Originally posted by Metentso
    Remember EQ "You are in our world now". Developers where the Gods in that world. We adapted to what they chosed, not the other way around like today.

    exactly. not the whiney mmo crowd we have to day. they all know what they dont want, but ask em what EXACTLY they want. they can't tell you.

    usualy they just flame wow abit (to get the likes of the masses) and then go on by naming it's features on their want-list :)

     

     

    "back in the good old days" we were gamers, just playing our games. not whiney little crybabies.

    This post has a really skewed view and is too much of a 'back in my days we went to school in the snow with lava / storm / earthquake be damned!'. Take off your rose-tinted glasses for a second.

     

    The hint-phone 0800 thingy that nintendo (and other game makers) was really popular.

    So no, I reject that 'back in the day gamers just played games'.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • ThaneThane berlinPosts: 2,232Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Originally posted by Thane

    "back in the good old days" we were gamers, just playing our games. not whiney little crybabies.

    I think this is true also. But its completely different topic

    naaa. thats basically the main prob :)

    when devs could release what they wanted (remember the REALY old days. commodore 64, amiga..), when games could be done by something like half a douzen to a douzen people, games were released as they wanted em to be.

    with dev teams of 100-200 people, all having the urge need to be payed for their work, this looks different again :)

     

     

    you dont succeed because your game is good. you succeed because games are bought by enough people, and then played and payed for like 2 or 3 years (subs)

     

    when there are 10 million people playing a game. all you see is 50% of them bitching. no matter what you do. it's vegetarians and carnivors in the same restaurant, all having their own needs and flavors.

     

    people who are happy, play. people who are not happy, complain. you see the prob? :)

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by Traugar
    Originally posted by jpnz

    As long as $$$ made in 'sandbox' is smaller than 'themeparks', sandbox will be a niche.

    I always ask topic makers this question; if you like 'sandbox' MMOs do you spend $$$ on sandbox MMOs?

    I would be more than happy to if there was one out there that had been made with a decent budget.  Eve isn't my thing, as I am not into being the ship.  I like having an avatar.  

    So which decent sized company is going to make a sandbox MMO when the $$$ just isn't there?

    It has to start somewhere.

     

    Can we see a company make a huge risky investment? Maybe.

    Will that company see a return? Probably not, when your best $$$ sandbox MMO is EVE with 300k-400k subs, it just doesn't make good business sense.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • TraugarTraugar Robbinsville, NCPosts: 183Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Traugar
    Originally posted by jpnz

    As long as $$$ made in 'sandbox' is smaller than 'themeparks', sandbox will be a niche.

    I always ask topic makers this question; if you like 'sandbox' MMOs do you spend $$$ on sandbox MMOs?

    I would be more than happy to if there was one out there that had been made with a decent budget.  Eve isn't my thing, as I am not into being the ship.  I like having an avatar.  

    So which decent sized company is going to make a sandbox MMO when the $$$ just isn't there?

    It has to start somewhere.

     

    Can we see a company make a huge risky investment? Maybe.

    Will that company see a return? Probably not, when your best $$$ sandbox MMO is EVE with 300k-400k subs, it just doesn't make good business sense.

    I don't spend money on junk cars hoping that one day the manufacturer decides to make a good car.  MMO gaming is the only place where this type of arguement is used.  How about gaming companies do like every other business.  When people express interest in a product someone eventually makes that product.  When you look at EVE it's obvious just by the setting that the game wasn't intended for the masses, but look at the sub numbers it has managed to get.  Now compare that to rift since it is probably the second most popular mmo.  Will it have 300-400k subs when it is as old as EVE?  Anyway what brings in more money a game that sells 1.5-2 mil copies in the first month, but only retains a fraction of those players or a game built on interdependance that doesn't get as many initial players but lasts years?  If/when someone decides to make a AAA sandbox I will place my bets on success.  

  • LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,051Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Thane
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Originally posted by Thane

    "back in the good old days" we were gamers, just playing our games. not whiney little crybabies.

    I think this is true also. But its completely different topic

    naaa. thats basically the main prob :)

    when devs could release what they wanted (remember the REALY old days. commodore 64, amiga..), when games could be done by something like half a douzen to a douzen people, games were released as they wanted em to be.

    with dev teams of 100-200 people, all having the urge need to be payed for their work, this looks different again :)

     

     

    you dont succeed because your game is good. you succeed because games are bought by enough people, and then played and payed for like 2 or 3 years (subs)

     

    when there are 10 million people playing a game. all you see is 50% of them bitching. no matter what you do. it's vegetarians and carnivors in the same restaurant, all having their own needs and flavors.

     

    people who are happy, play. people who are not happy, complain. you see the prob? :)

    Exactly the problem with gaming industry today.

    But has no relation to sandbox(world) vs themepark(game) topic.

     

    Infact. Most of us agree that sandbox game doesnt need high graphic orientation. (aka they dont need to compete with new assasins creed etc)

    Just look at minecraft - that now made it to top sold game of all the times list.

     

    I dont see that many people complaining about minecraft

    image

  • WhitebeardsWhitebeards TokyoPosts: 778Member
    I want both. i don't want to chose between the two.
  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by Traugar
     

    I don't spend money on junk cars hoping that one day the manufacturer decides to make a good car.  MMO gaming is the only place where this type of arguement is used.  How about gaming companies do like every other business.  When people express interest in a product someone eventually makes that product.  When you look at EVE it's obvious just by the setting that the game wasn't intended for the masses, but look at the sub numbers it has managed to get.  Now compare that to rift since it is probably the second most popular mmo.  Will it have 300-400k subs when it is as old as EVE?  Anyway what brings in more money a game that sells 1.5-2 mil copies in the first month, but only retains a fraction of those players or a game built on interdependance that doesn't get as many initial players but lasts years?  If/when someone decides to make a AAA sandbox I will place my bets on success.  

    Not really.

    If a car model Y is popular, you'll see more cars similar to that with a similar price from other manufacturers.

    Look at the smart phone market, once Iphone exploded, we had google / MS come in with similar styles of phones.

    Just look at shooters, with the success of 'COD MAKE ACTI MONEY' how many military shooters do we get every year?

     

    Aion had 3M subs, LoTRO / DDO had 500k before F2P and with F2P saw a jump of 100% reveune.

    When your best example of 'sandbox mmo' is EVE with 300-400k sub which is 'average' compared to themepark MMO numbers (excluding the 10 ton giant WoW) than the market is saying something very loud.

    Whether you agree with what the market is saying is irrelevent.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Just a question of the market slowly changing then quickly changing after another successful sandbox additional to eve, is exhibited. Quality vs quantity is probably the by-word for successful sandbox mmorpgs - not sure we'll see wow numbers in this approach.
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member

    Lobo?  I didn't elect you to speak for me.  Had you bothered to campaign, you probably would not receive my vote.  Please drop the "we".

    I find it dubious that the "good old days" gamers would have elected you of all people to represent them, either.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We ; See: Atypical uses of "we".

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • LarsaLarsa NurembergPosts: 990Member
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    ...

    We want worlds.

    You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.

    Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.

     

    Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.

    The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.

     

    Will we ever see it ?

    Says the guy with a GW2 banner in his signature. I find that ironic.

    As long as millions of people buy games - and not worlds - games is what the industry will produce.

    I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member

    I agree 100% with OP. Problem is WoW, always WoW. It came and over time conquered 10 million subs and now every suit and bean counter out there want a piece of the pie. So these people, aka as investors and producers, will only fund WoW ThemeParks so other developers who are trying to follow the vision of Richard Garriot to create a world and not just a game, struggle to get the funds needed.

    So there is some light at the end of tunnel with companies like SOE saying that EQ next will be sandbox but unless that is developed and delivered we will be stuck with underfunded indy projects. The MMORPG genre needs atleast one successful triple A sandbox to show the suit and bean counters that there is profit to be made, even if the game is not a WoW ThemePark.

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member
    Worlds can make for great nonlinear games.  I really don't think this issue needs to be so divisive.

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Lobo?  I didn't elect you to speak for me.  Had you bothered to campaign, you probably would not receive my vote.  Please drop the "we".

    I find it dubious that the "good old days" gamers would have elected you of all people to represent them, either.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We ; See: Atypical uses of "we".

    He speaks for me so the 'we' is definetely appropriate as there are lots of us who yearns for a virtual world MMO. We does not mean everyone.

  • delete5230delete5230 Posts: 2,957Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Lobo?  I didn't elect you to speak for me.  Had you bothered to campaign, you probably would not receive my vote.  Please drop the "we".

    I find it dubious that the "good old days" gamers would have elected you of all people to represent them, either.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We ; See: Atypical uses of "we".

    He speaks for me so the 'we' is definetely appropriate as there are lots of us who yearns for a virtual world MMO. We does not mean everyone.

    He also speaks for me too............" We ".............WE need a vertual woreld back !!!!

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Yamota

    He speaks for me so the 'we' is definetely appropriate as there are lots of us who yearns for a virtual world MMO. We does not mean everyone.

    Of course, anyone critical of the industry in any way is speaking for you. 

    You're a very reliable "Me Too".

    But regardless of the agreeability (or not) of his message, he doesn't have the right to elect himself to speak for everyone.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

«13456730
Sign In or Register to comment.