Er, who was talking about sandbox vs themepark? I was talking about virtual worlds vs MMO "games" and a theme park game can certainly be a reasonable approximation of a virtual world, DAOC was one such title back in the day. (so much so many people argue it was a sandbox instead)
Reading further, maybe you meant to reply to someone else's post?
And so you were.
I was just lazy to type virtual worlds and typed sandbox instead ... sorry.
I dont see your point though.
Virtual worlds vs MMO games ? What MMO games ? There is a broad spectrum.
And Virtual worlds , its also very open term.
Let me give you perfect example of how Virtual world can be themepark aswell (and should be) the example is pretty recent and maybe some of you dont know it.
The game is Star Citizen
Galaxy in the game is attacked by enemy faction. Game revolves around player starting as a cadet pilot and progressing trough the story trough battle missions.
BUT
If player so chooses , he never needs to enroll into the army. He can just go on living his life in the galaxy. Trading , pirating , exploring. Maybe even aiding enemy factions , or military as mercenary.
...
In short you have living world that reacts to "themepark" campaign. Changes according to it. But you dont need to participate at all. Instead you can just do your thing.
I was just lazy to type virtual worlds and typed sandbox instead ... sorry.
I dont see your point though.
Virtual worlds vs MMO games ? What MMO games ? There is a broad spectrum.
And Virtual worlds , its also very open term.
Let me give you perfect example of how Virtual world can be themepark aswell (and should be) the example is pretty recent and maybe some of you dont know it.
The game is Star Citizen
Galaxy in the game is attacked by enemy faction. Game revolves around player starting as a cadet pilot and progressing trough the story trough battle missions.
BUT
If player so chooses , he never needs to enroll into the army. He can just go on living his life in the galaxy. Trading , pirating , exploring. Maybe even aiding enemy factions , or military as mercenary.
...
In short you have living world that reacts to "themepark" campaign. Changes according to it. But you dont need to participate at all. Instead you can just do your thing.
The promotional video said very little about gameplay - the game itself. All the blabber was about graphics, world and "feel". "The game" is more than just a themepark campaign.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I just had a look at Star Citizen, looks promosing, but it does raise a dilemma for me. As someone on here who keeps saying do not preorder what to say about Kickstart games? I think if your heart is in the project then ante up, for me I will wait for the reviews but as usual have no issues with parting with cash and a sub if I like what I see.
It most certainly is what we want,however i beleive devs know it as well,but they are not about to put in the effort.
Recent game designs i have seen look really pathetic,it is like the devs/board get together and try to figure out the cheapest way to make a game stick and turn the largest profit possible.
To begin with a WORLD involves what i have been asking for awhile,versatile NPC's NOT these 3 possible choice questions with some minimal change/motive depending on your choice,that is too cheap/fabricated and eventually predictable.
I also have been asking for an ECO system for a very long time.
problems arise however,vast amounts of complex AI equals way too many memory resources.
I beleive there is a possible answer,IF we believe what marketing has been telling us.They CLAIM that the Physx engines/code can help speed up graphics and lower the load.if true then it opens up more room to give us better Ai.
this would allow more NPC's to roam and an ECO system.What i am afraid of is it stil lwould mean LESS of.Examplke less objects,less effects/animations,less people per zone/server and more use of those VIRTUAL/instance servers we have seen,that i do not like.
PhysX is also suppose to allow for destructive surfaces and realistic surfaces to happen without that huge resource draw.That means realistic leather/metal/effects.
It all comes down to TIME spent on game development and SYSTEMS and IF they are willing to spend on licenses to attain use of code liek the PhysX engine.
Trends have shown us the devs are NOT willing to go that extra effort,they instead want to keep on churning out CHEAP linear questing with a hint of some SMALL really meaningless end game raiding or PVP.NEITHER are really important to a realsitic RPG atmosphere,so in reality developers are NOTG making very good Role Playing games.They are simply giving us what they have seen sells the best,so profit over quality.
It will take someone who has vision and walks the walk - not mutters about vision and merely talks the talk.
The likely outcome of what you refer to as an ecosystem world - with all of the elements of other games in one place - would be greater than the sum of it's parts and thus attract a huge following.
People make a great deal of the 10+ million subs WoW had at it's height, and how this is 'not acheivable again'. Blizzard put out a large game which was attractive enough for people to try it and broke enough new ground and offered enough new material to retain that interest and grow.
But then it was easier breaking new ground back in the day - there were far fewer examples of MMOs for gamers to compare and contrast. So I suppose understandably there are many who attribute it's success to timing and with overly-simplistic 'logic' predict there cannot be 'another WoW' becuase those conditions will never occur again.
But such 'seers' miss the point.
A new world-beating MMO will indeed not have these advantageous conditions handed to it on a plate within the current paradigm, it will not have new ground to break or a lack of competition - hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the death of the MMO genre etc. etc.
This is however crapola.
When a paradigm (simply put - a current widely accepted and practiced way of doing something) has been flogged to death - as the MMO genre is currently experiencing, then advantage and success within it is hard to find.
You need to create a new paradigm - one which lays the very 'new ground' and creates the new opportunities which it can then exploit first.
This requires innovative thinking 'outside of the box' and periodically happens win all human endevours regardless of the legions of short sighted proles who predict it cannot.
This is what will happen eventually in this genre, and the first game to do it will be a WoW-style runaway success.
For every rare person who dreamed man could fly, there were countless fools who thought it wasn't possible. It is thus with this rather less noble endevour. But fly we will - and when we get a paradigm breaking thinker(s), the technology is there or almost there to provide the tools to do so.
The only question is - how long to we have to wait for the 'Wright Brothers'...
I was just lazy to type virtual worlds and typed sandbox instead ... sorry.
I dont see your point though.
Virtual worlds vs MMO games ? What MMO games ? There is a broad spectrum.
And Virtual worlds , its also very open term.
Let me give you perfect example of how Virtual world can be themepark aswell (and should be) the example is pretty recent and maybe some of you dont know it.
The game is Star Citizen
Galaxy in the game is attacked by enemy faction. Game revolves around player starting as a cadet pilot and progressing trough the story trough battle missions.
BUT
If player so chooses , he never needs to enroll into the army. He can just go on living his life in the galaxy. Trading , pirating , exploring. Maybe even aiding enemy factions , or military as mercenary.
...
In short you have living world that reacts to "themepark" campaign. Changes according to it. But you dont need to participate at all. Instead you can just do your thing.
The promotional video said very little about gameplay - the game itself. All the blabber was about graphics, world and "feel". "The game" is more than just a themepark campaign.
I dont know how the final game will be like.
I am just using theoretical gameplay design he mentioned as an example of virtual world + themepark symbiosis
sandboxers should be able to ignore themparkish aspects they dont like and play a game, if they chose to do so.... but themeparkers cant "make believe" themepark elements in to a game.
Wanting a sandbox isn't merely a case of "ignoring themeparkish elements"; there needs to be development work to allow the players the mechanisms to actually interact with each other. This gets handwaved away a lot because "everyone knows" that its themepark content that needs all the developing. But implementing and refining tools for players to interact with each other is just as big a job. Just ask CCP!
The promotional video said very little about gameplay - the game itself. All the blabber was about graphics, world and "feel". "The game" is more than just a themepark campaign.
I dont know how the final game will be like.
I am just using theoretical gameplay design he mentioned as an example of virtual world + themepark symbiosis
Bah, I will remain sceptical until I see actual gameplay. The fact that he talked about almost anything but is not very encouraging. It is understandable to put your best side forward afterall.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Er, who was talking about sandbox vs themepark? I was talking about virtual worlds vs MMO "games" and a theme park game can certainly be a reasonable approximation of a virtual world, DAOC was one such title back in the day. (so much so many people argue it was a sandbox instead)
Reading further, maybe you meant to reply to someone else's post?
And so you were.
I was just lazy to type virtual worlds and typed sandbox instead ... sorry.
I dont see your point though.
Virtual worlds vs MMO games ? What MMO games ? There is a broad spectrum.
And Virtual worlds , its also very open term.
Let me give you perfect example of how Virtual world can be themepark aswell (and should be) the example is pretty recent and maybe some of you dont know it.
The game is Star Citizen
Galaxy in the game is attacked by enemy faction. Game revolves around player starting as a cadet pilot and progressing trough the story trough battle missions.
BUT
If player so chooses , he never needs to enroll into the army. He can just go on living his life in the galaxy. Trading , pirating , exploring. Maybe even aiding enemy factions , or military as mercenary.
...
In short you have living world that reacts to "themepark" campaign. Changes according to it. But you dont need to participate at all. Instead you can just do your thing.
I think we lost our point a few posts back because we appear to be in agreement that a themepark style MMO can be more of a virtual world with me providing an older example of one and you offering up one currently in development. As to why and how I differentiate between virtual worlds and MMO games that would be it's own thread, but the short version is all based on game mechanics that simulate more realism and encourage the player to stay in and interact with others in the game world.
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
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 ?
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
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 ?
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
Indeed, however 90% of the majority of those player have never acualy tried a real MMORPG and dont know anything about them. I can ask in most game what was the first MMORPG and most of them will say World of Warcraft. If a company were to make a real MMORPG well you may see alot of that majorty acualy give the game a try and with anyluck they wont try and change the game to be a WoW clone and they will acualy enjoy it.
Originally posted by lizardbonesAnyway, their peak users had to be at least a million. They had a million accounts as of the pre-order period just before launch. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108017-Rift-Tops-the-One-Million-Account-Mark. They could have had five people playing one month later, but they sold at least a million boxes before they went global.
You can have an account even without paying for the game. This is the same argument back from the rift forums, if rift would EVER have a million live subs, do you think Trion would have kept it a SECRET, just so that a few guys could argue over it on teh internetz?
That was really my only problem with your post, even if i stupidly commented on the box price vs sub number thing.
You may carry on bashing purist sandboxes. I made my point sufficiently clear a few pages back when you argued with yourself
Flame on!
Bah! Duped by verbiage! In any event, pick any two of the following games: Rift, SWToR, GW2, AoC, WarHammer, and you'll get a significantly bigger number of peak players than UO + SWG + Eve. The most popular games, judged by peak players are not sandboxes.
What is your point, exactly?
My point was that you and other are intentionally steering the discussion towards "purist sanboxes like eve" vs everything else, just to bash eve and uo on sub numbers and profit.
We had early wow, aion, lineage 2, runescape, aoc, all games which, despite their other shortcomings, sufficiently "sold" a big world, player interaction, economy and politics (in varied degrees, ofcourse).
But ofcourse it is easier to just say "No." as you did last time and repeat the "sandbox no profit" mantra (twice).
Originally posted by Banaghran My point was that you and other are intentionally steering the discussion towards "purist sanboxes like eve" vs everything else, just to bash eve and uo on sub numbers and profit.
We had early wow, aion, lineage 2, runescape, aoc, all games which, despite their other shortcomings, sufficiently "sold" a big world, player interaction, economy and politics (in varied degrees, ofcourse).
But ofcourse it is easier to just say "No." as you did last time and repeat the "sandbox no profit" mantra (twice).
Flame on!
I'm not steering the conversation towards Eve, SWG and UO. I can't help it if people keep bringing those games up as proof of something. I could try not responding, but what would be the fun of that?
WoW has a big environment, but it's not a world of the type the OP is talking about. Even in the areas where dynamic content exists, the world is simply reflecting the part of the path the player is on. It's not a dynamic response to the player. It is certainly big, but it is static. AoC is the same way. The games present the player with a story, with a clear path with a beginning, middle and end. Rift has a far more responsive and dynamic 'world' than either WoW or AoC. It's a tiny environment, but it has more dynamic content. It's not a world though...the players are still following a story path.
The op is talking about interactive worlds that respond to player activities with more content. You will have to go a long ways to show that WoW, Aion and AoC sold some sort of interactive world. I have no idea about L2.
** edit ** People are bringing up sandbox games because they are a much better fit for the OP's goal of 'worlds', while theme parks are a much better fit for 'games'.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by toddze One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
What is a "true" MMORPG player? If most of the players are not "true" MMORPG players, why would any developer bother with creating games for "true" MMORPG players?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Onomas EQNextThe repopulationArcheageGreed MongerThe Black DesertDark Fall 2/UWDragons Prophet (sounds like they are going sandbox style) Thats 2 games SOE are making snadboxes Told you a change was coming :PAge of Wushu (but think this is a hybrid, havent read much into it)Embers of CaerusOrigins of MaluTheres 10, need a few more? Some of these look damn good, and some have so called "themepark/hybrid" additions to them. But in general are sandbox games. Because honestly i think its stupid to call a sandbox a hybrid just because its got story, quests, and other stuff that normaly come with sandboxes lol.
I will probably wait until they release before I say anything about the games themselves. I've been burned a few times on the "this is the great sandbox hope" train. However, skipping ahead, why are developers starting to try more 'world' based games and mechanics? I can think of a couple reasons.
* They're out of ideas for theme park style games. They can come up with new IPs, but are at a loss for new content and mechanics in a theme park setting that isn't just a slight variation on existing games.
* Theme parks do not provide longevity and they now know they can't provide enough content to players in that setting. Adding player interaction via sandbox mechanics will add longevity to their games.
* Adding the sandbox content isn't going to cost them more money compared to adding a lot of theme park content. There is a cost justification.
I don't think content like what the OP has described will really make it in though. It's not a cost thing, players will just break whatever dynamic and interactive systems the developers put in there.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If not popular then why are 9 of them coming out soon? Some are AAA as well. Fact is themeparks have become worse and had their day. Now things will progress in a different direction. Bet you half of those will do better than the last 50 themeparks, because since Rift......... none have been worthy. So 1 out of 100 themeparks amount to anything, and this is your arguement for why themeparks are better and shouldnt change? Because im confused. I want a real mmo, an epic game with a massive world. Most you guys attacking sandboxes want the opposite.
Because despite what you believe, companies try new things all the time. Some becomes popualr (like Dishonored), and some not so much (like the new Xcom remake).
In fact, you can't say these 9 games are popular until they are out, can you?
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 ?
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
uh no, i know plenty of people who are mmo players who have never touched a single player rpg in their lives.
they started playing WoW because they liked the game world, the ideas behind WoW and playing a game you gain levels and items in.
what the heck makes a "true" mmo player? someone who agrees with the mantra you guys are repeating?
i've played UO, EQ1,daoc, and pretty much all the other mmos that came before WoW, i see no difference between WoW and everquest, except that WoW makes you feel more like a hero and less like an extermantor of orcs.
what makes a world? seamlessness? scope of the world? zone size? non-combat things? deepness of tradeskills?
need for other players?
is it possible to articulate it?
i start to wonder if they should change the name from mmorpg.com to grumpyoldmmoplayerretirementhome.com
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 ?
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
uh no, i know plenty of people who are mmo players who have never touched a single player rpg in their lives.
they started playing WoW because they liked the game world, the ideas behind WoW and playing a game you gain levels and items in.
what the heck makes a "true" mmo player? someone who agrees with the mantra you guys are repeating?
i've played UO, EQ1,daoc, and pretty much all the other mmos that came before WoW, i see no difference between WoW and everquest, except that WoW makes you feel more like a hero and less like an extermantor of orcs.
what makes a world? seamlessness? scope of the world? zone size? non-combat things? deepness of tradeskills?
need for other players?
is it possible to articulate it?
i start to wonder if they should change the name from mmorpg.com to grumpyoldmmoplayerretirementhome.com
too long though.
This site is covering non-world online games like LOL, WOT, Diablo anyway. The genre needs to expand. There is no reason why good MMO features cannot go into other online games and vice versa.
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
Why is this a "problem"? MMO should be adapting to players, not the other way around.
There is nothing sacred about "true MMOs" .. they are just a form of entertainment.
Enough already, we all understand that games are entertainment. You are not having an epiphany the 20 times a day you post this. lol.
Also, I am completely aware that you are struggling to understand why some of us hold this genre in a different light. A lot of us treat MMOs as more of a hobby than a mere game. They aren't "sacred", that's just being dramatic and silly. The concept of playing a game in a huge world with massive amounts of other players, that had so much to offer that people could potentially play for periods longer than a few weeks or months is what brought me here. Commitment to a good mmo does not mean that that's the only game that can be played. I have still remained a RTS/FPS gamer throughout my time with MMOs.
Singleplayer/multiplayer online games have all benefitted from borrowed MMO features and design. MMOs, on the hand, have had their foundation ripped out and are quickly losing any sense of what they were intended for. Now we have people literally gobbling them up like potato chips because they have zero lasting power. MMOs really got the shit end of the stick as these new disposable gamers started flooding the industry.
You might be having a fiesta with this unfortunate abomination, but surely you can see why so many of us do not like where this genre is heading. Frankly, when we do get to the other side, I doubt many will be thrilled with the end result; yourself included.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
Why is this a "problem"? MMO should be adapting to players, not the other way around.
There is nothing sacred about "true MMOs" .. they are just a form of entertainment.
Enough already, we all understand that games are entertainment. You are not having an epiphany the 20 times a day you post this. lol.
Also, I am completely aware that you are struggling to understand why some of us hold this genre in a different light. A lot of us treat MMOs as more of a hobby than a mere game. They aren't "sacred", that's just being dramatic and silly. The concept of playing a game in a huge world with massive amounts of other players, that had so much to offer that people could potentially play for periods longer than a few weeks or months is what brought me here. Commitment to a good mmo does not mean that that's the only game that can be played. I have still remained a RTS/FPS gamer throughout my time with MMOs.
Singleplayer/multiplayer online games have all benefitted from borrowed MMO features and design. MMOs, on the hand, have had their foundation ripped out and are quickly losing any sense of what they were intended for. Now we have people literally gobbling them up like potato chips because they have zero lasting power. MMOs really got the shit end of the stick as these new disposable gamers started flooding the industry.
You might be having a fiesta with this unfortunate abomination, but surely you can see why so many of us do not like where this genre is heading. Frankly, when we do get to the other side, I doubt many will be thrilled with the end result; yourself included.
It's not that we don't understand. We do understand however we do not agree. I don't agree that MMO's have had their foundation ripped out from under them. I do feel they are becoming more and more inclusive they are having more varied experiences. I do feel that MMO's by and large have significantly been positively impacted by the inclusion of many things that are in spg.
Today even with a busier schedule, I feel I have far more value for my dollar, far more choice in what games to play and how to pay for them, and far more choice in how I choose to play the game than in days gone by. I see this trend increasing.
Other people don't like them, thats fine. I by and large don't like many games either (be they spg, mmo, muliplayer, fps...) that hasn't really changed from basically my whole life.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If not popular then why are 9 of them coming out soon? Some are AAA as well. Fact is themeparks have become worse and had their day. Now things will progress in a different direction. Bet you half of those will do better than the last 50 themeparks, because since Rift......... none have been worthy. So 1 out of 100 themeparks amount to anything, and this is your arguement for why themeparks are better and shouldnt change? Because im confused. I want a real mmo, an epic game with a massive world. Most you guys attacking sandboxes want the opposite.
Because despite what you believe, companies try new things all the time. Some becomes popualr (like Dishonored), and some not so much (like the new Xcom remake).
In fact, you can't say these 9 games are popular until they are out, can you?
Sure i can, just look at the front page
And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?
Comments
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And so you were.
I was just lazy to type virtual worlds and typed sandbox instead ... sorry.
I dont see your point though.
Virtual worlds vs MMO games ? What MMO games ? There is a broad spectrum.
And Virtual worlds , its also very open term.
Let me give you perfect example of how Virtual world can be themepark aswell (and should be) the example is pretty recent and maybe some of you dont know it.
The game is Star Citizen
Galaxy in the game is attacked by enemy faction. Game revolves around player starting as a cadet pilot and progressing trough the story trough battle missions.
BUT
If player so chooses , he never needs to enroll into the army. He can just go on living his life in the galaxy. Trading , pirating , exploring. Maybe even aiding enemy factions , or military as mercenary.
...
In short you have living world that reacts to "themepark" campaign. Changes according to it. But you dont need to participate at all. Instead you can just do your thing.
The promotional video said very little about gameplay - the game itself. All the blabber was about graphics, world and "feel". "The game" is more than just a themepark campaign.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
*** WHOOOOSH ***
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
It will take someone who has vision and walks the walk - not mutters about vision and merely talks the talk.
The likely outcome of what you refer to as an ecosystem world - with all of the elements of other games in one place - would be greater than the sum of it's parts and thus attract a huge following.
People make a great deal of the 10+ million subs WoW had at it's height, and how this is 'not acheivable again'. Blizzard put out a large game which was attractive enough for people to try it and broke enough new ground and offered enough new material to retain that interest and grow.
But then it was easier breaking new ground back in the day - there were far fewer examples of MMOs for gamers to compare and contrast. So I suppose understandably there are many who attribute it's success to timing and with overly-simplistic 'logic' predict there cannot be 'another WoW' becuase those conditions will never occur again.
But such 'seers' miss the point.
A new world-beating MMO will indeed not have these advantageous conditions handed to it on a plate within the current paradigm, it will not have new ground to break or a lack of competition - hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the death of the MMO genre etc. etc.
This is however crapola.
When a paradigm (simply put - a current widely accepted and practiced way of doing something) has been flogged to death - as the MMO genre is currently experiencing, then advantage and success within it is hard to find.
You need to create a new paradigm - one which lays the very 'new ground' and creates the new opportunities which it can then exploit first.
This requires innovative thinking 'outside of the box' and periodically happens win all human endevours regardless of the legions of short sighted proles who predict it cannot.
This is what will happen eventually in this genre, and the first game to do it will be a WoW-style runaway success.
For every rare person who dreamed man could fly, there were countless fools who thought it wasn't possible. It is thus with this rather less noble endevour. But fly we will - and when we get a paradigm breaking thinker(s), the technology is there or almost there to provide the tools to do so.
The only question is - how long to we have to wait for the 'Wright Brothers'...
I dont know how the final game will be like.
I am just using theoretical gameplay design he mentioned as an example of virtual world + themepark symbiosis
Wanting a sandbox isn't merely a case of "ignoring themeparkish elements"; there needs to be development work to allow the players the mechanisms to actually interact with each other. This gets handwaved away a lot because "everyone knows" that its themepark content that needs all the developing. But implementing and refining tools for players to interact with each other is just as big a job. Just ask CCP!
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Bah, I will remain sceptical until I see actual gameplay. The fact that he talked about almost anything but is not very encouraging. It is understandable to put your best side forward afterall.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Er, who was talking about sandbox vs themepark? I was talking about virtual worlds vs MMO "games" and a theme park game can certainly be a reasonable approximation of a virtual world, DAOC was one such title back in the day. (so much so many people argue it was a sandbox instead)
Reading further, maybe you meant to reply to someone else's post?
And so you were.
I was just lazy to type virtual worlds and typed sandbox instead ... sorry.
I dont see your point though.
Virtual worlds vs MMO games ? What MMO games ? There is a broad spectrum.
And Virtual worlds , its also very open term.
Let me give you perfect example of how Virtual world can be themepark aswell (and should be) the example is pretty recent and maybe some of you dont know it.
The game is Star Citizen
Galaxy in the game is attacked by enemy faction. Game revolves around player starting as a cadet pilot and progressing trough the story trough battle missions.
BUT
If player so chooses , he never needs to enroll into the army. He can just go on living his life in the galaxy. Trading , pirating , exploring. Maybe even aiding enemy factions , or military as mercenary.
...
In short you have living world that reacts to "themepark" campaign. Changes according to it. But you dont need to participate at all. Instead you can just do your thing.
I think we lost our point a few posts back because we appear to be in agreement that a themepark style MMO can be more of a virtual world with me providing an older example of one and you offering up one currently in development. As to why and how I differentiate between virtual worlds and MMO games that would be it's own thread, but the short version is all based on game mechanics that simulate more realism and encourage the player to stay in and interact with others in the game world."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
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
Indeed, however 90% of the majority of those player have never acualy tried a real MMORPG and dont know anything about them. I can ask in most game what was the first MMORPG and most of them will say World of Warcraft. If a company were to make a real MMORPG well you may see alot of that majorty acualy give the game a try and with anyluck they wont try and change the game to be a WoW clone and they will acualy enjoy it.
My point was that you and other are intentionally steering the discussion towards "purist sanboxes like eve" vs everything else, just to bash eve and uo on sub numbers and profit.
We had early wow, aion, lineage 2, runescape, aoc, all games which, despite their other shortcomings, sufficiently "sold" a big world, player interaction, economy and politics (in varied degrees, ofcourse).
But ofcourse it is easier to just say "No." as you did last time and repeat the "sandbox no profit" mantra (twice).
Flame on!
I'm not steering the conversation towards Eve, SWG and UO. I can't help it if people keep bringing those games up as proof of something. I could try not responding, but what would be the fun of that?
WoW has a big environment, but it's not a world of the type the OP is talking about. Even in the areas where dynamic content exists, the world is simply reflecting the part of the path the player is on. It's not a dynamic response to the player. It is certainly big, but it is static. AoC is the same way. The games present the player with a story, with a clear path with a beginning, middle and end. Rift has a far more responsive and dynamic 'world' than either WoW or AoC. It's a tiny environment, but it has more dynamic content. It's not a world though...the players are still following a story path.
The op is talking about interactive worlds that respond to player activities with more content. You will have to go a long ways to show that WoW, Aion and AoC sold some sort of interactive world. I have no idea about L2.
** edit **
People are bringing up sandbox games because they are a much better fit for the OP's goal of 'worlds', while theme parks are a much better fit for 'games'.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What is a "true" MMORPG player? If most of the players are not "true" MMORPG players, why would any developer bother with creating games for "true" MMORPG players?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I will probably wait until they release before I say anything about the games themselves. I've been burned a few times on the "this is the great sandbox hope" train. However, skipping ahead, why are developers starting to try more 'world' based games and mechanics? I can think of a couple reasons.
* They're out of ideas for theme park style games. They can come up with new IPs, but are at a loss for new content and mechanics in a theme park setting that isn't just a slight variation on existing games.
* Theme parks do not provide longevity and they now know they can't provide enough content to players in that setting. Adding player interaction via sandbox mechanics will add longevity to their games.
* Adding the sandbox content isn't going to cost them more money compared to adding a lot of theme park content. There is a cost justification.
I don't think content like what the OP has described will really make it in though. It's not a cost thing, players will just break whatever dynamic and interactive systems the developers put in there.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Because despite what you believe, companies try new things all the time. Some becomes popualr (like Dishonored), and some not so much (like the new Xcom remake).
In fact, you can't say these 9 games are popular until they are out, can you?
Why is this a "problem"? MMO should be adapting to players, not the other way around.
There is nothing sacred about "true MMOs" .. they are just a form of entertainment.
uh no, i know plenty of people who are mmo players who have never touched a single player rpg in their lives.
they started playing WoW because they liked the game world, the ideas behind WoW and playing a game you gain levels and items in.
what the heck makes a "true" mmo player? someone who agrees with the mantra you guys are repeating?
i've played UO, EQ1,daoc, and pretty much all the other mmos that came before WoW, i see no difference between WoW and everquest, except that WoW makes you feel more like a hero and less like an extermantor of orcs.
what makes a world? seamlessness? scope of the world? zone size? non-combat things? deepness of tradeskills?
need for other players?
is it possible to articulate it?
i start to wonder if they should change the name from mmorpg.com to grumpyoldmmoplayerretirementhome.com
too long though.
This site is covering non-world online games like LOL, WOT, Diablo anyway. The genre needs to expand. There is no reason why good MMO features cannot go into other online games and vice versa.
Enough already, we all understand that games are entertainment. You are not having an epiphany the 20 times a day you post this. lol.
Also, I am completely aware that you are struggling to understand why some of us hold this genre in a different light. A lot of us treat MMOs as more of a hobby than a mere game. They aren't "sacred", that's just being dramatic and silly. The concept of playing a game in a huge world with massive amounts of other players, that had so much to offer that people could potentially play for periods longer than a few weeks or months is what brought me here. Commitment to a good mmo does not mean that that's the only game that can be played. I have still remained a RTS/FPS gamer throughout my time with MMOs.
Singleplayer/multiplayer online games have all benefitted from borrowed MMO features and design. MMOs, on the hand, have had their foundation ripped out and are quickly losing any sense of what they were intended for. Now we have people literally gobbling them up like potato chips because they have zero lasting power. MMOs really got the shit end of the stick as these new disposable gamers started flooding the industry.
You might be having a fiesta with this unfortunate abomination, but surely you can see why so many of us do not like where this genre is heading. Frankly, when we do get to the other side, I doubt many will be thrilled with the end result; yourself included.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It's not that we don't understand. We do understand however we do not agree. I don't agree that MMO's have had their foundation ripped out from under them. I do feel they are becoming more and more inclusive they are having more varied experiences. I do feel that MMO's by and large have significantly been positively impacted by the inclusion of many things that are in spg.
Today even with a busier schedule, I feel I have far more value for my dollar, far more choice in what games to play and how to pay for them, and far more choice in how I choose to play the game than in days gone by. I see this trend increasing.
Other people don't like them, thats fine. I by and large don't like many games either (be they spg, mmo, muliplayer, fps...) that hasn't really changed from basically my whole life.
Sure i can, just look at the front page
And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?
Ok, you want a good example of a virtual world game that changes according to players influence and creates its own "themepark" naturally -
Here is Elite: Dangerous dev diary 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uKD1ap5hsI&feature=youtu.be