EVE-Chronicles is something I read long before / after I un-subbed from EVE.
And some of those were really good. Not all were outstanding and it got really samey-twists stuff at the end but as media from a gaming scene, it was awesome.
Not saying I disagree as a really nice story don't give players much wiggle room but I think it can give something for players to play for / launch them.
Imagine if EVE guys finally make a good story in-game.
Or they finally let faction warfare actually influence their story.
FW when released was absolutely filled with people cause they thought it might matter.
When players realized it doesn't matter at all, it just died and I think most are just milking it for ISK / IP. But if properly done, I think it can rival some of the 0.0 stories.
Lets face it, 0.0 stories are good, like how one person brought down BoB and went to Goons but they are too few.
And some are just boring, like the ROFL stomping of AAA in the south when it had the potential to become this epic firestorm this year. You had literally every 0.0 alliance except NC. (and BL I think? Or was it IRC?), 50k pilots all piling in...
And......... 'AAA undock please'. -_________-;
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by LoktofeitModulized content could allow for better mix of open-ended, creative gameplay while still offering story to follow. Maybe even allow players to DM or have contractable DMs to work with the players through the modules. Actually, that would probably bring MMOs back to their PnP roots and make for a far more interesting and engaging game in a story-driven sandbox environment.
Which makes me wonder if it could possibly pass.
We're loaded to the rafters with Old Guys.
Demonstrably, what we wanted/liked doesn't seem to sell well with GenX and GenY and etc.
But we keep trying to force them into old molds. The majority of species "gamer" grew up with an internet and smartphones and tablets--we didn't. Bitching about the lost glories of bygone ages, PnP, MUDs, GEnie, Dial Up, Acoustic Modems(!)--they must think we're (mostly) insane.
Maybe the we should open a Game Design for the Real World forum--no one born before 1990 allowed to participate.
(counts on fingers1990..that's...22, yeah that works)
Consider a plot of gamer ages--I am way, way out the on the right-hand tip, two, three, maybe four stdevs above the mean.
I should be driving game design for the other 95%+ of the gamer pop? I don't think so. That's just how far out in right field I am from "the average gamer". See me dropping the fly balls? :waves:
22 year old? His ideas and his influence can only grow greater.
I do love it when you bring up sports in your replies, very helpful.
My grandfather loved football. My father loved it a well. So do I and my two daughters. So it has been enjoyed by people in my family spanning more than 100 years.
But you feel the MMO mechanics I enjoyed 10 years ago are too dated and out of touch for "todays" younger, more modern gamer?
Sorry, I just don't agree, they just need to be shown the light. They really don't understand what they are missing.
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
So the question is, what's the next step? Or did we get on the right foot in the first place? The question isn't 'I like Sandbox and themepark lovers are console kiddies' in a smug tone.
Question is, how does a sandbox game appeal more towards the mainstream gamers? I'm not talking about LFG or instant teleport or raid-or-die, that's the sticky thread. I'm talking about more basic fundamental stuff.
I play games mostly because I want to be told a good story. That's my preference. Give me a game with awful game mechanics but a good story and I'll buy/play that.
It always interested me that 'sandbox MMOs' tend to have bad story/char or a story/char that is irrevelent to the players (I'm looking at you EVE-Online!). This is why 'Sandbox MMOs' don't appeal to me all that much. Has nothing to do with it being hard or forced grouping or w/e.
I hope this thread starts the discussion of 'why do you play games?' and how that can be integrated into a 'sandbox MMO' without touching the 'sandbox' design.
I have to ask tho, concerning the part I highlighted.. Original MMORPG's were not designed to tell you a story, but gave you the stage in which to write your own.. If I want to be told a story, I'd read a book.. If I want to relive a story, I'd dig out the console game box and play it.. This is one thing I noticed is the hijacking of the original MMO genre.. I want a game that allows me to customize my own character due from my actions.. I refer back to EQ where my actions often effected my "faction" status.. I can't think of one mainstream game today that allows this.. Can a human be allied with the Ogres in WoW? NO.. That was just one simple example of how this genre changed.. I want a world where I can choose for MYSELF who I'm friend or foe with..
Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.
It really is that easy.
And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?
Um, ever heard of Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies? They weren't blank but they had fanstastic systems such as housing and crafting.
I understand your aversion to sandbox games but sometimes it seems you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
His statement was that it wasn't easy, not that it can't be done. Are you suggesting that there was nothing to SWG and UO, and that the developers just created a blank world in those games and then sat back and watched? If so, why are so many developers avoiding such an easily-accomplished solution?
Because no sandbox has yet to solve the "PvE in a Sandbox Conundrum" - and most devs have utterly failed to learn the "PvP in a Sandbox" rules that UO, SWG, and even EvE have/had addressed.
PvE in a Sandbox Conundrum - PvE in Sandbox MMOs is awful. You grind, you maybe grind some more, and you continue to grind some more (either straight up mob-killing grinding or the slightly less awful Mission/repeatable-garbage grinding.)
Or PvE in a Sandbox is crafting... which can be awesome (UO/SWG/EvE) but only if you LIKE crafting as it's inherently more boring than combat.
PvP in a Sandbox rules - UO, SWG, and even EvE figured out that you HAVE to give players choice, you have to let them choose whether or not they want to PvP. UO = Trammel/Felucca split. SWG = flagged/covert system. EvE = High/Low/Null sec space.
So until a developer figures out a solution to the former and actually pays attention and adapts to the later, sandbox will never be as popular as theme park.
So the question is, what's the next step? Or did we get on the right foot in the first place?
The next step if, you're talking about Theme Park games, would be to add systems to Theme Park games that make them more in depth and involved. Making them more fun to play.
For Sandbox games, it's giving them a shot and seeing what can happen. With the current state of technology, there are a lot of things that game engines can do now that wasn't possible in 1995. Even in 2005. Why not give a sandbox game a shot and see what happens? There have been a few that have tried it, and some have been relatively successful even if they are not as popular as other games on the market.
On mixing the two, it would be REALLY tricky, but possible. It pretty much just means adding the tools found in the sandbox to the Theme Park and remembering to add the sand. It also means not borking the player's hard work by making the game gear driven, but by focusing player goals and ambitions in new directions.
Question is, how does a sandbox game appeal more towards the mainstream gamers?
How about:
Building and running cities?
Defending cities or taking over cities (both PvP options)
Clearing out spaces for development
Pulling heists on cargo hauls
Amassing an empire
Exploring large land masses
Building top end armor/vehicles/housing etc
I play games mostly because I want to be told a good story. That's my preference. Give me a game with awful game mechanics but a good story and I'll buy/play that.
How about writing your own story as you go. As you and team mates help build something out of nothing, then defend it and make it grow. Honestly that seems like a pretty epic story. It may not be written in advance, but it is a story none the less.
Think of it as almost journalism.
It always interested me that 'sandbox MMOs' tend to have bad story/char or a story/char that is irrevelent to the players (I'm looking at you EVE-Online!). This is why 'Sandbox MMOs' don't appeal to me all that much. Has nothing to do with it being hard or forced grouping or w/e.
I think you lost me here. I know of a lot of Sandbox style games that have a lot of different stories in them. It keeps them interesting. If it's the same characters, same plot lines, etc over and over, it gets old and predictable fast.
I hope this thread starts the discussion of 'why do you play games?' and how that can be integrated into a 'sandbox MMO' without touching the 'sandbox' design.
I love MMO's and I play them almost exclusively. Honestly though I would love to see MMO's start to step away from character progression and start moving more toward world progression. Letting players do things that impact the entire world.
It may seem strange, but to me that just sounds interesting and fascinating.
I suppose that Sandbox players are the minority, but with enough of us speaking up, there are more of these types of games coming into production even if it is from independent developers and publishers.
I guess the big names are waiting to see if the independent guys are successful, then try to put their own spin on it.
Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.
It really is that easy.
And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?
Um, ever heard of Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies? They weren't blank but they had fanstastic systems such as housing and crafting.
I understand your aversion to sandbox games but sometimes it seems you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
His statement was that it wasn't easy, not that it can't be done. Are you suggesting that there was nothing to SWG and UO, and that the developers just created a blank world in those games and then sat back and watched? If so, why are so many developers avoiding such an easily-accomplished solution?
UO & SWG are by-gone out-of-date games. We are talking about modern games. You think a new UO or SWG will be successful today?
And UO has all sort of problems from griefing to ghetto. A blank world is not necessarily fun (to many).
Player migration is a huge problem in the industry and it has already impacted on you and your MMO’s. Game companies are already very wary of investing in MMO’s, they need long term subs and or cash shop income to make AAA truly viable. They have been using IP’s and changing gameplay thinking this will keep players. It has not.
Now I cannot be sure if a particular MMO is recovering its investment at launch, I think most are or the genre would simply have died by now. But part of getting investors to commit is the surety of a long term revenue stream. That surety has now gone. Why make a MMO for far greater cost than a solo game unless you have a probability of far greater rewards?
So I see a real danger for the industry here, we may see an end to AAA titles, maybe we already have. Of course they will still be called that, marketing is not going to allow them to be called anything else. But the level of investment will drop as a AAA MMO is seen as being too risky.
It wouldn't surprise me. The return on investment when it comes down to the overall cost of an AAA MMO is just really not worth the risk.
Though I'm noticing the kickstarter trend. Maybe more players will feel more invested if they feel like they are 'launching' a game instead of just buying a pre-order.
Though granted, it may just be saying the same thing different ways, but who knows?
Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.
It really is that easy.
And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?
Um, ever heard of Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies? They weren't blank but they had fanstastic systems such as housing and crafting.
I understand your aversion to sandbox games but sometimes it seems you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
His statement was that it wasn't easy, not that it can't be done. Are you suggesting that there was nothing to SWG and UO, and that the developers just created a blank world in those games and then sat back and watched? If so, why are so many developers avoiding such an easily-accomplished solution?
UO & SWG are by-gone out-of-date games. We are talking about modern games. You think a new UO or SWG will be successful today?
And UO has all sort of problems from griefing to ghetto. A blank world is not necessarily fun (to many).
Alright, at this point I think Zekiah is right - you seem like you're arguing for the sake of arguing now.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
Does it though?
EVE-Chronicles is something I read long before / after I un-subbed from EVE.
And some of those were really good. Not all were outstanding and it got really samey-twists stuff at the end but as media from a gaming scene, it was awesome.
Not saying I disagree as a really nice story don't give players much wiggle room but I think it can give something for players to play for / launch them.
Imagine if EVE guys finally make a good story in-game.
Or they finally let faction warfare actually influence their story.
FW when released was absolutely filled with people cause they thought it might matter.
When players realized it doesn't matter at all, it just died and I think most are just milking it for ISK / IP. But if properly done, I think it can rival some of the 0.0 stories.
Lets face it, 0.0 stories are good, like how one person brought down BoB and went to Goons but they are too few.
And some are just boring, like the ROFL stomping of AAA in the south when it had the potential to become this epic firestorm this year. You had literally every 0.0 alliance except NC. (and BL I think? Or was it IRC?), 50k pilots all piling in...
And......... 'AAA undock please'. -_________-;
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Which makes me wonder if it could possibly pass.
We're loaded to the rafters with Old Guys.
Demonstrably, what we wanted/liked doesn't seem to sell well with GenX and GenY and etc.
But we keep trying to force them into old molds. The majority of species "gamer" grew up with an internet and smartphones and tablets--we didn't. Bitching about the lost glories of bygone ages, PnP, MUDs, GEnie, Dial Up, Acoustic Modems(!)--they must think we're (mostly) insane.
Maybe the we should open a Game Design for the Real World forum--no one born before 1990 allowed to participate.
(counts on fingers1990..that's...22, yeah that works)
Consider a plot of gamer ages--I am way, way out the on the right-hand tip, two, three, maybe four stdevs above the mean.
I should be driving game design for the other 95%+ of the gamer pop? I don't think so. That's just how far out in right field I am from "the average gamer". See me dropping the fly balls? :waves:
22 year old? His ideas and his influence can only grow greater.
I do love it when you bring up sports in your replies, very helpful.My grandfather loved football. My father loved it a well. So do I and my two daughters. So it has been enjoyed by people in my family spanning more than 100 years.
But you feel the MMO mechanics I enjoyed 10 years ago are too dated and out of touch for "todays" younger, more modern gamer?
Sorry, I just don't agree, they just need to be shown the light. They really don't understand what they are missing.
"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
I have to ask tho, concerning the part I highlighted.. Original MMORPG's were not designed to tell you a story, but gave you the stage in which to write your own.. If I want to be told a story, I'd read a book.. If I want to relive a story, I'd dig out the console game box and play it.. This is one thing I noticed is the hijacking of the original MMO genre.. I want a game that allows me to customize my own character due from my actions.. I refer back to EQ where my actions often effected my "faction" status.. I can't think of one mainstream game today that allows this.. Can a human be allied with the Ogres in WoW? NO.. That was just one simple example of how this genre changed.. I want a world where I can choose for MYSELF who I'm friend or foe with..
That is my preference
Because no sandbox has yet to solve the "PvE in a Sandbox Conundrum" - and most devs have utterly failed to learn the "PvP in a Sandbox" rules that UO, SWG, and even EvE have/had addressed.
PvE in a Sandbox Conundrum - PvE in Sandbox MMOs is awful. You grind, you maybe grind some more, and you continue to grind some more (either straight up mob-killing grinding or the slightly less awful Mission/repeatable-garbage grinding.)
Or PvE in a Sandbox is crafting... which can be awesome (UO/SWG/EvE) but only if you LIKE crafting as it's inherently more boring than combat.
PvP in a Sandbox rules - UO, SWG, and even EvE figured out that you HAVE to give players choice, you have to let them choose whether or not they want to PvP. UO = Trammel/Felucca split. SWG = flagged/covert system. EvE = High/Low/Null sec space.
So until a developer figures out a solution to the former and actually pays attention and adapts to the later, sandbox will never be as popular as theme park.
I love MMO's and I play them almost exclusively. Honestly though I would love to see MMO's start to step away from character progression and start moving more toward world progression. Letting players do things that impact the entire world.
It may seem strange, but to me that just sounds interesting and fascinating.
I suppose that Sandbox players are the minority, but with enough of us speaking up, there are more of these types of games coming into production even if it is from independent developers and publishers.
I guess the big names are waiting to see if the independent guys are successful, then try to put their own spin on it.
UO & SWG are by-gone out-of-date games. We are talking about modern games. You think a new UO or SWG will be successful today?
And UO has all sort of problems from griefing to ghetto. A blank world is not necessarily fun (to many).
Player migration is a huge problem in the industry and it has already impacted on you and your MMO’s. Game companies are already very wary of investing in MMO’s, they need long term subs and or cash shop income to make AAA truly viable. They have been using IP’s and changing gameplay thinking this will keep players. It has not.
Now I cannot be sure if a particular MMO is recovering its investment at launch, I think most are or the genre would simply have died by now. But part of getting investors to commit is the surety of a long term revenue stream. That surety has now gone. Why make a MMO for far greater cost than a solo game unless you have a probability of far greater rewards?
So I see a real danger for the industry here, we may see an end to AAA titles, maybe we already have. Of course they will still be called that, marketing is not going to allow them to be called anything else. But the level of investment will drop as a AAA MMO is seen as being too risky.
It wouldn't surprise me. The return on investment when it comes down to the overall cost of an AAA MMO is just really not worth the risk.
Though I'm noticing the kickstarter trend. Maybe more players will feel more invested if they feel like they are 'launching' a game instead of just buying a pre-order.
Though granted, it may just be saying the same thing different ways, but who knows?
Alright, at this point I think Zekiah is right - you seem like you're arguing for the sake of arguing now.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre