Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
We all know that themeparks post-WoW have a problem with the retention rate of players (the already discussed "themepark trap"), that they start with a big burst in subscriptions and after some months (when the people reach the "endgame") the playerbase falls fast.
Well, i think sandboxes without ow meaningful pvp can have a even worse fall in the playerbase than these themeparks, since:
1- Themeparks can put their "carrots" in instanced areas, which allow them multiply by hundreds or thousands the real in-game "content" available to the players. Sandboxes in the other hand will have to provide all their pve content (at least the best) in the open world, which restricts dramatically the amount of "pve content" (that works as "tools" to pursue the "carrots") available to players.
2- Outside the structured and "dramatized" challenges provided in instanced dungeons or raids, there are not many alternatives left to provide the players with funny and cool combat challenges without pvp. The openess of epic bosses to the world without the possibility of players dispute it through fights between them would preclude the tactical and challenging aspect of fighting bosses. These fights would be a zerg of thousand of players trying to tag or take the most credit from a easy boss kill. With open pvp the players can at least have the challenge of expelling others players, keeping them away while a minor group kill the boss.
3- Without instanced content, the gathering of itens, farming of mobs and killing of elites/bosses would occur through a zerg of players in a crowded open world area. The whole thing would be to decide who "tags" the itens first or who can hit more the targets, earning more credits. Even if the developers make the respawn rate very high (or instant respawns), the whole proccess would be far dumber and boring than themepark instances.
4- Without ow pvp, many metagame content arised from players disputes that originate political, diplomatic, social, moral and economical complexities (e.g: carismatic power or leadership, spying, sabotage, betrayals, big rivalries and fellowships, reputations with real consequences, etc) would be damaged or even wouldn't exists. The mmo would be only a bunch of players gathering itens and building stuff that would have little or none use besides the cosmetic, without challenges and still jammed by the crowd in the proccess. Anyway, this would be way less fun than themepark instanced stuff and the created things (buildings, gear, etc) would have little use and meaning.
Free Realms, ATITD, UO Trammel and Second Life say you're full of crap.
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
This has been explained to you several times, so if you don't get it by now then I think the only way you'll understand is if you experience a real world economic collapse or get caught in the middle of a violent riot.
Not that I wish you or anyone else ever experience either, but it doesn't seem any answer, no matter how well explained, will get you to wrap your head around how freedom rests somewhere between anarchy and tyranny. It is only freedom for oppressors at either end of the spectrum.
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
The notion of sandbox MMOs need to go. Seriously, people have gone totally crazy over this totally subjective term and treat it like some ideological absolute for which their own definition is the only valid one.
No wonder these forums are now looking like a bunch of religous or political zealots attacking each other all day long; it's bizarre, really.
Some people are obviously pretty well off when they're able to invest such huge amounts of emotion and personal pride in computer games...
Seems like panic is starting to creep in with these continuous whine threads about pvp.
Relax pve people you have tons of games already released that are designed exactly the way you want them.
That's funny I'm pretty sure I've seen countless posts from PvE players who are not happy with what's currently available. Since when are you an authority of anyone else? Especially of a playstyle that isn't yours?
From the recent sandbox pvp / pve discussions here are the 2 general belief systems that I keep seeing over and over when you really get down to it. I'm sure many will say this isn't the way they believe but most arguments pretty much have said yes it is.
1. What makes a sandbox is open world PvP - that's the defining characteristic. Everything else is either themepark or just fluff.
2. For almost every argument for "realism" or "freedom" - what is actually being described is neither, it's anarchy.
The open world is only mildly limiting of PVE content, with the advent of world events like rifts. Sure, you can point out that world content is almost universally lower quality than instanced content (hence why games with instances are more popular,) but it's not a limiter which would impact engagement.
But gank-style PVP (OW PVP) definitely does impact engagement (negatively.)
Ever hear of Minecraft, Terraria, and the entire city-building genre from Sim City to CityVille? These are all highly successful sandbox experiences with little or no PVP. And absolutely zero non-consensual PVP.
Your second point is basically "When you've exhausted all PVE content, the only thing left is PVP." Well, uh...yeah obviously. But who's to say you're going to make it through all PVE content? The overwhelming majority of WOW players don't, and if you had placed all that content out in the game world instead of in instances you still wouldn't make it through all PVE content.
Your third point is fine, highlighting one of the major shortcomings of world content, but it's also not an automatic fact. There are solutions to those problems including (a) an infinitely scalable world where you can always find an uninhabited corner to kill bosses in or (b) bosses who dynamically scale on the fly based on nearby players or (c) more bosses spawning nearby if the area is crowded. None are perfect solutions, and most are considerably more difficult than existing games: but it's worth making a counterweighted statement, 'Yes, this is a reason your game should involve instances, but there are solutions to this particular problem."
Your fourth point simply assumes the game isn't set up to have a compelling reason to keep playing. All it takes for most themepark players is a mighty progression setup with continually harder challenges yielding continually better rewards -- that can also exist inside a sandbox.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And open world PVP focused sandbox MMos already have worse retention than themeparks.
ya agreed. im really beginning to think these folks are delusional. its kinda scarier than them being possible gankers.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
The notion that open world PvP is a definitive attribute of a sandboxes is easily disproved by the existence of single player sandbox games like Skyrim, Freelancer, and many more.
Not to be snarky, but name one ow pvp mmo that has done well?
I remember at moment three: Lineage 2, UO and EvE.
Many like to pretend that games like Lineage 2 and Lineage 1 didn't exist. These were the two biggest MMOs other than WoW.
Lineage 1 had 10 times the subs as Ultima Online.
Lineage 2 had 6 times the subs of Everquest.
This doesn't square well with people's pre-concieved notions that only Western MMOs were the biggest and most successful games on the market while these little Korean made games were niche. This bias doesn't change the fact that Lineage II was the biggest old school sand box ever made and it had 2 million subs at one point. It did everything right that a sandbox should have. Huge seamless open world with no zoning. FFA no factions PvP. Massive battles to control territory. Contested guild halls and castles. A PvE farming system based on territory control. A player driven economy with crafted gear. Super rare weapons were full loot in PvP like the Zarichi dagger.
Originally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
No I think you've got it wrong. You're free in that situation as well. You're free to defend yourself, you're free farm in a different place, you're free to hire mercenaries, you're free to bank often so if you do die you don't lose much. In a perfect sandbox game you'd be free to set up government which would dictate laws and hire guards to enforce those laws. But turning off pvp by having an invisible force field around your body making you immune to damage from other players is NOT freedom.
Free not to play, have fun with your niche owpvp sandbox thingie, but I have serious doubts you're going to get it in EQN.
I don't think EQN is gonna be a real sandbox either, but I don't see how that has any relevance to what I Was talking about. Freedom simply doesn't mean freedom from somebody else.
This has been explained to you several times, so if you don't get it by now then I think the only way you'll understand is if you experience a real world economic collapse or get caught in the middle of a violent riot.
Not that I wish you or anyone else ever experience either, but it doesn't seem any answer, no matter how well explained, will get you to wrap your head around how freedom rests somewhere between anarchy and tyranny. It is only freedom for oppressors at either end of the spectrum.
What exactly does this post serve as? I've never gotten a sufficient answer. 100% freedom means you're free to do what you want. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something unless you yourself make yourself free from it. We're free from tyranny in the US because we took steps to make it so.
Not to be snarky, but name one ow pvp mmo that has done well?
I remember at moment three: Lineage 2, UO and EvE.
Many like to pretend that games like Lineage 2 and Lineage 1 didn't exist. These were the two biggest MMOs other than WoW.
Lineage 1 had 10 times the subs as Ultima Online.
Lineage 2 had 6 times the subs of Everquest.
This doesn't square well with people's pre-concieved notions that only Western MMOs were the biggest and most successful games on the market while these little Korean made games were niche. This bias doesn't change the fact that Lineage II was the biggest old school sand box ever made and it had 2 million subs at one point. It did everything right that a sandbox should have. Huge seamless open world with no zoning. FFA no factions PvP. Massive battles to control territory. Contested guild halls and castles. A PvE farming system based on territory control. A player driven economy with crafted gear. Super rare weapons were full loot in PvP like the Zarichi dagger.
Lineage II a sandbox... Jeeze we're really broadening the definition of sandboxes these days, aren't we?
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
I might play a PvP sandbox game depending on oh wit is designed.
All this talk about freedom...it is simple.
Everyone is entitled to have the freedom to do anything they want as long as it does not negate or negativly affect the freedom of someone else. So if you think a Sanbox game and OW FFA PvP go hand in hand then you don't actually understand what Real Freedom is. (real freedom not Anarchy).
You want to kill me.
I don't want you to kill me.
Your freedom would affect me in a megative way...so is not freedom.
This has been explained to you several times, so if you don't get it by now then I think the only way you'll understand is if you experience a real world economic collapse or get caught in the middle of a violent riot.
Not that I wish you or anyone else ever experience either, but it doesn't seem any answer, no matter how well explained, will get you to wrap your head around how freedom rests somewhere between anarchy and tyranny. It is only freedom for oppressors at either end of the spectrum.
What exactly does this post serve as? I've never gotten a sufficient answer. 100% freedom means you're free to do what you want. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something unless you yourself make yourself free from it. We're free from tyranny in the US because we took steps to make it so.
You're now starting to figure it out. Keep going. You're almost there.
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
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Not to be snarky, but name one ow pvp mmo that has done well?
I remember at moment three: Lineage 2, UO and EvE.
I mentioned UO in my post, current UO has more safe zones than OW pvp (hence why I said pre trammel UO), Eve has only true OW pvp in 0.0 sector space, and Lineage 2 is not doing well over here in the west. I should have been more specific that my perspective is from the Western Market. But each of the three games you mentioned only one offers true OW pvp (Lineage 2) and it is not a success here in the west in player retention numbers, which is what this thread was initially about. Eve is more of an economic sim at that, with so many safe zones. This is all opinions anyways, but the fact remains that OW sandpark games have traditionally never done well in the western market compared to themepark games (mmo wise).
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
Originally posted by Neo_Viper Have you seen the movie "Mad Max"? That's how your country would be like if there was total freedom.
Here's the misconception. You can't have a total sandbox (100% freedom) because technical limitations will never be able to give you the same tools that real life does. If a game could actually let you form governments, hire police, fire fighters, etc, then you could potentially have 100% and a pure sandbox. Until then the developers have to implement rules in place of the things that we simply can't make for ourselves. That means things like guards, bounties etc, it doesn't mean turning off pvp entirely.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
Comments
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
Free Realms, ATITD, UO Trammel and Second Life say you're full of crap.
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
This has been explained to you several times, so if you don't get it by now then I think the only way you'll understand is if you experience a real world economic collapse or get caught in the middle of a violent riot.
Not that I wish you or anyone else ever experience either, but it doesn't seem any answer, no matter how well explained, will get you to wrap your head around how freedom rests somewhere between anarchy and tyranny. It is only freedom for oppressors at either end of the spectrum.
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
My computer is better than yours.
No wonder these forums are now looking like a bunch of religous or political zealots attacking each other all day long; it's bizarre, really.
Some people are obviously pretty well off when they're able to invest such huge amounts of emotion and personal pride in computer games...
That's funny I'm pretty sure I've seen countless posts from PvE players who are not happy with what's currently available. Since when are you an authority of anyone else? Especially of a playstyle that isn't yours?
From the recent sandbox pvp / pve discussions here are the 2 general belief systems that I keep seeing over and over when you really get down to it. I'm sure many will say this isn't the way they believe but most arguments pretty much have said yes it is.
1. What makes a sandbox is open world PvP - that's the defining characteristic. Everything else is either themepark or just fluff.
2. For almost every argument for "realism" or "freedom" - what is actually being described is neither, it's anarchy.
The OP seems mostly wrong:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ya agreed. im really beginning to think these folks are delusional. its kinda scarier than them being possible gankers.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
The notion that open world PvP is a definitive attribute of a sandboxes is easily disproved by the existence of single player sandbox games like Skyrim, Freelancer, and many more.
I like open world PvP, but stop the nonsense.
LIFE is the best pvp sandbox out there, try it.
Leave gaming for us that want a break from it.
Many like to pretend that games like Lineage 2 and Lineage 1 didn't exist. These were the two biggest MMOs other than WoW.
Lineage 1 had 10 times the subs as Ultima Online.
Lineage 2 had 6 times the subs of Everquest.
This doesn't square well with people's pre-concieved notions that only Western MMOs were the biggest and most successful games on the market while these little Korean made games were niche. This bias doesn't change the fact that Lineage II was the biggest old school sand box ever made and it had 2 million subs at one point. It did everything right that a sandbox should have. Huge seamless open world with no zoning. FFA no factions PvP. Massive battles to control territory. Contested guild halls and castles. A PvE farming system based on territory control. A player driven economy with crafted gear. Super rare weapons were full loot in PvP like the Zarichi dagger.
I don't think EQN is gonna be a real sandbox either, but I don't see how that has any relevance to what I Was talking about. Freedom simply doesn't mean freedom from somebody else.
What exactly does this post serve as? I've never gotten a sufficient answer. 100% freedom means you're free to do what you want. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something unless you yourself make yourself free from it. We're free from tyranny in the US because we took steps to make it so.
Lineage II a sandbox... Jeeze we're really broadening the definition of sandboxes these days, aren't we?
Smile
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
I would play a PvE sandobx game.
I might play a PvP sandbox game depending on oh wit is designed.
All this talk about freedom...it is simple.
Everyone is entitled to have the freedom to do anything they want as long as it does not negate or negativly affect the freedom of someone else. So if you think a Sanbox game and OW FFA PvP go hand in hand then you don't actually understand what Real Freedom is. (real freedom not Anarchy).
You want to kill me.
I don't want you to kill me.
Your freedom would affect me in a megative way...so is not freedom.
You're now starting to figure it out. Keep going. You're almost there.
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
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Smile
I mentioned UO in my post, current UO has more safe zones than OW pvp (hence why I said pre trammel UO), Eve has only true OW pvp in 0.0 sector space, and Lineage 2 is not doing well over here in the west. I should have been more specific that my perspective is from the Western Market. But each of the three games you mentioned only one offers true OW pvp (Lineage 2) and it is not a success here in the west in player retention numbers, which is what this thread was initially about. Eve is more of an economic sim at that, with so many safe zones. This is all opinions anyways, but the fact remains that OW sandpark games have traditionally never done well in the western market compared to themepark games (mmo wise).
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
Here's the misconception. You can't have a total sandbox (100% freedom) because technical limitations will never be able to give you the same tools that real life does. If a game could actually let you form governments, hire police, fire fighters, etc, then you could potentially have 100% and a pure sandbox. Until then the developers have to implement rules in place of the things that we simply can't make for ourselves. That means things like guards, bounties etc, it doesn't mean turning off pvp entirely.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
UO and SWG did pretty well back in the day.
EvE continues to do pretty darn well and you really can play 100% PvE with only a very, very small risk of PvP in High Sec.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
Smile