A few kids are playing in their sandbox in their backyard. The bigger kid next door has a sandbox too but he doesn't have any body to play with. The bigger kids then climbs over the fence to "play" with younger kids. The bigger kid tells the little kids that he can't have "fun" unless he can destroy everything the younger kids are building. The bigger kid then laughs and scurries back to his house.
In this scenario who was having fun?
The younger kids where just enjoying some PVE time in their sandbox when the bigger kid trespassed and forced PVP on the kids.
It seems to me the only solution is to build multiple sandboxes with different rule sets.
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
I think we should talk about fun. What does realism have to do with video games? I don't play games to have realism.
"Sandbox" is generally viewed as a good thing for your video game to be. So people like to call features that their game has "sandbox features" and features that their game doesn't have "not sandbox features."
Obviously it just comes down to what game you want to play, but that's the origin of the discussion about realism, freedom, etc. People want their game to be called a sandbox so they discuss what the word means.
Also, you may not play games for realism, other people do.
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
I think we should talk about fun. What does realism have to do with video games? I don't play games to have realism.
"Sandbox" is generally viewed as a good thing for your video game to be. So people like to call features that their game has "sandbox features" and features that their game doesn't have "not sandbox features."
Obviously it just comes down to what game you want to play, but that's the origin of the discussion about realism, freedom, etc. People want their game to be called a sandbox so they discuss what the word means.
Also, you may not play games for realism, other people do.
A sandbox game doesn't need to be realistic either.It's setting and world mechanics can be as unrealistic as any other tpye of game all it requires is the ability to create within those rules.
I don't think it's black and white some people prefer realism and others don't either.I love realism in some games like Don't Starve for example but don't need it so much in say Dishonored.
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.
!00% Freedom eh!!
I guess that means I have the freedom to create an impenetrable force field around my body, that deflects any personal attack against me from doing damage!
Woohoo!! I want a sandbox!!
That's kind f funny but very true if you put it in context haha.
Random Forum Poster: I want an MMO that is different, original and fun.
Me: So you want something like EQN
Them: Nah dude, I want a Holy Trinity, Tab Target combat, Instanced Raiding, and Rigid classes.
Not to be snarky, but name one ow pvp mmo that has done well? Only one I can even recall doing any business at this point is Darkfall, and it is not doing well. Shadowbane, dead, Old UO, dead, SWG, dead, Mourning, aborted, etc... So many have died, yet so many themeparks thrive.
Cheers!
name one which wasn't developed on a shoestring budget!
oh yeah theme parks thrive.. that's why they went F2P left and right and EvE has half a million subs.
lol
Free to play isnt a bad thing anymore. As a matter of fact, I highly doubt we will see any more sub based games, or at least a sub only base game be released any more.
"Open World" Pvp has its upside and is definitely a great asset if your game has it. However, there are many ways "Open World" pvp can be implemented. There's the Free for All way, like old UO were you can pvpv anywhere, any time. Theres "Open World" pvp where there are certain zones or areas of the world where you can pvp in.
If you are talking about free for all, anywhere anytime version of Open World pvp then I think you are mistaken. And you only have to look at the games that have pvp servers with the FFA type rules. Usually there is only about 10% to 20% of these pvp servers vs pve servers. If you are asking game makers to give up on 70% to 90% of their playerbase then something is wrong.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.Same with realism and freedom.Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable. The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
I think the telling aspect of the "Realism" debate is that calls for realism almost universally revolve around making things take longer, or creating a harsher environment.
An example would be fast travel in the real world. You don't see many people taking a bicycle when cars are available. If the option to fly in a plane across country is available, people take it. Even a Greyhound bus is a fast travel option. It is more realistic for players in games to take fast travel options than it is for players to deliberately hobble themselves if the game world is capable of creating fast travel options.
Another example would be the never ending PvP debate. OW PvP is considered more "realistic", but it ignores the lack of restraint shown by most of the people on the planet. This is put down to a lack of consequences, but in places like Somalia where you can find the closest thing to anarchy that exists, most people are not killing each other. A lot of people are, especially compared to the industrialized nations, but it has nothing to do with consequences and everything to do with the restraint that most people exhibit. OW PvP would be more realistic if most of the people in the game showed restraint, but they don't. Until that happens, OW PvP isn't really realistic, it just makes things take longer and creates a harsher environment.
It doesn't seem at all to me like the more "realistic" options are chosen because they are actually more realistic. They are chosen because they make things take longer or create a harsher environment.
If a game is more extreme, if things take longer because they take longer; if the game creates a harsher environment for the purpose of creating a harsher environment, it's going to filter out the players that that don't find the game fun much faster than games with less extreme mechanics. Much of the filtering will happen before the players even start the game. Depending on how much filtering happens before or after the the game's purchase, it could lead to higher player retention, but would do so by having lower sales. For a game like Eve, where each iteration of the game was an improvement, it leads to a steady increase in the number of accounts. For most other games, it seems to lead to the "theme park trap", but over a longer period of time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
I think we should talk about fun. What does realism have to do with video games? I don't play games to have realism.
"Sandbox" is generally viewed as a good thing for your video game to be. So people like to call features that their game has "sandbox features" and features that their game doesn't have "not sandbox features."
Obviously it just comes down to what game you want to play, but that's the origin of the discussion about realism, freedom, etc. People want their game to be called a sandbox so they discuss what the word means.
Also, you may not play games for realism, other people do.
A sandbox game doesn't need to be realistic either.It's setting and world mechanics can be as unrealistic as any other tpye of game all it requires is the ability to create within those rules.
I don't think it's black and white some people prefer realism and others don't either.I love realism in some games like Don't Starve for example but don't need it so much in say Dishonored.
It's getting a little old arguing with these nebulous premises. I'm not sure what you mean by "realistic" but in the "real" world, you're given an almost infinite set of tools to create whatever you can think of within the bounds of the physical laws of our universe. In that sense yes sandbox ABSOLUTELY means realism. It doesn't necessarily mean realistic in the sense that there can't be magic or monsters.
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.
!00% Freedom eh!!
I guess that means I have the freedom to create an impenetrable force field around my body, that deflects any personal attack against me from doing damage!
Woohoo!! I want a sandbox!!
That's kind f funny but very true if you put it in context haha.
It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Originally posted by Holophonist So what you're saying is the strong will impose their will upon the weak, but what actually happens is the weak band together to protect themselves from the strong.
In the context of "might is right", he who wins is strong, he who loses is weak.
Retention does not mean a lot if you play base is small.
You think a dev will prefer a 500k based with higher retention than 2M average players but the players churn a lot?
I don't know do you think Nickelback has a problem swimming in cash?
Basically, when talking about the quality of a game, I couldn't care less about if a certain strategy is going to temporarily boost their numbers.
You don't care less, but you don't make decisions of what games to make, do you?
The devs obviously care.
And quality is in the eye of the beholder. You view of quality is mostly irrelevant to the market. The market cares about what is popular, not what you (or me) specifically like. Except, of course, if you have $50M and fund your own game.
A few kids are playing in their sandbox in their backyard. The bigger kid next door has a sandbox too but he doesn't have any body to play with. The bigger kids then climbs over the fence to "play" with younger kids. The bigger kid tells the little kids that he can't have "fun" unless he can destroy everything the younger kids are building. The bigger kid then laughs and scurries back to his house.
In this scenario who was having fun?
That's when the younger kids get help from parents or brainstorm how to deal with the bully in the future. Then when the bully tries to do it again, they have a plan in place to stop it. At that point, and all points going forward, the bully is the one not overly likely to be having as much fun. Or, the bully gets creative himself, and the tussle between the two sides becomes a game unto itself, with the parents intervening if either side gets out of control. The challenge with understanding owpvp, and pvp in general, is that you can't focus on a single instance or example to fully appreciate it's potential value. A better question than should it be allowed is what tools need to be provided to ensure that the total experience is a positive one? If those tools can be provided in the context of the greater game, owpvp isn't a problem; if they can't, then it will be. In a sandbox, there's little to no reason why those tools can't be provided, and therefore owpvp should remain an option contingent on effective implementation.
Originally posted by Holophonist It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response. Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
I think we should talk about fun. What does realism have to do with video games? I don't play games to have realism.
"Sandbox" is generally viewed as a good thing for your video game to be. So people like to call features that their game has "sandbox features" and features that their game doesn't have "not sandbox features."
Obviously it just comes down to what game you want to play, but that's the origin of the discussion about realism, freedom, etc. People want their game to be called a sandbox so they discuss what the word means.
Also, you may not play games for realism, other people do.
A sandbox game doesn't need to be realistic either.It's setting and world mechanics can be as unrealistic as any other tpye of game all it requires is the ability to create within those rules.
I don't think it's black and white some people prefer realism and others don't either.I love realism in some games like Don't Starve for example but don't need it so much in say Dishonored.
It's getting a little old arguing with these nebulous premises. I'm not sure what you mean by "realistic" but in the "real" world, you're given an almost infinite set of tools to create whatever you can think of within the bounds of the physical laws of our universe. In that sense yes sandbox ABSOLUTELY means realism. It doesn't necessarily mean realistic in the sense that there can't be magic or monsters.
Not sure what world you live in, but there is a lot of other things to consider than just "physical Laws of the universe" when doing pretty much anything. Many of these things cannot be replicated or at at least replicated well in a virtual world so game rules are in place to help make the world enjoyable. Oh yes, i did say enjoyable.
Originally posted by Holophonist So what you're saying is the strong will impose their will upon the weak, but what actually happens is the weak band together to protect themselves from the strong.
In the context of "might is right", he who wins is strong, he who loses is weak.
Yeah but the idea of might is right basically means I'm stronger so do what I say. What I'm saying is people band together against people they don't like.
Originally posted by Holophonist It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because who and what can be attacked, and when, is fundamentally part of the core design of the game. Dragon vs some other creature is not a fundamental part of the core design in the vast majority of cases. The latter is fairly easy to adapt on the fly, the former is not, as it involves potential changes in pretty much every other system of the game if the changes are to be made correctly and without causing noticeable quirks in the game as a whole. Few other design decisions are that hard to modify, so pvp or not is only a stylistic choice in the design phase when things are still being written up. Once implementation begins, you have essentially hardbaked that choice into permanent reality unless you take a lot of time, effort, and resources to change it. You can neither remove it or add it without difficulty so while it may still be stylistic preference, it is no longer a valid choice of any kind; you get what the devs made and that's it. Monster can be added or removed, but the core game, of which pvp rules are part of, is pretty much set.
Originally posted by Holophonist So what you're saying is the strong will impose their will upon the weak, but what actually happens is the weak band together to protect themselves from the strong.
In the context of "might is right", he who wins is strong, he who loses is weak.
Yeah but the idea of might is right basically means I'm stronger so do what I say. What I'm saying is people band together against people they don't like.
Correct. In a "might is right" setting, the stronger side gets to impose their will on the weaker side.
A few kids are playing in their sandbox in their backyard. The bigger kid next door has a sandbox too but he doesn't have any body to play with. The bigger kids then climbs over the fence to "play" with younger kids. The bigger kid tells the little kids that he can't have "fun" unless he can destroy everything the younger kids are building. The bigger kid then laughs and scurries back to his house.
In this scenario who was having fun?
That's when the younger kids get help from parents or brainstorm how to deal with the bully in the future. Then when the bully tries to do it again, they have a plan in place to stop it. At that point, and all points going forward, the bully is the one not overly likely to be having as much fun. Or, the bully gets creative himself, and the tussle between the two sides becomes a game unto itself, with the parents intervening if either side gets out of control. The challenge with understanding owpvp, and pvp in general, is that you can't focus on a single instance or example to fully appreciate it's potential value. A better question than should it be allowed is what tools need to be provided to ensure that the total experience is a positive one? If those tools can be provided in the context of the greater game, owpvp isn't a problem; if they can't, then it will be. In a sandbox, there's little to no reason why those tools can't be provided, and therefore owpvp should remain an option contingent on effective implementation.
The better solution is to eliminate the possibility of the bigger kid even interacting with the younger ones. Less work, more fun.
Sure the bigger kid wouldn't have as much fun, but i doubt the younger kids would care.
Yeah but the idea of might is right basically means I'm stronger so do what I say. What I'm saying is people band together against people they don't like.
Correct. In a "might is right" setting, the stronger side gets to impose their will on the weaker side.
And there is no reason this needs to be in a game. In a game, just flip a switch and ignore those you don't like. Simple solution and it works.
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.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
Originally posted by Holophonist It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
Originally posted by Holophonist It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
From every comment I've seen of yours what I'm getting is basically "Screw PvE players. I want open world PvP and if the people who are 100% PvE players don't like it, well they better just go find another game." Really, I've seen a lot of people provide solutions and you just shoot down every solution provided..
Retention does not mean a lot if you play base is small.
You think a dev will prefer a 500k based with higher retention than 2M average players but the players churn a lot?
I don't know do you think Nickelback has a problem swimming in cash?
Basically, when talking about the quality of a game, I couldn't care less about if a certain strategy is going to temporarily boost their numbers.
You don't care less, but you don't make decisions of what games to make, do you?
The devs obviously care.
And quality is in the eye of the beholder. You view of quality is mostly irrelevant to the market. The market cares about what is popular, not what you (or me) specifically like. Except, of course, if you have $50M and fund your own game.
Do they ? or just you.
You can of course convince to yourself that it is like that and all wow clones and lol clones are really good games because plenty of devs cared.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
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.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
I think we should talk about fun. What does realism have to do with video games? I don't play games to have realism.
"Sandbox" is generally viewed as a good thing for your video game to be. So people like to call features that their game has "sandbox features" and features that their game doesn't have "not sandbox features."
Obviously it just comes down to what game you want to play, but that's the origin of the discussion about realism, freedom, etc. People want their game to be called a sandbox so they discuss what the word means.
Also, you may not play games for realism, other people do.
A sandbox game doesn't need to be realistic either.It's setting and world mechanics can be as unrealistic as any other tpye of game all it requires is the ability to create within those rules.
I don't think it's black and white some people prefer realism and others don't either.I love realism in some games like Don't Starve for example but don't need it so much in say Dishonored.
It's getting a little old arguing with these nebulous premises. I'm not sure what you mean by "realistic" but in the "real" world, you're given an almost infinite set of tools to create whatever you can think of within the bounds of the physical laws of our universe. In that sense yes sandbox ABSOLUTELY means realism. It doesn't necessarily mean realistic in the sense that there can't be magic or monsters.
I would agree that there needs to be logic to how tools are used in a sandbox but the world the sandbox is in doesn't have to follow any real world laws at all but there needs to be a logic to how it all works...not the same thing.
Comments
A few kids are playing in their sandbox in their backyard. The bigger kid next door has a sandbox too but he doesn't have any body to play with. The bigger kids then climbs over the fence to "play" with younger kids. The bigger kid tells the little kids that he can't have "fun" unless he can destroy everything the younger kids are building. The bigger kid then laughs and scurries back to his house.
In this scenario who was having fun?
The younger kids where just enjoying some PVE time in their sandbox when the bigger kid trespassed and forced PVP on the kids.
It seems to me the only solution is to build multiple sandboxes with different rule sets.
"Sandbox" is generally viewed as a good thing for your video game to be. So people like to call features that their game has "sandbox features" and features that their game doesn't have "not sandbox features."
Obviously it just comes down to what game you want to play, but that's the origin of the discussion about realism, freedom, etc. People want their game to be called a sandbox so they discuss what the word means.
Also, you may not play games for realism, other people do.
A sandbox game doesn't need to be realistic either.It's setting and world mechanics can be as unrealistic as any other tpye of game all it requires is the ability to create within those rules.
I don't think it's black and white some people prefer realism and others don't either.I love realism in some games like Don't Starve for example but don't need it so much in say Dishonored.
That's kind f funny but very true if you put it in context haha.
Random Forum Poster: I want an MMO that is different, original and fun.
Me: So you want something like EQN
Them: Nah dude, I want a Holy Trinity, Tab Target combat, Instanced Raiding, and Rigid classes.
Me: Double Facepalm.
Free to play isnt a bad thing anymore. As a matter of fact, I highly doubt we will see any more sub based games, or at least a sub only base game be released any more.
"Open World" Pvp has its upside and is definitely a great asset if your game has it. However, there are many ways "Open World" pvp can be implemented. There's the Free for All way, like old UO were you can pvpv anywhere, any time. Theres "Open World" pvp where there are certain zones or areas of the world where you can pvp in.
If you are talking about free for all, anywhere anytime version of Open World pvp then I think you are mistaken. And you only have to look at the games that have pvp servers with the FFA type rules. Usually there is only about 10% to 20% of these pvp servers vs pve servers. If you are asking game makers to give up on 70% to 90% of their playerbase then something is wrong.
I don't know do you think Nickelback has a problem swimming in cash?
Basically, when talking about the quality of a game, I couldn't care less about if a certain strategy is going to temporarily boost their numbers.
I think the telling aspect of the "Realism" debate is that calls for realism almost universally revolve around making things take longer, or creating a harsher environment.
An example would be fast travel in the real world. You don't see many people taking a bicycle when cars are available. If the option to fly in a plane across country is available, people take it. Even a Greyhound bus is a fast travel option. It is more realistic for players in games to take fast travel options than it is for players to deliberately hobble themselves if the game world is capable of creating fast travel options.
Another example would be the never ending PvP debate. OW PvP is considered more "realistic", but it ignores the lack of restraint shown by most of the people on the planet. This is put down to a lack of consequences, but in places like Somalia where you can find the closest thing to anarchy that exists, most people are not killing each other. A lot of people are, especially compared to the industrialized nations, but it has nothing to do with consequences and everything to do with the restraint that most people exhibit. OW PvP would be more realistic if most of the people in the game showed restraint, but they don't. Until that happens, OW PvP isn't really realistic, it just makes things take longer and creates a harsher environment.
It doesn't seem at all to me like the more "realistic" options are chosen because they are actually more realistic. They are chosen because they make things take longer or create a harsher environment.
If a game is more extreme, if things take longer because they take longer; if the game creates a harsher environment for the purpose of creating a harsher environment, it's going to filter out the players that that don't find the game fun much faster than games with less extreme mechanics. Much of the filtering will happen before the players even start the game. Depending on how much filtering happens before or after the the game's purchase, it could lead to higher player retention, but would do so by having lower sales. For a game like Eve, where each iteration of the game was an improvement, it leads to a steady increase in the number of accounts. For most other games, it seems to lead to the "theme park trap", but over a longer period of time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's getting a little old arguing with these nebulous premises. I'm not sure what you mean by "realistic" but in the "real" world, you're given an almost infinite set of tools to create whatever you can think of within the bounds of the physical laws of our universe. In that sense yes sandbox ABSOLUTELY means realism. It doesn't necessarily mean realistic in the sense that there can't be magic or monsters.
It's actually not true at all in addition to being put in a silly way. I almost never ignore posts, and even I ignored his because it warrants basically no response.
Yes, you could work it into the lore that players for some reason have an invisible force field around their body that leaves them immune to player damage. But we all know why developers implement a rule like that. It's because they want to offend the least amount of people so they can attract the most people. It's not like these developers grew up with fantasies of mystical far off lands where people couldn't be hurt by each other. No the unrealistic parts of video games like magic and monsters are there as a stylistic choice. Turning off pvp is nothing like that.
In the context of "might is right", he who wins is strong, he who loses is weak.
You don't care less, but you don't make decisions of what games to make, do you?
The devs obviously care.
And quality is in the eye of the beholder. You view of quality is mostly irrelevant to the market. The market cares about what is popular, not what you (or me) specifically like. Except, of course, if you have $50M and fund your own game.
That's when the younger kids get help from parents or brainstorm how to deal with the bully in the future. Then when the bully tries to do it again, they have a plan in place to stop it. At that point, and all points going forward, the bully is the one not overly likely to be having as much fun. Or, the bully gets creative himself, and the tussle between the two sides becomes a game unto itself, with the parents intervening if either side gets out of control. The challenge with understanding owpvp, and pvp in general, is that you can't focus on a single instance or example to fully appreciate it's potential value. A better question than should it be allowed is what tools need to be provided to ensure that the total experience is a positive one? If those tools can be provided in the context of the greater game, owpvp isn't a problem; if they can't, then it will be. In a sandbox, there's little to no reason why those tools can't be provided, and therefore owpvp should remain an option contingent on effective implementation.
Why is turning off PvP not a stylistic choice the reason for implementing it or not depends on the target players' preferences? Having dragons or not depends on the target players' preferences as well and it's a stylistic choice.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Not sure what world you live in, but there is a lot of other things to consider than just "physical Laws of the universe" when doing pretty much anything. Many of these things cannot be replicated or at at least replicated well in a virtual world so game rules are in place to help make the world enjoyable. Oh yes, i did say enjoyable.
Yeah but the idea of might is right basically means I'm stronger so do what I say. What I'm saying is people band together against people they don't like.
Because who and what can be attacked, and when, is fundamentally part of the core design of the game. Dragon vs some other creature is not a fundamental part of the core design in the vast majority of cases. The latter is fairly easy to adapt on the fly, the former is not, as it involves potential changes in pretty much every other system of the game if the changes are to be made correctly and without causing noticeable quirks in the game as a whole. Few other design decisions are that hard to modify, so pvp or not is only a stylistic choice in the design phase when things are still being written up. Once implementation begins, you have essentially hardbaked that choice into permanent reality unless you take a lot of time, effort, and resources to change it. You can neither remove it or add it without difficulty so while it may still be stylistic preference, it is no longer a valid choice of any kind; you get what the devs made and that's it. Monster can be added or removed, but the core game, of which pvp rules are part of, is pretty much set.
Correct. In a "might is right" setting, the stronger side gets to impose their will on the weaker side.
The better solution is to eliminate the possibility of the bigger kid even interacting with the younger ones. Less work, more fun.
Sure the bigger kid wouldn't have as much fun, but i doubt the younger kids would care.
And there is no reason this needs to be in a game. In a game, just flip a switch and ignore those you don't like. Simple solution and it works.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
Smile
Because it wasn't born from imagination or style. It's not stylistic because it's not a style. Fantasy is a style, and along with it comes unrealistic things like magic and monsters. Sci-fi is a style and along with it comes unrealistic things like space exploration and aliens. Turning off pvp is a lazy solution to a problem. It's not stylistic.
From every comment I've seen of yours what I'm getting is basically "Screw PvE players. I want open world PvP and if the people who are 100% PvE players don't like it, well they better just go find another game." Really, I've seen a lot of people provide solutions and you just shoot down every solution provided..
Smile
Do they ? or just you.
You can of course convince to yourself that it is like that and all wow clones and lol clones are really good games because plenty of devs cared.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
I would agree that there needs to be logic to how tools are used in a sandbox but the world the sandbox is in doesn't have to follow any real world laws at all but there needs to be a logic to how it all works...not the same thing.