Originally posted by Zarynterk Originally posted by MadnessRealm
Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by 69Cuda Considering that neither is an MMO basicaly makes this thread irrelevant.
Kind of what I was thinking. It proves that people will play an Indie game and that they will play a game that is a time consuming sandbox made of sandboxes. We already knew people liked sandboxes though.
Doesn't have much relevance as far as MMORPG until someone builds a full on MMORPG Minecraft server. I think the point of the thread was to show that it is wrong to claim that the Themepark market is the only one that "exist" and that the Sandbox market is purely a niche one, in which case the OP points out that both Minecraft and Skyrim have been extremely succesful and that there is potential for a real sandbox MMORPG out there, as there is clearly a large demand.
This... Frankly the people who are trolling this thread just didn't understand the point the OP was making... that, or just being Theme park trolls.
Except the sandbox mmorpg market is a niche market. It's also a small market. Minecraft and Terraria have a very different feel from mmorpg and Skyrim is way different. The million+ people who would play Minecraft or Skyrim are not a million+ people who would play a sandbox mmorpg where the nine hours of work they put into building a skull mountain with smokestacks and lava eye sockets gets wasted because it gets destroyed or taken over by a random group of @sshats.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No way I would want a Skyrim mmo for simple reason ppl think funcom produces bugging mmo's imagine how buggy and broken a Skyrim mmo wouild be.90+ days already since Skyrim release and the ps3 is still unplayable reports of it frying consoles constantly locking up and ruining the ps3 hdd.This isn''t the first steaming pile almost all of there games they have ever brought to market has been buggy or broken they are alot like funcom in that aspect they promise alot and cash grab and heck if ppl can play it or not.
Considering that neither is an MMO basicaly makes this thread irrelevant.
Kind of what I was thinking. It proves that people will play an Indie game and that they will play a game that is a time consuming sandbox made of sandboxes. We already knew people liked sandboxes though.
Doesn't have much relevance as far as MMORPG until someone builds a full on MMORPG Minecraft server.
I think the point of the thread was to show that it is wrong to claim that the Themepark market is the only one that "exist" and that the Sandbox market is purely a niche one, in which case the OP points out that both Minecraft and Skyrim have been extremely succesful and that there is potential for a real sandbox MMORPG out there, as there is clearly a large demand.
This...
Frankly the people who are trolling this thread just didn't understand the point the OP was making... that, or just being Theme park trolls.
Except the sandbox mmorpg market is a niche market. It's also a small market. Minecraft and Terraria have a very different feel from mmorpg and Skyrim is way different. The million+ people who would play Minecraft or Skyrim are not a million+ people who would play a sandbox mmorpg where the nine hours of work they put into building a skull mountain with smokestacks and lava eye sockets gets wasted because it gets destroyed or taken over by a random group of @sshats.
Thank you for enlightening us with the only scenario their is for a game with a lot of sandbox in it....Little tip, build a wall around your skull mountain next time....jesh!
but for mmorpg i expect it to give me thousands of hours of fun
That's up entirely up to the player community of the game. Interactivity beetween the players is the key element that is forgotten in current mmorpgs .
I am going to say that I wouldn't play Skyrim if it were vacant of quests and there's not just a handful there are TONS of quests in Skyrim!
It seems to me that when sandbox and MMO are done together there's always a lack of quests (UO). So, for me the comparison of Skyrim to a sandbox MMO is a poor one, it basically is open world with plenty to do (skyrim) versus open world with uh wait, what.... what are we going to do now brain? (Sandbox MMO) We are going to grind stats and craft and make our own quests/story...
I'll take Skyrim any day of the week over a sandbox MMO without quests.
This is just it. Skyrim scales the content according to the level of your character. That's why you can run the quests or just explore and you always meet a challenge. If they didn't it would be just like playing a Themepark and going to the wrong zone.
But the point of the OP is still valid, that players do like the Sandbox play. The question is just what you, Emeraq, are stating. Would players give up the levels (and Skyrim does have levels), the big power gaps and increases in power, to be able to play a true Sandbox game that *played* like Skyrim.
*Note that there's a difference between how a game plays and how it's mechanics like levelling skills/classes works.*
Originally posted by 69Cuda Considering that neither is an MMO basicaly makes this thread irrelevant.
Kind of what I was thinking. It proves that people will play an Indie game and that they will play a game that is a time consuming sandbox made of sandboxes. We already knew people liked sandboxes though.
Doesn't have much relevance as far as MMORPG until someone builds a full on MMORPG Minecraft server.
I think the point of the thread was to show that it is wrong to claim that the Themepark market is the only one that "exist" and that the Sandbox market is purely a niche one, in which case the OP points out that both Minecraft and Skyrim have been extremely succesful and that there is potential for a real sandbox MMORPG out there, as there is clearly a large demand.
This... Frankly the people who are trolling this thread just didn't understand the point the OP was making... that, or just being Theme park trolls.
Except the sandbox mmorpg market is a niche market. It's also a small market. Minecraft and Terraria have a very different feel from mmorpg and Skyrim is way different. The million+ people who would play Minecraft or Skyrim are not a million+ people who would play a sandbox mmorpg where the nine hours of work they put into building a skull mountain with smokestacks and lava eye sockets gets wasted because it gets destroyed or taken over by a random group of @sshats.
Thank you for enlightening us with the only scenario their is for a game with a lot of sandbox in it....Little tip, build a wall around your skull mountain next time....jesh!
(a) Nobody would be able to see Skull Mountain. (b) Walls would be useless against anyone with a pickaxe or a box of TNT.
A game that is fantastic as a single player/multi player game, where modding in stuff that currently doesn't exist and where running your own servers is a large part of the reason it's so great would not necessarily translate well to an MMORPG where you don't mod stuff into the game, where you don't get to have your own server or your own space unless you play Link Realms.
It's just not the same thing. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have spent the last week obsessing over a Minecraft server that would be an MMORPG with a unique setting (not random islands) and with an actual story of sorts. I'm afraid I'm going to have to try and do it before I can get it out of my head. That does not mean I think there are a million people who would want to play it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If Skyrim is where people set the bar for "sandbox", I'm honestly a little disappointed. Just a bit of level-scaling for all generated threats, a few "main" linear questlines which have no interaction with each other, permadeath for non-essential npc's, and one eventually-conquered city? Is this really all it takes to "advance" beyond those "horrible" themepark games?
Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously loving Skyrim. But I'm not seeing much resembling the holy grail of "sandbox" that people keep crying for. There was no one trying to hire the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood to tip the balance of the Empire/Stormcloak civil war. The Winterrun College didn't show up and volunteer training/nuke-staffs to help with killing Alduin the World-Eater. No matter how much crap I bought from or sold to a vendor, their cash reserves or appearance never changed. Not one stinking new quest on account of whoever I marry. No opportunity to create a new Dragonbits economy with the corpses of the hundreds of dragons I've slain. Even your chosen race barely rates more than the occasional, inconsequential dialogue tweak.
So no, in response to the OP, I don't see Skyrim as evidence towards the viability of a sandbox game. It tells me that if you get rid of the mind-numbingly boring hotkey/tab combat system, severely reduce the gear/level grind, and leave out the annoying online twats and the accompanying pressure to perform/succeed/min-max... you get a pretty damn fun game that succeeds in a lot of areas. Being "sandbox", or even the illusion of it, has little to do it with the success.
For that matter, Minecraft's popularity tells us little that Civilization and Simcity haven't already.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have spent the last week obsessing over a Minecraft server that would be an MMORPG with a unique setting (not random islands) and with an actual story of sorts.
Why would you add a story? Minecraft is great because its just a world, a massive setting for us to play in. We don't need a story.
Everything creates huge amounts of negativity on the internet, that's what the internet is for: Negativity, porn and lolcats.
Minecraft is more of an MMORPG than over a dozen games listed on this site. It has servers that support over 400+ people. http://minecraft-server-list.com/
If global agenda, league of legends, etc can be listed here I don't see why minecraft isn't.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
If Skyrim is where people set the bar for "sandbox", I'm honestly a little disappointed. Just a bit of level-scaling for all generated threats, a few "main" linear questlines which have no interaction with each other, permadeath for non-essential npc's, and one eventually-conquered city? Is this really all it takes to "advance" beyond those "horrible" themepark games?
Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously loving Skyrim. But I'm not seeing much resembling the holy grail of "sandbox" that people keep crying for. There was no one trying to hire the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood to tip the balance of the Empire/Stormcloak civil war. The Winterrun College didn't show up and volunteer training/nuke-staffs to help with killing Alduin the World-Eater. No matter how much crap I bought from or sold to a vendor, their cash reserves or appearance never changed. Not one stinking new quest on account of whoever I marry. No opportunity to create a new Dragonbits economy with the corpses of the hundreds of dragons I've slain. Even your chosen race barely rates more than the occasional, inconsequential dialogue tweak.
So no, in response to the OP, I don't see Skyrim as evidence towards the viability of a sandbox game. It tells me that if you get rid of the mind-numbingly boring hotkey/tab combat system, severely reduce the gear/level grind, and leave out the annoying online twats and the accompanying pressure to perform/succeed/min-max... you get a pretty damn fun game that succeeds in a lot of areas. Being "sandbox", or even the illusion of it, has little to do it with the success.
For that matter, Minecraft's popularity tells us little that Civilization and Simcity haven't already.
Are you me? I don't think you could have expressed my thoughts any better.
If someone were to move Skyrim into an MMO setting I think we'd really get to see the disaster that the game's mechanics present. It is not a shining light for this genre (sandbox type games in particular).
Minecraft, I think, does somewhat represent people's acceptance of not being led around by the nose anymore. It's certainly the most popular and directionless game to come out in the last ten years. Some things can be learned from it, but not much more than what we've known since this genre kicked off.
skyrims no different than themepark mmos, you run around and do quests for people, theres really nothing in skyrim that isnt ipresent in most themepark mmos.
Dont know where this comparison of skyrim and sandboxes keep coming from.
Very loose comparison
(click to enlarge)
loose sure, but it still works, skyrim is waaaay closer to themepark mmos than sandbox ones, the only thing sandboxy about skyrim is the class system.
Totally agreed. And the freeform class system already exists in some MMOs, albeit unpopular ones.
A lot of people probably haven't heard of Castle Story yet. While it probably won't be a true MMO, they do plan on having multiplayer. Definately something to look at for any sandbox fan. Check out the forums and make some suggestions. Hell, we may see a dream come true. ArcheAge also looks promising, though it does have some themepark elements. I'm confident we'll start seeing some good sandboxes soon.
im gonna throw this back at the OP. What makes you think people only want Sandbox MMO, this whole stigma that is trying to push the genre one way or the other is dumb. we should expand BOTH horrizons and push BOTH genres farther. i've never been against one side or the other. i like theme park and i like sandbox. the only problem ive found coming from sandbox games is that if your not in the starting group on launch, your NEVER going to catch up to those who were.
only exception has been Face of Mankind where you start off equal to everyone having alot of money or the big guns didnt matter, you learned how to use your prefered weapons and it ended there.
but lets take the current frontrunner sandbox EVE. starting now i have no chance what so ever of catching anyone who has been playing 1year+ unless they quit until i catch up.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
im gonna throw this back at the OP. What makes you think people only want Sandbox MMO, this whole stigma that is trying to push the genre one way or the other is dumb. we should expand BOTH horrizons and push BOTH genres farther. i've never been against one side or the other. i like theme park and i like sandbox. the only problem ive found coming from sandbox games is that if your not in the starting group on launch, your NEVER going to catch up to those who were.
Indeed. In the end an absorbing MMO is an absorbing MMO regardless of whether it's a sandbox or themepark, and there's no reason why both types of gameplay can't exist in the same game. In fact they should, now I come to think of it.
Gamers are funny though, we never miss an opportunity to wave our willies around. It's hard to believe that in the days before the internet we were all on the same side.
Of course people like open sandboxy games. Look at Eve. Why is this even a question?
If a game like Eve, that has so many things that are off-putting to many players (controls, progression system, full pvp, etc.) can have a large number of players, just think what a real sandbox with traditional controls in a fantasy setting could get if it lived up to triple A standards of production quality and polish, unlike Ryzom (which was amazing, but too rough around the edge for many people), Vanguard (similar problems, and terrible start), or Darkfall (don't even get me started).
If you had a game with sandbox ideas similar to any or all of these games, but quality and polish on the level of a triple A game, you would have a big hit.
My point is that it isn't the idea of a sandbox that puts people off sandboxes. It is the low level of polish that almost inevitably comes with having an small developer. It isn't their fault, but players have big expectations about quality and polish after seeing WoW, and let's not lie to ourselves; WoW changed everything, like it or not.
"There are two great powers, and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
John Parry, to his son Will; "The Subtle Knife," by Phillip Pullman
I personaly cant see why anyone wouldnt want to play sandbox games. There are a lot of misconceptions laid in many peoples brain patterns that sandboxes are this way or that. But its not true. People just dont realy understand the concept of a sandbox because many havent played a real one or they listen to others that couldnt hack it.
Sandboxes are free, open, and have more mmo features in it than the last 20 mmo released combined. Theres quests like a thempark, there is no end content waiting around for more, there are no daily grinds for commedation, pvp warxones, dailies, and/or raids.
I realy dont think many know what a good sandbox is and what they are missing. You guys rather pay 15/month to play a console solo game lol. Than tohave a wide open world were the sky is the limit and you can do anything and everything. I just dont get it.
Of course people like open sandboxy games. Look at Eve. Why is this even a question?
If a game like Eve, that has so many things that are off-putting to many players (controls, progression system, full pvp, etc.) can have a large number of players, just think what a real sandbox with traditional controls in a fantasy setting could get if it lived up to triple A standards of production quality and polish, unlike Ryzom (which was amazing, but too rough around the edge for many people), Vanguard (similar problems, and terrible start), or Darkfall (don't even get me started).
If you had a game with sandbox ideas similar to any or all of these games, but quality and polish on the level of a triple A game, you would have a big hit.
My point is that it isn't the idea of a sandbox that puts people off sandboxes. It is the low level of polish that almost inevitably comes with having an small developer. It isn't their fault, but players have big expectations about quality and polish after seeing WoW, and let's not lie to ourselves; WoW changed everything, like it or not.
Actually I believe MMO sandboxes are what put folks off playing all on their own.
PVP forced on folks? If so you lose a huge number of gamers.
Lack of a meaningful PVE game? If so you lose subs.
Forced to buy from Owen? Smack in the face to PVE gaming.....lose more customers.
You just arent seeing it from a PVE themepark gamers perspective. EQ is as "sandboxy" as games need to be for folks with similar tastes to mine. The huge time sinks, and unmerciful death penalties though wont cut it these days. You will never force us to PVP, and we arent going to simply farm money to keep buying the same gear.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
but lets take the current frontrunner sandbox EVE. starting now i have no chance what so ever of catching anyone who has been playing 1year+ unless they quit until i catch up.
of course you can. in a sandbox like EVE its all about skilling to fullfill a role. endgame starts at day 1, there is no such thing like levels and catching up. after a few month you can fulfil a worthful role in pvp-endgame. heck even after a few weeks you are able to help a bit. older players are just able to play more different roles and fly more different ships. you can even kill a 5 years old player pretty soon.
just get rid of this theme-park thinking and you are fine.
Originally posted by Moaky07 Originally posted by Leodious Of course people like open sandboxy games. Look at Eve. Why is this even a question? If a game like Eve, that has so many things that are off-putting to many players (controls, progression system, full pvp, etc.) can have a large number of players, just think what a real sandbox with traditional controls in a fantasy setting could get if it lived up to triple A standards of production quality and polish, unlike Ryzom (which was amazing, but too rough around the edge for many people), Vanguard (similar problems, and terrible start), or Darkfall (don't even get me started). If you had a game with sandbox ideas similar to any or all of these games, but quality and polish on the level of a triple A game, you would have a big hit.
My point is that it isn't the idea of a sandbox that puts people off sandboxes. It is the low level of polish that almost inevitably comes with having an small developer. It isn't their fault, but players have big expectations about quality and polish after seeing WoW, and let's not lie to ourselves; WoW changed everything, like it or not.
Actually I believe MMO sandboxes are what put folks off playing all on their own.
PVP forced on folks? If so you lose a huge number of gamers. Lack of a meaningful PVE game? If so you lose subs. Forced to buy from Owen? Smack in the face to PVE gaming.....lose more customers.
You just arent seeing it from a PVE themepark gamers perspective. EQ is as "sandboxy" as games need to be for folks with similar tastes to mine. The huge time sinks, and unmerciful death penalties though wont cut it these days. You will never force us to PVP, and we arent going to simply farm money to keep buying the same gear.
Of course there are people who prefer theme parks. I never implied there were not such people. But there is a market for sanboxes, and it is much larger than the populations of games like those I mentioned would lead some people to believe. Eve is a great example.
Forced pvp and harsh death penalties are neither requirements for a sandbox nor turnoffs to a large number of players. Again, Eve is a perfect example. You might lose some subs with those decisions, but you will also gain some as well. There are people who like that sort of thing.
What annoys me are people like you trying to say that "gamers" want a certain thing. There are many different types of players, and different games should be made to cater to them. Most of the few decent sandbox ideas that have been made are made with poor quality and polish, and that is what turns off people.
"There are two great powers, and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
John Parry, to his son Will; "The Subtle Knife," by Phillip Pullman
People that loved games like Elite, Freelancer, Master of Orion, Civilization, X3, SimCity, Ultima (spg), Railroad Tycoon, System Shock, UO, Wurm, Face of Mankind, EVE, pre-CU SWG, Minecraft, Skyrim, etc. probably form the core audience for a "virtual world sandbox" MMO.
Of course, blending the relevant parts from that list of games into something that will make a playable MMO would be a daunting task
It's a niche audience and nobody knows how big it is. But at some point, some serious developer will take a stab at it. I just hope it happens before I'm too old to move a mouse and click buttons at the same time....
The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want. And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.
But take that to mmorpg. How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved. Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that).
Thing is, to me the gameplay of Skyrim or Minecraft has nothing to do with sandbox MMOs.
I mean Skyrim is an epic freeroaming adventure, Minecraft is fun little minning and building game.
When I play sandbox MMOs I play a grindy game filled with sim heavy mundane activities, they don't feel as mysterious or adventurous as Skyrim or as fun and creative as Minecraft. It is like night and day, so I don't see much connection between these games and demand for sandbox MMOs.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I just don't get where people are saying that Skyrim is a sandbox. It's not. It's pure themepark. It is full of quests. True, you don't have to do them in order, but there is a main storyline that you have to go through eventually. The hallmark of a sandbox is that there is *NOTHING* you have to do, *NO* story, *NO* quests, etc. You just run around in a world doing what you want to do.
Skyrim isn't that game. It's a great, fun game, I love playing it, but it's not a sandbox in any way, shape or form.
Comments
Kind of what I was thinking. It proves that people will play an Indie game and that they will play a game that is a time consuming sandbox made of sandboxes. We already knew people liked sandboxes though.
Doesn't have much relevance as far as MMORPG until someone builds a full on MMORPG Minecraft server.
I think the point of the thread was to show that it is wrong to claim that the Themepark market is the only one that "exist" and that the Sandbox market is purely a niche one, in which case the OP points out that both Minecraft and Skyrim have been extremely succesful and that there is potential for a real sandbox MMORPG out there, as there is clearly a large demand.
This...
Frankly the people who are trolling this thread just didn't understand the point the OP was making... that, or just being Theme park trolls.
Except the sandbox mmorpg market is a niche market. It's also a small market. Minecraft and Terraria have a very different feel from mmorpg and Skyrim is way different. The million+ people who would play Minecraft or Skyrim are not a million+ people who would play a sandbox mmorpg where the nine hours of work they put into building a skull mountain with smokestacks and lava eye sockets gets wasted because it gets destroyed or taken over by a random group of @sshats.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No way I would want a Skyrim mmo for simple reason ppl think funcom produces bugging mmo's imagine how buggy and broken a Skyrim mmo wouild be.90+ days already since Skyrim release and the ps3 is still unplayable reports of it frying consoles constantly locking up and ruining the ps3 hdd.This isn''t the first steaming pile almost all of there games they have ever brought to market has been buggy or broken they are alot like funcom in that aspect they promise alot and cash grab and heck if ppl can play it or not.
Thank you for enlightening us with the only scenario their is for a game with a lot of sandbox in it....Little tip, build a wall around your skull mountain next time....jesh!
That's up entirely up to the player community of the game. Interactivity beetween the players is the key element that is forgotten in current mmorpgs .
This is just it. Skyrim scales the content according to the level of your character. That's why you can run the quests or just explore and you always meet a challenge. If they didn't it would be just like playing a Themepark and going to the wrong zone.
But the point of the OP is still valid, that players do like the Sandbox play. The question is just what you, Emeraq, are stating. Would players give up the levels (and Skyrim does have levels), the big power gaps and increases in power, to be able to play a true Sandbox game that *played* like Skyrim.
*Note that there's a difference between how a game plays and how it's mechanics like levelling skills/classes works.*
Once upon a time....
(a) Nobody would be able to see Skull Mountain.
(b) Walls would be useless against anyone with a pickaxe or a box of TNT.
A game that is fantastic as a single player/multi player game, where modding in stuff that currently doesn't exist and where running your own servers is a large part of the reason it's so great would not necessarily translate well to an MMORPG where you don't mod stuff into the game, where you don't get to have your own server or your own space unless you play Link Realms.
It's just not the same thing. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other.
Now, don't get me wrong. I have spent the last week obsessing over a Minecraft server that would be an MMORPG with a unique setting (not random islands) and with an actual story of sorts. I'm afraid I'm going to have to try and do it before I can get it out of my head. That does not mean I think there are a million people who would want to play it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If Skyrim is where people set the bar for "sandbox", I'm honestly a little disappointed. Just a bit of level-scaling for all generated threats, a few "main" linear questlines which have no interaction with each other, permadeath for non-essential npc's, and one eventually-conquered city? Is this really all it takes to "advance" beyond those "horrible" themepark games?
Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously loving Skyrim. But I'm not seeing much resembling the holy grail of "sandbox" that people keep crying for. There was no one trying to hire the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood to tip the balance of the Empire/Stormcloak civil war. The Winterrun College didn't show up and volunteer training/nuke-staffs to help with killing Alduin the World-Eater. No matter how much crap I bought from or sold to a vendor, their cash reserves or appearance never changed. Not one stinking new quest on account of whoever I marry. No opportunity to create a new Dragonbits economy with the corpses of the hundreds of dragons I've slain. Even your chosen race barely rates more than the occasional, inconsequential dialogue tweak.
So no, in response to the OP, I don't see Skyrim as evidence towards the viability of a sandbox game. It tells me that if you get rid of the mind-numbingly boring hotkey/tab combat system, severely reduce the gear/level grind, and leave out the annoying online twats and the accompanying pressure to perform/succeed/min-max... you get a pretty damn fun game that succeeds in a lot of areas. Being "sandbox", or even the illusion of it, has little to do it with the success.
For that matter, Minecraft's popularity tells us little that Civilization and Simcity haven't already.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
Why would you add a story? Minecraft is great because its just a world, a massive setting for us to play in. We don't need a story.
Everything creates huge amounts of negativity on the internet, that's what the internet is for: Negativity, porn and lolcats.
Minecraft is more of an MMORPG than over a dozen games listed on this site. It has servers that support over 400+ people. http://minecraft-server-list.com/
If global agenda, league of legends, etc can be listed here I don't see why minecraft isn't.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Are you me? I don't think you could have expressed my thoughts any better.
If someone were to move Skyrim into an MMO setting I think we'd really get to see the disaster that the game's mechanics present. It is not a shining light for this genre (sandbox type games in particular).
Minecraft, I think, does somewhat represent people's acceptance of not being led around by the nose anymore. It's certainly the most popular and directionless game to come out in the last ten years. Some things can be learned from it, but not much more than what we've known since this genre kicked off.
Totally agreed. And the freeform class system already exists in some MMOs, albeit unpopular ones.
A lot of people probably haven't heard of Castle Story yet. While it probably won't be a true MMO, they do plan on having multiplayer. Definately something to look at for any sandbox fan. Check out the forums and make some suggestions. Hell, we may see a dream come true. ArcheAge also looks promising, though it does have some themepark elements. I'm confident we'll start seeing some good sandboxes soon.
im gonna throw this back at the OP. What makes you think people only want Sandbox MMO, this whole stigma that is trying to push the genre one way or the other is dumb. we should expand BOTH horrizons and push BOTH genres farther. i've never been against one side or the other. i like theme park and i like sandbox. the only problem ive found coming from sandbox games is that if your not in the starting group on launch, your NEVER going to catch up to those who were.
only exception has been Face of Mankind where you start off equal to everyone having alot of money or the big guns didnt matter, you learned how to use your prefered weapons and it ended there.
but lets take the current frontrunner sandbox EVE. starting now i have no chance what so ever of catching anyone who has been playing 1year+ unless they quit until i catch up.
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
Indeed. In the end an absorbing MMO is an absorbing MMO regardless of whether it's a sandbox or themepark, and there's no reason why both types of gameplay can't exist in the same game. In fact they should, now I come to think of it.
Gamers are funny though, we never miss an opportunity to wave our willies around. It's hard to believe that in the days before the internet we were all on the same side.
Of course people like open sandboxy games. Look at Eve. Why is this even a question?
If a game like Eve, that has so many things that are off-putting to many players (controls, progression system, full pvp, etc.) can have a large number of players, just think what a real sandbox with traditional controls in a fantasy setting could get if it lived up to triple A standards of production quality and polish, unlike Ryzom (which was amazing, but too rough around the edge for many people), Vanguard (similar problems, and terrible start), or Darkfall (don't even get me started).
If you had a game with sandbox ideas similar to any or all of these games, but quality and polish on the level of a triple A game, you would have a big hit.
My point is that it isn't the idea of a sandbox that puts people off sandboxes. It is the low level of polish that almost inevitably comes with having an small developer. It isn't their fault, but players have big expectations about quality and polish after seeing WoW, and let's not lie to ourselves; WoW changed everything, like it or not.
"There are two great powers, and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
John Parry, to his son Will; "The Subtle Knife," by Phillip Pullman
I personaly cant see why anyone wouldnt want to play sandbox games. There are a lot of misconceptions laid in many peoples brain patterns that sandboxes are this way or that. But its not true. People just dont realy understand the concept of a sandbox because many havent played a real one or they listen to others that couldnt hack it.
Sandboxes are free, open, and have more mmo features in it than the last 20 mmo released combined. Theres quests like a thempark, there is no end content waiting around for more, there are no daily grinds for commedation, pvp warxones, dailies, and/or raids.
I realy dont think many know what a good sandbox is and what they are missing. You guys rather pay 15/month to play a console solo game lol. Than tohave a wide open world were the sky is the limit and you can do anything and everything. I just dont get it.
Actually I believe MMO sandboxes are what put folks off playing all on their own.
PVP forced on folks? If so you lose a huge number of gamers.
Lack of a meaningful PVE game? If so you lose subs.
Forced to buy from Owen? Smack in the face to PVE gaming.....lose more customers.
You just arent seeing it from a PVE themepark gamers perspective. EQ is as "sandboxy" as games need to be for folks with similar tastes to mine. The huge time sinks, and unmerciful death penalties though wont cut it these days. You will never force us to PVP, and we arent going to simply farm money to keep buying the same gear.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
skyrim isn't really a sandbox. Its more of a sandpark it has elements of both sandbox and theme park games
witcher is a bit more thempark
dragon age / Mass effect pure themepark
of course you can. in a sandbox like EVE its all about skilling to fullfill a role. endgame starts at day 1, there is no such thing like levels and catching up. after a few month you can fulfil a worthful role in pvp-endgame. heck even after a few weeks you are able to help a bit. older players are just able to play more different roles and fly more different ships. you can even kill a 5 years old player pretty soon.
just get rid of this theme-park thinking and you are fine.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
PVP forced on folks? If so you lose a huge number of gamers.
Lack of a meaningful PVE game? If so you lose subs.
Forced to buy from Owen? Smack in the face to PVE gaming.....lose more customers.
You just arent seeing it from a PVE themepark gamers perspective. EQ is as "sandboxy" as games need to be for folks with similar tastes to mine. The huge time sinks, and unmerciful death penalties though wont cut it these days. You will never force us to PVP, and we arent going to simply farm money to keep buying the same gear.
Of course there are people who prefer theme parks. I never implied there were not such people. But there is a market for sanboxes, and it is much larger than the populations of games like those I mentioned would lead some people to believe. Eve is a great example.
Forced pvp and harsh death penalties are neither requirements for a sandbox nor turnoffs to a large number of players. Again, Eve is a perfect example. You might lose some subs with those decisions, but you will also gain some as well. There are people who like that sort of thing.
What annoys me are people like you trying to say that "gamers" want a certain thing. There are many different types of players, and different games should be made to cater to them. Most of the few decent sandbox ideas that have been made are made with poor quality and polish, and that is what turns off people.
"There are two great powers, and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
John Parry, to his son Will; "The Subtle Knife," by Phillip Pullman
Minecraft and Skyrim similar games? ok if you say so-huh
People that loved games like Elite, Freelancer, Master of Orion, Civilization, X3, SimCity, Ultima (spg), Railroad Tycoon, System Shock, UO, Wurm, Face of Mankind, EVE, pre-CU SWG, Minecraft, Skyrim, etc. probably form the core audience for a "virtual world sandbox" MMO.
Of course, blending the relevant parts from that list of games into something that will make a playable MMO would be a daunting task
It's a niche audience and nobody knows how big it is. But at some point, some serious developer will take a stab at it. I just hope it happens before I'm too old to move a mouse and click buttons at the same time....
The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want. And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.
But take that to mmorpg. How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved. Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that).
Thing is, to me the gameplay of Skyrim or Minecraft has nothing to do with sandbox MMOs.
I mean Skyrim is an epic freeroaming adventure, Minecraft is fun little minning and building game.
When I play sandbox MMOs I play a grindy game filled with sim heavy mundane activities, they don't feel as mysterious or adventurous as Skyrim or as fun and creative as Minecraft. It is like night and day, so I don't see much connection between these games and demand for sandbox MMOs.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I just don't get where people are saying that Skyrim is a sandbox. It's not. It's pure themepark. It is full of quests. True, you don't have to do them in order, but there is a main storyline that you have to go through eventually. The hallmark of a sandbox is that there is *NOTHING* you have to do, *NO* story, *NO* quests, etc. You just run around in a world doing what you want to do.
Skyrim isn't that game. It's a great, fun game, I love playing it, but it's not a sandbox in any way, shape or form.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None