The game does not have "quest hubs" ala WoW. Not really a themepark if there are no hubs.
Wrong. With or without quest hubs it can still be a Themepark. TESO is 100% themepark just like all of the Elder Scrolls games.
How on earth is a game like Morrowind a themepark RPG? The world is completely unrestricted from the get go, I don't have to be level 10 to access the next zone, or go through the main story line quests to acquire my ship so I can visit other planets like in SWTOR. A themepark in the sense that almost nothing is is user created? Sure.
Lmao that hype didn't last long. From what we know, it is exactly the same old thing.
Well Back to the drawing board if you thought a WoWesk game was the way to go. Maybe when you started production 4/5 years ago lmao. Be original don't copy. GG
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
And for the love of god. Sandbox has nothing to do with quests. Neither the presence of, nor lack of. A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game. The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well. Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves. I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium. Because games without content suck.
Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.
Sandbox only means there are no objectives. I don't have to do a quest to progress. I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter. I don't have to save the world. It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay. Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept. It never even had anything to do with classes.
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
I agree, these leaked articles look and sound a bit suspect. Who knows. From what I've seen thus far, I sure hope they're fabricated.
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
And for the love of god. Sandbox has nothing to do with quests. Neither the presence of, nor lack of. A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game. The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well. Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves. I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium. Because games without content suck.
Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.
Sandbox only means there are no objectives. I don't have to do a quest to progress. I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter. I don't have to save the world. It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay. Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept. It never even had anything to do with classes.
Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft. Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures. I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG.
Single plaeyr rpgs center around a group of adventures saving the world or doing something great. an MMORPG should be this, with more people. That's it. Not a bunch of yahoos making the game about ganking folk in the notion of "superior" game play.
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
And for the love of god. Sandbox has nothing to do with quests. Neither the presence of, nor lack of. A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game. The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well. Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves. I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium. Because games without content suck.
Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.
Sandbox only means there are no objectives. I don't have to do a quest to progress. I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter. I don't have to save the world. It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay. Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept. It never even had anything to do with classes.
Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft. Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures. I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG.
None of the ES games are sandbox. They are all openworld themeparks. To be a sandbox you have to create some how.
Examples:
Minecraft - Sandbox
GTA - Themepark
Final Fantasy - Themepark
UO - Sandbox
EQ - Themepark
WoW - Themepark
EvE - Sandbox
SWTOR - Themepark
The game most similar to the ES games in this list is GTA which is a themepark.
I must admit, while there does seem to be a few things going for it, learning how themepark/wow-diku-clonish its going to be for this IP is a serious letdown. Not only that, but it was really our only chance for something interesting in the AAA space, since everything else coming up has already been confirmed to be themepark wow clones as well AKA Copernicus, and I wouldn't even bet a skittle that EQNext won't be either.
Love folk that think that an actual Elder Scroll game would be sandbox (MMOStrattegy Game) when Elder Scrolls have always been quest driven RPGs.
I've never seen a sandbox MMORPG. Because in order to be a sandbox game, you have to take the quests out. Which are RPGs. Can't imagine going downstairs to DM and tell my players, okay here we go, there's no quests, dungeons or adventures, you're going to build houses and attack one another. This is the new RPG. The pain of the book being thrown at me will hurt.
Asheron's Call didn't have traditional quests for years. Just a few epic objective(an iconic sword) and monthly story/dungeon updates. AC was the best MMO to be made imo.
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
And for the love of god. Sandbox has nothing to do with quests. Neither the presence of, nor lack of. A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game. The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well. Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves. I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium. Because games without content suck.
Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.
Sandbox only means there are no objectives. I don't have to do a quest to progress. I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter. I don't have to save the world. It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay. Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept. It never even had anything to do with classes.
Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft. Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures. I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG.
None of the ES games are sandbox. They are all openworld themeparks. To be a sandbox you have to create some how.
Examples:
Minecraft - Sandbox
GTA - Themepark
Final Fantasy - Themepark
UO - Sandbox
EQ - Themepark
WoW - Themepark
EvE - Sandbox
SWTOR - Themepark
The game most similar to the ES games in this list is GTA which is a themepark.
So why try to make a whole nother genre about this game. LEts' first not call first player game's sandbox, mindcraft. They have genres. Sim games and similar games have existed well before MMOs. I love them, I don't want them in my MMO.
Which is my problem with sanbox to begin with. It's not a subsection of mmo, it's a feature that can be in an mmo that, truthfully, can one day be placed in any MMO. Making a house shoud not be an entire subsection of mmos, and yet so many people come in these forums talking the praise of the sndbox, which, has only been done succesffully in 2 games.
One of those games, Eve, is the antiRPG. The other, was a poor example of its single player reprensentative.
A feature, down the line, in Guild Wars 2 is suppose to allow players to of guilds to build small training grounds by collecting rewards in wvw and pve. Is this sandbox. It's very dark cloud 2ish. Hell is dark cloud 2 sandbox.
It just feels artificial that folk attempt to make sandbox a big thing, when essence its a feature, that is hard to pull off without pvp ganking and deminishing the fun of others.
I could go for a dark cloud 2 approach, actually one of my favorite games.
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
And for the love of god. Sandbox has nothing to do with quests. Neither the presence of, nor lack of. A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game. The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well. Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves. I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium. Because games without content suck.
Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.
Sandbox only means there are no objectives. I don't have to do a quest to progress. I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter. I don't have to save the world. It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay. Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept. It never even had anything to do with classes.
Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft. Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures. I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG.
None of the ES games are sandbox. They are all openworld themeparks. To be a sandbox you have to create some how.
Examples:
Minecraft - Sandbox
GTA - Themepark
Final Fantasy - Themepark
UO - Sandbox
EQ - Themepark
WoW - Themepark
EvE - Sandbox
SWTOR - Themepark
The game most similar to the ES games in this list is GTA which is a themepark.
So why try to make a whole nother genre about this game. LEts' first not call first player game's sandbox, mindcraft. They have genres. Sim games and similar games have existed well before MMOs. I love them, I don't want them in my MMO.
Which is my problem with sanbox to begin with. It's not a subsection of mmo, it's a feature that can be in an mmo that, truthfully, can one day be placed in any MMO. Making a house shoud not be an entire subsection of mmos, and yet so many people come in these forums talking the praise of the sndbox, which, has only been done succesffully in 2 games.
One of those games, Eve, is the antiRPG. The other, was a poor example of its single player reprensentative.
A feature, down the line, in Guild Wars 2 is suppose to allow players to of guilds to build small training grounds by collecting rewards in wvw and pve. Is this sandbox. It's very dark cloud 2ish. Hell is dark cloud 2 sandbox.
It just feels artificial that folk attempt to make sandbox a big thing, when essence its a feature, that is hard to pull off without pvp ganking and deminishing the fun of others.
I could go for a dark cloud 2 approach, actually one of my favorite games.
Just FYI I actualy enjoy both sandbox and themepark elements and games. I'm just annoyed that so many people don't know what makes something a sandbox. What is required to play in a real sandbox? Imagination and sand (to build stuff with).
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
And for the love of god. Sandbox has nothing to do with quests. Neither the presence of, nor lack of. A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game. The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well. Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves. I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium. Because games without content suck.
Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.
Sandbox only means there are no objectives. I don't have to do a quest to progress. I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter. I don't have to save the world. It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay. Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept. It never even had anything to do with classes.
I had this same discussion some months ago when it was first being rumored that TESO would be announced in May. Quite simply, themparks rely almost entirely on developer created content, while sandbox games do not. The developers create the rides and we ride them. In sandbox games developers create more tools that allow players to create their own content. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, open worlds or anything like that.
The Elder Scrolls is a themepark because outside of your character it doesn't allow you to create anything. You explore a landscape that you have no control over while raiding dungeons and doing quests created by the developers. Just because it's an open world that allows you to choose whatever quest or dungeon you wish to do (or not do) doesn't matter. It's still a themepark, your playing through content that the developers created. A game doesn't have to hold your hand a guide you through a linear series of events to be a themepark. I don't ever remember going to a themepark where I couldn't choose which rides or attractions I wanted to experience.
Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.
It is only the ability to create actual structures, whether its player houses, guild houses, stores whatever. A real sandbox is just that a big box full of land, an empty canvas of a world so to speak, where you can come by and create castles, or entire cities with your imagination and a bucket of water. Thats all a sandbox game is, an empty canvas of a game world where players have the control to create and shape the landscape by creating castles, houses, or entire player driven villages/cities.
Its the same thing that has happened to the meaning of "PaytoWin". If this trend of creating our own definitions continues, we may as well all be speaking in different foreign languages.
Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.
It is only the ability to create actual structures, whether its player houses, guild houses, stores whatever. A real sandbox is just that a big box full of land, an empty canvas of a world so to speak, where you can come by and create castles, or entire cities with your imagination and a bucket of water. Thats all a sandbox game is, an empty canvas of a game world where players have the control to create and shape the landscape by creating castles, houses, or entire player driven villages/cities.
Its the same thing that has happened to the meaning of "PaytoWin". If this trend of creating our own definitions continues, we may as well all be speaking in different foreign languages.
Sad to see a phrase like this get butchered from what we originally intended it to mean and have others try and create their own definition.
When we said "Sandbox" a couple of decades ago it meant able to do what we want, how we want. It was about freedom in game and an open world with little to no barriers. It was about creating our own story. Now you guys are trying to turn it into "You can build stuff". If that were the case the games like CoH were a sandbox because you can build your own instance, or Never Winters Nights since you created your own content. How about APB since you can design your own clothes and decals, create music, customize your cars.
I mean if all a sandbox means to you guys is "We can make our own content" then there are many games that fall into the sandbox category.
Quit trying to change the definition, last thing we need is for games like Lego universe to be tagged as sandbox even though it's basically a series of mini games.
Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.
It is only the ability to create actual structures, whether its player houses, guild houses, stores whatever. A real sandbox is just that a big box full of land, an empty canvas of a world so to speak, where you can come by and create castles, or entire cities with your imagination and a bucket of water. Thats all a sandbox game is, an empty canvas of a game world where players have the control to create and shape the landscape by creating castles, houses, or entire player driven villages/cities.
You have no idea what Sandbox means then.
Its about freedom. The ability to create and re-create your character how you wish, when you wish.
Not just about teraforming and house building
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
Failed out of the gate. Hurray MMO genre. Still trying to steal bad features from a dying game.
Currently playing - FF14ARR Previous games - SWG, World of Warcraft, ShadowBane, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall, Planetside Asheron's Call, Everquest, Everquest 2, Too many.
"Making player housing work the way fans expect is too hard to implement in an MMO, so Zenimax has no plans to let you accrue real estate."
Oh, the irony.
there goes the sandbox dreams for all the fans......i already gave up on sandbox games lately.....i dont believe there will be a sandbox EVER again, but thats just mho.
To me UO was the only real sandbox in its early days......EQ try'd (by having housing and stuff) but failed at making a real SBox.
Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.
So very wrong. A sandbox game means you're not forced into class or profession roles. Sandbox games are not scripted where you are the hero. They are games where you can play however you want or do whatever you want.
In themepark MMOs they put you down the path of the hero, where in a sandbox MMO you can be the hero, the villain, the shop keeper, the blacksmith, the hunter, the doctor, etc. Your role is only defined by your skills and what you choose to do with them.
A sandbox means that you can play however you want, like in an actual sandbox, where in a themepark they take you by the hand and lead you on a specific ride (like a rollercoaster).
Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.
So very wrong. A sandbox game means you're not forced into class or profession roles. Sandbox games are not scripted where you are the hero. They are games where you can play however you want or do whatever you want.
In themepark MMOs they put you down the path of the hero, where in a sandbox MMO you can be the hero, the villain, the shop keeper, the blacksmith, the hunter, the doctor, etc. Your role is only defined by your skills and what you choose to do with them.
A sandbox means that you can play however you want, like in an actual sandbox, where in a themepark they take you by the hand and lead you on a specific ride (like a rollercoaster).
It's sad I actually remember conversations in UO that were pretty funny. Housing didn't get mentioned till much later on when other MMO's didn't add it.
"Hey, this game is like a sandbox!"
"What do you mean?"
"Well think about being on a playground, you have a swing, a slide, a seesaw, and a sandbox. What do you do on a swing?"
"Making player housing work the way fans expect is too hard to implement in an MMO, so Zenimax has no plans to let you accrue real estate."
Oh, the irony.
there goes the sandbox dreams for all the fans......i already gave up on sandbox games lately.....i dont believe there will be a sandbox EVER again, but thats just mho.
To me UO was the only real sandbox in its early days......EQ try'd (by having housing and stuff) but failed at making a real SBox.
I think you may be right. There will simply not be any AAA sandbox mmorpg's OR any themepark mmorpg's anywhere in the near future that have an ounce of creativity or thinking outside the box of typical mmo conventions. Something that's not hyperbole and marketing promises. Its extraordinarily depressing, actually.
The onegame and IP that should have and could have done something creative and refreshing and this is what we get. And we've got another 2faction therepark coming in Copernicus. In all honesty, the more I think about it, and reflect on the TESO announcement, the more I realize the mmorpg genre and I have so little in common anymore, its probably time to give it up altogether.
Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.
When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?
If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).
Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.
Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.
When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?
If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).
Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.
Because what you ask is not realistic. Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience. It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.
I get it , some people like Mongolian barbaque. I for one think its stupid to pay someone to allow me to cook my own food. This is the problem with the sand box argument. I pay money for developers and writers and authors to make amazing content that can challenge people, not to fight 13 year old gankers and have the game tell me "it's innovavite". Anyone can make this game. It's like telling someone to read a book and giving them a book with blank pages. Then tell them to write their own story, it'll be amazing. Well, I can do that on my own, why did I pay for the book?
Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form. It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.
Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.
When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?
If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).
Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.
Because what you ask is not realistic. Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience. It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.
Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form. It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.
lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.
So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.
Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.
When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?
If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).
Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.
Because what you ask is not realistic. Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience. It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.
Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form. It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.
lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.
So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.
LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG)
UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series. IT was new, that was all it had going for it. why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games.
It's an RPG, no one plays a rpg to go in and work for 8 hours to build a house or work for 10 hours and build a sawmill or spend their money to pay for guards to protect their house. There's nothing fun to it, nothing rpg about, nothing adventerious about it
Now, if you tell me there's some system like dark cloud 2 (and what guild wars 2 is talking of implenting in an expansion) where as i adventure i can find special buildings to populate my guidl fortress, that sounds like fun) but the simulation stuff is for simulation games.
Hey, I love playing simearth, simcity civilivation, but they have their own genre of games. They don't belong in RPGs. Show me an RPG that has that in it?
So like so many, you disparge people and call them "casual" gamers cause no one wants to spend 8 hours a day building houses in a game. or spend half the night camping out a site waiting for a respawn so you can get that brick for your cornerstone. Give me a break.
Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.
When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?
If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).
Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.
Because what you ask is not realistic. Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience. It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.
Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form. It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.
lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.
So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.
LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG)
UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series. IT was new, that was all it had going for it. why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games.
Sorry man, my burden of proof has been fulfilled. You made some claim that a sandbox can't be an RPG and done into an MMO. My jobs done on this. Good luck though
Comments
How on earth is a game like Morrowind a themepark RPG? The world is completely unrestricted from the get go, I don't have to be level 10 to access the next zone, or go through the main story line quests to acquire my ship so I can visit other planets like in SWTOR. A themepark in the sense that almost nothing is is user created? Sure.
Lmao that hype didn't last long. From what we know, it is exactly the same old thing.
Well Back to the drawing board if you thought a WoWesk game was the way to go. Maybe when you started production 4/5 years ago lmao. Be original don't copy. GG
No Vampires? Wtf.
I'm not believing these "leeks" until I've read the article myself. I'm having a really hard time believing that any company would publish a reveal article in which they make reference to using mechanics from another game in every other paragraph.
Looks like a joke to me. You've got a game franchise that has been the bread and butter of an entire company for a decade, and it's going to finally get an MMO iteration, which fans have been begging for for almost as long as the franchise has existed, and they tell us that it's basically not going to be anything like the actual ES games, and constantly points out that it's going to play just like an MMO that is the complete opposite of what EVERYONE who's every played an ES game would expect it to play like.
On top of that they say that features that have been, and other that are becoming more and more the norm, FPS/ action combat and housing, aren't possible to do in an MMO version.
I'll believe it when I have the actual issue of game informer on my lap to puke on.
And for the love of god. Sandbox has nothing to do with quests. Neither the presence of, nor lack of. A sandbox can have just as many or more quests then WoW or EQ, or any other themepark game. The ES games are sandbox games, they all have quests, just like UO is a sandbox game, and it has quests, EVE has quests, Ryzom has quests, wasn't SWG originally a sandbox and had quests, and I'm pretty sure that Anarchy online is a sandbox as well. Face of mankind is a sandbox; it has no or had no quests originally, but the game was also designed around the idea that players would create the quests themselves. I'm not even sure FoM has NPC's, I do know it shut down, got sold, and then went to freemium. Because games without content suck.
Anyone of you people that keep saying that it can't be a sandbox if it has quests, please direct me to the sandbox game you are or have played in the past that has no quest in it.
Sandbox only means there are no objectives. I don't have to do a quest to progress. I don't have to kill stuff to craft bettter. I don't have to save the world. It started out as open-ended gameplay, that then became nonobjective based gameplay, and then somehow a bunch of people started saying it means contentless gameplay. Why people think this is debateble, it's a well established gaming concept. It never even had anything to do with classes.
I agree, these leaked articles look and sound a bit suspect. Who knows. From what I've seen thus far, I sure hope they're fabricated.
Then by your definition a ton of games fall into sandbox including TOR, GW2 and Rift. You can play all these games and never kill a creature and level and craft. Ther'es no mMO dictionary you speak of, but when people say sandbox, they usually refer to not having specific quests or, should i say, plot lines and adventures. I refuse to say sandbox is a derivite of an MMORPG, because, by its defintion, a lack of defined objectives, adventures and quests is not an RPG, thus it could never be a multiplayer RPG.
Single plaeyr rpgs center around a group of adventures saving the world or doing something great. an MMORPG should be this, with more people. That's it. Not a bunch of yahoos making the game about ganking folk in the notion of "superior" game play.
None of the ES games are sandbox. They are all openworld themeparks. To be a sandbox you have to create some how.
Examples:
Minecraft - Sandbox
GTA - Themepark
Final Fantasy - Themepark
UO - Sandbox
EQ - Themepark
WoW - Themepark
EvE - Sandbox
SWTOR - Themepark
The game most similar to the ES games in this list is GTA which is a themepark.
My theme song.
I must admit, while there does seem to be a few things going for it, learning how themepark/wow-diku-clonish its going to be for this IP is a serious letdown. Not only that, but it was really our only chance for something interesting in the AAA space, since everything else coming up has already been confirmed to be themepark wow clones as well AKA Copernicus, and I wouldn't even bet a skittle that EQNext won't be either.
Asheron's Call didn't have traditional quests for years. Just a few epic objective(an iconic sword) and monthly story/dungeon updates. AC was the best MMO to be made imo.
So why try to make a whole nother genre about this game. LEts' first not call first player game's sandbox, mindcraft. They have genres. Sim games and similar games have existed well before MMOs. I love them, I don't want them in my MMO.
Which is my problem with sanbox to begin with. It's not a subsection of mmo, it's a feature that can be in an mmo that, truthfully, can one day be placed in any MMO. Making a house shoud not be an entire subsection of mmos, and yet so many people come in these forums talking the praise of the sndbox, which, has only been done succesffully in 2 games.
One of those games, Eve, is the antiRPG. The other, was a poor example of its single player reprensentative.
A feature, down the line, in Guild Wars 2 is suppose to allow players to of guilds to build small training grounds by collecting rewards in wvw and pve. Is this sandbox. It's very dark cloud 2ish. Hell is dark cloud 2 sandbox.
It just feels artificial that folk attempt to make sandbox a big thing, when essence its a feature, that is hard to pull off without pvp ganking and deminishing the fun of others.
I could go for a dark cloud 2 approach, actually one of my favorite games.
Just FYI I actualy enjoy both sandbox and themepark elements and games. I'm just annoyed that so many people don't know what makes something a sandbox. What is required to play in a real sandbox? Imagination and sand (to build stuff with).
My theme song.
Nailed it.
My theme song.
Exactly. Sandbox only refers to an open world that players can create structures and thus effect the landscape and environment. It has never been anything more than that. It has nothing to do with quests, classes, lore, story or adventuring, dungeon makeup, pvp or any other feature in any MMO.
It is only the ability to create actual structures, whether its player houses, guild houses, stores whatever. A real sandbox is just that a big box full of land, an empty canvas of a world so to speak, where you can come by and create castles, or entire cities with your imagination and a bucket of water. Thats all a sandbox game is, an empty canvas of a game world where players have the control to create and shape the landscape by creating castles, houses, or entire player driven villages/cities.
Its the same thing that has happened to the meaning of "PaytoWin". If this trend of creating our own definitions continues, we may as well all be speaking in different foreign languages.
People at Bethesda must be crying in their sleep over Zenimax giving rights to Elder Scrolls Online to Matt Firor.
Sad to see a phrase like this get butchered from what we originally intended it to mean and have others try and create their own definition.
When we said "Sandbox" a couple of decades ago it meant able to do what we want, how we want. It was about freedom in game and an open world with little to no barriers. It was about creating our own story. Now you guys are trying to turn it into "You can build stuff". If that were the case the games like CoH were a sandbox because you can build your own instance, or Never Winters Nights since you created your own content. How about APB since you can design your own clothes and decals, create music, customize your cars.
I mean if all a sandbox means to you guys is "We can make our own content" then there are many games that fall into the sandbox category.
Quit trying to change the definition, last thing we need is for games like Lego universe to be tagged as sandbox even though it's basically a series of mini games.
You have no idea what Sandbox means then.
Its about freedom. The ability to create and re-create your character how you wish, when you wish.
Not just about teraforming and house building
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
Failed out of the gate. Hurray MMO genre. Still trying to steal bad features from a dying game.
Currently playing - FF14ARR
Previous games - SWG, World of Warcraft, ShadowBane, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall, Planetside Asheron's Call, Everquest, Everquest 2, Too many.
there goes the sandbox dreams for all the fans......i already gave up on sandbox games lately.....i dont believe there will be a sandbox EVER again, but thats just mho.
To me UO was the only real sandbox in its early days......EQ try'd (by having housing and stuff) but failed at making a real SBox.
So very wrong. A sandbox game means you're not forced into class or profession roles. Sandbox games are not scripted where you are the hero. They are games where you can play however you want or do whatever you want.
In themepark MMOs they put you down the path of the hero, where in a sandbox MMO you can be the hero, the villain, the shop keeper, the blacksmith, the hunter, the doctor, etc. Your role is only defined by your skills and what you choose to do with them.
A sandbox means that you can play however you want, like in an actual sandbox, where in a themepark they take you by the hand and lead you on a specific ride (like a rollercoaster).
It's sad I actually remember conversations in UO that were pretty funny. Housing didn't get mentioned till much later on when other MMO's didn't add it.
"Hey, this game is like a sandbox!"
"What do you mean?"
"Well think about being on a playground, you have a swing, a slide, a seesaw, and a sandbox. What do you do on a swing?"
"You swing"
"What do you do on a slide?"
"You slide"
"What do you do on a seesaw?"
"You seesaw, go up and down"
"What do you do in a sandbox?"
"I don't know"
"You do whatever you want!"
I think you may be right. There will simply not be any AAA sandbox mmorpg's OR any themepark mmorpg's anywhere in the near future that have an ounce of creativity or thinking outside the box of typical mmo conventions. Something that's not hyperbole and marketing promises. Its extraordinarily depressing, actually.
The one game and IP that should have and could have done something creative and refreshing and this is what we get. And we've got another 2faction therepark coming in Copernicus. In all honesty, the more I think about it, and reflect on the TESO announcement, the more I realize the mmorpg genre and I have so little in common anymore, its probably time to give it up altogether.
Was hoping for a more sandboxy experience as well. Content seems very much themed, orchestrated and predetermined. Fighting over the capital city with three factions and numerous of secondary objectives sounds fun but this whole "fighting over the throne" aspect is also themed, predetermined and bound to a dedicated area.
When will developers frigging learn that so many people want to be able to shape their own goals and objectives in the part of the world which they fancy most and in the role they see fit?
If I were a dictator, rulling this world, I would put all mmorpg developers in an alliance and force them to play EVE for at least a year. After that they can go back to developing games again. (CCPeople themselves and ArchAge devs are off the hook).
Still willing to cut them some slack: we'll have to see how it ends up further down the line. But going for the safe route with this and make it YET ANOTHER reinvention of the same old themepark mold is a sure way to lose my interest really fast.
My brand new bloggity blog.
Because what you ask is not realistic. Eventually the first 10 percent of people who play will "shape everything" leaving the other 90% without a play experience. It's why sandbox as a game style is a genre of games called strategy, and can't be realistically put in the RPG setting. So you can't take a real RPG like Elder Scroll and decide to make it a MMOStrategy or MMOSimulation game.
I get it , some people like Mongolian barbaque. I for one think its stupid to pay someone to allow me to cook my own food. This is the problem with the sand box argument. I pay money for developers and writers and authors to make amazing content that can challenge people, not to fight 13 year old gankers and have the game tell me "it's innovavite". Anyone can make this game. It's like telling someone to read a book and giving them a book with blank pages. Then tell them to write their own story, it'll be amazing. Well, I can do that on my own, why did I pay for the book?
Eve is not an RPG, in no shape or form. It's a great MMOstrategy game with RPG elements, but if there are no adventures or quests to go on, if there's no main story to drive the game, then its not an RPG.
lol really? Dear me, UO did fine and was indeed an RPG. It was also sandbox.
So... actually I will stop there. There is already proof that you're simply wrong and there isn't much reason to continue with the explanation lol.
LOL, wow, so your proof is a 15 year old game on life support. By all means, explain yoru argument, because the only 2 sandbox games that have gained an inkling of a player base are UO (cause there was nothing else at the time) and Eve (because they didn't BS anyone by pretending it was an RPG)
UO was a choatic mess that did nothing to move the genre and didn't even atttract a majority of the gamers who loved the ultimate series. IT was new, that was all it had going for it. why do you think the market didn't blow up until the everquest and wow. As a matter of fact, ask any other gamer what hte first mmo was, and they'll probably refer to one of these two games.
It's an RPG, no one plays a rpg to go in and work for 8 hours to build a house or work for 10 hours and build a sawmill or spend their money to pay for guards to protect their house. There's nothing fun to it, nothing rpg about, nothing adventerious about it
Now, if you tell me there's some system like dark cloud 2 (and what guild wars 2 is talking of implenting in an expansion) where as i adventure i can find special buildings to populate my guidl fortress, that sounds like fun) but the simulation stuff is for simulation games.
Hey, I love playing simearth, simcity civilivation, but they have their own genre of games. They don't belong in RPGs. Show me an RPG that has that in it?
So like so many, you disparge people and call them "casual" gamers cause no one wants to spend 8 hours a day building houses in a game. or spend half the night camping out a site waiting for a respawn so you can get that brick for your cornerstone. Give me a break.
Sorry man, my burden of proof has been fulfilled. You made some claim that a sandbox can't be an RPG and done into an MMO. My jobs done on this. Good luck though