Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

What about a sandbox and themepark game?

2»

Comments

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    we had that.

    it was called SWG.

    But SWTOR killed it.

    It tried to do both things, it did neither of them well. All it had was good crafting in a shockingly bad economy, a sandbox with no decay and/or no looting = hyper inflation fucked economy.

     

    SWTOR didn't kill SWG, the development decisions over the last x years killed it. The game was just bad, really bad, by the end.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • GTwanderGTwander San Diego, CAPosts: 6,035Member
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    we had that.

    it was called SWG.

    But SWTOR killed it.

    It tried to do both things, it did neither of them well. All it had was good crafting in a shockingly bad economy, a sandbox with no decay and/or no looting = hyper inflation fucked economy.

    SWTOR didn't kill SWG, the development decisions over the last x years killed it. The game was just bad, really bad, by the end.

    It used to have decay, loot loss on corpses you couldn't reach in time, and a really good economy.   >_>

    ~but yeah, it really seemed like the devs couldn't make up their minds as to what the game needed. How many armor value revamps were there? 2-3?

    They completely lost sight of scope.

    Writer / Musician / Game Designer

    Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
    Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10

    I do not believe "sandbox" vs "themepark" is the argument, but just used to try to convince players they do not need freedom to play their own characters.

    The REAL issue is "free range" vs "on-rails".  And the answer is to get rid of the "rails" and stop with all the hand-holding; a MMORPG should not play like an 80 level tutorial.

    This is exactly my issue.. I don't want to play a pre-program game on rails.. I want the freedom to have a large variety of things to do at my discretion..  I also want more non combat things to do as well..  I get tired of hacking and slashing everything the moment I log on..  There are times I want to go fishing, cooking or farming mats.. I'm so burnt out on story driven content.. Let me created my own BIO, by the actions I take..  The world should be filled with choices at each turn..  I want the ability to kill my own faction and become KOS, while gaining faction with my enemies.. Of the games I played EQ1 did that part right..  Earning and losing faction was great.. :)  and it actually meant something..

  • TorgrimTorgrim GothenburgPosts: 2,088Member

    A true sandbox game have everything, both themepark features and sandbox.

     

    If it's not broken, you are not innovating.

  • SeleniteSelenite RigaPosts: 38Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torgrim

    A true sandbox game have everything, both themepark features and sandbox.

     

    Thought I don't even want to think about the cost of developing such a game, at least in AA+ level.

    I'm sure that many great projects have been started but if the game can't cover the cost  of its development and make money then it pretty clear that it won't be made..

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by GTwander
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    SWTOR didn't kill SWG, the development decisions over the last x years killed it. The game was just bad, really bad, by the end.

    They completely lost sight of scope.

    With "fans" like those, who needs enemies?

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by GTwander
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    SWTOR didn't kill SWG, the development decisions over the last x years killed it. The game was just bad, really bad, by the end.

    They completely lost sight of scope.

    With "fans" like those, who needs enemies?

    Still it does not make what they wrote less true.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by fenistil

    Still it does not make what they wrote less true.

    It's weird to reconcile the revisionist-historian vesion of gamer's paradise, with what we know was their behavior like before the shutdown announcment, isn't it?

    This is the fan base that hounded developers relentlessly for NGE, and still (often) does.  Now they portray the post-NGE period, up til shutdown announcement date, as happy funtime sunshine and rainbows in the perfect gaming paradise?

    The game never had a chance. 

     

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • ThaneThane berlinPosts: 2,232Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    we had that.

    it was called SWG.

    But SWTOR killed it.

    actually lukas arts killed it with the wow approach in a game that was just fine.

    that wasn't bioware's fault, SWG went down the river some time ago (i think it was the JTL addon)

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member

    Of course it had a chance.

    For a game that released in so unfinished state and was so unstable and full of such major bugs, playerbase was very forgiving.   Playerbase was initially stable and later on bleeding down much slower than it happens in most mmorpg nowadays.

    SWG was released in a state that nowadays would be called early-beta at best.   Any game released nowadays like that would lose 70-90% of playerbase in 2 months.

    Until NGE that is, where changes were made with big, rusty knife when game needed scalpel.

     

    Anyway we'll never know.

     

     

  • TwoThreeFourTwoThreeFour Virginia, VAPosts: 2,131Member
    Originally posted by Larsa
    Originally posted by Fendel84M

    I'm not talking about a mix of the two. I mean just straight up, throw it all in there. Have all the sandbox elements you would expect, but ALSO have all the "rides" you can go on.

    So you could go create your own adventures but then the townsfolk might also have some quests for you if you have been lacking creativity.

    Quests or not does not define whether a game is a themepark or a sandbox. Freedom does. A game that has the features of a sandbox and offers quests (or rather missions) is still a sandbox.

    It's very hard (to almost impossible) to have both types of gameplay in one MMORPG:

    • You cannot design a game that is both carefully guided (for accesibility, for convenience, for instant fun and rewards) and offers the player the freedom to do as he wishes.
    • You cannot design a game that has both a loot-driven gear economy and a player-run market economy,
    • You cannot design a game that has both end-game dungeon drops and where crafters make all the gear.
    • You cannot design a game that is both combat-centric and not combat-centric.
    • You cannot design a game where the devs create the "personal" story and the players make their own.

     

     

    1. You can make a grand tutorial and minigames/instanced dungeons for those who want it, but it should not cover most of the game world and it should be completely optional for those who just want to get into the wild from start.

     

    2.  A game where gear matter and loot matter while most trades are done through player auctions/markets is what you say is impossible, but it is actually very possible.

     

    3. Just make those end-game dungeons drop crafting material but never full gear.

     

    4. You are right here, but you can make a game that has excellent combat and excellent non-combat.

     

    5. No, but you can let the developers make a rough draft while the players choose all the details. 

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by fenistil

    Still it does not make what they wrote less true.

    It's weird to reconcile the revisionist-historian vesion of gamer's paradise, with what we know was their behavior like before the shutdown announcment, isn't it?

    This is the fan base that hounded developers relentlessly for NGE, and still (often) does.  Now they portray the post-NGE period, up til shutdown announcement date, as happy funtime sunshine and rainbows in the perfect gaming paradise?

    The game never had a chance. 

     

    Yeah you're right, I totally see in my initial post where I pointed out that pre NGE the game was a gamers paradise with zero problems and "happy funtime sunshine". There may be plenty of rose tinted vets, but that is not the case here.

     

    It has nothing to do with being a "fan" of the game in either form, merely it is pointing out the reality of the situation. In it's later years the game tried to be all things to all people and competely lost any real direction and failed to be anything to anyone.

     

    The game "never had a chance" because it made wholesale changes which both alienated it's original audience whilst at the same time, failed to provide a product good enough to attract a newer audience.

     

    Eitherway it is certainly far from a good example of what a themepark/sandbox hybrid should be like.

     

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • rdrakkenrdrakken Gotham, FLPosts: 426Member
    Originally posted by Larsa

    Quests or not does not define whether a game is a themepark or a sandbox. Freedom does. A game that has the features of a sandbox and offers quests (or rather missions) is still a sandbox.

    It's very hard (to almost impossible) to have both types of gameplay in one MMORPG:

    • You cannot design a game that is both carefully guided (for accesibility, for convenience, for instant fun and rewards) and offers the player the freedom to do as he wishes.
    • You cannot design a game that has both a loot-driven gear economy and a player-run market economy,
    • You cannot design a game that has both end-game dungeon drops and where crafters make all the gear.
    • You cannot design a game that is both combat-centric and not combat-centric.
    • You cannot design a game where the devs create the "personal" story and the players make their own.

     

     This is not true.

    1. having quests take you from one place or another does not mean the game must be a level based game. By removing this horrible aspect of MMOs you remove the need for a game to have "zones" or "walls" to prevent players from entering areas way beyond their abilities.

    2. You CAN have a loot economy AND a player run market economy. No BoPs allow everything that can be looted to be sold by players...and make a damn crafting system worth something...Just because you can loot an uber mace of smash your face it doesnt mean a player should not be allowed to make something similar. The only thing that should be different is the LOOK which will drive the player market even more.

    3. See above, loot system and crafting system are NOT exclusive systems...you just think they are because game designers are too god damn lazy to work on both. A game should be made with a vast variety of weapon and armor design, the more look options there are the more players will enjoy their characters. So, dungeon 1 drops one look, dungeon 2 drops another look, dungeon 3 drops a 3rd look  and player made items have looks 4,5 and 6.

    4. this makes no sense at all. What does sandbox have to do with a game being combat-centric or not?

    5. This is 100% player dependant. If you have never been able to roleplay in a themepark game, it was YOUR choosing. A game having a story and quests does not take away your ability to go do whatever you wanted in the world that was created...hell, one of my guildies never reached level 80 in WoW because he was playing a town drunk who had a habit of falling off of Thunder Bluff in a blind stupor...he would ALWAYS be drunk, even in raids and we made it so he could charge mobs in a drunken rage for RP reasons.

    And dont even get me started on the RPing that can be done in each of the superhero games like City of Heroes, Champions Online or DCUo...or LoTRo for that matter...lol...it has a story and yet you can do NOTHING but farm if you wanted to.

  • VengerVenger York, PAPosts: 1,318Member
    Originally posted by rdrakken

    Core sandbox players would call any game with themepark aspects...a themepark game.

    Sandbox to them means its ALL open, no rails, no guides...no rides...no stories...no quests. And that is why there are not many sandbox games, the playerbase for those types of games does not compare to themepark players. If only more sandboxers would be willing to compromise we could end up with a game like SWG that actually had a team that can make content for a game instead of people like Koster, the destroyer of MMOs.

    Sadly very true. 

  • VengerVenger York, PAPosts: 1,318Member
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by ste2000

    Archeage...............

     

    AA... sigh...

    The only thing I want to hear about now anout this game is what alternate rule servers they are considering for launch.

    I don't want to be stuck in any game with the same of Darkfall type crowd ever again.

    Completely agree, but I don't have a lot of faith they get this.

  • TrikkeTrikke Jackson, MIPosts: 90Member

    Its called roblox or second life.

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,553Member Uncommon

    I thought I knew what people meant when they said "sandbox."  I thought they meant a reason to explore without being forced to level to get to a zone; plus a crafting system that makes you feel like you live in the game instead of just playing a game.  But I have looked at these old "sandboxes" they keep referring to and the graphics are so gawd awful ugly I wouldn't play them if someone paid me to.  So now I'm confused why they think their sandbox was so great?  Sorry, guys, but your past games sucked.  I don't even want to begin to guess at what the hev they mean by themepark.

  • Vunak23Vunak23 In your house eatin'' your cookies, FLPosts: 635Member
    Originally posted by Venger
    Originally posted by rdrakken

    Core sandbox players would call any game with themepark aspects...a themepark game.

    Sandbox to them means its ALL open, no rails, no guides...no rides...no stories...no quests. And that is why there are not many sandbox games, the playerbase for those types of games does not compare to themepark players. If only more sandboxers would be willing to compromise we could end up with a game like SWG that actually had a team that can make content for a game instead of people like Koster, the destroyer of MMOs.

    Sadly very true. 

    "Core" Sandbox gamers have been compromising for the last 8-10 years. I think its the themeparkers that need to learn compromise. Sandboxers are about challenge and immersive play (virtual world). Themeparkers are about ease of access and casual play (money grab lobby).

    "In the immediate future, we have this one, and then we’ve got another one that is actually going to be – so we’re going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what we’re targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you can’t hold me to it. But what we’re targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo

  • Garvon3Garvon3 Worcester, MAPosts: 2,898Member
    Originally posted by Fendel84M

    I'm not talking about a mix of the two. I mean just straight up, throw it all in there. Have all the sandbox elements you would expect, but ALSO have all the "rides" you can go on.

    So you could go create your own adventures but then the townsfolk might also have some quests for you if you have been lacking creativity.

    We had those. They were called MMORPGs. Then WoW happened.

  • AmanaAmana New York, NYPosts: 2,551Moderator Uncommon

    We have a discussion stickied for themepark/sandbox discussion. Please continue here:  http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/317478/Sandbox-vs-Themepark-Discussion-Thread.html

    To give feedback on moderation, contact community@mmorpg.com

2»
This discussion has been closed.