It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Kenze Originally posted by apocoluster Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.
Yeh .. this x 1000.
I play games to have fun, and to be entertained, not to live a second life.
Originally posted by muffins89 Originally posted by MindTrigger I actually followed and played Xsyon. Graphics are subjective. There are/were many problems with Xsyon that can turn off even the most hardcore of sandbox gamers. For instance, it had no real "survival" aspect to it. Sure, you could PvP or gank people if you wanted, but there was no gameplay driver to make people fight much. There were very few mobs to worry about, etc. An example of the driver in another sandbox could be Star Wars Galaxies, where there were factions and the Galactic Civil War with very strong opposing sides, and even the neutral aspect which was strong. Xsyon has a pretty cool crafting system, I think, though once you have crafted your brains out and set up a camp with your friends, there's nothing else much more going on. That is the problem with it. I don't think very many people who like sandboxes want just an open sandbox with no theme, no combat or economic drivers, etc. There has to be a 'gameplay' element to it, not just a simulation. Finally, Xsyon's devs have few resources, so development is ridiculously slow. If they had a real game shop, they might have a pretty cool niche sandbox by now. This assumes they recognize that their "game" is missing gameplay. Last time I tried it, it was just a crafting simulator with some very occasional PvP, and utterly rare PvE.
that's kind of the point i was trying to make. what is stopping people in xyson from forming their own factions? and creating their own 'civil war'? i never played swg, but im assuming the factions were something that the game developers put into the game. so do sandboxers want to create their own content? or do they want the developers to set up the content for them? it sounds like you want a sandbox with themepark elements. and not a true sandbox. (which is fine, i dont want to seem like im calling you out) im just generally curious. there seem to be alot of sandbox proponents on this site. but there doesnt seem to be a very definitive definition of a sandbox. in my eyes xyson is a sandbox and swg is closer to themepark.
I have though a lot about that over the years, and in some ways I agree with you. However, it leaned much more towards a very heavily Star Wars themed sandbox than it did a theme park. There was so little questing content in it that the areas that actually had questing were individually called theme parks, such as Jabba's theme park, and the Rebel or Imperial theme parks. That type of content only made up a very small percentage of what people were actually doing in the game.
I did always enjoy the chapter content they would add, but those were always like special limited content that were considered nice treats. I would still love to see some theme park content in a sandbox, but I don't want it to make up most of the game play. I think having some themed "rules" to the game like SWG did is also a great idea so that you don't end up with the Xsyon problems with few too many gameplay elements.
Believe it or not, SWG was almost completely player-driven, even after the NGE, though they did add a bunch of quest content over time with the NGE. It still had gaping holes in it for the purpose of leveling, and there was no end game. Even with all the hacks they did for the NGE, it still never was really a full theme park. All SOE ended up doing was pissing off their loyal player base in the end.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I want a living game world.
A virtual world is fine, and there's a few options out there to get that really.
What I'd like is a compeditive, gritty, fun, and engaging game to enjoy with others.
a yo ho ho
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Kenze Originally posted by apocoluster Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.
Fun is subjective, big guy. What entertains you might not entertain the next guy. Crazy concept, I know. Who's to say a virtual world has to mimic our own? "You can do those things in real life!" Oh, is that so? So an immersive, Sci-Fi setting is possible in the real world? Where do you live? That's like saying sports game shouldn't exist because you can play them in real life, or simulation games shouldn't exist.
A true sandbox game has two main types of players:
Creators, who spend most of their playtime creating content, and
Leechers, who spend most of their time consuming said content,
with the majority of players being leechers and the minority being creators.
In order for a sandbox game to be good, you need enough creators to match the consumption rate of the leechers to ensure that there's always something fresh to do.
'Creators' generally don't receive much credit for their work, which serves as a lack of motivation. Second Life (and others similar) provide an interesting way to reward creators - by allowing them to simply charge real money for copies of their work.
For most sandbox gamers, though, the idea of having to pay microtransactions just to play certain parts of a game, especially user content (which is usually at a lower standard than dev content), is straight retarded. So creators in sandbox games generally receive no recognition, useless amounts of recognition, or just get slaughtered in the full loot pvp cesspool like any other player.
Of course, there's a distinct advantage to full loot FFA sandboxes - the leechers become the content for other leechers! This is a great way for developers to solve the underlying content problem - after all, if you suck really badly at making a game system that has enough content creation tools and support for creators, why not just make everyone content themselves?
The bottom line is that most gamers here on MMORPG.com could not handle being a creator, and would not enjoy playing a sandbox where they can't gank everything in sight because it would be too slow-paced and boring to keep their attention.
What most people on MMORPG.com actually want is a game with freedom of choice, that also has some sort of direction (however loose it may be). This can be a 'themepark' or a 'sandbox', but not a real sandbox that relies on players to create content.
I perfer giant hybrids like SWG, Vanguard, and EVE are/were. Don't just throw me in the world and say go, but once I have got my feet wet and understand what is going on in the lore/world I REALLY don't need to be led from one quest hub to the next.
So... I guess my vote is for game worlds?
P.S. for all you poeple that think Sandbox = FFA PVP. SHUT UP! You can have a sandbox without FFA pvp and you can have a themepark with FFA pvp.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Fun and entertainment; yup, that's why we're all here. Duh.
The "world" type mmos that have induced me to sink my teeth in for years (not months or mere weeks) have all delivered and then some. Who the hell wants a second life, or job for that matter that doesn't even pay? Precious few. I have more "fun" in these types of games than I do any other, and that "fun" is much more dynamic in a world mmo.
I was drawn to this genre with the prospect of playing in the "WORLD" of the Warcraft IP. The idea of actually "being" and progressing one of those units from the RTS titles that I was very fond of was an incredible concept. I was blown away when I finally got my chance in 2004. Now here was a young genre that was going to be something different. A genre of video gaming that could deliver us to the next stage of gaming maturation. The possibilities were endless.
Then came the Battlegrounds. That's when it quickly became clear that the whole thing was such a fragile cocoon. For me, it seemed that just when the dream was being realized, it was being torn apart even faster. That cocoon of awe stagnated and fell to rot. Instead of metamorphosizing into something new and unique, here we are in almost 2013 with this genre devolving into a horrible and seemingly unguided messy collage of other more simple genres.
Shame is an understatement for what we have now, but I'm happy as hell you're having fun jumping (mmo) games like they're all a part of some ancient giant arcade room. I loved the arcades and all they had to offer, but mmos could and should have been something more grand.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
People have varying ideas about what "sandbox" in a game means....and I guess there are varying levels of "sandbox." Second Life, for example, is probably the most sandbox a game can get. Nearly everything in it is player created content with very few "rules" guiding it (outside of the TOS) and no tasks/goals/character development that is uniform across the entire "world." Any "games" in it are created by players and the rules and mechanics of the game are defined by the creators.
I love the idea of a "world" but after SWG I'm very picky about what I want in my world (I've said more than once that SWG spoiled other MMOs for me.
-- I want character development, not levels, with the ability to mix and match skills (none of this "you chose to be a ranger, here are the ranger skills, you may be able to choose between some ranger skills or develop them further but, other than some crafting skills that will probably be useless due to better loot, you can ONLY be a ranger" stuff) ...[edit:] in SWG, guild members could leave for a month or more then return and join right in the guild activities, without levels, there was no outleveling or being outleveled by others creating problems with being able to do the same activities....any other SWG players remember getting 500xp (the max amount of combat xp off a kill one could get in SWG) off squill kills as a newbie from joining a group for missions from terminals (when I first started playing the groups formed in Anchorhead)
-- I want a variety of professions in the game with all professions having an important roll to play, I'd love to have a reason to have 2 or 3 accounts (crafters, entertainers, medics, combat, tamers, farmers....etc....)
-- I want choices about how I'm going to develop my character (in SWG, there were those planets that were more deadly but a person could stay on the same planet from newbie to fully developed character if that's the way the person wanted to play, or they could go to any planet in the galaxy as soon as they could afford it if they had people willing to take them or didn't mind dying in one hit)
-- quests lines as a part of the game design can be good, but I want to be able to do them whenever not "first go here and do quest line A then go to that place and do quest line B.....oops, you've reached level X? sorry, no xp for you if you choose to do this quest line now; " I also don't want to get such a small amount of xp from random kills that it is a frustrating way to develop my character....I enjoyed that, in SWG, one could kill random spawns, choose missions from mission terminals, do some of the "themeparks," kill area bosses, or go to caves/dungeons all as viable ways to get combat xp .... some people complain about how much time SWG required but if I had 30 minutes to an hour to play, I could grab a couple of missions from a terminal that were close to town and be done where many of today's "MMOs" require a lot of running from point A to point B to do a task then having to run back to point A or over to point C for a "safe" place to log out, and those points are preset distances for the next task in line
-- I want player cities and server cities, and I do not want perma-death or the ability to lose my house, I don't mind having some buildings that can be taken over/destroyed but those buildings should be designed specifically for that purpose
-- open pvp turns me off a game immediately, call it whatever name you want; too many people who think it proves something that a maxed out player can one shot kill a new player (really? the damage done by that weapon is greater that the new players max health, of course the player died, how much skill did that really take) .... and too many "griefers"
Well mostly a total lack of people to really have a civil war with, because the game is so lacking in features (toys in the sandbox if you will) that no one except the hardcore crafters stick around for long. (and even not them after a while)
I play EVE which is considered a sandbox style MMO. I don't craft. I don't like to craft. Yet there is just tons of things for me to do in EVE besides craft, while those who enjoy doing it go about their business as well.
That's the mark of a true sandbox in my book, one that has many different things to occupy players time, but no requirement to do any particular activity to succeed.
That part about player created content, not so important, just as long as they can have some meaningful influence in the game world (much like the permanent bases EVE players can set up that never can be destroyed, only change hands)
On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes
Pouring on extra "Salt" for 2017
In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™ "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I've tried a lot of the sandbox games mentioned here and sadly, only EVE meets my definition of a quality game. As a gamer with a family my playtime is limited and thus I'd like to spend it in a quality game.
Too bad EVE is, as I mentioned, not my favourite genre and not "personal" enough in the gameplay sense. My avatar is practically a spaceship and I don't want to be a spaceship, I want to be a living person. In fact, I think the best part of EVE was the character creation with its unmatched depth and choices. I really hope WoD comes out some day, even if that is not my favourite genre either. At least I could play a person and not a piece of machinery.
I don't mind game elements in my world, of course not. I loved Skyrim's main questline, but was absolutely amazed by the quality of the hundreds of sidequests (not talking about the radiance kill quests) you can bump into by just looking around and listening the people talk.
And as I said before, I am not too fond of FFA PvP, especially if that's practically the main content of the game (Mortal Online, Darkfall). In Ultima Online it kind of worked, but I still preferred the player faction (guild) based war system, which was quite alive on the Trammel side (at least in the roleplaying communities). I like PvP, but I also like to be able to take a break from it and enjoy the world without constant fear of being ganked. Forcing people to "PvP" (in parenthesis because most of these forced encounters are quite one-sided) is a sure way of alienating a lot of the playerbase. Again, EVE does this brilliantly and you can actually choose from being quite safe to totally unsafe.
I've pledged to Greed Monger, but I'm quite sceptical if they have the resources to pull it off. Really hope they do. ArcheAge is of course also on my radar, as is EQ Next. Maybe we do have hope, as major devs are starting to admit going the WoW route is not very profitable and definitely not the route you want to take if you are hoping for good player retention.
Hell, if you look at the next year or two, we can see many big titles coming out with sandbox elements and very few straight-up themepark MMOs.
Perhaps all we need to do is wait and then vote with our wallets.
Cretate a world and just populate it with mobs arent enough. Those mobs must really seems like they are doing their own stuff before a player kills them instead of just standing still and waiting for a npc to kill them.
A living world needs to continue even if no playersare around to see it.
One of the things I also would love to see in a MMO are seasons. Snow in the winter, certain plants you can only harvest in certain time of the year and season specific mobs as well. Since most MMO days are 2 or 4 hours a year would pass soon enough and it would help a lot to make the game feel alive as well. That would make each season 1 or 2 weeks depending on if you have 2 or 4 hours days.
It is not that hard to make the leaves turn red and then fall of the trees or to let snow cover stuff. And yes, it do takes memory and CPU power but it is so worth it. And it would also make interesting possibilities for player owned farms where you saw your seeds in the spring ('cept onions and stuff you plant in the autumn of course) and harvest your mats in the autumn.
I do agree with OP, we need a good sandbox, since UO that genre have been pretty empty with only a few space games worth playing. Personally I would rather have a historical based sandbox than a fantasy one though.
Originally posted by maddhatter44 Originally posted by halflife25 Originally posted by Kenze Originally posted by apocoluster Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.
This x 200.
consoles are filled with games, have fun.
Sorry if i upsset you.
*actually i am not*
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by Neherun Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.
I am sorry to inform you but that is not what freedom is.
Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.
That is not what freedom is?
Here's something from dictionary about freedom:
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat? If this kind of carebearism starts, that people start to twist the actual words and their terms to defend their ways, mods will soon have a lot of stuff to edit.
If these kind of arguments
Originally posted by Neherun Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by Neherun Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.
Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.
The freedom to oppress is not freedom. Freedom is exactly what Gdemami says: Those who want to fight are able to and those who don't, don't have to. In this case, freedom is consensual PvP.
Originally posted by Neherun3. the power to determine action without restraint.How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat?
If I cannot refuse to fight and you force me into PVP against my will, my power to determine actions is met with a restraint.
Originally posted by ignore_me Originally posted by apocoluster
Why build all this world if its just going to get ignored for the most part by most of the players. The players are doing what they want to do. If every Themepark was deleted off every server right now..and replaced by open world player driven sandboxes your not going to have a new crop of sandbox players arrive...it will still just be you guys..the niche and the rest (well 99%) will just stop gaming.
This post has it all ... Themer invective, doom prophecies, magic statistics, and a hypothetical scenario of mystical mechanics.
Don't leave the cave people, there are no quests out there!
And admittedly all made up from my brain. I dont have the knowledge or statistics, just a gut feeling. I believe Im right. Just like you dont beleive I am. All good bro.
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
Originally posted by Aelious Originally posted by Kenze Originally posted by Waybackwhen Agreed OP. We have enough theme parks, its time for a virtual world to play in.
I would say production quality. I only speak for myself but the current crop of MMOs is not too far removed from what I would like to play. Most of the time I would settle for a big open world and flexible character classes. EQN sounds to go far and above that, we'll see if it pans out that way.
Im with you there man. IM hoping EqN turns out to be half the game EQ was
Originally posted by tom_gore So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts. An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right? Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying. When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went. So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor. Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable. For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more. I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content. Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world. Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game. The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated. I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history. Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.
Your idea is cool but you already have that sandbox game you are saying and it's real life.Cant be more sandbox than this
Originally posted by Zefire Originally posted by tom_gore
did you read the thread at all? the real-life argument was layed to rest several pages ago.
Originally posted by muffins89 Originally posted by Zefire Originally posted by tom_gore
both real-life and second life
Originally posted by Po_gg Originally posted by muffins89 Originally posted by Zefire Originally posted by tom_gore
Maybe in your mind...I still stand by what I wrote Agree to disagree I guess
Agree with OP. After WoW, SWTOR and GW2, I'm back to Skyrim and staying there.
GW2 had potential, but being bombed by dynamic events and undead mobs is not my idea of fun and relaxation after work.
About the comments on real world being a sandbox, all I can say is you are either very rich people with many connections in your life or haven't left your parents house and tried living in real world yet.
Originally posted by DeniZg About the comments on real world being a sandbox, all I can say is you are either very rich people with many connections in your life or haven't left your parents house and tried living in real world yet.
Interesting observation wrong on both counts but thanks for the personal attack..its is appreciated