Originally posted by Quizzical Same as has happened in the past: a large fraction of the players who say they want an AAA sandbox would insist that it wasn't AAA. Another large fraction would insist that it wasn't a sandbox. Both groups would promptly resume complaining about the lack of AAA sandboxes.
LoL, very true.
But you could cite a AAA mmo released in the last 10 years that can be considered sandbox?
Uncharted Waters Online
Uncharted Waters is a F2P/P2W game that wasn't even done by a AAA MMO studio... How exactly is it AAA again?
So if F2P means a game isn't AAA, then that means SWTOR, LOTRO, Vanguard, EQ2, CO, STO, Aion, and quite a few others aren't AAA. It's actually a subscription game in Japan, but the publisher that handles the English language version seems to think everything should be F2P.
As for the studio, Tecmo-Koei has about 30 years of game design experience (on both the Tecmo and Koei parts, if you go back to before the merger) and gets several hundred million dollars in annual revenue. That certainly makes them smaller than EA, Blizzard, and NCsoft. Can you think of any other studios that have made at least one MMO and are larger than that?
Interesting. The funny part is, i never heard anything about Uncharted Water. And i guess a huge part of the problem here is the huge prejudice against all MMOs from Asia. Arche Age may have the same problem. Even i personally just played the huge Asia games(NCSoft), and one reason is/was the asia theme/point and click gameplay/grindness factor of the asia games of the last decade.
And just out of curiosity, how many player play the game at the moment? Or with other words exist more or less healthy servers nowadays? (or only in Japan/Korea?) How much problems/effects does have the Cash Shop? (usually i think cash shops and a important ingame economy dont fit well together) Is it worth a try?
Hmm.. and as much as i have read, there is just a US server, how much problems will EU player have? Hmm.. and it took 5 years to port from Japan release to US release.. another huge problem of a lot mmos from Asia. I seriously hope Arche Age will not suffer from the same problem.. although it looks like it at the moment. I guess this is another reason why i just played NCSoft games from Asia, because they are more or less the only company capable of releasing more or less in the same time frame, in both Asia and NA/EU.
Originally posted by RidelynnBunch of people would flock to it based on AAA-level hype.1% of the players would be utter asshats (because it's a sandbox and they can do whatever they want), making the game inhospitable for 99%. 94% leave - citing the game as either too hard, lacking focus, poor story, or just don't get the point. 1% continues being asshats, and the other 5% log on occasionally just so they can keep the "street cred" of saying they play.
This. See: Darkfall.
Well.. Darkfall is first of all no AAA release.. They even published by themself because of not finding any publisher at all.
And Darkfall is even more a niche in a niche, and not that much sandboxy. Clans can build cities just on a few predefinded places.
It is more or less all about territory control alone. So it is just for hardcore pvp player willingly to play in huge clans, and there is not a lot beside of this to do. You cant play there with just a few friends or a smaller clan, not even to talk about solo. And the only thing to do is to play the territory control game. Not that it is bad at all.. but it is a niche in a niche, and not directly the usual sandbox. It is more or less Shadowbane 2, which wasnt that bad either.
With more money and more time and expanding the gameplay options it would be a rather good sandbox, but as it is(and i guess DF:Unholy Wars will not change a lot in that regard), is just the typical indy approach of a sandbox game focusing on just a few(and really to less) elements of sandbox gaming. On the other hand, give them a few years more time to expand the game DF5 in 10 years could be a rather good game. Especially because it looks like it, that the developer of DF are willingly to further develop on it, and are capable of doing so with the little support they get. And every release may get some more players to their small player base. (and yes, the player base of DF is smaller than UO nowadays, and that one is 15 years old)
As for the studio, Tecmo-Koei has about 30 years of game design experience (on both the Tecmo and Koei parts, if you go back to before the merger) and gets several hundred million dollars in annual revenue. That certainly makes them smaller than EA, Blizzard, and NCsoft. Can you think of any other studios that have made at least one MMO and are larger than that?
Lineage I and II? All of those western gamers investing their lives in They Don't Matter?
The ArcheAge effect says it's not a 'real' game if it's published Over There.
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.
AAA is about budget, and no publisher is going to fund a sandbox title with major money. The mainstream audience will never accept the consequences of a true sandbox world.
However, it's not impossible to merge genres. If handled correctly, you can create a themepark/sandbox hybrid - and appeal to both audiences. You would need to create rules for PvP that allowed for casual/mainstream gamers to avoid it - and you would need to please the hardcore full loot PvP crowd. You can do that by creating a "neutral" faction that mainstream players could join - and they could just do consensual PvP. The same goes for the economy. You'd need to create a world where sandboxers could create their own economy - and yet not negatively affect the mainstreamers. Conveniently, this could also work with a neutral faction and an AI/NPC driven economy on the side.
The challenge is that you have to have THE BEST themepark features and THE BEST sandbox features to lure a big enough audience to the game.
ArcheAge seems to do this, at least partially. This is the reason I'm hoping it might succeed - but the obstacle is the Asian-oriented developers. It remains to be seen if they can truly create a game that will appeal to enough players in the west to make it worthwhile in the long run.
As for the studio, Tecmo-Koei has about 30 years of game design experience (on both the Tecmo and Koei parts, if you go back to before the merger) and gets several hundred million dollars in annual revenue. That certainly makes them smaller than EA, Blizzard, and NCsoft. Can you think of any other studios that have made at least one MMO and are larger than that?
Lineage I and II? All of those western gamers investing their lives in They Don't Matter?
The ArcheAge effect says it's not a 'real' game if it's published Over There.
I certainly think of Lineage I and II as AAA MMORPGs. They're way to grindy for my taste, but AAA doesn't mean "games that I like".
I think Tecmo-Koei faces some challenges in being branded too broadly as "Asian". They're a Japanese company, and Japanese gaming culture is very different from Korean or Chinese gaming cultures. When people think of "Asian" grinders, they're usually thinking of Korean games. That's largely because South Korea pumps out a ton of MMORPGs, while few Japanese games are MMORPGs at all.
But Tecmo-Koei is a Japanese company, not Korean. If you want a cultural starting point, you should think of other Japanese gaming companies (e.g., Nintendo, Sega, Square, Capcom, Konami), and not whoever made your least favorite Korean grinder.
Though in fairness, Koei has long lived in their own world, and barely even acknowledged the existence of other gaming companies. There are some longstanding conventions that "most" MMORPGs abide by, but Koei completely ignores in order to do things their own way. The downside of that is that when you first pick up the game, you'll be completely lost. Even if you spent hours reading up on it ahead of time, and constantly ask tons of questions (which you should). But the advantage is that you won't already be 90% of the way to being sick of the game due to your experiences with other games, as is likely if you pick up the latest WoW-clone.
For decades, Koei has had their niche of incredibly complex strategy games (e.g. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Dynasty Warriors, Nobunaga's Ambition, P.T.O., Liberty or Death), typically having you play one side in a war. They're hard to get into, as it takes a number of hours just to figure out what you're supposed to do. The market for that isn't very big in the US, so some of their games get translated into English and some don't.
The Uncharted Waters games are somewhat different from the Koei norm, and were sandbox games long before I had ever heard of the term, and possibly before it was even coined. The old console games had a bunch of NPCs sailing around basically acting like other players, which really cried out for an MMORPG treatment where it would be other players rather than just NPCs. Koei finally obliged, releasing Uncharted Waters Online in Japan in 2005. But it didn't get translated into English until 2010. One could argue that the English-language website for the game still isn't translated into English, but the game itself is much better.
The English-language publisher was originally Netmarble, a Korean company. Then Gpotato got involved, and I'm not sure what the relationship between Netmarble and Gpotato is. Gpotato certainly believes in making games pay to win, and Netmarble probably does, too, and they seem to be very much trying to make it pay to win. And it is pretty much pay to win if you want to be a pirate (i.e., attack other players and steal their stuff).
But otherwise, the nature of the game makes it awfully hard to make it pay to win, in spite of Netmarble's best efforts. In most MMORPGs, if you could buy an item that gives you +10% attack power, that would be horribly unbalancing. In Uncharted Waters Online, that would basically amount to a rounding error. I might have the most adventuring discoveries of anyone on the server (currently at 1864); if not, then I'm surely close to it. And I've paid $20 for the game so far--with $4 of that still unspent item mall cash. In a real pay to win game, that's not terribly common.
Originally posted by Quizzical Same as has happened in the past: a large fraction of the players who say they want an AAA sandbox would insist that it wasn't AAA. Another large fraction would insist that it wasn't a sandbox. Both groups would promptly resume complaining about the lack of AAA sandboxes.
"this release sucks, worst release of any MMO ever"
"wow, they lied about x feature and y feature sucks!"
"why is the game so buggy?"
"so and so MMO has way more content, why play this at all?"
"if you can make a better MMO, do it yourself n00b" (this one is my favorite, its hilarious)
"why is all sandbox MMOs focused on deathmatch PvP?"
"why is this sandbox MMO focused so much on PvE? carebears trololol" (mostly relates to Ryzom, since its the only PvE sandbox MMO)
"this MMO sucks. Way overhyped."
"you are just haters, all of you are trolls! ALL OF YOU!"
"if you dont like it, leave" (and then everyone leaves and the MMO dies)
I think I got all the major ones that would relate to a sandbox MMO...it doesn't matter if it is a themepark or sandbox, the sceanario will be the same
I agree, was gonna write the same thing when I noticed Scav's post. The population will rise at release then they would leave. Finally the game would settle at the population it was meant for. Neither a failure or a success but somewhere in teh middle. Though failure or success is a personal thang. Some it wil lhave failed..others it would have succeeded.
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
All the Sandbox fans would flock to it, and enjoy it greatly.
All of the serial game jumpers would also flock to it, because its a AAA MMO release and they play all of them. some might enjoy it, some might not.
Many Themepark fans would also play it to see what its all about.
After a couple of months, all of the serial game jumpers would have moved onto the next title, the themepark fans would have decided that they dont like it because its not a themepark, many of the sandbox fans would have left because of all the whining the thempark fans were doing before they left, and only the hardcore sandbox fans would be remain.
After a couple more months, the game would shutdown or go F2P because there arent enough hardcore sandbox fans to support a AAA sandbox MMO.
Originally posted by RidelynnBunch of people would flock to it based on AAA-level hype.1% of the players would be utter asshats (because it's a sandbox and they can do whatever they want), making the game inhospitable for 99%. 94% leave - citing the game as either too hard, lacking focus, poor story, or just don't get the point. 1% continues being asshats, and the other 5% log on occasionally just so they can keep the "street cred" of saying they play.
This. See: Darkfall.
Yeah. Pretty much this^
**P.S. Darkfall isnt really a Sandbox
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)
Quite a bit of stuff has been added since then, but that will at least get you started. I go into a lot more detail on the adventuring discovery system here:
And if you think those posts are too long, then you won't like UWO, as you won't have the patience for it. Koei doesn't do instant gratification, or even kind of soonish gratification.
AAA is about budget, and no publisher is going to fund a sandbox title with major money. The mainstream audience will never accept the consequences of a true sandbox world.
However, it's not impossible to merge genres. If handled correctly, you can create a themepark/sandbox hybrid - and appeal to both audiences. You would need to create rules for PvP that allowed for casual/mainstream gamers to avoid it - and you would need to please the hardcore full loot PvP crowd. You can do that by creating a "neutral" faction that mainstream players could join - and they could just do consensual PvP. The same goes for the economy. You'd need to create a world where sandboxers could create their own economy - and yet not negatively affect the mainstreamers. Conveniently, this could also work with a neutral faction and an AI/NPC driven economy on the side.
The challenge is that you have to have THE BEST themepark features and THE BEST sandbox features to lure a big enough audience to the game.
ArcheAge seems to do this, at least partially. This is the reason I'm hoping it might succeed - but the obstacle is the Asian-oriented developers. It remains to be seen if they can truly create a game that will appeal to enough players in the west to make it worthwhile in the long run.
Funcom tried this with Anarchy Online.
WoW crowd came there and wanted themepark features ,daily quests,boss drops for everybody, cookie cutter god mode perks ,cash shop boosting,instanced PvP etc and Funcom delivered.
If someone makes a sandbox game but is somehow able to prevent all the asshats from having the ability to be asshats then it would be successful. First though 'someone has to realise that the term 'Sandbox' does not just mean FFA PVP Full loot'.
The problem so far is that the only examples of sandbox games we have do not sell well to prospective developers or punblishers. When someone with money looks at the options and has to choose between "Fun for all" or "piss off most people" it isn't a wonder why we are where we are.
But if a developer were able to design a game tha gave people the freedom to play without being able to prevent others from their fun then.....people would still complain and ruin it for others. People are douchebags for the most part, and sandbox games so far are where they tend to hang out most.
I firmly believe the mechanics are available to alow all sorts of play styles to co-exist in a game and have it a true sandbox...the problem will be (and is so far to date) that getting the money is gonna be a hard sell based on the attitudes of the 'target audiance' that sandbox games aim for. The target audience needs to change or at the least needs to be supported by game design to allow a wider audience.
However, it's not impossible to merge genres. If handled correctly, you can create a themepark/sandbox hybrid - and appeal to both audiences. You would need to create rules for PvP that allowed for casual/mainstream gamers to avoid it - and you would need to please the hardcore full loot PvP crowd. You can do that by creating a "neutral" faction that mainstream players could join - and they could just do consensual PvP. The same goes for the economy. You'd need to create a world where sandboxers could create their own economy - and yet not negatively affect the mainstreamers. Conveniently, this could also work with a neutral faction and an AI/NPC driven economy on the side.
The "mainstream" player doesn't dislike PVP, they dislike only to be ganked while defenseless. In my experience with online games, i think that more than 80% of the players like PVP, but a part of these don't tolerate to be exposed to it when is vulnerable (Ex: weak , distracted or outnumbered). These part (what is a vocal minory) want only "consensual PVP", because they see PVP only as a mere "attraction" or option of distraction instead of the main way of the players struggle by the mmo rewards in a sandbox.
Create 2 separated economies (Ex: craft and loot oriented) won't works, because necessarily 1 will dominate (the easier and faster way to obtain itens, that normaly is the loot).
AAA is about budget, and no publisher is going to fund a sandbox title with major money. The mainstream audience will never accept the consequences of a true sandbox world.
However, it's not impossible to merge genres. If handled correctly, you can create a themepark/sandbox hybrid - and appeal to both audiences. You would need to create rules for PvP that allowed for casual/mainstream gamers to avoid it - and you would need to please the hardcore full loot PvP crowd. You can do that by creating a "neutral" faction that mainstream players could join - and they could just do consensual PvP. The same goes for the economy. You'd need to create a world where sandboxers could create their own economy - and yet not negatively affect the mainstreamers. Conveniently, this could also work with a neutral faction and an AI/NPC driven economy on the side.
The challenge is that you have to have THE BEST themepark features and THE BEST sandbox features to lure a big enough audience to the game.
ArcheAge seems to do this, at least partially. This is the reason I'm hoping it might succeed - but the obstacle is the Asian-oriented developers. It remains to be seen if they can truly create a game that will appeal to enough players in the west to make it worthwhile in the long run.
Funcom tried this with Anarchy Online.
WoW crowd came there and wanted themepark features ,daily quests,boss drops for everybody, cookie cutter god mode perks ,cash shop boosting,instanced PvP etc and Funcom delivered.
it really didnt work out well.
"work out well" or not depends on your point of view. If you like those features, then all is well.
Originally posted by ShakyMo I think if someone made a casual friendly sandbox with a medium budget it could make good money.
I don't get why sandbox mmos have to be so hardcore.
Why can't there be a mmo sandbox as approachable as minecraft or terraria.
You do understand that sandbox are very casual games? Nothing is forced on you, you can take your time, you can switch things up hourly/daily/weekly?
Sandboxes are more casual than themeparks that force you down a set path and lead you around on a leash right. Example would be SWTOR, couldnt go to another planet until all quests on the planet you currently on are finished. They force you to pvp for end game content (raids/warzones).
There is no such thing as hardcore sandboxers.
One day i want to craft, i do it. Next day i decide to go explore but end up running a few quests. The next day i do a little social interaction and group up to help someone or get help. Maybe i just want to go fishing now and relax and chat it up with the guild. Well now we are near a pvp zone...do i join or dony i. You have a choice.
Sandbox does not equal hardcore or pvp. Only a handful of sandboxes actualy have pvp as the main theme. Games like tale of the desert has no pvp at all.
AAA is about budget, and no publisher is going to fund a sandbox title with major money. The mainstream audience will never accept the consequences of a true sandbox world.
However, it's not impossible to merge genres. If handled correctly, you can create a themepark/sandbox hybrid - and appeal to both audiences. You would need to create rules for PvP that allowed for casual/mainstream gamers to avoid it - and you would need to please the hardcore full loot PvP crowd. You can do that by creating a "neutral" faction that mainstream players could join - and they could just do consensual PvP. The same goes for the economy. You'd need to create a world where sandboxers could create their own economy - and yet not negatively affect the mainstreamers. Conveniently, this could also work with a neutral faction and an AI/NPC driven economy on the side.
The challenge is that you have to have THE BEST themepark features and THE BEST sandbox features to lure a big enough audience to the game.
ArcheAge seems to do this, at least partially. This is the reason I'm hoping it might succeed - but the obstacle is the Asian-oriented developers. It remains to be seen if they can truly create a game that will appeal to enough players in the west to make it worthwhile in the long run.
Funcom tried this with Anarchy Online.
WoW crowd came there and wanted themepark features ,daily quests,boss drops for everybody, cookie cutter god mode perks ,cash shop boosting,instanced PvP etc and Funcom delivered.
it really didnt work out well.
"work out well" or not depends on your point of view. If you like those features, then all is well.
Originally posted by Quizzical Same as has happened in the past: a large fraction of the players who say they want an AAA sandbox would insist that it wasn't AAA. Another large fraction would insist that it wasn't a sandbox. Both groups would promptly resume complaining about the lack of AAA sandboxes.
LoL, very true.
But you could cite a AAA mmo released in the last 10 years that can be considered sandbox?
Uncharted Waters Online
Uncharted Waters is a F2P/P2W game that wasn't even done by a AAA MMO studio... How exactly is it AAA again?
So if F2P means a game isn't AAA, then that means SWTOR, LOTRO, Vanguard, EQ2, CO, STO, Aion, and quite a few others aren't AAA. It's actually a subscription game in Japan, but the publisher that handles the English language version seems to think everything should be F2P.
As for the studio, Tecmo-Koei has about 30 years of game design experience (on both the Tecmo and Koei parts, if you go back to before the merger) and gets several hundred million dollars in annual revenue. That certainly makes them smaller than EA, Blizzard, and NCsoft. Can you think of any other studios that have made at least one MMO and are larger than that?
IF Tecmo would have gotten a better publisher and let it go as a sub based game like it is over in japan for the western audience it probably would have been cast in a different light.
Most or all (didnt play STO or CO so I don't know about them) of those games you listed didn't start off as F2P games and had considerable backing behind them. I don't see Vanguard as a AAA game. Sure the publisher is AAA, but that doesn't really mean the game is.
The quality of the product is what demands AAA, and if a cashshop that promotes P2W brings it off that level, then it is no longer a AAA game no matter where it came from. Its like that game Wakfu, its not AAA even though it came from SE.
And no F2P doesn't mean it isn't AAA, but F2P + P2W does.
And yes I can name a studio bigger than that other then the three you named. Square-Enix
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were 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
Originally posted by Quizzical Same as has happened in the past: a large fraction of the players who say they want an AAA sandbox would insist that it wasn't AAA. Another large fraction would insist that it wasn't a sandbox. Both groups would promptly resume complaining about the lack of AAA sandboxes.
LoL, very true.
But you could cite a AAA mmo released in the last 10 years that can be considered sandbox?
Uncharted Waters Online
Uncharted Waters is a F2P/P2W game that wasn't even done by a AAA MMO studio... How exactly is it AAA again?
So if F2P means a game isn't AAA, then that means SWTOR, LOTRO, Vanguard, EQ2, CO, STO, Aion, and quite a few others aren't AAA. It's actually a subscription game in Japan, but the publisher that handles the English language version seems to think everything should be F2P.
As for the studio, Tecmo-Koei has about 30 years of game design experience (on both the Tecmo and Koei parts, if you go back to before the merger) and gets several hundred million dollars in annual revenue. That certainly makes them smaller than EA, Blizzard, and NCsoft. Can you think of any other studios that have made at least one MMO and are larger than that?
IF Tecmo would have gotten a better publisher and let it go as a sub based game like it is over in japan for the western audience it probably would have been cast in a different light.
Most or all (didnt play STO or CO so I don't know about them) of those games you listed didn't start off as F2P games and had considerable backing behind them. I don't see Vanguard as a AAA game. Sure the publisher is AAA, but that doesn't really mean the game is.
The quality of the product is what demands AAA, and if a cashshop that promotes P2W brings it off that level, then it is no longer a AAA game no matter where it came from. Its like that game Wakfu, its not AAA even though it came from SE.
And no F2P doesn't mean it isn't AAA, but F2P + P2W does.
And yes I can name a studio bigger than that other then the three you named. Square-Enix
Wakfu is made by Ancama, not Square-Enix. But yes, Square-Enix is bigger than Tecmo-Koei. I had to look it up to check.
Originally posted by Quizzical Same as has happened in the past: a large fraction of the players who say they want an AAA sandbox would insist that it wasn't AAA. Another large fraction would insist that it wasn't a sandbox. Both groups would promptly resume complaining about the lack of AAA sandboxes.
What would happen? If it's released by a fairly solid company, I'm sure plenty of folks would try it out, even those from the theme park camp. However, there are a few things that'll make or break it. First of all, griefing. It's going to happen, especially with the current state of the gaming community. There has a system in place to minimize griefing. Otherwise, you'll have quite a few folks quitting and it'll also discourage new players from getting into the game. This isn't a "carebear" mentality. There is a difference between me randomly killing some poor bastard I come across and leaving vs. me killing him and stabbing him in the chest every time he attempts to resurrect till he's angry to the point that he could punch a baby. If it still comes across to you as being a "carebear" then you’re probably a griefer.
There also needs to be some direction early on as some sandbox games tend to just throw you into the water without teaching you how to swim first. Then all you need is good crafting system, a robust combat system, solid PvE/PvP content, and things should go well. In my opinion, a mix of a sandbox and theme park elements would be the best route. It’s honestly why I’m interested in ArcheAge, but who knows when we’ll be seeing that game.
What the hell am I talking about.... gaming community is fickle as hell.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
What would happen if a AAA sandbox mmo be released?
Hardcore sandbox players will say its poorly done and that they're still waiting for a real triple AAA sandbox mmo that is not tarnished by the evil themeparks.
In my opinion. There is no longer a time where MMOs of the RPG genre should be separated between sandbox and themepark. Rather to be a hybrid of both to be the 'perfect' MMO.
Comments
Interesting. The funny part is, i never heard anything about Uncharted Water. And i guess a huge part of the problem here is the huge prejudice against all MMOs from Asia. Arche Age may have the same problem. Even i personally just played the huge Asia games(NCSoft), and one reason is/was the asia theme/point and click gameplay/grindness factor of the asia games of the last decade.
And just out of curiosity, how many player play the game at the moment? Or with other words exist more or less healthy servers nowadays? (or only in Japan/Korea?) How much problems/effects does have the Cash Shop? (usually i think cash shops and a important ingame economy dont fit well together) Is it worth a try?
Hmm.. and as much as i have read, there is just a US server, how much problems will EU player have? Hmm.. and it took 5 years to port from Japan release to US release.. another huge problem of a lot mmos from Asia. I seriously hope Arche Age will not suffer from the same problem.. although it looks like it at the moment. I guess this is another reason why i just played NCSoft games from Asia, because they are more or less the only company capable of releasing more or less in the same time frame, in both Asia and NA/EU.
Well.. Darkfall is first of all no AAA release.. They even published by themself because of not finding any publisher at all.
And Darkfall is even more a niche in a niche, and not that much sandboxy. Clans can build cities just on a few predefinded places.
It is more or less all about territory control alone. So it is just for hardcore pvp player willingly to play in huge clans, and there is not a lot beside of this to do. You cant play there with just a few friends or a smaller clan, not even to talk about solo. And the only thing to do is to play the territory control game. Not that it is bad at all.. but it is a niche in a niche, and not directly the usual sandbox. It is more or less Shadowbane 2, which wasnt that bad either.
With more money and more time and expanding the gameplay options it would be a rather good sandbox, but as it is(and i guess DF:Unholy Wars will not change a lot in that regard), is just the typical indy approach of a sandbox game focusing on just a few(and really to less) elements of sandbox gaming. On the other hand, give them a few years more time to expand the game DF5 in 10 years could be a rather good game. Especially because it looks like it, that the developer of DF are willingly to further develop on it, and are capable of doing so with the little support they get. And every release may get some more players to their small player base. (and yes, the player base of DF is smaller than UO nowadays, and that one is 15 years old)
Lineage I and II? All of those western gamers investing their lives in They Don't Matter?
The ArcheAge effect says it's not a 'real' game if it's published Over There.
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.
Won't happen.
AAA is about budget, and no publisher is going to fund a sandbox title with major money. The mainstream audience will never accept the consequences of a true sandbox world.
However, it's not impossible to merge genres. If handled correctly, you can create a themepark/sandbox hybrid - and appeal to both audiences. You would need to create rules for PvP that allowed for casual/mainstream gamers to avoid it - and you would need to please the hardcore full loot PvP crowd. You can do that by creating a "neutral" faction that mainstream players could join - and they could just do consensual PvP. The same goes for the economy. You'd need to create a world where sandboxers could create their own economy - and yet not negatively affect the mainstreamers. Conveniently, this could also work with a neutral faction and an AI/NPC driven economy on the side.
The challenge is that you have to have THE BEST themepark features and THE BEST sandbox features to lure a big enough audience to the game.
ArcheAge seems to do this, at least partially. This is the reason I'm hoping it might succeed - but the obstacle is the Asian-oriented developers. It remains to be seen if they can truly create a game that will appeal to enough players in the west to make it worthwhile in the long run.
I certainly think of Lineage I and II as AAA MMORPGs. They're way to grindy for my taste, but AAA doesn't mean "games that I like".
I think Tecmo-Koei faces some challenges in being branded too broadly as "Asian". They're a Japanese company, and Japanese gaming culture is very different from Korean or Chinese gaming cultures. When people think of "Asian" grinders, they're usually thinking of Korean games. That's largely because South Korea pumps out a ton of MMORPGs, while few Japanese games are MMORPGs at all.
But Tecmo-Koei is a Japanese company, not Korean. If you want a cultural starting point, you should think of other Japanese gaming companies (e.g., Nintendo, Sega, Square, Capcom, Konami), and not whoever made your least favorite Korean grinder.
Though in fairness, Koei has long lived in their own world, and barely even acknowledged the existence of other gaming companies. There are some longstanding conventions that "most" MMORPGs abide by, but Koei completely ignores in order to do things their own way. The downside of that is that when you first pick up the game, you'll be completely lost. Even if you spent hours reading up on it ahead of time, and constantly ask tons of questions (which you should). But the advantage is that you won't already be 90% of the way to being sick of the game due to your experiences with other games, as is likely if you pick up the latest WoW-clone.
For decades, Koei has had their niche of incredibly complex strategy games (e.g. Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Dynasty Warriors, Nobunaga's Ambition, P.T.O., Liberty or Death), typically having you play one side in a war. They're hard to get into, as it takes a number of hours just to figure out what you're supposed to do. The market for that isn't very big in the US, so some of their games get translated into English and some don't.
The Uncharted Waters games are somewhat different from the Koei norm, and were sandbox games long before I had ever heard of the term, and possibly before it was even coined. The old console games had a bunch of NPCs sailing around basically acting like other players, which really cried out for an MMORPG treatment where it would be other players rather than just NPCs. Koei finally obliged, releasing Uncharted Waters Online in Japan in 2005. But it didn't get translated into English until 2010. One could argue that the English-language website for the game still isn't translated into English, but the game itself is much better.
The English-language publisher was originally Netmarble, a Korean company. Then Gpotato got involved, and I'm not sure what the relationship between Netmarble and Gpotato is. Gpotato certainly believes in making games pay to win, and Netmarble probably does, too, and they seem to be very much trying to make it pay to win. And it is pretty much pay to win if you want to be a pirate (i.e., attack other players and steal their stuff).
But otherwise, the nature of the game makes it awfully hard to make it pay to win, in spite of Netmarble's best efforts. In most MMORPGs, if you could buy an item that gives you +10% attack power, that would be horribly unbalancing. In Uncharted Waters Online, that would basically amount to a rounding error. I might have the most adventuring discoveries of anyone on the server (currently at 1864); if not, then I'm surely close to it. And I've paid $20 for the game so far--with $4 of that still unspent item mall cash. In a real pay to win game, that's not terribly common.
People would gnash their teeth like they do with every other game currently out there.
No one would be happy, basically.
What he said.
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
I agree, was gonna write the same thing when I noticed Scav's post. The population will rise at release then they would leave. Finally the game would settle at the population it was meant for. Neither a failure or a success but somewhere in teh middle. Though failure or success is a personal thang. Some it wil lhave failed..others it would have succeeded.
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
I don't get why sandbox mmos have to be so hardcore.
Why can't there be a mmo sandbox as approachable as minecraft or terraria.
Yeah. Pretty much this^
**P.S. Darkfall isnt really a Sandbox
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)
In that case, start here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/555/view/forums/thread/332238/Well-this-is-different-a-review.html
Quite a bit of stuff has been added since then, but that will at least get you started. I go into a lot more detail on the adventuring discovery system here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/555/view/forums/thread/337275/Adventuring-discovery-guide.html
And if you think those posts are too long, then you won't like UWO, as you won't have the patience for it. Koei doesn't do instant gratification, or even kind of soonish gratification.
Funcom tried this with Anarchy Online.
WoW crowd came there and wanted themepark features ,daily quests,boss drops for everybody, cookie cutter god mode perks ,cash shop boosting,instanced PvP etc and Funcom delivered.
it really didnt work out well.
Let's internet
If someone makes a sandbox game but is somehow able to prevent all the asshats from having the ability to be asshats then it would be successful. First though 'someone has to realise that the term 'Sandbox' does not just mean FFA PVP Full loot'.
The problem so far is that the only examples of sandbox games we have do not sell well to prospective developers or punblishers. When someone with money looks at the options and has to choose between "Fun for all" or "piss off most people" it isn't a wonder why we are where we are.
But if a developer were able to design a game tha gave people the freedom to play without being able to prevent others from their fun then.....people would still complain and ruin it for others. People are douchebags for the most part, and sandbox games so far are where they tend to hang out most.
I firmly believe the mechanics are available to alow all sorts of play styles to co-exist in a game and have it a true sandbox...the problem will be (and is so far to date) that getting the money is gonna be a hard sell based on the attitudes of the 'target audiance' that sandbox games aim for. The target audience needs to change or at the least needs to be supported by game design to allow a wider audience.
The "mainstream" player doesn't dislike PVP, they dislike only to be ganked while defenseless. In my experience with online games, i think that more than 80% of the players like PVP, but a part of these don't tolerate to be exposed to it when is vulnerable (Ex: weak , distracted or outnumbered). These part (what is a vocal minory) want only "consensual PVP", because they see PVP only as a mere "attraction" or option of distraction instead of the main way of the players struggle by the mmo rewards in a sandbox.
Create 2 separated economies (Ex: craft and loot oriented) won't works, because necessarily 1 will dominate (the easier and faster way to obtain itens, that normaly is the loot).
"work out well" or not depends on your point of view. If you like those features, then all is well.
You do understand that sandbox are very casual games? Nothing is forced on you, you can take your time, you can switch things up hourly/daily/weekly?
Sandboxes are more casual than themeparks that force you down a set path and lead you around on a leash right. Example would be SWTOR, couldnt go to another planet until all quests on the planet you currently on are finished. They force you to pvp for end game content (raids/warzones).
There is no such thing as hardcore sandboxers.
One day i want to craft, i do it. Next day i decide to go explore but end up running a few quests. The next day i do a little social interaction and group up to help someone or get help. Maybe i just want to go fishing now and relax and chat it up with the guild. Well now we are near a pvp zone...do i join or dony i. You have a choice.
Sandbox does not equal hardcore or pvp. Only a handful of sandboxes actualy have pvp as the main theme. Games like tale of the desert has no pvp at all.
http://auno.org/ao/char.php?online=1&dimension=1&offset=200
276 online,if you like those numbers ,then all is well.
Let's internet
IF Tecmo would have gotten a better publisher and let it go as a sub based game like it is over in japan for the western audience it probably would have been cast in a different light.
Most or all (didnt play STO or CO so I don't know about them) of those games you listed didn't start off as F2P games and had considerable backing behind them. I don't see Vanguard as a AAA game. Sure the publisher is AAA, but that doesn't really mean the game is.
The quality of the product is what demands AAA, and if a cashshop that promotes P2W brings it off that level, then it is no longer a AAA game no matter where it came from. Its like that game Wakfu, its not AAA even though it came from SE.
And no F2P doesn't mean it isn't AAA, but F2P + P2W does.
And yes I can name a studio bigger than that other then the three you named. Square-Enix
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were 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
Wakfu is made by Ancama, not Square-Enix. But yes, Square-Enix is bigger than Tecmo-Koei. I had to look it up to check.
qft
What would happen? If it's released by a fairly solid company, I'm sure plenty of folks would try it out, even those from the theme park camp. However, there are a few things that'll make or break it. First of all, griefing. It's going to happen, especially with the current state of the gaming community. There has a system in place to minimize griefing. Otherwise, you'll have quite a few folks quitting and it'll also discourage new players from getting into the game. This isn't a "carebear" mentality. There is a difference between me randomly killing some poor bastard I come across and leaving vs. me killing him and stabbing him in the chest every time he attempts to resurrect till he's angry to the point that he could punch a baby. If it still comes across to you as being a "carebear" then you’re probably a griefer.
There also needs to be some direction early on as some sandbox games tend to just throw you into the water without teaching you how to swim first. Then all you need is good crafting system, a robust combat system, solid PvE/PvP content, and things should go well. In my opinion, a mix of a sandbox and theme park elements would be the best route. It’s honestly why I’m interested in ArcheAge, but who knows when we’ll be seeing that game.
What the hell am I talking about.... gaming community is fickle as hell.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
Hardcore sandbox players will say its poorly done and that they're still waiting for a real triple AAA sandbox mmo that is not tarnished by the evil themeparks.
In my opinion. There is no longer a time where MMOs of the RPG genre should be separated between sandbox and themepark. Rather to be a hybrid of both to be the 'perfect' MMO.
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
Instanced gaming would fade away. - People would complain that there are no dungeon finders.
Crafting and gathering actually takes time and skill - People would complain that they have to grind a lot for money.
Twitched gaming would vanish, and action combat would take over - People would complain that it's not like a mmorpg.
And lots more...
Archeage is coming. We will have a opportunity to see what will really occur in a actual scenario.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011