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!

Are MMORPG.com members sandbox players, or all of a sudden people turned their back on Themparks?

123457»

Comments

  • UhwopUhwop Wilm, DEPosts: 1,663Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    People seem to refuse to accept a simple fact.  Gamers prefer more freedom, not less, and themeparks are the complete opposite of that.

    Because your 'simple fact' isn't true, certainly not in all cases?

    (Substitute "I" for "gamers" and you can make a "fact".)

     Yes it is true. 

    I've been playing games sinse 1980.  I've been a part of the growth of the gaming industry ever sinse as a gamer. 

    Games over the years have continued to open up and provide more and more freedom.  GTA3 isn't a smash hit because it was based on the first two GTA games.  It was the freedom and world building that did it. 

    The most popular RPG series is a sandbox.  Skyrim, along with MW3 (again, even shooters have been expanding to offer more freedom by offering the ability to progress a charcter and costomize them), were tremendous successes that boosted video game sales hugely when they released. 

    NWN wasn't a huge success because it was D&D, it was the level of freedom and mod kit that did it. 

    Look at the evolution of racing games.  The most popular ones today don't just confine you to selecting a car and a track, you can ride around in fully realized cities, and have a load of freedom. 

    Themeparks are the opposite of the direction the rest of the gaming industry has been going sinse about the days of the original Playstation. 

    How good was dragon age again? 

    Lets talk about Mass Effect. 

    Darksiders.

    Demonsouls.

    Infamous

    fall out

    silent hill

    resident evil

     

    It's a fact, not my opinion based on what "I" prefer. 

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

    It's a fact, not my opinion based on what "I" prefer. 

    A fact regarding the entire population "gamers" becomes untrue if a single exception exists.

    That's the danger of hasty generalization.

    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.

  • shirlntshirlnt Houston, TXPosts: 355Member

    Sorry, I'll admit I haven't read through this thread but my answer to the OP's question:

    I read a response to another thread where the person said that mmorpgs had been overdone and as a result where old (and dying?).  I think it is more a case of themeparks being overdone.  There are players (like myself) who have preferred at least some degree of sandbox in the MMOs they play all along, but I think there are also people who are tired of the types of games that currently exist and are ready to try something new.  Although, there is also the possibility that the themepark players are too busy playing the current games that they aren't visiting this website (I know if I was playing a game that got my attention the way SWG pre-cu did, I wouldn't be checking out forums nearly as much).

    I personally like a combination of "sandbox" and "themepark" if it's done a certain way.  That way being that, while best done if a character has reached a certain stage of development, the "themeparks" in the game are not something that have to be done at a certain point and are not something that will be outleveled.  If a newbie can find a group of people to do a themepark with him/her, then he or she should be able to attempt the themepark although it may mean frequent knock outs or death.  If a fully developed or nearly fully developed character wishes to revisit previous content or explore a new area, he or she should be able to do that same themepark...AND the newbie and veteran should be able to group together for the same themepark without any penalties to either party.

  • moosecatlolmoosecatlol Boring, TXPosts: 1,172Member Uncommon
    I just want some good PvE content.
  • StarIStarI Mount EverestPosts: 926Member Uncommon

    Most of MMORPG.com members sandbox players? 

    LOL

    Mostly wannabe sandboxers.

    Yeah, I'd go with the second option. Lots of people get dead tired of cookie cutter themeparks after a few years, turning their backs in search for something refreshing. Sandbox surely sounds like a good next step when you're not even sure what it really is. But most of them can't handle a true sandbox game. Open world full loot  is for the hardcore minded.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by StarI
    Open world full loot  is for the hardcore minded.

    Naw, that's weak. True hardcores castrate their own toons.

    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.

  • grimgryphongrimgryphon Pacific Northwest, WAPosts: 682Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by StarI
    Open world full loot  is for the hardcore minded.

    Naw, that's weak. True hardcores castrate their own toons.

    That's a good thing. Then they'll never be able to breed.

    Optional PvP = No PvP
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,461Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Uhwop

    It's a fact, not my opinion based on what "I" prefer. 

    A fact regarding the entire population "gamers" becomes untrue if a single exception exists.

    That's the danger of hasty generalization.

    Except that is what is done on these forums all the time.

    It might not be a "single" exception but more often than not we see "my guild all thinks..." or "my friends all think..." and essentailly we are dealing with a group that has similiar tastes and ideas. And yet people feel comfortable applying their guild's tastes to "all gamers".

    If anything, I see the few game players who I come across "not" wanting freedom per se but just wanting good games.

    Of the disparate game players I come across who tried skyrim, only two actually completed the main quest or even stuck with the game. Several of them had problems with the freedom and one said to me that he became paralyzed when met with all those choices. He even went out to state that he wasn't interested in game worlds so much as "games".

    Now, if they were all part of my circle of friends or part of the same guild, I wouldn't really be able to, in good conscience, say "all the gamers I know don't like freedom in games...". But as they aren't part of my circle of friends, as we don't really have much in common other than we played skyrim and like games, their opinions have more weight to me.

     

  • xSh0xxSh0x Scottsdale, AZPosts: 125Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Considering there have been just about no successful themepark MMOs in the last 8 years, I'd say it's neither all of a sudden, nor is it just this MMORPG.com community.

     Exactly. 

    It's staring us right in the face.

    Plane as day.

    When most of the AAA themeparks released can't sustain themselves under a subscription model, then the genre is speaking very clearly.  They'll play crap when it's free, but not when you've got to pay monthly for it. 

    And still people insist no one really wants to play a sandbox.  Just because devlopers keep trying and failing, obviously it's the players and not the games themselves. 

    Except that isn't true at all.

    Themeparks that are not doing well and can't sustain a subscription aren't doing well just because they are themeparks or have a subscription.

     

    That's not the bigger picture though.  We can fault any war's outcome in history for the error of man, but that doesn't mean war would achieve much more value without any error.  The idea of war is a weak concept.  Its a dead end theory.  Just like themeparks in MMOs, are a dead end.  The idea pool just doesn't fit well enough with the idea of a massive fantasy role playing game.

    When the first AAA sandbox MMO releases globally, ArcheAge, people will get a taste for just how far sandbox inspired games could take the genre.  Well beyond the range of a themepark.  Developing features outside of simply combat, and character progression.  A sandbox can do that effectively.  Resource and asset economies, ecosystem progression, and freedom limited only by productivity.

    People claim: it won't be popular with the "jump in for quick fun" types of gamers.  They would be correct, if the goal of sandboxes was simply character progression, like a themepark.  The sandbox inspired MMO will allow anyone to jump into any role they want, and progress the environment they play in at the same time.  There is no need to master all, which would take significant time and knowledge, a turn off for the "casuals," because the environment has no endgame or level cap.  It would be impossible, and miss the point of a massive online game.  The sandbox ecosystem makes your role productive in its own right, you can simply have fun at the start.  Ultimately, more roles and more methods of progression will make it more fun for people to come back and try something new.  Its the evolution of D&D.  The idea pool is completely untapped and underdeveloped.

  • mgilbrtsnmgilbrtsn belleville, ILPosts: 1,710Member Uncommon
    I think we are a very vocal minority.  Let our voices ring out.  Give us more sandbox MMOs. (although it looks like things are picking up)

    Concentrate on enjoying yourself, and not on why I shouldn't enjoy myself.

  • grimgryphongrimgryphon Pacific Northwest, WAPosts: 682Member
    Originally posted by Kuppa
    There is a big sandbox crowd here, no doubt.

    I don't know about that, but there are a lot of people on MMORPG.com who are slaves to fads and have to be seen riding the most popular hype train.

    Optional PvP = No PvP
  • FARGIN_WARFARGIN_WAR New York, NYPosts: 166Member
    Originally posted by ste2000

    Well looking at the list of the most hyped MMOs in development the top 6 are Sandboxes.

    Popular IPs like TES and Neverwinter can't even match the popularity of Earthrise(what?) and Darkfall, which are old games repackaged.

    And the Top spot is taken by a Korean MMO which is not even released in its original country and which might take another 2 years to get to the NA/EU/OZ, how crazy is that?

    Is it that the members of this site are actually Sandboxers at heart or maybe people are truly bored of Themeparks (TESO/Neverwinter to name few)?

     

    Personally I would pay $15 a month to play the Korean Beta of Archeage.........and I am deadly serious

    I don't think it has anything to do with the overused and overtired argument of themepark vs sandbox.

    Pure and simple I think its just that quite a few gamers are getting sick and tired of waiting years for a new game only to find out that they will burn through the brunt of the content in a very short time and then be left with nothing else to do except a few repetitious activities. The games people are anticipating now seem to offer at least the promise of doing things differently.

    image

    If you don’t do stupid things while you’re young, you’ll have nothing to smile about when you’re old.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,461Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by xSh0x

     

    That's not the bigger picture though.  We can fault any war's outcome in history for the error of man, but that doesn't mean war would achieve much more value without any error.  The idea of war is a weak concept.  Its a dead end theory.  Just like themeparks in MMOs, are a dead end.  The idea pool just doesn't fit well enough with the idea of a massive fantasy role playing game.

    When the first AAA sandbox MMO releases globally, ArcheAge, people will get a taste for just how far sandbox inspired games could take the genre.  Well beyond the range of a themepark.  Developing features outside of simply combat, and character progression.  A sandbox can do that effectively.  Resource and asset economies, ecosystem progression, and freedom limited only by productivity.

    People claim: it won't be popular with the "jump in for quick fun" types of gamers.  They would be correct, if the goal of sandboxes was simply character progression, like a themepark.  The sandbox inspired MMO will allow anyone to jump into any role they want, and progress the environment they play in at the same time.  There is no need to master all, which would take significant time and knowledge, a turn off for the "casuals," because the environment has no endgame or level cap.  It would be impossible, and miss the point of a massive online game.  The sandbox ecosystem makes your role productive in its own right, you can simply have fun at the start.  Ultimately, more roles and more methods of progression will make it more fun for people to come back and try something new.  Its the evolution of D&D.  The idea pool is completely untapped and underdeveloped.

    I don't think we are in disagreement. for the record, I'm more interested in Sandboxes over themepark. but I can see that there are people who love themeparks. they don't want to live in a world and they don't want to rely upon their own machinations for their entertainment.

    There is a reason why people go to themeparks. They want to ride "rides" as they are fun.

    Same with thempark games. They want to log in and have a bit of fun by seeing where the "x"'s are, grouping for premade quests, and just enjoying "the rided".

    More often than not I've been in a sandbox game (ryzom coming to mind) where I saw players in chat saying "can  someone help me, I dont' know what to do". then the pat answer "do what you want".

    Well, they want to have fun. They want to ride rides.

    If there are people who don't like themepark games because of how they are set up, it also stands to reason that there will be people who dont' like sandbox games because of how they are set up.

  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,430Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by xSh0x

     

    That's not the bigger picture though.  We can fault any war's outcome in history for the error of man, but that doesn't mean war would achieve much more value without any error.  The idea of war is a weak concept.  Its a dead end theory.  Just like themeparks in MMOs, are a dead end.  The idea pool just doesn't fit well enough with the idea of a massive fantasy role playing game.

    When the first AAA sandbox MMO releases globally, ArcheAge, people will get a taste for just how far sandbox inspired games could take the genre.  Well beyond the range of a themepark.  Developing features outside of simply combat, and character progression.  A sandbox can do that effectively.  Resource and asset economies, ecosystem progression, and freedom limited only by productivity.

    People claim: it won't be popular with the "jump in for quick fun" types of gamers.  They would be correct, if the goal of sandboxes was simply character progression, like a themepark.  The sandbox inspired MMO will allow anyone to jump into any role they want, and progress the environment they play in at the same time.  There is no need to master all, which would take significant time and knowledge, a turn off for the "casuals," because the environment has no endgame or level cap.  It would be impossible, and miss the point of a massive online game.  The sandbox ecosystem makes your role productive in its own right, you can simply have fun at the start.  Ultimately, more roles and more methods of progression will make it more fun for people to come back and try something new.  Its the evolution of D&D.  The idea pool is completely untapped and underdeveloped.

    I don't think we are in disagreement. for the record, I'm more interested in Sandboxes over themepark. but I can see that there are people who love themeparks. they don't want to live in a world and they don't want to rely upon their own machinations for their entertainment.

    There is a reason why people go to themeparks. They want to ride "rides" as they are fun.

    Same with thempark games. They want to log in and have a bit of fun by seeing where the "x"'s are, grouping for premade quests, and just enjoying "the rided".

    More often than not I've been in a sandbox game (ryzom coming to mind) where I saw players in chat saying "can  someone help me, I dont' know what to do". then the pat answer "do what you want".

    Well, they want to have fun. They want to ride rides.

    If there are people who don't like themepark games because of how they are set up, it also stands to reason that there will be people who dont' like sandbox games because of how they are set up.

    You make a good point, and I think it's correct all the way around.

    One thing back in the early days with UO, and I'm sure you had this in Ryzom too, players would put on "events" to help players get accustomed to how to play. Maybe dungeon romps (which can be much like any Themepark quest), maybe trade fairs, tournaments, scavenger hunts, whatever. Lots of "roleplay" events too. Campfire story telling, chess tourneys, murder mysteries, mini wars, etc.

    But I think a great Sandbox game has a lot of content to keep players busy, too.  Content may not be "paint by numbers" quests, but more or less the same kinds of action/play can be done in a Sandbox too. It most definitely should not be up to the players, the game should provide plenty.

    Once upon a time....

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Considering there have been just about no successful themepark MMOs in the last 8 years, I'd say it's neither all of a sudden, nor is it just this MMORPG.com community.

     Exactly. 

    It's staring us right in the face.

    Plane as day.

    When most of the AAA themeparks released can't sustain themselves under a subscription model, then the genre is speaking very clearly.  They'll play crap when it's free, but not when you've got to pay monthly for it. 

    And still people insist no one really wants to play a sandbox.  Just because devlopers keep trying and failing, obviously it's the players and not the games themselves. 

    The conclusion that isn't supported, at this point, is that sandboxes will ultimately perform any differently.

    Just another brand of Hype, yes?

    We'll see how things work out, after this first wave is released and we all finish arguing over what is and is not a True Sandbox™.

    "Sandboxes" have traditionally worked a lot better than themeparks. They're designed in their nature to retain players longer, because they form more connected communities and generate their own content. Not only that, but all the old MMOs that grew and became profitable over many years were all sandbox styled. Even EQ1 would be considered a sandbox these days. And the only two MMOs that had been consistantly growing in the past several years, is Darkfall and Eve, two sandboxes.

  • ste2000ste2000 londonPosts: 4,706Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    "Sandboxes" have traditionally worked a lot better than themeparks. They're designed in their nature to retain players longer, because they form more connected communities and generate their own content. Not only that, but all the old MMOs that grew and became profitable over many years were all sandbox styled. Even EQ1 would be considered a sandbox these days. And the only two MMOs that had been consistantly growing in the past several years, is Darkfall and Eve, two sandboxes.

    Yes that's my thought (I also think EQ is a Sandbox).

    But I have to be honest, while Sandboxes have the ability to keep players playing for longer, they have a huge flaw.................they are too difficult to get into, therefore they are not able of attract huge numbers of players (CCP are working hard to correct this issue with EvE and it looks like they are succeeding)

    That's why I think Archgeage is doing it right, it combines the accessibility of Themeparks (UI+Combat) with the depth and freedom of Sandboxes.

    That's the way to go, and I think EQ3 will have lots in common with Archeage, I don't think SOE will make a pure Sandbox, but an hybrid which I think is the best solution.

  • MetentsoMetentso BarcelonaPosts: 1,436Member Common
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Maybe both? I think there is a shift coming....

    That was my thought, confirmed by SoE move to make a Sandbox MMO.

    If even SoE start to mention the word "Sandbox", maybe something is really changing.

    I really hope that Zenimax do not go ahead with World of Tamriel and makes at least an hybrid, I would die inside if TESO will end up being another SWTOR with elves

    If SOE starts to mention sandbox, say goodbye to sandbox. They will pervert it beyond recognition.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    MMORPG.com members are primarily about slagging other people off (especially anyone with an interest in FFA pvp, whether the thread happens to be about it or not) and pretending to be some sort of internet version of Chomsky.

     

    Any actual debate about games/game mechanics comes secondary to that.

     

     

     

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

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    "Sandboxes" have traditionally worked a lot better than themeparks. They're designed in their nature to retain players longer, because they form more connected communities and generate their own content. Not only that, but all the old MMOs that grew and became profitable over many years were all sandbox styled. Even EQ1 would be considered a sandbox these days. And the only two MMOs that had been consistantly growing in the past several years, is Darkfall and Eve, two sandboxes.

    Yes that's my thought (I also think EQ is a Sandbox).

    But I have to be honest, while Sandboxes have the ability to keep players playing for longer, they have a huge flaw.................they are too difficult to get into, therefore they are not able of attract huge numbers of players (CCP are working hard to correct this issue with EvE and it looks like they are succeeding)

    That's why I think Archgeage is doing it right, it combines the accessibility of Themeparks (UI+Combat) with the depth and freedom of Sandboxes.

    That's the way to go, and I think EQ3 will have lots in common with Archeage, I don't think SOE will make a pure Sandbox, but an hybrid which I think is the best solution.

    From a business standpoint, it's better to steadily grow in the long term than boom out of the gate and then collapse, forcing layoffs and cuts.

  • xpowderxxpowderx Radcliff, KYPosts: 2,131Member Uncommon
    I think most people like a mix of both. Star Wars Galaxies had that pre CU. You had the open world sandbox with a Rebel Theme Park and a Empire Theme Park. Was actually nice! Could still be in a sandbox game and have a theme park when you tire of it. My personal belief is most players prefer a mix rather than just one or the other.
  • RossbossRossboss Runes of Magic, TXPosts: 240Member
    Originally posted by xpowderx
    I think most people like a mix of both. Star Wars Galaxies had that pre CU. You had the open world sandbox with a Rebel Theme Park and a Empire Theme Park. Was actually nice! Could still be in a sandbox game and have a them park when you tire of it. My personal belief is most players prefer a mix rather than just one or the other.

    I definitely agree. Most people have to have some goals set for them to get them motivated to progress in the proper direction. It's like at work, you have to have some kind of direction with a project otherwise it either doesn't get done, gets done wrong, or the worker gets lucky and miraculously ends with the right result. I definitely like games with some direction to them, but with areas that I can explore further on my own for more goodies and special hidden quests/npcs/chests of shiny things.

    I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
    I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
    I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.

  • bladedancerbladedancer BrightonPosts: 38Member
    Well I enjoy both to be honest, while at the moment I mostly play themeparks, I would love a great sandbox game, will see what the future brings :)

    Peter Griffin: you know those germans, if you dont join the party, they?ll come get ya

  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by Rossboss
    Originally posted by xpowderx
    I think most people like a mix of both. Star Wars Galaxies had that pre CU. You had the open world sandbox with a Rebel Theme Park and a Empire Theme Park. Was actually nice! Could still be in a sandbox game and have a them park when you tire of it. My personal belief is most players prefer a mix rather than just one or the other.

    I definitely agree. Most people have to have some goals set for them to get them motivated to progress in the proper direction. It's like at work, you have to have some kind of direction with a project otherwise it either doesn't get done, gets done wrong, or the worker gets lucky and miraculously ends with the right result. I definitely like games with some direction to them, but with areas that I can explore further on my own for more goodies and special hidden quests/npcs/chests of shiny things.

    I wish there was a like button for this.

123457»
Sign In or Register to comment.