I voted Themepark since I haven't played a good sandbox MMO yet, just EVE which I felt was a waste of time. But the poll results DO explain why there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth here.
Sandboxes are psychologically popular but of the idea of them is amazing to think about, then when reality hits every sandbox becomes a niche and most people even sandbox advocates hate it and belittle it for removing linear theme park content and leave the content up to the players in the sandbox. That's the method i've witnessed over a few years anyways.
edit: I put I prefer Sandbox but in reality the winning combination will be a Hybrid, no one roleplays therefore "player made content" will never exist like it did in UO, Games also forget skill caps are the only way to balance the ability to bring in new players down the road.
A lot of people scream for a sandbox based MMO, sadly is half of them don't even know what a sandbox really is, It's the new cool thing to toss around on forums.
Originally posted by Torgrim A lot of people scream for a sandbox based MMO, sadly is half of them don't even know what a sandbox really is, It's the new cool thing to toss around on forums.
That is true and I think we are also getting a protest vote, players are certain that easymode themeparks don't make the grade so they are voting against them. What they are not certain of is what they want. Sandbox is a good place to start but for me if a sandbox MMO did not have strong themepark elements as well it would be wanting. I want to build my own outpost and do a quest line story. Change the world and be part of a designer created story. Thats a hard ask I know, but that would create the strongest MMO in terms of entertainment and long term playability.
I'd love to play a decent sandbox, but my problem is the lack of time. If I want to achieve sth in sandbox game, i will have to invest huge amount of time, which i don't have. It is impossible for me to catch up with good players, cuz i have mostly 2-3 hours to play some games and i'm not playing only one. That's why for me themeparks are good solution.
A lot of sandboxes are outside, we can build sand castles etc , real life ftw!
Do not understimate the power of casuals . There are still more of us, casuals, than You, hardcore or semi-hardcore gamers. I think themeparks will still be sagnificant to the market in future
Originally posted by Eir_S I voted Themepark since I haven't played a good sandbox MMO yet, just EVE which I felt was a waste of time. But the poll results DO explain why there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth here.
I agree, the themepark crowd are always gnashing and wailing here.
Do not understimate the power of casuals . There are still more of us, casuals, than You, hardcore or semi-hardcore gamers. I think themeparks will still be sagnificant to the market in future
Np, we will have our hybrids/sandboxes and you will have your themeparks, GW2, NW and the rest of the themeparks wont go anywhere soon. We will have fun in games like EQN, AA, SH and the other hybrids that our on the way.
I'd love to play a decent sandbox, but my problem is the lack of time. If I want to achieve sth in sandbox game, i will have to invest huge amount of time, which i don't have. It is impossible for me to catch up with good players, cuz i have mostly 2-3 hours to play some games and i'm not playing only one. That's why for me themeparks are good solution.
That's probably the issue for most people who have played from teenage years to now. They just don't know it and blame the games.
As long as the term Sandbox and open world PVP are hand in hand Sandbox games will never be more than a niche market segment anywhere except on these forums. The problem with a PVE sandbox is people don't know what to do with themselves undirected for long periods of time.
As long as the term Sandbox and open world PVP are hand in hand Sandbox games will never be more than a niche market segment anywhere except on these forums. The problem with a PVE sandbox is people don't know what to do with themselves undirected for long periods of time.
I think EQN will have something to say about that, not saying it wont have a robust PVP system but make no mistake PVE will play a massive part in EQN.
I'd love to play a decent sandbox, but my problem is the lack of time. If I want to achieve sth in sandbox game, i will have to invest huge amount of time, which i don't have. It is impossible for me to catch up with good players, cuz i have mostly 2-3 hours to play some games and i'm not playing only one. That's why for me themeparks are good solution.
A sandbox game last for years no matter how long your session is each time you play. Unlike themepark mmo players we are not looking for a new shiny every time we log into the game. Joining a relaxed guild that doesn't demand you constantly log on to gain rewards.
In a way themeparks mmo demand more of your time because you are held at gun point by over bearing guilds. With a sandbox you are living in the world rather than trying to play or beat the world, call it a second home.
EQ wasn't a themepark it was a hybrid, it was skill based and had a class system. You can't put EQ in the same bracket as WOW or Rift. Are you sure you actually played EQ, also the game peaked at around 500k.
The character building system hardly determines whether a game is themepark of sandbox. A themepark can be classless just as much a sandbox can have classes.
Did you miss the part where i said hybrid?
EQ1 didn’t originally have any goals. Hitting the level cap wasn’t something the devs particularly expected anyone to do after all, the content pretty much ran out in the late thirties/early forties until the planes were released (for levels 46+). It was fully designed to be a 3D MUD, a place for people to chat and socialize while killing stuff and collecting gear and exploring.
EQ explicitly added the raid tool with the Planes of Power expansion, remember finally not having to use /ooc, /auc and /shout to coordinate raids? And the reason you had to do this was because people would be xping in raid zones. They’d stick big bad monsters in the same place lower levels were getting stuff done.
Sometimes the raid bosses would just be roaming the zones, looking for players to eat. Not on the edges like WoW’s open world roamers (who, iirc, weren’t initially aggro and also you could run from), but like Gorenaire and others, actively making you regret damaging your dragon faction. Anyway, all raid bosses up to Gates of Discord, once killed, were killed for everyone. Talk about stuff to fight over.
On the PvP servers, at least Tallon and Vallon Zek, factions could take control of whole zones. Trying to figure out which zones were safe to travel through TODAY was murder. Literally.
UO, EQ, AC and arguably DAoC were MMOs developed before catagories existed. It’s only the next stage of MMOs that had the vantage point to look back and see, from all that had gone before, upon what philosophies to base their game. UO was based on little tile-based RPGs. EQ was based on MUDs.
The only real way they were connected is they were both multiplayer and real-time. Neither intended from the start to provide anything more than a fun virtual world of adventure. So in that respect, in that philosophy, they are the same.Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. WoW originated the theme park, and its popularity forced that model everywhere else. Including, ultimately, EQ2.
If EQ needs to be placed into the later catogories of sandbox/themepark/hybrid then you would have to say hybrid.
Did you actually play classic EQ?
Glad you got that out? My comment was about how the method of building your character has nothing to do with whether a game is sandbox or not, themepark or not. It is an unrelated topic therefore not worth mentioning.
That is, if you don't attach additional baggage to the term "sandbox" similarly how I've heard someone say "A Ferrari is not a Ferrari if it is anything but red." Which is silly ofc.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think one of the problems is the definitions of the terms "sandbox" and "themepark." I felt that EQ was much more of a Sandbox than a Themepark when I played early on. WoW, in vanilla, felt much the same to me. WoW moved very rapidly towards what I consider a themepark starting with BC and progressing faster and faster with every expansion. AoC and Shadowbane both felt like sandboxes to me.
I think a big problem with sandboxes is the PvP aspect. It is very difficult to have a sustained endgame without PvP. Sandboxes make PvP extremely difficult to implement. Shadowbane and AoC had player bases that essentially griefed themselves out of existence. Players love to talk about world PvP and how much they like it. They don't. They like winning and killing other people in world PvP, but they hate having world PvP interfere with them when they don't want it to and then throw massive tantrums. I love world PvP and I don't mind getting griefed. It's an aspect of world PvP. However, that's not a common sentiment.
Players love to talk about world PvP and how much they like it. They don't. They like winning and killing other people in world PvP, but they hate having world PvP interfere with them when they don't want it to and then throw massive tantrums.
Occam says: different players
Watch that word "people" or "gamers", they're both very, very slippery. We've got millions of individuals, not defined by their Groups.
Not even by "sandbox player" or "themepark player". How many people have you met that are defined entirely by a single game, or a single activity? How many people never evolve?
I've certainly got a much more forgiving attitude towards PvP than I did 18 years ago, for instance. 18 years ago, PvP just...wasn't. Then we had early MMOs, all PVP non-consensual, 'griefers', by definition, boo hiss. Finally, post-console invasion, we've got players and entire games that don't do pve, period.
And somewhere along the way, not coincidentally? games shifted from cooperative to competitive focus.
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.
EVE Online released in 2003, has had many updates and expansions, and has over 500,000 subscribers. Whether or not they are paying the full 15 dollars or using the PLEX thing, there are 500,000 and they are playing. Unlike most other games, the population has increased over time.
Players love to talk about world PvP and how much they like it. They don't. They like winning and killing other people in world PvP, but they hate having world PvP interfere with them when they don't want it to and then throw massive tantrums.
Occam says: different players
Watch that word "people" or "gamers", they're both very, very slippery. We've got millions of individuals, not defined by their Groups.
Not even by "sandbox player" or "themepark player". How many people have you met that are defined entirely by a single game, or a singly activity? How many people never evolve?
I've certainly got a much more forgiving attitude towards PvP than I did 18 years ago, for instance. 18 years ago, PvP just...wasn't. Then we had early MMOs, all PVP non-consensual, 'griefers', by definition, boo hiss. Finally, post-console invasion, we've got players and entire games that don't do pve, period.
And somewhere alone the way, not coincidentally? games shifted from cooperative to competitive focus.
Occam's razor says no such thing.
PvP has been a huge focus in the MMO market since late EQ dominance. The MMOs that came out trying to displace EQ had a large PvP aspect to the game. I'm not saying that PvP is a requirement. It isn't. However, it's much more difficult to have a sustained endgame without it. PvP creates a quasi perpetual endgame that makes it easier for developers for the most part.
What I'm talking about specifically here, is the difficulty in implementing PvP in a sandbox environment. As much as world PvP gets talked about on forums, in games, and by game developers, there's a large demand for it. However, at the same time, there's a tremendous amount of complaining- about it by people who voluntarily engage in the system. There are tons of complaints from people who voluntarily select PvP servers with all the warnings who get very angry about being getting killed in world PvP. World PvP is difficult enough to handle as it is in games. When you do it in a setting with much more freedom like a more "sandbox" environment, it becomes MUCH more difficult. I used two examples of games where the player base dealt huge blows to the game through PvP. Shadowbane's player base literally killed itself off through PvP. AoC was much the same. It is differnet games from 18 years ago. WoW's emergence demonstrated the strength of PvP player numbers. There were more PvP servers than PvE servers at release and substantially more players. They even brought lots of PvP elements to the PvE servers for players who didn't want to PvP. There's tension between individual player's positions. It's like in real life. Everyone wants to be part of the group, but everyone wants to stand out.
EVE Online released in 2003, has had many updates and expansions, and has over 500,000 subscribers. Whether or not they are paying the full 15 dollars or using the PLEX thing, there are 500,000 and they are playing. Unlike most other games, the population has increased over time.
Players love to talk about world PvP and how much they like it. They don't. They like winning and killing other people in world PvP, but they hate having world PvP interfere with them when they don't want it to and then throw massive tantrums.
Occam says: different players
Watch that word "people" or "gamers", they're both very, very slippery. We've got millions of individuals, not defined by their Groups.
Not even by "sandbox player" or "themepark player". How many people have you met that are defined entirely by a single game, or a singly activity? How many people never evolve?
I've certainly got a much more forgiving attitude towards PvP than I did 18 years ago, for instance. 18 years ago, PvP just...wasn't. Then we had early MMOs, all PVP non-consensual, 'griefers', by definition, boo hiss. Finally, post-console invasion, we've got players and entire games that don't do pve, period.
And somewhere alone the way, not coincidentally? games shifted from cooperative to competitive focus.
Occam's razor says no such thing.
Okay, every player (but you) is a hypocrite or doesn't know what he wants. That's certainly a much more likely explanation.
/you win
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.
Players love to talk about world PvP and how much they like it. They don't. They like winning and killing other people in world PvP, but they hate having world PvP interfere with them when they don't want it to and then throw massive tantrums.
Occam says: different players
Watch that word "people" or "gamers", they're both very, very slippery. We've got millions of individuals, not defined by their Groups.
Not even by "sandbox player" or "themepark player". How many people have you met that are defined entirely by a single game, or a singly activity? How many people never evolve?
I've certainly got a much more forgiving attitude towards PvP than I did 18 years ago, for instance. 18 years ago, PvP just...wasn't. Then we had early MMOs, all PVP non-consensual, 'griefers', by definition, boo hiss. Finally, post-console invasion, we've got players and entire games that don't do pve, period.
And somewhere alone the way, not coincidentally? games shifted from cooperative to competitive focus.
Occam's razor says no such thing.
Okay, every player (but you) is a hypocrite or doesn't know what he wants. That's certainly a much more likely explanation.
/you win
It isn't so much that I win so much as you lose an inability to read at a third grade level. No where did I say that anyone was a hypocrite.
1.) That's not the definition of hypocrisy. They are stating two separate ideas at different points in time. That would be more indicative of confusion than hypocrisy.
2.) Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is preferred. Talking about different players is irrelevant. Players on world PvP servers complaining vigorously in large enough numbers to cause change renders your theory incorrect. Additionally, players being confused about what they want and different players expressing different ideas are both extremely simple. Furthermore, Occam's Razor is not a logical argument.
3.) My idea of "confused consumers" is nothing new and seen very frequently. Hybrid cars are very popular in polls and consumers constantly state in polls that they will very strongly consider a hybrid yet hybrid sales are minimal.
Originally posted by simsalabim77 EVE Online is pretty popular, but it's a niche audience for sure. It just happens that people who prefer that niche are extremely loud on these forums.
Without using the word WoW, name a themepark that has more subs.
Without using the word Eve, name a sandbox that has anywhere near the second most populated themepark. Oh hell, name another truly successful, still running and relevant sandbox.
Originally posted by simsalabim77 EVE Online is pretty popular, but it's a niche audience for sure. It just happens that people who prefer that niche are extremely loud on these forums.
Without using the word WoW, name a themepark that has more subs.
EQ at its peak. SWTOR still has almost 500k subs currently and they have stated that it is trending higher as f2p gamers make the switch. I don't know the numbers for Rift, but I have a feeling it is on par with Eve if not surpassing it.
I prefer a nice mix of themepark and sanbox elements, but if I have to go strictly one or the other, I'll take themepark over a complete sandbox anyday. I did not like UO or SWG or A Tale of the Desert, the only sandbox games I have played. I have never wanted to try Eve as I am not fond of games that play more like a spreadsheet. I do not find number crunching fun and I learned that the hard way in Anarchy Online.
EQ wasn't a themepark it was a hybrid, it was skill based and had a class system. You can't put EQ in the same bracket as WOW or Rift. Are you sure you actually played EQ, also the game peaked at around 500k.
EQ was a themepark. Instead of highly visible quest hubs, it had mob camps and most quest givers were located in the main cities, only they lacked the exclamation point. There was nothing in the game that allowed you to make your mark apon the game world, a pre-requisite for sandbox. Classes were rigid and skills were set, you could not mix and match until the AA system was implemented years later. The fact that you had to use skills after leveling or spend points in them in order to skill up 10 points is not a sandbox feature and had absolutely no bearing on gameplay unless you were starting to use a new weapon at high levels with no points spent in the skill. There was no player created content aside from roleplaying. Just because the game wasn't on rails does not a sandbox make, it merely indicated a freeform game world which you can also get in WoW and AO and AC.
I know the game peaked around 450K, that is why I used it as a comparison to the current Eve in regards to themepark games that have been AS successful if not more successful than the most popular sandbox. Whether a game is themepark or sandbox, I prefer an open ended game world with multiple areas per level / skill level range. I can't stand games like DAoC or anything from Cryptic that herds you through narrow and singular paths of progression, but by that same token, I can't stand games that have no structure at all. Free for all, completely player driven content is boring to me and indicates lazy development. My perfect game will be a sandpark with many features and systems. A game that embraces many paths of progression and doesn't force you to do one over another due to weighted and arbitrary reward systems.
Originally posted by simsalabim77 EVE Online is pretty popular, but it's a niche audience for sure. It just happens that people who prefer that niche are extremely loud on these forums.
Without using the word WoW, name a themepark that has more subs.
Without using the word Eve, name a sandbox that has anywhere near the second most populated themepark. Oh hell, name another truly successful, still running and relevant sandbox.
Comments
Sandboxes are psychologically popular but of the idea of them is amazing to think about, then when reality hits every sandbox becomes a niche and most people even sandbox advocates hate it and belittle it for removing linear theme park content and leave the content up to the players in the sandbox. That's the method i've witnessed over a few years anyways.
edit: I put I prefer Sandbox but in reality the winning combination will be a Hybrid, no one roleplays therefore "player made content" will never exist like it did in UO, Games also forget skill caps are the only way to balance the ability to bring in new players down the road.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
That is true and I think we are also getting a protest vote, players are certain that easymode themeparks don't make the grade so they are voting against them. What they are not certain of is what they want. Sandbox is a good place to start but for me if a sandbox MMO did not have strong themepark elements as well it would be wanting. I want to build my own outpost and do a quest line story. Change the world and be part of a designer created story. Thats a hard ask I know, but that would create the strongest MMO in terms of entertainment and long term playability.
I'd love to play a decent sandbox, but my problem is the lack of time. If I want to achieve sth in sandbox game, i will have to invest huge amount of time, which i don't have. It is impossible for me to catch up with good players, cuz i have mostly 2-3 hours to play some games and i'm not playing only one. That's why for me themeparks are good solution.
A lot of sandboxes are outside, we can build sand castles etc
, real life ftw! 
@SavageHorizon
Do not understimate the power of casuals
. There are still more of us, casuals, than You, hardcore or semi-hardcore gamers. I think themeparks will still be sagnificant to the market in future 
I agree, the themepark crowd are always gnashing and wailing here.
Im actually just gettign into DF:UW. I played Perpetuum for a bit.
My favorite thing abut sandbox games, is: Not having quests to do. I like the Feat system in DF.
Np, we will have our hybrids/sandboxes and you will have your themeparks, GW2, NW and the rest of the themeparks wont go anywhere soon. We will have fun in games like EQN, AA, SH and the other hybrids that our on the way.
That's probably the issue for most people who have played from teenage years to now. They just don't know it and blame the games.
As long as the term Sandbox and open world PVP are hand in hand Sandbox games will never be more than a niche market segment anywhere except on these forums. The problem with a PVE sandbox is people don't know what to do with themselves undirected for long periods of time.
I think EQN will have something to say about that, not saying it wont have a robust PVP system but make no mistake PVE will play a massive part in EQN.
A sandbox game last for years no matter how long your session is each time you play. Unlike themepark mmo players we are not looking for a new shiny every time we log into the game. Joining a relaxed guild that doesn't demand you constantly log on to gain rewards.
In a way themeparks mmo demand more of your time because you are held at gun point by over bearing guilds. With a sandbox you are living in the world rather than trying to play or beat the world, call it a second home.
Glad you got that out? My comment was about how the method of building your character has nothing to do with whether a game is sandbox or not, themepark or not. It is an unrelated topic therefore not worth mentioning.
That is, if you don't attach additional baggage to the term "sandbox" similarly how I've heard someone say "A Ferrari is not a Ferrari if it is anything but red." Which is silly ofc.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think one of the problems is the definitions of the terms "sandbox" and "themepark." I felt that EQ was much more of a Sandbox than a Themepark when I played early on. WoW, in vanilla, felt much the same to me. WoW moved very rapidly towards what I consider a themepark starting with BC and progressing faster and faster with every expansion. AoC and Shadowbane both felt like sandboxes to me.
I think a big problem with sandboxes is the PvP aspect. It is very difficult to have a sustained endgame without PvP. Sandboxes make PvP extremely difficult to implement. Shadowbane and AoC had player bases that essentially griefed themselves out of existence. Players love to talk about world PvP and how much they like it. They don't. They like winning and killing other people in world PvP, but they hate having world PvP interfere with them when they don't want it to and then throw massive tantrums. I love world PvP and I don't mind getting griefed. It's an aspect of world PvP. However, that's not a common sentiment.
Occam says: different players
Watch that word "people" or "gamers", they're both very, very slippery. We've got millions of individuals, not defined by their Groups.
Not even by "sandbox player" or "themepark player". How many people have you met that are defined entirely by a single game, or a single activity? How many people never evolve?
I've certainly got a much more forgiving attitude towards PvP than I did 18 years ago, for instance. 18 years ago, PvP just...wasn't. Then we had early MMOs, all PVP non-consensual, 'griefers', by definition, boo hiss. Finally, post-console invasion, we've got players and entire games that don't do pve, period.
And somewhere along the way, not coincidentally? games shifted from cooperative to competitive focus.
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.
EVE Online released in 2003, has had many updates and expansions, and has over 500,000 subscribers. Whether or not they are paying the full 15 dollars or using the PLEX thing, there are 500,000 and they are playing. Unlike most other games, the population has increased over time.
You really need to look no farther than that.
Occam's razor says no such thing.
PvP has been a huge focus in the MMO market since late EQ dominance. The MMOs that came out trying to displace EQ had a large PvP aspect to the game. I'm not saying that PvP is a requirement. It isn't. However, it's much more difficult to have a sustained endgame without it. PvP creates a quasi perpetual endgame that makes it easier for developers for the most part.
What I'm talking about specifically here, is the difficulty in implementing PvP in a sandbox environment. As much as world PvP gets talked about on forums, in games, and by game developers, there's a large demand for it. However, at the same time, there's a tremendous amount of complaining- about it by people who voluntarily engage in the system. There are tons of complaints from people who voluntarily select PvP servers with all the warnings who get very angry about being getting killed in world PvP. World PvP is difficult enough to handle as it is in games. When you do it in a setting with much more freedom like a more "sandbox" environment, it becomes MUCH more difficult. I used two examples of games where the player base dealt huge blows to the game through PvP. Shadowbane's player base literally killed itself off through PvP. AoC was much the same. It is differnet games from 18 years ago. WoW's emergence demonstrated the strength of PvP player numbers. There were more PvP servers than PvE servers at release and substantially more players. They even brought lots of PvP elements to the PvE servers for players who didn't want to PvP. There's tension between individual player's positions. It's like in real life. Everyone wants to be part of the group, but everyone wants to stand out.
500k is popular? Lol.
Okay, every player (but you) is a hypocrite or doesn't know what he wants. That's certainly a much more likely explanation.
/you win
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.
It isn't so much that I win so much as you lose an inability to read at a third grade level. No where did I say that anyone was a hypocrite.
1.) That's not the definition of hypocrisy. They are stating two separate ideas at different points in time. That would be more indicative of confusion than hypocrisy.
2.) Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is preferred. Talking about different players is irrelevant. Players on world PvP servers complaining vigorously in large enough numbers to cause change renders your theory incorrect. Additionally, players being confused about what they want and different players expressing different ideas are both extremely simple. Furthermore, Occam's Razor is not a logical argument.
3.) My idea of "confused consumers" is nothing new and seen very frequently. Hybrid cars are very popular in polls and consumers constantly state in polls that they will very strongly consider a hybrid yet hybrid sales are minimal.
Without using the word Eve, name a sandbox that has anywhere near the second most populated themepark. Oh hell, name another truly successful, still running and relevant sandbox.
Since you have an idea how much experience and imagination or lack thereof from my one post, why dont you help me out here, Ill start...
Exploration
Structure creation
Fighting A.I scripts
There, now your turn... what else is there to do?
EQ was a themepark. Instead of highly visible quest hubs, it had mob camps and most quest givers were located in the main cities, only they lacked the exclamation point. There was nothing in the game that allowed you to make your mark apon the game world, a pre-requisite for sandbox. Classes were rigid and skills were set, you could not mix and match until the AA system was implemented years later. The fact that you had to use skills after leveling or spend points in them in order to skill up 10 points is not a sandbox feature and had absolutely no bearing on gameplay unless you were starting to use a new weapon at high levels with no points spent in the skill. There was no player created content aside from roleplaying. Just because the game wasn't on rails does not a sandbox make, it merely indicated a freeform game world which you can also get in WoW and AO and AC.
I know the game peaked around 450K, that is why I used it as a comparison to the current Eve in regards to themepark games that have been AS successful if not more successful than the most popular sandbox. Whether a game is themepark or sandbox, I prefer an open ended game world with multiple areas per level / skill level range. I can't stand games like DAoC or anything from Cryptic that herds you through narrow and singular paths of progression, but by that same token, I can't stand games that have no structure at all. Free for all, completely player driven content is boring to me and indicates lazy development. My perfect game will be a sandpark with many features and systems. A game that embraces many paths of progression and doesn't force you to do one over another due to weighted and arbitrary reward systems.
Screenshot or it didn't happen.
But seriously i prefer a hybrid of sandbox and themepark. Sandpark?,themebox?
Age of Wushu, 15-20 million worldwide.