PvP definitely isn't required; however, you are cutting out a huge section of players and moving into a niche market by cutting out PvP. PvP is very popular. I don't know why. It just is.
For one, it helps create a community. We can look at this going back before modern MMOs with Diablo 1 and the like. There was always a coalescing of players around PKs and antis. We saw this in UO. Many modern MMOs try to factionize it. There's nothing wrong with this. If you don't have the PVP, you are going to have to have some just stellar PvE. It's going to have to be significantly better than the competition or the game is going to have to resign itself to a small niche.
You're wrong. PvP players are a minority in almost every game out there. Open world PvP is even smaller niche even though the fans are nearly as vocal as the rest combined.
Well, that's part of what I was getting at with a prior post. There aren't really many PvPers. There are a lot of players who enjoy PvP. The terms are really blurred and perhaps a better way of saying it would be there aren't that many PKers, but many players enjoy competition against other players. A lot more players look at open world PvP and think it's cool and respond positively towards open world PvP than players who tolerate having their quest hub taken over and camped.
If that's true (I think it is), why do sandbox developers seem so intent on doing PvP RPG style games?
Here are some possible reasons:
- it's easy "content" for when you can't create content
- it's one of the selling points when positioning against The Man or the "lazy corporate developers"
- they have no clue how much has to actually go into the game to make the PVP RPG an engaging experience, which is evident once they are released. Some examples: DF1, Mortal Online, Xsyon, Aerrevan, Perpetuum, Salem
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Is there any proof that sandboxes are popular at all?
The only proof of sandboxes being popular is that every new game gets some people on mmorpg.com begging for it to become a sandbox, and the same people scoffing any game thats not a sandbox...
But how popular are Sandboxes? just wondering if someone ever somewhere did a decent poll about this?
Lets list them all off.
EvE Online...
TOR has as much subs as Eve, and many more free players. Do is TOR popular too? I thought it was a failure?
TOR's failure is based upon the insane budget that went into developing and marketing it. If I scrape together $10K to make an indie film that ends up with 100K people buying tickets to it in a theatre... most folks would judge that as pretty good success. If J.J. Abrams comes along with Paramount throwing a couple hundred million behind a film he makes and that only nets 1 million viewers most folks would say it tanked.
Resources and expectations matter when judging how well something has done.
Sandbox = the ability to manipulate the world around you in all possible ways within a certain box (said box can be as loose as the box of physics or as constricting as an entire background with plots, intrigue, politics, etc) but one of the ways you could manipulate the world is by reducing or otherwise eliminating competition and said competition is without any doubt other players. Now the means of doing this could be direct (blade meets innards) or indirect (ex: starving the poor shmuck out of the city/area via economic means). However direct player interactions both in the negative and positive sense in however restrictive or non-restrictive the box is should not be limited in space or time, it should allow the prosecution of total war be it on a combat level or non-combat level.
Originally posted by Dihoru Sandbox = the ability to manipulate the world around you in all possible ways within a certain box (said box can be as loose as the box of physics or as constricting as an entire background with plots, intrigue, politics, etc) but one of the ways you could manipulate the world is by reducing or otherwise eliminating competition and said competition is without any doubt other players. Now the means of doing this could be direct (blade meets innards) or indirect (ex: starving the poor shmuck out of the city/area via economic means). However direct player interactions both in the negative and positive sense in however restrictive or non-restrictive the box is should not be limited in space or time, it should allow the prosecution of total war be it on a combat level or non-combat level.
sandbox is about more freedom by manipulating your char
manipulating world can only developers in any mmorpg
they are like creators of small universe lol
and programing own universe with alotsa souls inside
who waste many hours of thier real life in that universe...playing by YOUR rules ...
PvP definitely isn't required; however, you are cutting out a huge section of players and moving into a niche market by cutting out PvP. PvP is very popular. I don't know why. It just is.
For one, it helps create a community. We can look at this going back before modern MMOs with Diablo 1 and the like. There was always a coalescing of players around PKs and antis. We saw this in UO. Many modern MMOs try to factionize it. There's nothing wrong with this. If you don't have the PVP, you are going to have to have some just stellar PvE. It's going to have to be significantly better than the competition or the game is going to have to resign itself to a small niche.
You're wrong. PvP players are a minority in almost every game out there. Open world PvP is even smaller niche even though the fans are nearly as vocal as the rest combined.
You can have an open world and zoned PvP. PvP does help create a community and it gives players a reason to stay in a MMO. But zoned PvP works just as good in that regard. I am not sure PvP players are a minority, but that depends what you mean. Most players do seem to do some PvP, but it may be a very minor part of the game for them. These days though PvP is set up to be minor and rather meaningless in most MMO's. Having instanced PvP lessens the importance of PvP to players and thus the game.
Some of the best PvP I have had was instanced, but that just makes it a great mini game. Without connection to the larger MMO it loses impact and reduces longevity.
You allready stated everything that MMO's have. A pvp sandbox has
Ive stated what would be your Bread & Butter in any Sandbox PvE game, which you reiterated below
Exploration
Structure creation
Fighting A.I scripts
However adding the element of PvP doesnt add more featuresoutside the PvP umbrella just adds more content. Now anybody that is creative enough could expand on the Bread & Butter listed above when creating a sandbox but without PvP you would be cutting yourself short. Once you have explored nearly all the game world and your guild completed constructing "the big castle", then what... on with the decorations? Now im using these examples rather loosely but im trying to make a point, adding pvp to a sandbox gives it more meaning....
A PVP sandbox has
Exploration / Territory control
Structure creation / Structure Conquest
Fighting A.I scripts / Other Players
"A Sandbox needs PvP or it will be all fluff and no grit...."
Dumbest True statement in regards to sandboxes without pvp.
So yes Are you confused?
There are several pve sandbox games out there allready, no none are very successfull but most have a great deal of depth to them (depth meaning meaningfull choices).
Let me ask you question... How meaningful is your choice if you have nothing to lose?
I also wasn't comparing a pve sandbox to a themepark, I only pointed out that it can have as many features. So name a feature besides pvp and a pve can have it.
What this is all going to boil down to is... "what feature is important to you". Zod doesnt like fighting a bunch of scripts but some people love it. A developer could create a Sandbox PvE with just growing crops, fighting forest animals and building houses and im sure some lost soul out there would play it but as somebody in this thread said before sandboxes are already "niche"... you would cut alot of the player base by making it strictly PvE. You said yourself that SB pve MMO's arent successful and why would they be when most themeparks do the PvE aspect of the game better.
I'm confused as to how, throughout the thread, people are very poorly trying to prop up the IMAGINED popularity of sandboxes. Yeah, cool, they're ahead in a poll on a site full of sandbox fans, and a few of them have a good amount of subs, but naming single player RPG's like Skyrim? Or calling EQ a sandbox?
I don't hate sandboxes, I'm still waiting to play a decent one, but stop pretending they were ever wildly popular.
Try WoW: The world is almost entirely tailored by the developers,. You are forced to choose a role in which anyone else who chose the role will be doing the same abilities with minimal variation as you reach max level. You and everyone else who plays will eventually go to the same places, do the same missions, fight the same mobs and bosses, and loot the same items. (The player's experience is almost entirely predetermined.)
Try WO (Wurm Online): The worlds are almost entirely tailored by the players including terraforming. There are no levels or roles, the players can make their role whatever they please. The world and locations in the world are always prone to being changed and the only missions you take up are from other players or your own personal goals. When a "boss" mob is killed you are not going to see it respawn, its dead. (albeit there has been little to no bosses) Practically all the items in the game are crafted by players; various skill levels being the level of "rarity". (The player can choose to do whatever they want with minimal predetermined goals.)
Wurm Online is a perfect example of a sandbox game for those who are confused on the definition. I personally can not get immersed by a themepark type game, its as if I'm in a fake cardboard world, but I understand the appeal of them to other kinds of gamers.
Hopefully the many upcoming sandbox MMOs in production will bring the spark back into the genre; I'm dying to play them!
Originally posted by Eir_S I'm confused as to how, throughout the thread, people are very poorly trying to prop up the IMAGINED popularity of sandboxes. Yeah, cool, they're ahead in a poll on a site full of sandbox fans, and a few of them have a good amount of subs, but naming single player RPG's like Skyrim? Or calling EQ a sandbox?I don't hate sandboxes, I'm still waiting to play a decent one, but stop pretending they were ever wildly popular.
It's not just this thread. Somewhere in pretty much every thread involving sandboxes somebody floats the idea that sandboxes are a very popular MMO option, it's just that the sandbox players do not have any games to play. If a developer would only build a decent sandbox, then all the sandbox players would come out of hiding and make that developer rich.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think before you ask people if they want a sandbox or a themepark you should define what YOU think sandbox / themepark is. Since we all have a different idea no pole will be accurate. Nice idea for a thread tho.
Themepark means I cannot take a level 1 char into a level 35 zone without getting my ass handed to me. Sandpark means I can go anywhere.
Themepark ruins immersion and makes you feel like you are being lead by the nose everywhere. I hate that. But story progressions with cutscenes - those I absolutely love (Final Fantasy) - even tho they have to done themepark style or the story is out of order.
I think the issue with sandbox game popularity is that the audience is too fragmented.
I love sandbox games, for example, but in the MMO space most sandbox games include free-for-all PvP, which I hate. Therefore I have not played any of them. I am not a unique individual at all, which means there's surely quite a lot of other MMO players who like sandboxes but who haven't played (or played for long) the sandbox games we have gotten.
I know a lot of sandbox players think that free-for-all open world PvP is absolutely required for a game to be considered a sandbox, but it turns of more people than it attracts, and hence you see those types of games struggle to stay afloat. Even Eve has areas where the PvP isn't a factor and if you have ever played that game you know that those areas are pretty crowded. Their numbers would not be nearly as good without it.
Other fragmentation in the player base surely exists around other aspects of what is or is not in any given game. I think this is the reason why no sandbox game has pulled down numbers like the most popular Theme park games; not because the concept of a sandbox is not as popular as Theme Park.
Haven't read this entire thread, but hopefully I'm not repeating anything here. There is some obvious sandbox popularity based solely on the financial success of single-player sandboxes, such as Minecraft and the various Sim games.
That said, there is a huge difference between a single-player sandbox game and an MMO sandbox that really harms the MMO's ability to be popular (IMO). A single-player sandbox is still a video game where the player logs in at their convenience and generally makes progress at their desired rate. In the MMO sandboxes that have been released thus far, that convenience factor doesn't come into play, since I have to rely on there being other players interested in achieving the same goals, whether cooperative or competitive. If there aren't enough interested players, or even worse, if there are too many players who are simply interested in limiting my playstyle (e.g. griefing), then the time tends to become "wasted". Few people want to play a game where they have to invest either a significant amount of time each day or hope they get lucky in order to be involved in a big event.
Compare this to a modern themepark MMO where you can do almost any activity at your convenience in as large or as small a chunk of time as you desire - more so since tools like automated group finders have come into existence. Until a sandbox MMO is released that plays more like a video game and less like a virtual and also lets players make reasonable progress on their terms, sandboxes will continue to remain a niche product.
Originally posted by tkreep people want sandbox, its just they dont want the gameplay to be as difficult as games like eve or ultima online and such.
Well spoken and completely true
None of those games are difficult. Take Eve. Doing missions are "auto-pilot" to right range, and keep firing missiles to win. STO has much more challenging and interesting combat.
I think the issue with sandbox game popularity is that the audience is too fragmented.
I love sandbox games, for example, but in the MMO space most sandbox games include free-for-all PvP, which I hate. Therefore I have not played any of them. I am not a unique individual at all, which means there's surely quite a lot of other MMO players who like sandboxes but who haven't played (or played for long) the sandbox games we have gotten.
I know a lot of sandbox players think that free-for-all open world PvP is absolutely required for a game to be considered a sandbox, but it turns of more people than it attracts, and hence you see those types of games struggle to stay afloat. Even Eve has areas where the PvP isn't a factor and if you have ever played that game you know that those areas are pretty crowded. Their numbers would not be nearly as good without it.
Other fragmentation in the player base surely exists around other aspects of what is or is not in any given game. I think this is the reason why no sandbox game has pulled down numbers like the most popular Theme park games; not because the concept of a sandbox is not as popular as Theme Park.
Well said! No one in this household will even consider open PvP games. And the reason is; we've played them before.
The fragmentation of the playerbase is a very good point, and one that I am sure many professional game companies are well aware of. To the point of 'That's why you can't have nice things'.
That said, if done very well, it could still be possibly attractive, but only DayZ and WoD are on my radar at this point.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Compare this to a modern themepark MMO where you can do almost any activity at your convenience in as large or as small a chunk of time as you desire - more so since tools like automated group finders have come into existence. Until a sandbox MMO is released that plays more like a video game and less like a virtual and also lets players make reasonable progress on their terms, sandboxes will continue to remain a niche product.
This ^^^
MMOs, in general, needs to be better games to be successful. They have progressed much but not in all forms of MMOs.
Originally posted by tkreep people want sandbox, its just they dont want the gameplay to be as difficult as games like eve or ultima online and such.
Well spoken and completely true
None of those games are difficult. Take Eve. Doing missions are "auto-pilot" to right range, and keep firing missiles to win. STO has much more challenging and interesting combat.
Comparing EVE's and STO's combat is pointless as they are polar opposites in design. Also, what level missions to you get up to when you played? Lower level missions are a walk in the park.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
What happened was most of the older mmorpgs were sandbox or themepark with sandbox features and limits. After the release of WoW(Which has FFA PVP, defusing the debate on sandbox players not like PVP anywhere) they tried to copy WoW removing all aspects of sandbox from games that tried to clone its success. Instead of trying to be different and unique games had a model to follow and follow they did even if it spelled doom.
Sandbox mmorpgs were decent from the start (SWG, Uo and variant themepark that weren't part of the status quo model like DAOC and SB), but over time as more casual people entered the market the demographics changed and what the causal people were railed into thinking was fun became the norm. There are some companies that tried to make sandbox mmorpgs, but since they don't have proper funding and experience they tend to flop.(They need to give equal freedom to all play styles, the pvpers, pvers, crafters and explorers) Once companies start product AAA mmorpgs that shake up the status quo we will see better games.
Optimally the best mmorpg would be sandbox with some themepark elements attached.
Some of the older sandbox games became sandboxes becase they lacked content, ... So people cae up with their own reasons to play.
Rubbish. You need very little content in a sandbox game. What you need are tools so that the player creates their own content and decides what/how to play the game.
Examples: When I login do I want to craft, explore, pve, pvp, decorate a house, role play (in a player own bar/tavern), mini games chess checkers etc., and a many more options. Other tools would be ropes to climb, tackles, terra forming, etc: the list goes on. Just give us the tools, we will build the world/community.
you have minecraft which sold a bunch of copies..i think like 2 million or more. then eve online had like 500k subs.
Those arent really mmorpgs...well eve is but its space so..u gotta like that in order to like it....
If you are looking for proof i can say there isnt alot of proof...there is a crowd for it but the majority favors traditional mmorpgs over sandbox mmorpgs.
Me personally...i prefer a game that keeps ya busy...meaning there is always something to do and you have a goal that is both short and long term....and by things to do i DONT MEAN grind mobs for hours to gain gold/xp/items...
Comments
Well, that's part of what I was getting at with a prior post. There aren't really many PvPers. There are a lot of players who enjoy PvP. The terms are really blurred and perhaps a better way of saying it would be there aren't that many PKers, but many players enjoy competition against other players. A lot more players look at open world PvP and think it's cool and respond positively towards open world PvP than players who tolerate having their quest hub taken over and camped.
I don't think we're in strong disagreement here.
Here are some possible reasons:
- it's easy "content" for when you can't create content
- it's one of the selling points when positioning against The Man or the "lazy corporate developers"
- they have no clue how much has to actually go into the game to make the PVP RPG an engaging experience, which is evident once they are released. Some examples: DF1, Mortal Online, Xsyon, Aerrevan, Perpetuum, Salem
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
TOR's failure is based upon the insane budget that went into developing and marketing it. If I scrape together $10K to make an indie film that ends up with 100K people buying tickets to it in a theatre... most folks would judge that as pretty good success. If J.J. Abrams comes along with Paramount throwing a couple hundred million behind a film he makes and that only nets 1 million viewers most folks would say it tanked.
Resources and expectations matter when judging how well something has done.
I prefer Non-Linear Themeparks by MMORPG.com definitions.
Or in the real world I enjoy PvE sandbox'es.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
sandbox is about more freedom by manipulating your char
manipulating world can only developers in any mmorpg
they are like creators of small universe lol
and programing own universe with alotsa souls inside
who waste many hours of thier real life in that universe...playing by YOUR rules ...
those noobs can only imagine the feeling..
You can have an open world and zoned PvP. PvP does help create a community and it gives players a reason to stay in a MMO. But zoned PvP works just as good in that regard. I am not sure PvP players are a minority, but that depends what you mean. Most players do seem to do some PvP, but it may be a very minor part of the game for them. These days though PvP is set up to be minor and rather meaningless in most MMO's. Having instanced PvP lessens the importance of PvP to players and thus the game.
Some of the best PvP I have had was instanced, but that just makes it a great mini game. Without connection to the larger MMO it loses impact and reduces longevity.
*Cyan print by Zod
I'm confused as to how, throughout the thread, people are very poorly trying to prop up the IMAGINED popularity of sandboxes. Yeah, cool, they're ahead in a poll on a site full of sandbox fans, and a few of them have a good amount of subs, but naming single player RPG's like Skyrim? Or calling EQ a sandbox?
I don't hate sandboxes, I'm still waiting to play a decent one, but stop pretending they were ever wildly popular.
Try WoW: The world is almost entirely tailored by the developers,. You are forced to choose a role in which anyone else who chose the role will be doing the same abilities with minimal variation as you reach max level. You and everyone else who plays will eventually go to the same places, do the same missions, fight the same mobs and bosses, and loot the same items. (The player's experience is almost entirely predetermined.)
Try WO (Wurm Online): The worlds are almost entirely tailored by the players including terraforming. There are no levels or roles, the players can make their role whatever they please. The world and locations in the world are always prone to being changed and the only missions you take up are from other players or your own personal goals. When a "boss" mob is killed you are not going to see it respawn, its dead. (albeit there has been little to no bosses) Practically all the items in the game are crafted by players; various skill levels being the level of "rarity". (The player can choose to do whatever they want with minimal predetermined goals.)
Wurm Online is a perfect example of a sandbox game for those who are confused on the definition. I personally can not get immersed by a themepark type game, its as if I'm in a fake cardboard world, but I understand the appeal of them to other kinds of gamers.
Hopefully the many upcoming sandbox MMOs in production will bring the spark back into the genre; I'm dying to play them!
It's not just this thread. Somewhere in pretty much every thread involving sandboxes somebody floats the idea that sandboxes are a very popular MMO option, it's just that the sandbox players do not have any games to play. If a developer would only build a decent sandbox, then all the sandbox players would come out of hiding and make that developer rich.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think before you ask people if they want a sandbox or a themepark you should define what YOU think sandbox / themepark is. Since we all have a different idea no pole will be accurate. Nice idea for a thread tho.
Themepark means I cannot take a level 1 char into a level 35 zone without getting my ass handed to me. Sandpark means I can go anywhere.
Themepark ruins immersion and makes you feel like you are being lead by the nose everywhere. I hate that. But story progressions with cutscenes - those I absolutely love (Final Fantasy) - even tho they have to done themepark style or the story is out of order.
PvP/PvE can be found in either or.
Both terms are far too broad. Which naturally leads to lots of equivocation (rockin' good forum pvp!)
I think the issue with sandbox game popularity is that the audience is too fragmented.
I love sandbox games, for example, but in the MMO space most sandbox games include free-for-all PvP, which I hate. Therefore I have not played any of them. I am not a unique individual at all, which means there's surely quite a lot of other MMO players who like sandboxes but who haven't played (or played for long) the sandbox games we have gotten.
I know a lot of sandbox players think that free-for-all open world PvP is absolutely required for a game to be considered a sandbox, but it turns of more people than it attracts, and hence you see those types of games struggle to stay afloat. Even Eve has areas where the PvP isn't a factor and if you have ever played that game you know that those areas are pretty crowded. Their numbers would not be nearly as good without it.
Other fragmentation in the player base surely exists around other aspects of what is or is not in any given game. I think this is the reason why no sandbox game has pulled down numbers like the most popular Theme park games; not because the concept of a sandbox is not as popular as Theme Park.
Well spoken and completely true
Haven't read this entire thread, but hopefully I'm not repeating anything here. There is some obvious sandbox popularity based solely on the financial success of single-player sandboxes, such as Minecraft and the various Sim games.
That said, there is a huge difference between a single-player sandbox game and an MMO sandbox that really harms the MMO's ability to be popular (IMO). A single-player sandbox is still a video game where the player logs in at their convenience and generally makes progress at their desired rate. In the MMO sandboxes that have been released thus far, that convenience factor doesn't come into play, since I have to rely on there being other players interested in achieving the same goals, whether cooperative or competitive. If there aren't enough interested players, or even worse, if there are too many players who are simply interested in limiting my playstyle (e.g. griefing), then the time tends to become "wasted". Few people want to play a game where they have to invest either a significant amount of time each day or hope they get lucky in order to be involved in a big event.
Compare this to a modern themepark MMO where you can do almost any activity at your convenience in as large or as small a chunk of time as you desire - more so since tools like automated group finders have come into existence. Until a sandbox MMO is released that plays more like a video game and less like a virtual and also lets players make reasonable progress on their terms, sandboxes will continue to remain a niche product.
None of those games are difficult. Take Eve. Doing missions are "auto-pilot" to right range, and keep firing missiles to win. STO has much more challenging and interesting combat.
Well said! No one in this household will even consider open PvP games. And the reason is; we've played them before.
The fragmentation of the playerbase is a very good point, and one that I am sure many professional game companies are well aware of. To the point of 'That's why you can't have nice things'.
That said, if done very well, it could still be possibly attractive, but only DayZ and WoD are on my radar at this point.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
This ^^^
MMOs, in general, needs to be better games to be successful. They have progressed much but not in all forms of MMOs.
Comparing EVE's and STO's combat is pointless as they are polar opposites in design. Also, what level missions to you get up to when you played? Lower level missions are a walk in the park.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Rubbish. You need very little content in a sandbox game. What you need are tools so that the player creates their own content and decides what/how to play the game.
Examples: When I login do I want to craft, explore, pve, pvp, decorate a house, role play (in a player own bar/tavern), mini games chess checkers etc., and a many more options. Other tools would be ropes to climb, tackles, terra forming, etc: the list goes on. Just give us the tools, we will build the world/community.
http://www.entropiapartners.com/?r=22415
Market has been loud for the past 7+ years; 'make WoW clones!'.
Whether a pro-sandbox poster likes that fact or not is irrelevant.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
you have minecraft which sold a bunch of copies..i think like 2 million or more. then eve online had like 500k subs.
Those arent really mmorpgs...well eve is but its space so..u gotta like that in order to like it....
If you are looking for proof i can say there isnt alot of proof...there is a crowd for it but the majority favors traditional mmorpgs over sandbox mmorpgs.
Me personally...i prefer a game that keeps ya busy...meaning there is always something to do and you have a goal that is both short and long term....and by things to do i DONT MEAN grind mobs for hours to gain gold/xp/items...