You really don't understand why people don't play sandbox game.
People dont' play sandbox game because it equals FFA full loot pvp with lackster PvE dungeon.
I suppose more people will start playing sandbox game now that it is start to change.
Very true. Personally I would not anything that has FFA PvP. I play MMOs purely for entertainment and ganking and griefing don't belong in that category imo. Will play EQN of course and hope it'll have a sub option.
I won't be playing a pure sandbox game because in a pure sandbox there is no endgame. if i want to advance, if i want to get stronger then there should be a reason why i should get stronger, in themepark game we have end game raids/instances. i like story in rpg and i like it when story is told through set of quests and activities; sandbox don't have anything like that. people can say that i like "hand held" "baby feeding" etc but i simply don't care. give me reason why i should be advancing my character in a rpg, i don't look for "self entitlement" in an online game. i don't like to give my resume to people, "back when i played UO there was.." , i am not like that. when i play rpg i want to read and experience an epic story and if i can experience a story with many otehr players like me then it is a golden opportunity for me. sandbox don't provide me that. i will not be switching to arche age leaving WoW and Rift.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
The first MMO's had strong sandbox elements, but I do not think you can call them all sandbox as such. Sandbox and themepark have just become labels that are bandied around and hide the complexity of MMO's.
I think the new wave of MMO's will shift players to wanting more sandbox elements of gameplay in the mix. I do not think there will be a sea change. Themepark MMO's are designed on very sound gameplay principles, our preference for that sort of play will not just disappear.
To a certain extent I think the whole debate is a mistake. Nearly all MMO's are now strongly themepark, players realise MMO's have got worse, so they blame it on the themepark style. But you can do themepark many ways and I would suggest it was the loss of old school gameplay principles that makes modern easyMMO's look bad as much as the loss of sandbox elements.
I think MMOs may well get better purely for the reason that sandbox elements will other something new. Modern MMOs desperately need something new wherever it comes from. Also you can mix pathways with open spaces both as a game world and in gameplay. The two play styles are not exclusive.
But I think the real elephant in the room is the inability of MMOs to maintain a long term player base and how the playerbase is now used to the idea they will always move on after a couple of months, no matter what. This creates an environment were you have to be as good as GW2 to keep players. That is a very high bar and I do not think it matters what type of MMO gameplay you have. It is a cut throat market and we are going to see sandbox MMO's struggle just as much as their more themepark predecessors.
In the start, almost all mmos were sandbox. Then came EQ and later WoW with the themepark formula. The phenomenal success of WoW shaped the mmo market for the next 10 years, creating a paradigm that all AAA productions followed. The sandboxes became indie products.
Well, with the upcoming wave of AAA sandboxes/sandparks, will the market and the public preferences change once again in the opposite direction? Will these AAA mmorpgs "teach" the public to play and appreciate sandboxes? Will the themepark elements that some of them bring within serve as a "bridge" in that transition?
But I think the real elephant in the room is the inability of MMOs to maintain a long term player base and how the playerbase is now used to the idea they will always move on after a couple of months, no matter what. This creates an environment were you have to be as good as GW2 to keep players. That is a very high bar and I do not think it matters what type of MMO gameplay you have. It is a cut throat market and we are going to see sandbox MMO's struggle just as much as their more themepark predecessors.
I think the idea of keeping the same player long term is just a fool's errand. The best a game can hope for is a player may come back from time to time to check out new content.
If devs understand this model, they can always make money. GW2 is doing it by B2P. In fact, they don't need players to be long term. In fact, churn is perfectly good for GW2 since they get their money from box sales.
I think the main "advantage" themeparks always will have over sandboxes, making them have more appeal to the masses, is the fact that players always win and always progress playing them. The players will (in 99% of times) be more stronger/richer than when they logged in. In the other hand, sandboxes have the possibility of losses, sometimes big, but always meaningful.
In the start, almost all mmos were sandbox. Then came EQ and later WoW with the themepark formula. The phenomenal success of WoW shaped the mmo market for the next 10 years, creating a paradigm that all AAA productions followed. The sandboxes became indie products.
Well, with the upcoming wave of AAA sandboxes/sandparks, will the market and the public preferences change once again in the opposite direction? Will these AAA mmorpgs "teach" the public to play and appreciate sandboxes? Will the themepark elements that some of them bring within serve as a "bridge" in that transition?
Originally posted by jesteralways I won't be playing a pure sandbox game because in a pure sandbox there is no endgame. if i want to advance, if i want to get stronger then there should be a reason why i should get stronger, in themepark game we have end game raids/instances.
In sandboxes, the usual reason to become stronger is to gain positions in the social, political and economic stage of the game world. People usually have the chance of becoming famous, recognized, own castles or territories, make part of a guild history from the ground to proeminence, etc.
i like story in rpg and i like it when story is told through set of quests and activities; sandbox don't have anything like that. people can say that i like "hand held" "baby feeding" etc but i simply don't care. give me reason why i should be advancing my character in a rpg, i don't look for "self entitlement" in an online game. i don't like to give my resume to people, "back when i played UO there was.." , i am not like that. when i play rpg i want to read and experience an epic story and if i can experience a story with many otehr players like me then it is a golden opportunity for me. sandbox don't provide me that. i will not be switching to arche age leaving WoW and Rift.
In truth about 70% of people that plays themepark dont give a shit to the story. I was very surprised when i discovered by the first time that people didn't read the quests, skip cinematics or rush through dramatized content. When i played themeparks (WoW and Tera) i read all quests because i know that the main purpose of a themepark is to tell a story. Play themeparks and dont give atention to his lore is like going to a strip club only to hear the background music.
By the way, SWTOR had the biggest fail of mmo story precisely because they spent hundreds of milions in a thing that 70% of people dont give a shit: a rich full voiced story.
I think the main "advantage" themeparks always will have over sandboxes, making them have more appeal to the masses, is the fact that players always win and always progress playing them. The players will (in 99% of times) be more stronger/richer than when they logged in. In the other hand, sandboxes have the possibility of losses, sometimes big, but always meaningful.
What on earth are you talking about?
Essentially a themepark is someone handing you a puzzle and saying "solve this", while a sandbox is you creating your own puzzle. The former has a failure condition, the latter doesn't.
Themeparks are dev-created content ("rides") which in an RPG setting usually means you have a wealth of challenge options from low-challenge low-reward to high-challenge high-reward. In all cases if you fail to exhibit enough skill to defeat the challenge, you fail.
Sandboxes are player-created content ("sand") which in an RPG setting is either paired with themepark content to create a failure condition (and death itself is a dev-created game rule) or is based on PVP, where MMO PVP is the most lightweight, casual form of PVP possible (Not a skilled player? No worries: just play longer (progression), or zerg more (population) to offset your skill disadvantage.)
The Sandboxes which will succeed will be the ones with the best-quality themepark mechanics in them. If upcoming sandboxes are too freeform (too sandbox) then they'll fail because that's boring to players. If upcoming sandboxes have themepark challenges inside them, then they'll either fail or succeed based on the quality of those themepark elements (they have to provide the 'sweet spot' of challenge for each player, or players will be frustrated or bored.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the main "advantage" themeparks always will have over sandboxes, making them have more appeal to the masses, is the fact that players always win and always progress playing them. The players will (in 99% of times) be more stronger/richer than when they logged in. In the other hand, sandboxes have the possibility of losses, sometimes big, but always meaningful.
What on earth are you talking about?
Essentially a themepark is someone handing you a puzzle and saying "solve this", while a sandbox is you creating your own puzzle. The former has a failure condition, the latter doesn't.
Themeparks are dev-created content ("rides") which in an RPG setting usually means you have a wealth of challenge options from low-challenge low-reward to high-challenge high-reward. In all cases if you fail to exhibit enough skill to defeat the challenge, you fail.
Sandboxes are player-created content ("sand") which in an RPG setting is either paired with themepark content to create a failure condition (and death itself is a dev-created game rule) or is based on PVP, where MMO PVP is the most lightweight, casual form of PVP possible (Not a skilled player? No worries: just play longer (progression), or zerg more (population) to offset your skill disadvantage.)
The Sandboxes which will succeed will be the ones with the best-quality themepark mechanics in them. If upcoming sandboxes are too freeform (too sandbox) then they'll fail because that's boring to players. If upcoming sandboxes have themepark challenges inside them, then they'll either fail or succeed based on the quality of those themepark elements (they have to provide the 'sweet spot' of challenge for each player, or players will be frustrated or bored.)
Well there is an illusion of success in a themepark, I think you must realise the devs do not want us to think of it as a content ride. There is the idea of being one of the top dogs in the game for a minority but also the idea you have made it just by getting to top level.
I do not think there is any perfect place for a themepark/sandbox to pitch itself. So I do not think the ones that will succeed will be the ones with the best quality themepark elements. On the other hand strip too many of those thempark elements away or do them poorly and I cannot see how such a MMO will make a splash. Maybe for a niche of players but that is all.
In the start, almost all mmos were sandbox. Then came EQ and later WoW with the themepark formula. The phenomenal success of WoW shaped the mmo market for the next 10 years, creating a paradigm that all AAA productions followed. The sandboxes became indie products.
Well, with the upcoming wave of AAA sandboxes/sandparks, will the market and the public preferences change once again in the opposite direction? Will these AAA mmorpgs "teach" the public to play and appreciate sandboxes? Will the themepark elements that some of them bring within serve as a "bridge" in that transition?
Open to opinions.
What constitutes a "wave" of releases?
Two or three?
More than zero.
I do wonder if people will adapt to having some freedom and consequences to their actions. Will people adjust to not having their hands held? I hope so. Being told what to do and being lead by the hand is insanely dull, in my opinion.
Hell, I'm playing Darkfall and I hate PvP. Just the prospect of freedom and being treated like an adult allow me to over look the unique community (putting it nicely) and PvP focus.
Always has been a preference to sandbox games, just over shadowed by companies making games for wimpy little kids that expect their mmorpg to be like a console rpg and dumbed the industry down to a point they had no choice but to go back old school.
It will take awhile to get these newer games in tip top shape. And hopefully end the entitlement, I want, give me free, lazy games that have spewed out over the past 5+ years.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but you have 2000 crap games, stop trying to turn a handful into those.
I play MMORPGs to get gameplay experiences I cannot get in other genres.
Massively Multiplayer Online.
That's the big one.
Large group PvE, sometimes even PvP.
I also like on-demand content - because I don't have all the time in the world anymore to farm/wait/camp/etc.
So unless the MMORPG has on-demand large group PvE, sometimes PvP, and highly robust character building and progression, count me out.
Virtual world aspects like housing and an evolving storyline are big, big pluses in my book.
Interdependency of players, as in everyone plays a role and you need other people of different roles to do great things, is a big defining point of the Massively Multiplayer part to me.
What's the point of having all these other people around if you don't need them?
I don't want your action combat. I don't want to build the game myself. i don't want to solo everything. I really, really don't want your F2P, P2W, RMT nonsense either. Give me the buffet - one price, unlimited access.
For all the new and wonderful things this genre has added over the past decade+, they sure have tried to take away FAR too many of the things that make the MMO genre unique and special.
I feel alot of MMO gamers are sick and tired of the same old theme-park games.
The great thing about sandbox games is that the content is run by players. Which means people can do unique and interesting things with the tools given to them.
The problem with previous sandbox MMORPG's is that you often don't know what your doing, and it takes a while to understand it all. Modern gamers don't have the mental patience us older gamers do (Damn did I say that im 27 lol i feel old now). Which is why I can see a combo theme-park and sandbox emerging. Theme park to hold the players hand and guide them to the sand and how to use it.
One can hope it does change the way people view MMORPG's and set a new bar. I want a living, breathing world, a world which you can change via building and destruction, a seamless world (no zones) and where areas you went early game aren't redundant but still needed for resources/conquest etc. A game where you feel like a part of the world and not some lobby game where you queue up in the main city and wait for PVP/PVE.
In the start, almost all mmos were sandbox. Then came EQ and later WoW with the themepark formula. The phenomenal success of WoW shaped the mmo market for the next 10 years, creating a paradigm that all AAA productions followed. The sandboxes became indie products.
Well, with the upcoming wave of AAA sandboxes/sandparks, will the market and the public preferences change once again in the opposite direction? Will these AAA mmorpgs "teach" the public to play and appreciate sandboxes? Will the themepark elements that some of them bring within serve as a "bridge" in that transition?
Open to opinions.
No they won't change any perceptions. If they are too easy people that are 'hardcore' (like members of this forum) will complain loudly and the general public will play ( see GW2 as a prime example). If you make it too hard, the hardcore will be happy and the general public won't play (read dead game) and this is due to not many hardcore players. It is as simple as that - make the game for where the money is.
Old school hardcore mmorpg historian here, speaking from 25 years of mmorpg experience, I've seen it all sandpark, themepark, ballpark. I have also performed many many extensive research projects on this very subject. I can tell you today without a shadow of doubt that public preference will be related in some way shape or form to the amount of enjoyment they get from the games, and if you don't believe me look it up in the plethora of knowledgeable books, articles, podcasts, and web pages that define fun.
In the start, almost all mmos were sandbox. Then came EQ and later WoW with the themepark formula. The phenomenal success of WoW shaped the mmo market for the next 10 years, creating a paradigm that all AAA productions followed. The sandboxes became indie products.
Well, with the upcoming wave of AAA sandboxes/sandparks, will the market and the public preferences change once again in the opposite direction? Will these AAA mmorpgs "teach" the public to play and appreciate sandboxes? Will the themepark elements that some of them bring within serve as a "bridge" in that transition?
Open to opinions.
Pretty much agree with your potted history of MMO's though I am not sure about this 'wave of AAA sandboxes". Sure some games are claiming to be more 'sandboxy' and I hear one is actually a Smedbox. I dunno, developers are definitely folding back into the mix some of the ideas that got surgically removed from EQ/WoW. There are even <gasp> new things being tried but I don't really see a sandbox renaissance?
Well, with the upcoming wave of AAA sandboxes/sandparks, will the market and the public preferences change once again in the opposite direction? Will these AAA mmorpgs "teach" the public to play and appreciate sandboxes? Will the themepark elements that some of them bring within serve as a "bridge" in that transition?
What constitutes a "wave" of releases?
Two or three?
The Repopulation
ArcheAge
EQ Next
Embers of Caerus
World of Darkness
Black Desert
(Just off the top of my head)
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
Well there is an illusion of success in a themepark, I think you must realise the devs do not want us to think of it as a content ride. There is the idea of being one of the top dogs in the game for a minority but also the idea you have made it just by getting to top level.
I do not think there is any perfect place for a themepark/sandbox to pitch itself. So I do not think the ones that will succeed will be the ones with the best quality themepark elements. On the other hand strip too many of those thempark elements away or do them poorly and I cannot see how such a MMO will make a splash. Maybe for a niche of players but that is all.
Why would the devs care if we think of it as a ride? Dev-crafted "rides" can be extremely elaborate, deep gameplay experiences.
The quality of a "ride" in a game is actually rooted in the possibility of failure -- in player decisions mattering -- so that makes it a lot different than a real-world ride where participants seldom have decisions to make.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well there is an illusion of success in a themepark, I think you must realise the devs do not want us to think of it as a content ride. There is the idea of being one of the top dogs in the game for a minority but also the idea you have made it just by getting to top level.
I do not think there is any perfect place for a themepark/sandbox to pitch itself. So I do not think the ones that will succeed will be the ones with the best quality themepark elements. On the other hand strip too many of those thempark elements away or do them poorly and I cannot see how such a MMO will make a splash. Maybe for a niche of players but that is all.
Why would the devs care if we think of it as a ride? Dev-crafted "rides" can be extremely elaborate, deep gameplay experiences.
The quality of a "ride" in a game is actually rooted in the possibility of failure -- in player decisions mattering -- so that makes it a lot different than a real-world ride where participants seldom have decisions to make.
Well a ride has the connotation to me of being a simple Disneyland style experience. It does not seem to for you, so I imagine this is why you think the devs would be happy for us to think of their games in that way. Indeed if you can fail a "ride" then we do not mean the same thing when using that term.
I play MMORPGs to get gameplay experiences I cannot get in other genres.
Massively Multiplayer Online.
That's the big one.
Large group PvE, sometimes even PvP.
I also like on-demand content - because I don't have all the time in the world anymore to farm/wait/camp/etc.
So unless the MMORPG has on-demand large group PvE, sometimes PvP, and highly robust character building and progression, count me out.
Virtual world aspects like housing and an evolving storyline are big, big pluses in my book.
Interdependency of players, as in everyone plays a role and you need other people of different roles to do great things, is a big defining point of the Massively Multiplayer part to me.
What's the point of having all these other people around if you don't need them?
I don't want your action combat. I don't want to build the game myself. i don't want to solo everything. I really, really don't want your F2P, P2W, RMT nonsense either. Give me the buffet - one price, unlimited access.
For all the new and wonderful things this genre has added over the past decade+, they sure have tried to take away FAR too many of the things that make the MMO genre unique and special.
Comments
Very true. Personally I would not anything that has FFA PvP. I play MMOs purely for entertainment and ganking and griefing don't belong in that category imo. Will play EQN of course and hope it'll have a sub option.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
The first MMO's had strong sandbox elements, but I do not think you can call them all sandbox as such. Sandbox and themepark have just become labels that are bandied around and hide the complexity of MMO's.
I think the new wave of MMO's will shift players to wanting more sandbox elements of gameplay in the mix. I do not think there will be a sea change. Themepark MMO's are designed on very sound gameplay principles, our preference for that sort of play will not just disappear.
To a certain extent I think the whole debate is a mistake. Nearly all MMO's are now strongly themepark, players realise MMO's have got worse, so they blame it on the themepark style. But you can do themepark many ways and I would suggest it was the loss of old school gameplay principles that makes modern easyMMO's look bad as much as the loss of sandbox elements.
I think MMOs may well get better purely for the reason that sandbox elements will other something new. Modern MMOs desperately need something new wherever it comes from. Also you can mix pathways with open spaces both as a game world and in gameplay. The two play styles are not exclusive.
But I think the real elephant in the room is the inability of MMOs to maintain a long term player base and how the playerbase is now used to the idea they will always move on after a couple of months, no matter what. This creates an environment were you have to be as good as GW2 to keep players. That is a very high bar and I do not think it matters what type of MMO gameplay you have. It is a cut throat market and we are going to see sandbox MMO's struggle just as much as their more themepark predecessors.
What constitutes a "wave" of releases?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I think the idea of keeping the same player long term is just a fool's errand. The best a game can hope for is a player may come back from time to time to check out new content.
If devs understand this model, they can always make money. GW2 is doing it by B2P. In fact, they don't need players to be long term. In fact, churn is perfectly good for GW2 since they get their money from box sales.
I think the main "advantage" themeparks always will have over sandboxes, making them have more appeal to the masses, is the fact that players always win and always progress playing them. The players will (in 99% of times) be more stronger/richer than when they logged in. In the other hand, sandboxes have the possibility of losses, sometimes big, but always meaningful.
So you never played WoW.
Look some videos or pictures of WoW gameplay.
Two or three?
In truth about 70% of people that plays themepark dont give a shit to the story. I was very surprised when i discovered by the first time that people didn't read the quests, skip cinematics or rush through dramatized content. When i played themeparks (WoW and Tera) i read all quests because i know that the main purpose of a themepark is to tell a story. Play themeparks and dont give atention to his lore is like going to a strip club only to hear the background music.
By the way, SWTOR had the biggest fail of mmo story precisely because they spent hundreds of milions in a thing that 70% of people dont give a shit: a rich full voiced story.
What on earth are you talking about?
Essentially a themepark is someone handing you a puzzle and saying "solve this", while a sandbox is you creating your own puzzle. The former has a failure condition, the latter doesn't.
Themeparks are dev-created content ("rides") which in an RPG setting usually means you have a wealth of challenge options from low-challenge low-reward to high-challenge high-reward. In all cases if you fail to exhibit enough skill to defeat the challenge, you fail.
Sandboxes are player-created content ("sand") which in an RPG setting is either paired with themepark content to create a failure condition (and death itself is a dev-created game rule) or is based on PVP, where MMO PVP is the most lightweight, casual form of PVP possible (Not a skilled player? No worries: just play longer (progression), or zerg more (population) to offset your skill disadvantage.)
The Sandboxes which will succeed will be the ones with the best-quality themepark mechanics in them. If upcoming sandboxes are too freeform (too sandbox) then they'll fail because that's boring to players. If upcoming sandboxes have themepark challenges inside them, then they'll either fail or succeed based on the quality of those themepark elements (they have to provide the 'sweet spot' of challenge for each player, or players will be frustrated or bored.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well there is an illusion of success in a themepark, I think you must realise the devs do not want us to think of it as a content ride. There is the idea of being one of the top dogs in the game for a minority but also the idea you have made it just by getting to top level.
I do not think there is any perfect place for a themepark/sandbox to pitch itself. So I do not think the ones that will succeed will be the ones with the best quality themepark elements. On the other hand strip too many of those thempark elements away or do them poorly and I cannot see how such a MMO will make a splash. Maybe for a niche of players but that is all.
More than zero.
I do wonder if people will adapt to having some freedom and consequences to their actions. Will people adjust to not having their hands held? I hope so. Being told what to do and being lead by the hand is insanely dull, in my opinion.
Hell, I'm playing Darkfall and I hate PvP. Just the prospect of freedom and being treated like an adult allow me to over look the unique community (putting it nicely) and PvP focus.
Always has been a preference to sandbox games, just over shadowed by companies making games for wimpy little kids that expect their mmorpg to be like a console rpg and dumbed the industry down to a point they had no choice but to go back old school.
It will take awhile to get these newer games in tip top shape. And hopefully end the entitlement, I want, give me free, lazy games that have spewed out over the past 5+ years.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but you have 2000 crap games, stop trying to turn a handful into those.
I play MMORPGs to get gameplay experiences I cannot get in other genres.
Massively Multiplayer Online.
That's the big one.
Large group PvE, sometimes even PvP.
I also like on-demand content - because I don't have all the time in the world anymore to farm/wait/camp/etc.
So unless the MMORPG has on-demand large group PvE, sometimes PvP, and highly robust character building and progression, count me out.
Virtual world aspects like housing and an evolving storyline are big, big pluses in my book.
Interdependency of players, as in everyone plays a role and you need other people of different roles to do great things, is a big defining point of the Massively Multiplayer part to me.
What's the point of having all these other people around if you don't need them?
I don't want your action combat. I don't want to build the game myself. i don't want to solo everything. I really, really don't want your F2P, P2W, RMT nonsense either. Give me the buffet - one price, unlimited access.
For all the new and wonderful things this genre has added over the past decade+, they sure have tried to take away FAR too many of the things that make the MMO genre unique and special.
I feel alot of MMO gamers are sick and tired of the same old theme-park games.
The great thing about sandbox games is that the content is run by players. Which means people can do unique and interesting things with the tools given to them.
The problem with previous sandbox MMORPG's is that you often don't know what your doing, and it takes a while to understand it all. Modern gamers don't have the mental patience us older gamers do (Damn did I say that im 27 lol i feel old now). Which is why I can see a combo theme-park and sandbox emerging. Theme park to hold the players hand and guide them to the sand and how to use it.
One can hope it does change the way people view MMORPG's and set a new bar. I want a living, breathing world, a world which you can change via building and destruction, a seamless world (no zones) and where areas you went early game aren't redundant but still needed for resources/conquest etc. A game where you feel like a part of the world and not some lobby game where you queue up in the main city and wait for PVP/PVE.
No they won't change any perceptions. If they are too easy people that are 'hardcore' (like members of this forum) will complain loudly and the general public will play ( see GW2 as a prime example). If you make it too hard, the hardcore will be happy and the general public won't play (read dead game) and this is due to not many hardcore players. It is as simple as that - make the game for where the money is.
Pretty much agree with your potted history of MMO's though I am not sure about this 'wave of AAA sandboxes". Sure some games are claiming to be more 'sandboxy' and I hear one is actually a Smedbox. I dunno, developers are definitely folding back into the mix some of the ideas that got surgically removed from EQ/WoW. There are even <gasp> new things being tried but I don't really see a sandbox renaissance?
Yes, but sandbox is not the only alternative. In fact, you see players flocking to MOBAs, online APRGs, and other types of online games.
That is also why new ideas like Destiny and Division are being heavily invested in.
The Repopulation
ArcheAge
EQ Next
Embers of Caerus
World of Darkness
Black Desert
(Just off the top of my head)
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
Why would the devs care if we think of it as a ride? Dev-crafted "rides" can be extremely elaborate, deep gameplay experiences.
The quality of a "ride" in a game is actually rooted in the possibility of failure -- in player decisions mattering -- so that makes it a lot different than a real-world ride where participants seldom have decisions to make.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well a ride has the connotation to me of being a simple Disneyland style experience. It does not seem to for you, so I imagine this is why you think the devs would be happy for us to think of their games in that way. Indeed if you can fail a "ride" then we do not mean the same thing when using that term.
My thoughts exactly, well said!