Originally posted by Thoemse It's a money grab but here we go: Entropia Universe.
Oh yeah! I forgot about that one. Definitely too expensive. If it was a $15 a month mmo, I'd probably still be playing it. Lots of fun and amazing housing.
I thought it's from 2003.
Yeah, but what is the point of the 8 year restriction on the question again?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
SWG, while arguably a Sand box with various theme parks, was most definitely a Triple A MMO. It had consensual PvP and it did quite well until it was 'fixed' to death.
Up coming, Arche age, the Repopulation, I know you said released, but patience they are coming. Then what argument will you use? Because this one is weak and false any way, better head to the drawing board.
Sadly, SWG came out in 2003 ... I think the OP is asking within the last 8 years.
The only games I can think of that claim to be "sandbox" and don't have ffa pvp are ones that are still in development. However, it seems like everyone has their own definition of what a "sandbox" is.
One man's sandbox is another cat's litter box... just saying...
Well if it's that hard to come up with a non-FFA PvP sandbox in the past eight years, guess that means we're missing out and it's past time we have one.
Get to work, devs. I like sandbox. I hate gankers.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
Meh, I don't think the FFA PvP opinion is mutually exclusive to any generation, my retort was more towards the limited thinking aspect of the post. The "anyone can have an opinion but only my opinion is correct" and "tolerant of only those people who have the same ideals as me" crowd.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
I don't see how they can be such fools, what with Darkfall's incredible player numbers. Isn't it in the tens of millions by now?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
They can fill their boots and laugh all the way to ArcheAge, though. And they might turn that one into a short-lived game (and I'm betting they will), but they're still getting it. And nothing that compares to ArcheAge is coming out in the near future for sandbox PvE players.
I'm not bitter (well maybe a little, cause...ships and gliders) but I am puzzled by it. If there are more of us than there are of them, then we're doing something very wrong, or else why aren't we drowning in PVE sandboxes?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
If you are indeed 39 and feel like a sandbox must include FFA PvP in order to be labeled a sandbox, then you only help to support what I was saying. UO, one of the first graphical MMORPGs with FFA PvP (and a great one IMO), came out when you were in your mid 20s.
But I mostly agree with Quesa about the close minded nature of youth. The difference is that I wouldn't call it generational but instead call it a function of youth. Every generation deals with the arrogance of youth.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
They can fill their boots and laugh all the way to ArcheAge, though. And they might turn that one into a short-lived game (and I'm betting they will), but they're still getting it. And nothing that compares to ArcheAge is coming out in the near future for sandbox PvE players.
I'm not bitter (well maybe a little, cause...ships and gliders) but I am puzzled by it. If there are more of us than there are of them, then we're doing something very wrong, or else why aren't we drowning in PVE sandboxes?
AA isn't ffa it has safe zones. We're not drowning in them because sandbox has always been a knee jerk reaction to I don't like wow clones. I'd be willing to bet if you dropped most mmo players into a sandbox they wouldn't know what to do first and wouldn't have fun for very long.
It's easy to say I don't like wow so I want a sandbox but until you've actually played one how do you really know you're the type that can go out every day with no yellow brick road to follow. They sound great on paper but all sandbox games have failed by todays standards and had to add theme park content to them. ( by that I mean no 100 mil game would turn a profit from the numbers they have playing )
So we are getting sandbox features in upcoming mmos but even devs seem gun shy of a true open world sandbox...and for good reason.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
They can fill their boots and laugh all the way to ArcheAge, though. And they might turn that one into a short-lived game (and I'm betting they will), but they're still getting it. And nothing that compares to ArcheAge is coming out in the near future for sandbox PvE players.
I'm not bitter (well maybe a little, cause...ships and gliders) but I am puzzled by it. If there are more of us than there are of them, then we're doing something very wrong, or else why aren't we drowning in PVE sandboxes?
AA isn't ffa it has safe zones. We're not drowning in them because sandbox has always been a knee jerk reaction to I don't like wow clones. I'd be willing to bet if you dropped most mmo players into a sandbox they wouldn't know what to do first and wouldn't have fun for very long.
It's easy to say I don't like wow so I want a sandbox but until you've actually played one how do you really know you're the type that can go out every day with no yellow brick road to follow. They sound great on paper but all sandbox games have failed by todays standards and had to add theme park content to them. ( by that I mean no 100 mil game would turn a profit from the numbers they have playing )
So we are getting sandbox features in upcoming mmos but even devs seem gun shy of a true open world sandbox...and for good reason.
AA doesn't seem conducive to actually enjoying the game while %100 avoiding gankers, therefore, by my definition, it is ffa.
I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing sandbox is less popular than themepark (speaking of nitpicking, AA is really a hybrid I guess) what I'm saying is, somehow a tiny percentage of gamers who PvP have gotten far more of what they want from sandbox creating devs than the PVE sandbox players, even though presumably more of us would play a sandbox if we didn't have to deal with gankers to do it.
Or perhaps less of us would than I think. I know I would, because I've played Xsyon, playing Everquest Landmark now, and wishing I could play AA (but not going to deal with gankers in order to do it).
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing sandbox is less popular than themepark (speaking of nitpicking, AA is really a hybrid I guess) what I'm saying is, somehow a tiny percentage of gamers who PvP have gotten far more of what they want from sandbox creating devs than the PVE sandbox players, even though presumably more of us would play a sandbox if we didn't have to deal with gankers to do it.
Or perhaps less of us would than I think. I know I would, because I've played Xsyon, playing Everquest Landmark now, and wishing I could play AA (but not going to deal with gankers in order to do it).
Ah I never said A tiny % pvp. I said a tiny % want ffa pvp. Something like 80% of mmo gamers want pvp in their mmos, they just want it on their terms ( flagging, arena battlegrounds etc ) Those games have always had the, look how successful wow is to contend with though. So we got a lot of hard core themeparks. And when you look at the examples of sandboxes before it's not all that surprising they ran far away from them drooling after wow.
Things are changing there. Lots of games are trying to add more sandbox features to a frame work of themepark gaming. They're calling them sandparks. EQN ...from what little we know of it is trying for this. Wildstar said it was going to do it but... I don't really see it.
I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing sandbox is less popular than themepark (speaking of nitpicking, AA is really a hybrid I guess) what I'm saying is, somehow a tiny percentage of gamers who PvP have gotten far more of what they want from sandbox creating devs than the PVE sandbox players, even though presumably more of us would play a sandbox if we didn't have to deal with gankers to do it.
Or perhaps less of us would than I think. I know I would, because I've played Xsyon, playing Everquest Landmark now, and wishing I could play AA (but not going to deal with gankers in order to do it).
Ah I never said A tiny % pvp. I said a tiny % want ffa pvp. Something like 80% of mmo gamers want pvp in their mmos, they just want it on their terms ( flagging, arena battlegrounds etc ) Those games have always had the, look how successful wow is to contend with though. So we got a lot of hard core themeparks. And when you look at the examples of sandboxes before it's not all that surprising they ran far away from them drooling after wow.
Things are changing there. Lots of games are trying to add more sandbox features to a frame work of themepark gaming. They're calling them sandparks. EQN ...from what little we know of it is trying for this. Wildstar said it was going to do it but... I don't really see it.
Lots of games are starting to add some features, and Everquest Landmark is shaping up nicely, but we've had to wait too long already.
And I did understand what you meant. Or I think I did: The kind of PvP that you can't entirely avoid in order to play the game in an enjoyable way even if you really, really want to avoid it. So even if safe areas exist, the game is designed such that it will drive you into a PvP area sooner or later. Or you'll quit due to the limitations of the safe zone.
Eve is a bit of a different beast, since some people not only don't leave hi-sec, they don't even undock, making them %100 safe. But I couldn't get into that.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
They can fill their boots and laugh all the way to ArcheAge, though. And they might turn that one into a short-lived game (and I'm betting they will), but they're still getting it. And nothing that compares to ArcheAge is coming out in the near future for sandbox PvE players.
I'm not bitter (well maybe a little, cause...ships and gliders) but I am puzzled by it. If there are more of us than there are of them, then we're doing something very wrong, or else why aren't we drowning in PVE sandboxes?
AA isn't ffa it has safe zones. We're not drowning in them because sandbox has always been a knee jerk reaction to I don't like wow clones. I'd be willing to bet if you dropped most mmo players into a sandbox they wouldn't know what to do first and wouldn't have fun for very long.
It's easy to say I don't like wow so I want a sandbox but until you've actually played one how do you really know you're the type that can go out every day with no yellow brick road to follow. They sound great on paper but all sandbox games have failed by todays standards and had to add theme park content to them. ( by that I mean no 100 mil game would turn a profit from the numbers they have playing )
So we are getting sandbox features in upcoming mmos but even devs seem gun shy of a true open world sandbox...and for good reason.
AA doesn't seem conducive to actually enjoying the game while %100 avoiding gankers, therefore, by my definition, it is ffa.
I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing sandbox is less popular than themepark (speaking of nitpicking, AA is really a hybrid I guess) what I'm saying is, somehow a tiny percentage of gamers who PvP have gotten far more of what they want from sandbox creating devs than the PVE sandbox players, even though presumably more of us would play a sandbox if we didn't have to deal with gankers to do it.
Or perhaps less of us would than I think. I know I would, because I've played Xsyon, playing Everquest Landmark now, and wishing I could play AA (but not going to deal with gankers in order to do it).
What he's saying is that even though people *claim* to want sandboxes, taking away any of the standard stuff makes people have heart attacks.
I can't count how many people playing ESO would whine in chat because they "ran out of quests" and ended up 5 levels below the next zone. If you don't hold their hand and tell them to go to this quest hub and do these then move on, they fall apart.
Same thing with the AH, no one wants to trade anymore, they just complain that they can't have an AH. Same thing with mini-map, dungeon finder, etc, etc. All the while, they simultaneously complained that it wasn't like Skyrim.
It seems to me, that people are A-Okay with the idea of a sandbox, as long as they can be walked through everything and can skip anything tedious, arduous or otherwise not immediately accessible. And that's why you don't get PvE Sandboxes, because people only want it in theory.
As for all the PvP "sandboxes" I don't see any game out there being a sandbox. What I see are battlegrounds where instead of capture the flag, you're playing capture the resources. There's no substance to any of them, nothing to do outside of gather mats and fight over who gets to gather mats. That sounds less like a sandbox and more like a themepark that has just one ride.
And that's why WoW is still popular. It may be a themepark, but they have many many rides to choose from. I think what would be successful as a "PvE Sandbox" would be WoW without levels and lateral character development. Lots of things to do, but no need to do anything in any particular order. But the moment you introduce vertical progression (leveling) people need their hands held.
On an aside, one reason PvP Sandboxes don't draw a large crowd is because not all PvPers are as good as other PvPers and they don't want to be at the bottom of the food chain in a PvP game. It's one of the main reasons having fodder (aka PvE'ers) in OWPvP is so that the lesser skilled PvPers can feel good about themselves because they always have someone they can pwn.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
They can fill their boots and laugh all the way to ArcheAge, though. And they might turn that one into a short-lived game (and I'm betting they will), but they're still getting it. And nothing that compares to ArcheAge is coming out in the near future for sandbox PvE players.
I'm not bitter (well maybe a little, cause...ships and gliders) but I am puzzled by it. If there are more of us than there are of them, then we're doing something very wrong, or else why aren't we drowning in PVE sandboxes?
AA isn't ffa it has safe zones. We're not drowning in them because sandbox has always been a knee jerk reaction to I don't like wow clones. I'd be willing to bet if you dropped most mmo players into a sandbox they wouldn't know what to do first and wouldn't have fun for very long.
It's easy to say I don't like wow so I want a sandbox but until you've actually played one how do you really know you're the type that can go out every day with no yellow brick road to follow. They sound great on paper but all sandbox games have failed by todays standards and had to add theme park content to them. ( by that I mean no 100 mil game would turn a profit from the numbers they have playing )
So we are getting sandbox features in upcoming mmos but even devs seem gun shy of a true open world sandbox...and for good reason.
AA doesn't seem conducive to actually enjoying the game while %100 avoiding gankers, therefore, by my definition, it is ffa.
I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing sandbox is less popular than themepark (speaking of nitpicking, AA is really a hybrid I guess) what I'm saying is, somehow a tiny percentage of gamers who PvP have gotten far more of what they want from sandbox creating devs than the PVE sandbox players, even though presumably more of us would play a sandbox if we didn't have to deal with gankers to do it.
Or perhaps less of us would than I think. I know I would, because I've played Xsyon, playing Everquest Landmark now, and wishing I could play AA (but not going to deal with gankers in order to do it).
I'd actually would be pretty impressed if someone were able to accumulate mass wealth while avoiding pvp 100% of the time, since that would seem to be the harder thing to do within the game.
What he's saying is that even though people *claim* to want sandboxes, taking away any of the standard stuff makes people have heart attacks.
I can't count how many people playing ESO would whine in chat because they "ran out of quests" and ended up 5 levels below the next zone. If you don't hold their hand and tell them to go to this quest hub and do these then move on, they fall apart.
Same thing with the AH, no one wants to trade anymore, they just complain that they can't have an AH. Same thing with mini-map, dungeon finder, etc, etc. All the while, they simultaneously complained that it wasn't like Skyrim.
It seems to me, that people are A-Okay with the idea of a sandbox, as long as they can be walked through everything and can skip anything tedious, arduous or otherwise not immediately accessible. And that's why you don't get PvE Sandboxes, because people only want it in theory.
As for all the PvP "sandboxes" I don't see any game out there being a sandbox. What I see are battlegrounds where instead of capture the flag, you're playing capture the resources. There's no substance to any of them, nothing to do outside of gather mats and fight over who gets to gather mats. That sounds less like a sandbox and more like a themepark that has just one ride.
And that's why WoW is still popular. It may be a themepark, but they have many many rides to choose from. I think what would be successful as a "PvE Sandbox" would be WoW without levels and lateral character development. Lots of things to do, but no need to do anything in any particular order. But the moment you introduce vertical progression (leveling) people need their hands held.
On an aside, one reason PvP Sandboxes don't draw a large crowd is because not all PvPers are as good as other PvPers and they don't want to be at the bottom of the food chain in a PvP game. It's one of the main reasons having fodder (aka PvE'ers) in OWPvP is so that the lesser skilled PvPers can feel good about themselves because they always have someone they can pwn.
Agree with your last point, which is why I despise gankers. They're not PvPers, they're just pests.
My first MMO was Anarchy Online, not a sandbox, but you could quest through taking missions if you wanted, you could grind mobs, grind bosses, do open world dungeons, or get completely lost for hours and be killed repeatedly by everything that crawled, rolled, and hopped (and I did, often). So 'themeparks' all seem too restrictive to me, too many quests, too few alternative means of progressing, worlds too small, pace too steady and carefully managed.
Oh well. At least Wildstar has housing. But I'm still one of those players that really does want a sandbox, even when it requires me to get my head out of my hind end and decide for myself what I'm going to do next.
I'm passing on ArcheAge, which seems to be an otherwise really nice hybrid, in order to play a themepark, solely because I'm not going to waste another second of my precious time dealing with gankers. The funny thing is, I will PvP. I'd do trade runs into PvP areas, I'd merc for a guild doing siege stuff, I'm just not going to put up with being one-hit by some high level fools when I'm trying to skin a bunny rabbit. And it's so frustrating that no finished, polished, AAA sandbox exists for me to play in. Oh well. Maybe I should see go see how Xsyon has progressed lately.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Comments
Second Life is a chatroom, not a sandbox MMO.
SWG became a themepark with the NGE, with some sandbox remains in its dead rotting corpse.
Everyone knows. Before, there were player bounty missions and Jedi perma death and tons of professions.
Perfect example how to ruin a sandbox and turning it into a joke WoWclone.
A Tale in the Desert has NO COMBAT.
AT ALL.
just give up already.
Now that's funny!
Yeah, but what is the point of the 8 year restriction on the question again?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Sadly, SWG came out in 2003 ... I think the OP is asking within the last 8 years.
The only games I can think of that claim to be "sandbox" and don't have ffa pvp are ones that are still in development. However, it seems like everyone has their own definition of what a "sandbox" is.
One man's sandbox is another cat's litter box... just saying...
Well if it's that hard to come up with a non-FFA PvP sandbox in the past eight years, guess that means we're missing out and it's past time we have one.
Get to work, devs. I like sandbox. I hate gankers.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
Meh, I don't think the FFA PvP opinion is mutually exclusive to any generation, my retort was more towards the limited thinking aspect of the post. The "anyone can have an opinion but only my opinion is correct" and "tolerant of only those people who have the same ideals as me" crowd.
It could just be the internet though.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
I don't see how they can be such fools, what with Darkfall's incredible player numbers. Isn't it in the tens of millions by now?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
They can fill their boots and laugh all the way to ArcheAge, though. And they might turn that one into a short-lived game (and I'm betting they will), but they're still getting it. And nothing that compares to ArcheAge is coming out in the near future for sandbox PvE players.
I'm not bitter (well maybe a little, cause...ships and gliders) but I am puzzled by it. If there are more of us than there are of them, then we're doing something very wrong, or else why aren't we drowning in PVE sandboxes?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
It has peace zones where you can't attack players (villages and such).
You make me like charity
If you are indeed 39 and feel like a sandbox must include FFA PvP in order to be labeled a sandbox, then you only help to support what I was saying. UO, one of the first graphical MMORPGs with FFA PvP (and a great one IMO), came out when you were in your mid 20s.
But I mostly agree with Quesa about the close minded nature of youth. The difference is that I wouldn't call it generational but instead call it a function of youth. Every generation deals with the arrogance of youth.
AA isn't ffa it has safe zones. We're not drowning in them because sandbox has always been a knee jerk reaction to I don't like wow clones. I'd be willing to bet if you dropped most mmo players into a sandbox they wouldn't know what to do first and wouldn't have fun for very long.
It's easy to say I don't like wow so I want a sandbox but until you've actually played one how do you really know you're the type that can go out every day with no yellow brick road to follow. They sound great on paper but all sandbox games have failed by todays standards and had to add theme park content to them. ( by that I mean no 100 mil game would turn a profit from the numbers they have playing )
So we are getting sandbox features in upcoming mmos but even devs seem gun shy of a true open world sandbox...and for good reason.
AA doesn't seem conducive to actually enjoying the game while %100 avoiding gankers, therefore, by my definition, it is ffa.
I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing sandbox is less popular than themepark (speaking of nitpicking, AA is really a hybrid I guess) what I'm saying is, somehow a tiny percentage of gamers who PvP have gotten far more of what they want from sandbox creating devs than the PVE sandbox players, even though presumably more of us would play a sandbox if we didn't have to deal with gankers to do it.
Or perhaps less of us would than I think. I know I would, because I've played Xsyon, playing Everquest Landmark now, and wishing I could play AA (but not going to deal with gankers in order to do it).
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Ah I never said A tiny % pvp. I said a tiny % want ffa pvp. Something like 80% of mmo gamers want pvp in their mmos, they just want it on their terms ( flagging, arena battlegrounds etc ) Those games have always had the, look how successful wow is to contend with though. So we got a lot of hard core themeparks. And when you look at the examples of sandboxes before it's not all that surprising they ran far away from them drooling after wow.
Things are changing there. Lots of games are trying to add more sandbox features to a frame work of themepark gaming. They're calling them sandparks. EQN ...from what little we know of it is trying for this. Wildstar said it was going to do it but... I don't really see it.
Lots of games are starting to add some features, and Everquest Landmark is shaping up nicely, but we've had to wait too long already.
And I did understand what you meant. Or I think I did: The kind of PvP that you can't entirely avoid in order to play the game in an enjoyable way even if you really, really want to avoid it. So even if safe areas exist, the game is designed such that it will drive you into a PvP area sooner or later. Or you'll quit due to the limitations of the safe zone.
Eve is a bit of a different beast, since some people not only don't leave hi-sec, they don't even undock, making them %100 safe. But I couldn't get into that.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
What he's saying is that even though people *claim* to want sandboxes, taking away any of the standard stuff makes people have heart attacks.
I can't count how many people playing ESO would whine in chat because they "ran out of quests" and ended up 5 levels below the next zone. If you don't hold their hand and tell them to go to this quest hub and do these then move on, they fall apart.
Same thing with the AH, no one wants to trade anymore, they just complain that they can't have an AH. Same thing with mini-map, dungeon finder, etc, etc. All the while, they simultaneously complained that it wasn't like Skyrim.
It seems to me, that people are A-Okay with the idea of a sandbox, as long as they can be walked through everything and can skip anything tedious, arduous or otherwise not immediately accessible. And that's why you don't get PvE Sandboxes, because people only want it in theory.
As for all the PvP "sandboxes" I don't see any game out there being a sandbox. What I see are battlegrounds where instead of capture the flag, you're playing capture the resources. There's no substance to any of them, nothing to do outside of gather mats and fight over who gets to gather mats. That sounds less like a sandbox and more like a themepark that has just one ride.
And that's why WoW is still popular. It may be a themepark, but they have many many rides to choose from. I think what would be successful as a "PvE Sandbox" would be WoW without levels and lateral character development. Lots of things to do, but no need to do anything in any particular order. But the moment you introduce vertical progression (leveling) people need their hands held.
On an aside, one reason PvP Sandboxes don't draw a large crowd is because not all PvPers are as good as other PvPers and they don't want to be at the bottom of the food chain in a PvP game. It's one of the main reasons having fodder (aka PvE'ers) in OWPvP is so that the lesser skilled PvPers can feel good about themselves because they always have someone they can pwn.
I'd actually would be pretty impressed if someone were able to accumulate mass wealth while avoiding pvp 100% of the time, since that would seem to be the harder thing to do within the game.
Agree with your last point, which is why I despise gankers. They're not PvPers, they're just pests.
My first MMO was Anarchy Online, not a sandbox, but you could quest through taking missions if you wanted, you could grind mobs, grind bosses, do open world dungeons, or get completely lost for hours and be killed repeatedly by everything that crawled, rolled, and hopped (and I did, often). So 'themeparks' all seem too restrictive to me, too many quests, too few alternative means of progressing, worlds too small, pace too steady and carefully managed.
Oh well. At least Wildstar has housing. But I'm still one of those players that really does want a sandbox, even when it requires me to get my head out of my hind end and decide for myself what I'm going to do next.
I'm passing on ArcheAge, which seems to be an otherwise really nice hybrid, in order to play a themepark, solely because I'm not going to waste another second of my precious time dealing with gankers. The funny thing is, I will PvP. I'd do trade runs into PvP areas, I'd merc for a guild doing siege stuff, I'm just not going to put up with being one-hit by some high level fools when I'm trying to skin a bunny rabbit. And it's so frustrating that no finished, polished, AAA sandbox exists for me to play in. Oh well. Maybe I should see go see how Xsyon has progressed lately.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein