Rift is missing the same thing they all are. And people who claim sandbox games are desired are not a minority.
A themepark cannot be successful long-term without the sandbox game. That's why they fail to retain subs. they were never meant to retain subs. Or they have no idea how to recreate that illusion.
A sandbox game with a themepark on top is the next step. A start to a virtual World. Instead will get themeparks with more sandbox style features, or empty themeparks calling themselves sandboxes. If people are still making mmo's in 2 years.
I think this is pie in the sky thinking. Look, I'm looking forward to archeage as much as many people but when I see statemetns like this I can only think of the Simpson's where bart is clutching his clown doll, rocking back and forth and repeating "Krusty is coming, Krusty is coming".
Your assessment is probably based on yoru friends and perhaps some forums where disgruntled gamers come to lay it all out on the line.
the average themepark player is not interested in being dropped into a world and having to figure out how to make a hammer to survive. They are not interested in figuring out what to do next because they have no idea what they want to do next. why? because they want to ride "rides".
Iv'e never met an average, "not going to forums" gamer who wants to spend his/her time gathering resources or dong anything other than having a good time.
The people I know who play games would never ever play a sandbox game. They aren't interested in a "world" they are interested in a game, being social and then logging off.
Heck, even in LOTRO, a very themepark game, I saw an individual who was lost and complaining because the game wasn't sending him to the next quest hub.
Or the friend of mine who played SWG for quite some time before he came out and said "it was like a second job where I wasn't getting paid, waste of time".
Sandbox games are about players who are very clear on what they want to do and do not want to be told what to do or even shown what to do.
This is a very specific group of people. I do not believe they are the majority whatsoever. Especially since I also see my WoW friends extolling the virtues of the recent changes to the game. Keep in mind I am not dissing on them. They know what they like and more power to them.
but indicating that sandbox players are not in a minority is just not born by any evidence I've seen. I would never hold this site up as a benchmark to what the average player wants.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Imagine the greatest minds of mmo-gaming, programming and non-greedy people come together to make an mmo for us and not for them.
Now erase that thought, because it's never going to happen.
The problem is "we" ( as in us, the consumers) don't really know what we want. We are fickle and our tastes change like someone with a bad wardrobe: lots of changes, very few surprises. Devs need to keep their finger on the pulse of the gaming community, but when they do all they feel is staccato.
I completely agree. The problems with ccreating mmo's stem from them being very expensive, apparently not easy to make, and such a huge risk that more often than not they fail because of lack of funds and experience or they try to be a bit more mainstream so that they don't go under.
polish aside, every game that comes out brings a litany of complaints by players (at least on forums or even in game) who don't want x and don't want y and then say "what else do you have"?
What a waste of investement. i would never investt in an mmo company unless I completely believed in their product AND was prepared to lose my money.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think ppl are overestimating the detication that Blizzard is showing to WOW atm. Rift needs to fix few things but it could get alot stronger over time IF Trion is gonna focus on the right things.
RIFT needs to improve the gameplay - that will be their first order of buisness to compete with WOW.
"but indicating that sandbox players are not in a minority is just not born by any evidence I've seen. I would never hold this site up as a benchmark to what the average player wants."
I totally agree with this, Sandbox is at the far end of the mmorg playing spectrum, however I know that for many raiders one of the main motivations is improving themselves continually, and a well build sandbox is freed from the shackles of the end game cycle, so has a big opportunity to do just that (and therefore become less of a minority)
Just like thempark games which evolve to capture the ultra casual market, Sandbox games will also evolve to capture some of the long term player base. Im sure many many raiders are bored to death of the cycle they have been in for years, and are looking for a new stable long term AAA mmorg to call home. For e.g, eve style sandbox mmorg will appeal to a hell of a lot of long term player/raiders if it is implemented well.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Imagine the greatest minds of mmo-gaming, programming and non-greedy people come together to make an mmo for us and not for them.
Now erase that thought, because it's never going to happen.
LOL!! Thanks both of you, nearly pissed myself with laughter on this one.
As to the OPs comments, it actually seems to mostly be games that tried to stray away from the "sure thing" template that are dead and burried. Auto Assault, Tablu Rasa, Matrix Online, Ashrons Call 2, Seed, RF Online, to name a few.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I agree that games need to get a better idea of they're target audience. I think chasing WoW style numbers for the most part is really silly for other companies, not that they shouldn't want them but it's probably unrealistic. I also think another reason to not chase the WoW player is that IMO a fair portion of players that play/played WoW are going to play that, and when they're done they're not looking for the next great MMO, they go back to their console games or wherever they came from, they don't visit sites like this and haven't heard of most other games out there and don't care what MMO's are coming down the pike.
I would never hold this site up as a benchmark to what the average player wants.
That's exactly what I think. This website if full of people with very strong opinions about MMOs. I think out of the dozens of people I regularly play MMOs with not one of them has visited this website and if they do they don't actively post here. Some are very hardcore MMO players too, but the "average gamer" usually visits forums that are mainly concerned with the game they are actually playing.
I will say this though, there is a large group of people active on this site that are clammering for a "sandbox" game but when I talk to people in the various games I play or played never does the topic of "sandbox" come up. Really this is the only place I ever see it mentioned. Most people want more content, more streamlined features, better avenues of communication, and to have information readily available about new content so they can master it. On top of that I see a lot of people that are concerned with balance issues, too much grind/too easy, more gear options...
A lot of the core mechanics of what is defined here as "sandbox" actually annoy a lot of gamers. They want to know what is expected of them and they want to go and do it, not spend hours just trying to figure it out. They want the developers to come up with the new content, they like raiding (I freaking love it), like story, love group and solo content almost equally.
You may disagree with me but this is from my personal experience with the people I play with and talk to outside of this website. But don't get me wrong I love this website and a lot of the ideas people have here. I don't always fit in with the people I described either.
Too many mmos on the market and not enough gamers to go around nto to mentiuon that gaming companies are being run by business people instead of gamers. Lots of reasons why business models fail.
Rift is missing the same thing they all are. And people who claim sandbox games are desired are not a minority.
A themepark cannot be successful long-term without the sandbox game. That's why they fail to retain subs. they were never meant to retain subs. Or they have no idea how to recreate that illusion.
A sandbox game with a themepark on top is the next step. A start to a virtual World. Instead will get themeparks with more sandbox style features, or empty themeparks calling themselves sandboxes. If people are still making mmo's in 2 years.
I think this is pie in the sky thinking. Look, I'm looking forward to archeage as much as many people but when I see statemetns like this I can only think of the Simpson's where bart is clutching his clown doll, rocking back and forth and repeating "Krusty is coming, Krusty is coming".
Your assessment is probably based on yoru friends and perhaps some forums where disgruntled gamers come to lay it all out on the line.
the average themepark player is not interested in being dropped into a world and having to figure out how to make a hammer to survive. They are not interested in figuring out what to do next because they have no idea what they want to do next. why? because they want to ride "rides".
Iv'e never met an average, "not going to forums" gamer who wants to spend his/her time gathering resources or dong anything other than having a good time.
The people I know who play games would never ever play a sandbox game. They aren't interested in a "world" they are interested in a game, being social and then logging off.
Heck, even in LOTRO, a very themepark game, I saw an individual who was lost and complaining because the game wasn't sending him to the next quest hub.
Or the friend of mine who played SWG for quite some time before he came out and said "it was like a second job where I wasn't getting paid, waste of time".
Sandbox games are about players who are very clear on what they want to do and do not want to be told what to do or even shown what to do.
This is a very specific group of people. I do not believe they are the majority whatsoever. Especially since I also see my WoW friends extolling the virtues of the recent changes to the game. Keep in mind I am not dissing on them. They know what they like and more power to them.
but indicating that sandbox players are not in a minority is just not born by any evidence I've seen. I would never hold this site up as a benchmark to what the average player wants.
Yes i understand all that. From your definition of sandbox players, thats true. But, Sandbox's arent thempark games. There is no requirements, or basic structure that must be followed in design. There arent built in negatives that make something a sandbox.
I think that using existing mmo data to make assumptions about preference is far more secluded than even using this site.
You dont go looking for virtual world or sandbox audience in an entirely themepark audience. Most of them will follow the crowd anyway..
There are billions of people. Look at how much the Wii made. Do you think people who play games to excercise were a minority? What about games for families to play together? Hell everything about the Wii was ignored by the industry becuase it was thought to be a small minority of gamers.
It's the same situation in my opinion. The people who are always wrong, are wrong again. The people who are always late are late again.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
"They are following tried and true formulas" if they are tried and true...why are they on the scrap heap?
What makes you think they are? WoW has maintained a growing player base for more than 6 years now. Its a function of timing, elements of the game constellation, and funding. Way too many Dev's ignore or neglect some of the variables involved, which results in sub par results.
Rift has come as close to the formula as any I've seen in quite some time. But its still missing somthing, not to mention the difference 6 plus years has had on the general gaming population. Those people who claim to want a "sand box" game, are obviously in the minority.
Not to mention when I hear "sand box" I mentally translate that to FFA full loot gankfest. Why? Because thats been my experience with games called "sand box". Of course, there is a rather limited market for such games in the western markets. So the cycle continues. Eventually, someone will get it right, and another WoW like game will explode on to the market.
Rift is missing the same thing they all are. And people who claim sandbox games are desired are not a minority.
A themepark cannot be successful long-term without the sandbox game. That's why they fail to retain subs. they were never meant to retain subs. Or they have no idea how to recreate that illusion.
A sandbox game with a themepark on top is the next step. A start to a virtual World. Instead will get themeparks with more sandbox style features, or empty themeparks calling themselves sandboxes. If people are still making mmo's in 2 years.
Given the market research thats been done over years and years, I'd say that at least in the west, people who want sand box games *are* in the minority. Its in the nature of the western demographic. That says some unpleasant things about that demographic, but thats life.
WoW is the very definition of a theme park game. It has not had problems retaining subs for more than six years now. They have hit many elements of the constellation. Granted, timing was one of the functions, but only one. These games are all about illusion. That is what drives them. When you look under the hood at the reality, the illusion falls apart. Try to explain an MMO to a non gamer. They will look at you as if you are insane. ^^
You would hardly be the first(nor the last) to predict the doom of MMO's. I've been hearing that for years and years now. Yet, new games keep being developed(and funded), and the market continues to expand. I have no doubt we will see a change over the years, but I suspect that MMO's(in one form or another) will be with us for a long, long time.
Yes i understand all that. From your definition of sandbox players, thats true. But, Sandbox's arent thempark games. There is no requirements, or basic structure that must be followed in design. There arent built in negatives that make something a sandbox.
I think that using existing mmo data to make assumptions about preference is far more secluded than even using this site.
You dont go looking for virtual world or sandbox audience in an entirely themepark audience. Most of them will follow the crowd anyway..
There are billions of people. Look at how much the Wii made. Do you think people who play games to excercise were a minority? What about games for families to play together? Hell everything about the Wii was ignored by the industry becuase it was thought to be a small minority of gamers.
It's the same situation in my opinion. The people who are always wrong, are wrong again. The people who are always late are late again.
but using your example, which is perfect, look at the wii. it is a family oriented non hardcore gaming device.
In a market that was filled with more hardcore, shoot-em-up, games.
I would say that those are the people out there who are left untapped. and I highly doubt that the casual players of the wii are looking to enter a game world where one has to forge one's own destiny.
I'd be the first person to say that there are more people out there with different tastes than can be accounted for.
But given the nature of sandbox games I really dont' think that there are more people out there who are willing to spend innordinate amounts of time in order to create their own destiney.
From what I've seen, minecraft is doing very well. But it also appears that it's a fairly casual game. If there was to be a sandbox that was as accessible then maybe. but do you really think that the sandbox players out there are looking for an extremely accessible, easy sandbox?
People love buildign things. but the average player is not going to want to spend innordinate amounts of time doing so. I think that's why farmville is so popular. It's easy, social, allows people to build things but it's not something where the player needs to make it their life.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I agree that games need to get a better idea of they're target audience. I think chasing WoW style numbers for the most part is really silly for other companies, not that they shouldn't want them but it's probably unrealistic. I also think another reason to not chase the WoW player is that IMO a fair portion of players that play/played WoW are going to play that, and when they're done they're not looking for the next great MMO, they go back to their console games or wherever they came from, they don't visit sites like this and haven't heard of most other games out there and don't care what MMO's are coming down the pike.
This,the majority of the wow players aren't mmorpg players,they just play wow,and don't care about the other wow clones. - - - That's why AoC,WAR,Lotro,Rift,and more clones failed,wow players don't a want new wow,they are happy playing wow. - - The real gamers want innovative sandbox games,not tired themeparks with false dynamic events,instanced dungeons,simplified group gameplay and lame crafting.
That's true in some cases, but I think the reason that almost all new MMORPGs see such an initial influx of players is the fact that they're all looking for some game to replace WoW. The problem is, once the "new car smell" wears off, there's not enough to seperate those games from WoW to justify leveling an entirely new took and forsaking months or years of playtime on their WoW characters.
WoW revolutionized the MMORPG genre by opening up the previously time consuming, niche genre that was the MMORPG to the mass market, yet what have we seen since then? Public quests?
I agree that games need to get a better idea of they're target audience. I think chasing WoW style numbers for the most part is really silly for other companies, not that they shouldn't want them but it's probably unrealistic. I also think another reason to not chase the WoW player is that IMO a fair portion of players that play/played WoW are going to play that, and when they're done they're not looking for the next great MMO, they go back to their console games or wherever they came from, they don't visit sites like this and haven't heard of most other games out there and don't care what MMO's are coming down the pike.
This,the majority of the wow players aren't mmorpg players,they just play wow,and don't care about the other wow clones. - - - That's why AoC,WAR,Lotro,Rift,and more clones failed,wow players don't a want new wow,they are happy playing wow. - - The real gamers want innovative sandbox games,not tired themeparks with false dynamic events,instanced dungeons,simplified group gameplay and lame crafting.
That's true in some cases, but I think the reason that almost all new MMORPGs see such an initial influx of players is the fact that they're all looking for some game to replace WoW. The problem is, once the "new car smell" wears off, there's not enough to seperate those games from WoW to justify leveling an entirely new took and forsaking months or years of playtime on their WoW characters.
WoW revolutionized the MMORPG genre by opening up the previously time consuming, niche genre that was the MMORPG to the mass market, yet what have we seen since then? Public quests?
I wouldn't disagree with you at all. I would also add that it's not just about justifying leveling a new character but they quickly discover that these new games are not WoW. You then hear "wow did this and wow did that". There was a lot of that in Aion.
When people are looking for their WoW 2.0 it's difficult for other themepark games to compete.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I agree that games need to get a better idea of they're target audience. I think chasing WoW style numbers for the most part is really silly for other companies, not that they shouldn't want them but it's probably unrealistic. I also think another reason to not chase the WoW player is that IMO a fair portion of players that play/played WoW are going to play that, and when they're done they're not looking for the next great MMO, they go back to their console games or wherever they came from, they don't visit sites like this and haven't heard of most other games out there and don't care what MMO's are coming down the pike.
This,the majority of the wow players aren't mmorpg players,they just play wow,and don't care about the other wow clones. - - - That's why AoC,WAR,Lotro,Rift,and more clones failed,wow players don't a want new wow,they are happy playing wow. - - The real gamers want innovative sandbox games,not tired themeparks with false dynamic events,instanced dungeons,simplified group gameplay and lame crafting.
That's true in some cases, but I think the reason that almost all new MMORPGs see such an initial influx of players is the fact that they're all looking for some game to replace WoW. The problem is, once the "new car smell" wears off, there's not enough to seperate those games from WoW to justify leveling an entirely new took and forsaking months or years of playtime on their WoW characters.
WoW revolutionized the MMORPG genre by opening up the previously time consuming, niche genre that was the MMORPG to the mass market, yet what have we seen since then? Public quests?
I wouldn't disagree with you at all. I would also add that it's not just about justifying leveling a new character but they quickly discover that these new games are not WoW. You then hear "wow did this and wow did that". There was a lot of that in Aion.
When people are looking for their WoW 2.0 it's difficult for other themepark games to compete.
That's because developers fail to include a lot of WoW's innovations and end up producing a product that's really more like a two year-old WoW-lite. Not that all of these are innovations specific to WoW, but for example, Rift doesn't currently have a guild bank, a cross server dungeon finder, an appearance editor, a series vehicle quests, a heavy use of phasing to draw the player into the quests, or even flying mounts just to name a few features in WoW that would have been incredibly easy to program into Rift at launch.
Bear in mind there have been no high quality sandbox fantasy based mmorgs in the last few years that have caught peoples imagination so people may not be clammering for a sandbox mmorg because they have never played or even seen a good one. Once one comes along that is high quality this may change. They may not realise its a sandbox, they will just see a good game that they can invisage migrating to and enjoying.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Yes i understand all that. From your definition of sandbox players, thats true. But, Sandbox's arent thempark games. There is no requirements, or basic structure that must be followed in design. There arent built in negatives that make something a sandbox.
I think that using existing mmo data to make assumptions about preference is far more secluded than even using this site.
You dont go looking for virtual world or sandbox audience in an entirely themepark audience. Most of them will follow the crowd anyway..
There are billions of people. Look at how much the Wii made. Do you think people who play games to excercise were a minority? What about games for families to play together? Hell everything about the Wii was ignored by the industry becuase it was thought to be a small minority of gamers.
It's the same situation in my opinion. The people who are always wrong, are wrong again. The people who are always late are late again.
but using your example, which is perfect, look at the wii. it is a family oriented non hardcore gaming device.
In a market that was filled with more hardcore, shoot-em-up, games.
I would say that those are the people out there who are left untapped. and I highly doubt that the casual players of the wii are looking to enter a game world where one has to forge one's own destiny.
I'd be the first person to say that there are more people out there with different tastes than can be accounted for.
But given the nature of sandbox games I really dont' think that there are more people out there who are willing to spend innordinate amounts of time in order to create their own destiney.
From what I've seen, minecraft is doing very well. But it also appears that it's a fairly casual game. If there was to be a sandbox that was as accessible then maybe. but do you really think that the sandbox players out there are looking for an extremely accessible, easy sandbox?
People love buildign things. but the average player is not going to want to spend innordinate amounts of time doing so. I think that's why farmville is so popular. It's easy, social, allows people to build things but it's not something where the player needs to make it their life.
Your idea of someone who enjoys sandbox gameplay is influencing your opinion.
There wasnt an untapped market left by the hardcore consoles. There was a market thought to be a minority, so therefore ignored. The same as the market for sandbox.
the real minority is the core audience. The ones who except any theme no matter how unrealistic or absurd because its a game. The majority lean toward realistic notions in my opinion. Im not saying wii owners are sandbox players. Im saying the same people say or said the same things about both.
Sandbox games are actually the easiest of all to be accessible and at the same time rediculously complex. Depending on the game it may be harder or easier to do. But still fairly easy.
Creating your own destiny is a child's fantasy book. Think bigger than destiny. You dont have to be some slob no name trying to become something in a world of slobs. You dont have to overcome huge hurdles and timesinks to appreciate the journey. A sandbox is NOT a themepark game with different features. It can be anything.
Farmville is played hardcore. Just around peoples lives. The same as skilling in EVE. You cant really play it casually.
Building things is the easiest of all to play around your life, while still allowing for long play sessions when desired. You can make things as hard and as long as you want, as long as you dont require 8 hours of continuous clicking. But streamlining 8 hours into 10 minutes isnt the way.
Casual and hardcore exist because of the gameplay.
Am i making sense?
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
"They are following tried and true formulas" if they are tried and true...why are they on the scrap heap?
What makes you think they are? WoW has maintained a growing player base for more than 6 years now. Its a function of timing, elements of the game constellation, and funding. Way too many Dev's ignore or neglect some of the variables involved, which results in sub par results.
Rift has come as close to the formula as any I've seen in quite some time. But its still missing somthing, not to mention the difference 6 plus years has had on the general gaming population. Those people who claim to want a "sand box" game, are obviously in the minority.
Not to mention when I hear "sand box" I mentally translate that to FFA full loot gankfest. Why? Because thats been my experience with games called "sand box". Of course, there is a rather limited market for such games in the western markets. So the cycle continues. Eventually, someone will get it right, and another WoW like game will explode on to the market.
Rift is missing the same thing they all are. And people who claim sandbox games are desired are not a minority.
A themepark cannot be successful long-term without the sandbox game. That's why they fail to retain subs. they were never meant to retain subs. Or they have no idea how to recreate that illusion.
A sandbox game with a themepark on top is the next step. A start to a virtual World. Instead will get themeparks with more sandbox style features, or empty themeparks calling themselves sandboxes. If people are still making mmo's in 2 years.
Given the market research thats been done over years and years, I'd say that at least in the west, people who want sand box games *are* in the minority. Its in the nature of the western demographic. That says some unpleasant things about that demographic, but thats life.
WoW is the very definition of a theme park game. It has not had problems retaining subs for more than six years now. They have hit many elements of the constellation. Granted, timing was one of the functions, but only one. These games are all about illusion. That is what drives them. When you look under the hood at the reality, the illusion falls apart. Try to explain an MMO to a non gamer. They will look at you as if you are insane. ^^
You would hardly be the first(nor the last) to predict the doom of MMO's. I've been hearing that for years and years now. Yet, new games keep being developed(and funded), and the market continues to expand. I have no doubt we will see a change over the years, but I suspect that MMO's(in one form or another) will be with us for a long, long time.
Market research huh?
Wow had the illusion of the sandbox game like eq before it. It was that sandbox game everyone thought they were gonna play when they geared up. And some actually got to play it in some form. Thats what makes gear in those games so valuable. The illusion of a sandbox game. Opinion here of coarse.
The games that followed WOW, ignored that illusion or failed to recreate it. Which contributed to the poor retention rate.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
One of the biggest reasons WoW is so successful has nothing at all to do with the game itself, it is all about the marketing. I have never seen any game ever that advertised so much. Getting Mr.T and William Shatner to do commercials for you. Come on how you gonna beat that.
Mohawk Grenades ftw!
Add to that the fact that a 6 year old can do well at WoW, and that it will run on a commadore 64, (thats a really old computer for you kids out there), and its easy to see why it did so well.
There will be no more games for us old gamers to play. The masses have caught on, and the games have all been lowered to fit the average gamers abilities, and intelligence, both of which are imo considerably lower today than a PC gamer's of 10 or 15 years ago.
The good ol' themepark vs sandbox argument never ends on MMORPG.com! I, for one, enjoy it. I don't consider these discussions fruitless at all.
I do, however, think there's often a disconnect when people talk about the preferences of "most MMO players." I haven't seen any study to this effect, but I honestly believe it. My question is so what? WoW has the majority of MMO market-share. Bear in mind that is a MAJORITY, not a plurality. It is bigger than all other MMOs combined. Given that, well OF COURSE the "average player" will prefer a themepark because the "average player" is a WoW player!
Where I disagree with themepark supporters is the idea that WoW would only have been successful as a themepark. I think there are a great many more factors to its success, including the Blizzard brand, good balance, insane polish, etc. Had WoW been more sandbox than themepark, I believe it would be just as successful if it is today.
Let's go ahead and dispel entirely the usefulness of anecdotal evidence that "most MMO players I know" prefer themeparks. Everyone who says this is a WoW player or ex WoW player. Most of my MMO friends were players of Ultima Online, EVE Online, and others. Do you know what their preferences are? I'll give you a hint - it's not a themepark.
The real crux of the matter is that good sandboxes are far more difficult to make (initially) than themeparks. The developers need to be more intelligent, more savvy, at every step of initial design. You can't force players to do something. The simple fact of the matter is that most sandboxes just aren't very good because the developers are not up to the task.
But, when done successfully, sandboxes are quite successful. Case in point: the entire grand theft auto series. Unfortunately, the game companies willing to take on a project of greater difficulty that goes against current market trends (aka WoW)... well can you blame them for taking the safer path?
There must be a major difference between sandbox SPG and a sandbox MMO. To me GTA was as themepark and scripted as you could get. A complete themepark.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
I think this is pie in the sky thinking. Look, I'm looking forward to archeage as much as many people but when I see statemetns like this I can only think of the Simpson's where bart is clutching his clown doll, rocking back and forth and repeating "Krusty is coming, Krusty is coming".
Your assessment is probably based on yoru friends and perhaps some forums where disgruntled gamers come to lay it all out on the line.
the average themepark player is not interested in being dropped into a world and having to figure out how to make a hammer to survive. They are not interested in figuring out what to do next because they have no idea what they want to do next. why? because they want to ride "rides".
Iv'e never met an average, "not going to forums" gamer who wants to spend his/her time gathering resources or dong anything other than having a good time.
The people I know who play games would never ever play a sandbox game. They aren't interested in a "world" they are interested in a game, being social and then logging off.
Heck, even in LOTRO, a very themepark game, I saw an individual who was lost and complaining because the game wasn't sending him to the next quest hub.
Or the friend of mine who played SWG for quite some time before he came out and said "it was like a second job where I wasn't getting paid, waste of time".
Sandbox games are about players who are very clear on what they want to do and do not want to be told what to do or even shown what to do.
This is a very specific group of people. I do not believe they are the majority whatsoever. Especially since I also see my WoW friends extolling the virtues of the recent changes to the game. Keep in mind I am not dissing on them. They know what they like and more power to them.
but indicating that sandbox players are not in a minority is just not born by any evidence I've seen. I would never hold this site up as a benchmark to what the average player wants.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I completely agree. The problems with ccreating mmo's stem from them being very expensive, apparently not easy to make, and such a huge risk that more often than not they fail because of lack of funds and experience or they try to be a bit more mainstream so that they don't go under.
polish aside, every game that comes out brings a litany of complaints by players (at least on forums or even in game) who don't want x and don't want y and then say "what else do you have"?
What a waste of investement. i would never investt in an mmo company unless I completely believed in their product AND was prepared to lose my money.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think ppl are overestimating the detication that Blizzard is showing to WOW atm. Rift needs to fix few things but it could get alot stronger over time IF Trion is gonna focus on the right things.
RIFT needs to improve the gameplay - that will be their first order of buisness to compete with WOW.
Nothing anyone has ever said on the internet has ever made me cry. Congrats, you're the first.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
"but indicating that sandbox players are not in a minority is just not born by any evidence I've seen. I would never hold this site up as a benchmark to what the average player wants."
I totally agree with this, Sandbox is at the far end of the mmorg playing spectrum, however I know that for many raiders one of the main motivations is improving themselves continually, and a well build sandbox is freed from the shackles of the end game cycle, so has a big opportunity to do just that (and therefore become less of a minority)
Just like thempark games which evolve to capture the ultra casual market, Sandbox games will also evolve to capture some of the long term player base. Im sure many many raiders are bored to death of the cycle they have been in for years, and are looking for a new stable long term AAA mmorg to call home. For e.g, eve style sandbox mmorg will appeal to a hell of a lot of long term player/raiders if it is implemented well.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
LOL!! Thanks both of you, nearly pissed myself with laughter on this one.
As to the OPs comments, it actually seems to mostly be games that tried to stray away from the "sure thing" template that are dead and burried. Auto Assault, Tablu Rasa, Matrix Online, Ashrons Call 2, Seed, RF Online, to name a few.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I agree that games need to get a better idea of they're target audience. I think chasing WoW style numbers for the most part is really silly for other companies, not that they shouldn't want them but it's probably unrealistic. I also think another reason to not chase the WoW player is that IMO a fair portion of players that play/played WoW are going to play that, and when they're done they're not looking for the next great MMO, they go back to their console games or wherever they came from, they don't visit sites like this and haven't heard of most other games out there and don't care what MMO's are coming down the pike.
That's exactly what I think. This website if full of people with very strong opinions about MMOs. I think out of the dozens of people I regularly play MMOs with not one of them has visited this website and if they do they don't actively post here. Some are very hardcore MMO players too, but the "average gamer" usually visits forums that are mainly concerned with the game they are actually playing.
I will say this though, there is a large group of people active on this site that are clammering for a "sandbox" game but when I talk to people in the various games I play or played never does the topic of "sandbox" come up. Really this is the only place I ever see it mentioned. Most people want more content, more streamlined features, better avenues of communication, and to have information readily available about new content so they can master it. On top of that I see a lot of people that are concerned with balance issues, too much grind/too easy, more gear options...
A lot of the core mechanics of what is defined here as "sandbox" actually annoy a lot of gamers. They want to know what is expected of them and they want to go and do it, not spend hours just trying to figure it out. They want the developers to come up with the new content, they like raiding (I freaking love it), like story, love group and solo content almost equally.
You may disagree with me but this is from my personal experience with the people I play with and talk to outside of this website. But don't get me wrong I love this website and a lot of the ideas people have here. I don't always fit in with the people I described either.
Too many mmos on the market and not enough gamers to go around nto to mentiuon that gaming companies are being run by business people instead of gamers. Lots of reasons why business models fail.
Yes i understand all that. From your definition of sandbox players, thats true. But, Sandbox's arent thempark games. There is no requirements, or basic structure that must be followed in design. There arent built in negatives that make something a sandbox.
I think that using existing mmo data to make assumptions about preference is far more secluded than even using this site.
You dont go looking for virtual world or sandbox audience in an entirely themepark audience. Most of them will follow the crowd anyway..
There are billions of people. Look at how much the Wii made. Do you think people who play games to excercise were a minority? What about games for families to play together? Hell everything about the Wii was ignored by the industry becuase it was thought to be a small minority of gamers.
It's the same situation in my opinion. The people who are always wrong, are wrong again. The people who are always late are late again.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Given the market research thats been done over years and years, I'd say that at least in the west, people who want sand box games *are* in the minority. Its in the nature of the western demographic. That says some unpleasant things about that demographic, but thats life.
WoW is the very definition of a theme park game. It has not had problems retaining subs for more than six years now. They have hit many elements of the constellation. Granted, timing was one of the functions, but only one. These games are all about illusion. That is what drives them. When you look under the hood at the reality, the illusion falls apart. Try to explain an MMO to a non gamer. They will look at you as if you are insane. ^^
You would hardly be the first(nor the last) to predict the doom of MMO's. I've been hearing that for years and years now. Yet, new games keep being developed(and funded), and the market continues to expand. I have no doubt we will see a change over the years, but I suspect that MMO's(in one form or another) will be with us for a long, long time.
but using your example, which is perfect, look at the wii. it is a family oriented non hardcore gaming device.
In a market that was filled with more hardcore, shoot-em-up, games.
I would say that those are the people out there who are left untapped. and I highly doubt that the casual players of the wii are looking to enter a game world where one has to forge one's own destiny.
I'd be the first person to say that there are more people out there with different tastes than can be accounted for.
But given the nature of sandbox games I really dont' think that there are more people out there who are willing to spend innordinate amounts of time in order to create their own destiney.
From what I've seen, minecraft is doing very well. But it also appears that it's a fairly casual game. If there was to be a sandbox that was as accessible then maybe. but do you really think that the sandbox players out there are looking for an extremely accessible, easy sandbox?
People love buildign things. but the average player is not going to want to spend innordinate amounts of time doing so. I think that's why farmville is so popular. It's easy, social, allows people to build things but it's not something where the player needs to make it their life.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That's true in some cases, but I think the reason that almost all new MMORPGs see such an initial influx of players is the fact that they're all looking for some game to replace WoW. The problem is, once the "new car smell" wears off, there's not enough to seperate those games from WoW to justify leveling an entirely new took and forsaking months or years of playtime on their WoW characters.
WoW revolutionized the MMORPG genre by opening up the previously time consuming, niche genre that was the MMORPG to the mass market, yet what have we seen since then? Public quests?
I wouldn't disagree with you at all. I would also add that it's not just about justifying leveling a new character but they quickly discover that these new games are not WoW. You then hear "wow did this and wow did that". There was a lot of that in Aion.
When people are looking for their WoW 2.0 it's difficult for other themepark games to compete.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That's because developers fail to include a lot of WoW's innovations and end up producing a product that's really more like a two year-old WoW-lite. Not that all of these are innovations specific to WoW, but for example, Rift doesn't currently have a guild bank, a cross server dungeon finder, an appearance editor, a series vehicle quests, a heavy use of phasing to draw the player into the quests, or even flying mounts just to name a few features in WoW that would have been incredibly easy to program into Rift at launch.
Bear in mind there have been no high quality sandbox fantasy based mmorgs in the last few years that have caught peoples imagination so people may not be clammering for a sandbox mmorg because they have never played or even seen a good one. Once one comes along that is high quality this may change. They may not realise its a sandbox, they will just see a good game that they can invisage migrating to and enjoying.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Your idea of someone who enjoys sandbox gameplay is influencing your opinion.
There wasnt an untapped market left by the hardcore consoles. There was a market thought to be a minority, so therefore ignored. The same as the market for sandbox.
the real minority is the core audience. The ones who except any theme no matter how unrealistic or absurd because its a game. The majority lean toward realistic notions in my opinion. Im not saying wii owners are sandbox players. Im saying the same people say or said the same things about both.
Sandbox games are actually the easiest of all to be accessible and at the same time rediculously complex. Depending on the game it may be harder or easier to do. But still fairly easy.
Creating your own destiny is a child's fantasy book. Think bigger than destiny. You dont have to be some slob no name trying to become something in a world of slobs. You dont have to overcome huge hurdles and timesinks to appreciate the journey. A sandbox is NOT a themepark game with different features. It can be anything.
Farmville is played hardcore. Just around peoples lives. The same as skilling in EVE. You cant really play it casually.
Building things is the easiest of all to play around your life, while still allowing for long play sessions when desired. You can make things as hard and as long as you want, as long as you dont require 8 hours of continuous clicking. But streamlining 8 hours into 10 minutes isnt the way.
Casual and hardcore exist because of the gameplay.
Am i making sense?
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
double post
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
dang this thread took off!
Market research huh?
Wow had the illusion of the sandbox game like eq before it. It was that sandbox game everyone thought they were gonna play when they geared up. And some actually got to play it in some form. Thats what makes gear in those games so valuable. The illusion of a sandbox game. Opinion here of coarse.
The games that followed WOW, ignored that illusion or failed to recreate it. Which contributed to the poor retention rate.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
One of the biggest reasons WoW is so successful has nothing at all to do with the game itself, it is all about the marketing. I have never seen any game ever that advertised so much. Getting Mr.T and William Shatner to do commercials for you. Come on how you gonna beat that.
Mohawk Grenades ftw!
Add to that the fact that a 6 year old can do well at WoW, and that it will run on a commadore 64, (thats a really old computer for you kids out there), and its easy to see why it did so well.
There will be no more games for us old gamers to play. The masses have caught on, and the games have all been lowered to fit the average gamers abilities, and intelligence, both of which are imo considerably lower today than a PC gamer's of 10 or 15 years ago.
James Van Der Beek is right to cry.
The good ol' themepark vs sandbox argument never ends on MMORPG.com! I, for one, enjoy it. I don't consider these discussions fruitless at all.
I do, however, think there's often a disconnect when people talk about the preferences of "most MMO players." I haven't seen any study to this effect, but I honestly believe it. My question is so what? WoW has the majority of MMO market-share. Bear in mind that is a MAJORITY, not a plurality. It is bigger than all other MMOs combined. Given that, well OF COURSE the "average player" will prefer a themepark because the "average player" is a WoW player!
Where I disagree with themepark supporters is the idea that WoW would only have been successful as a themepark. I think there are a great many more factors to its success, including the Blizzard brand, good balance, insane polish, etc. Had WoW been more sandbox than themepark, I believe it would be just as successful if it is today.
Let's go ahead and dispel entirely the usefulness of anecdotal evidence that "most MMO players I know" prefer themeparks. Everyone who says this is a WoW player or ex WoW player. Most of my MMO friends were players of Ultima Online, EVE Online, and others. Do you know what their preferences are? I'll give you a hint - it's not a themepark.
The real crux of the matter is that good sandboxes are far more difficult to make (initially) than themeparks. The developers need to be more intelligent, more savvy, at every step of initial design. You can't force players to do something. The simple fact of the matter is that most sandboxes just aren't very good because the developers are not up to the task.
But, when done successfully, sandboxes are quite successful. Case in point: the entire grand theft auto series. Unfortunately, the game companies willing to take on a project of greater difficulty that goes against current market trends (aka WoW)... well can you blame them for taking the safer path?
Heres the funny thing, GTA has much more in common with a themepark mmo than a sandbox one.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
There must be a major difference between sandbox SPG and a sandbox MMO. To me GTA was as themepark and scripted as you could get. A complete themepark.
Venge
GTA 2 i think was multiplayer. Had a top down view. We used to build fortresses out of buses. Then go pick a fight with the cops. Good times.
Once they went singleplayer, they started adding more and more content. The last one was pretty bad.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.