It sounds exactly like what so many ppl here ask for every day. Being a small company the graphics will of course never be what millions of dollars could make them but they're still pretty good. the combat damage thing was neat and being a true sandbox is something you don't often see. I wonder what the world will look like ina few years of people digging.
It will be interesting to see if asking for it on a forum and actually enjoying it once you play it work out like they said it would
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
You are asking for too much restriction on a sandbox. You have to choose which one you really need.
I would like a middle ground, you can kill anyone but there are consequences. You get flagged for 24 hours, if bounty hunter capture you, you do jail time or something of the sort.
You wouldn't get flagged for guild wars, killing someones that stole from you, killing someone spying in your land etc...
Still need to allow to kill anyone but having some sort of penalty for mindless slaughter to try and reduce griefing.
Oh wow on paper this game looks incredible. My only 2 concerns at this point are how long it'll take to be released and the combat system being poorly done.
This game looks like Wurm Online with more combat. It said a realistic combat system...does that mean one or two hits will kill an opponent and gangrene can be expected even if they survive? Doesn't sound fun to me.
Interesting concept, but not my kind of game. Still, more power to them.
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
Exactly! But there should be consequences if you do hit that player in the mouth. You shouldn't be able to just murder someone and not be accountable for it. Otherwise it's just meaningless slaughter which is just as pointless as "tick box so i can attack you".
Originally posted by tom_gore Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
These games failed because they were poorly made, not because of the concepts behind them. The players they are aimed at tend to try them and quit because they just weren't good games. There is certainly room for a game like this if it is actually well made. I will agree that FFA PvP doesn't really work very well if there is no PvE system in place as well. Just fighting for no reason isn't enough game for most.
I'll check this one out if it has some sort of way to try it for free. I'd never pay up front for a game like this though, just way too easy for it to fail.
It sounds exactly like what so many ppl here ask for every day. Being a small company the graphics will of course never be what millions of dollars could make them but they're still pretty good. the combat damage thing was neat and being a true sandbox is something you don't often see. I wonder what the world will look like ina few years of people digging.
It will be interesting to see if asking for it on a forum and actually enjoying it once you play it work out like they said it would
wurm online isn't a smash hit, but it is successful. This game wont be a smash hit but it might be successful. That is if you really believe that 90%* of the people who ask for a "real" sandbox will last a month without a yellow brick road to follow
You also have to keep in mind that "everyone" here still isn't a very large number. They just like to pretend it is.
Originally posted by tom_gore Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
These games failed because they were poorly made, not because of the concepts behind them. The players they are aimed at tend to try them and quit because they just weren't good games. There is certainly room for a game like this if it is actually well made. I will agree that FFA PvP doesn't really work very well if there is no PvE system in place as well. Just fighting for no reason isn't enough game for most.
I'll check this one out if it has some sort of way to try it for free. I'd never pay up front for a game like this though, just way too easy for it to fail.
I hate how sandbox players are expected to play bad games because its a sandbox. Its like going to the store and wanting a piece of chicken and the store offers shit flavored chicken. The next guy says "I thought you wanted chicken. There is your chicken."
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
Exactly! But there should be consequences if you do hit that player in the mouth. You shouldn't be able to just murder someone and not be accountable for it. Otherwise it's just meaningless slaughter which is just as pointless as "tick box so i can attack you".
I completely agree with you. There needs to be a consequence a player should face for committing unjust acts in a sandbox, but it shouldn't be a consequence or punishment that is placed on you BY THE DEVELOPER just for committing the act. Players should have the tools to make consequences for committing unlawful or evil acts. There should be a sense of morality in a sandbox, because you can do ANYTHING. Developers haven't made a worthwhile sandbox in quite some time though. Games don't need arbitrary rules about the players you can and can't attack. You should be free you do anything you want, but as in the real world there should be consequences for your actions.
TLDR: I can punch some one in real life, and there are no inherent consequences for JUST ME DOING IT, but I could be charged with assault from some one in authority for doing it, or the man could turn around and punch me for punching him. I don't want to punch him and just be punished by an invisible force that is not apart of my world. I want to punch some one and be punished by an authority that isn't built into the game. Players make other players accountable for their actions, like humans make other humans accountable for their actions.
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
Exactly! But there should be consequences if you do hit that player in the mouth. You shouldn't be able to just murder someone and not be accountable for it. Otherwise it's just meaningless slaughter which is just as pointless as "tick box so i can attack you".
To be honest, I really get sick and tired of the trend of going "here is this game that won't be out for years, if at all, drool over it". I don't care what's coming out, I only care about what is actually out. Let me know when the game is actually released so I can go play it. I don't care about hype, I care about actual games. I can't play hype.
There we go. Here comes the same vocal minority thinking sandbox automatically means FFA PvP with full loot.
Sandbox means players building stuff in the world given the tools and the sand, it doesn't mean "gank fest".
And you wonder why those indie games fail one after the other.
Those indie games have failed because they're bad games period. Most players likely never get to worry about being ganked in DF or MO because they can't get past the horrible mechanics.
Sandboxes don't have to be FFA nor do they even have to be sandboxes. I don't get the point in pointing it out. Not all games have to be for you or everyone. Its a shame fellow sandbox fans try to discouraged sandboxes like many mainstream themepark fans do.
There we go. Here comes the same vocal minority thinking sandbox automatically means FFA PvP with full loot.
Sandbox means players building stuff in the world given the tools and the sand, it doesn't mean "gank fest".
And you wonder why those indie games fail one after the other.
No sandbox means, player driven communities were the player makes the rules not some dev created script.
Wrong, otherwise there could be no single player sandbox games for instance. Once again, the same crowd confuses "sandbox" and "anarchy".
"Sandbox" is pretty much self explanatory. A place where the player can create stuff. The bullies destroying your creations are NOT necessary for a game to be a sandbox.
I mean, look at the mechanics those people plan to add to their game... There's room for everyone in there. The crafting alone seems awesome. They could triple their potential player base by offering CHOICES. Yet no, it's another "head up his ass" indie developer who will fail because of that proverbial "head up his ass".
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
Neither does rampant PKing in a world where characters never die, nor suffer any other form of social justice. These games turn into nothing more than a Battle Arena.
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
Exactly! But there should be consequences if you do hit that player in the mouth. You shouldn't be able to just murder someone and not be accountable for it. Otherwise it's just meaningless slaughter which is just as pointless as "tick box so i can attack you".
I completely agree with you. There needs to be a consequence a player should face for committing unjust acts in a sandbox, but it shouldn't be a consequence or punishment that is placed on you BY THE DEVELOPER just for committing the act. Players should have the tools to make consequences for committing unlawful or evil acts. There should be a sense of morality in a sandbox, because you can do ANYTHING. Developers haven't made a worthwhile sandbox in quite some time though. Games don't need arbitrary rules about the players you can and can't attack. You should be free you do anything you want, but as in the real world there should be consequences for your actions.
TLDR: I can punch some one in real life, and there are no inherent consequences for JUST ME DOING IT, but I could be charged with assault from some one in authority for doing it, or the man could turn around and punch me for punching him. I don't want to punch him and just be punished by an invisible force that is not apart of my world. I want to punch some one and be punished by an authority that isn't built into the game. Players make other players accountable for their actions, like humans make other humans accountable for their actions.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 Originally posted by Neo_Viper There we go. Here comes the same vocal minority thinking sandbox automatically means FFA PvP with full loot.Sandbox means players building stuff in the world given the tools and the sand, it doesn't mean "gank fest".And you wonder why those indie games fail one after the other.
No sandbox means, player driven communities were the player makes the rules not some dev created script.
Wrong, otherwise there could be no single player sandbox games for instance. Once again, the same crowd confuses "sandbox" and "anarchy".
"Sandbox" is pretty much self explanatory. A place where the player can create stuff. The bullies destroying your creations are NOT necessary for a game to be a sandbox.
I mean, look at the mechanics those people plan to add to their game... There's room for everyone in there. The crafting alone seems awesome. They could triple their potential player base by offering CHOICES. Yet no, it's another "head up his ass" indie developer who will fail because of that proverbial "head up his ass".
Sandbox isn't a binary state. No game is either total sandbox or complete lack of sandbox. It's based on the many many features in the game. Each one can either be MORE or LESS "sandboxy." Not restricting pvp and not restricting looting is more sandboxy than developer imposed restrictions such as flagging systems etc.
No 1 feature is essential to a game being called a sandbox, it's a sliding scale. So you can have a pretty sandboxy game without having ow pvp and full loot, but those features are still inherently sandboxy features.
There we go. Here comes the same vocal minority thinking sandbox automatically means FFA PvP with full loot.
Sandbox means players building stuff in the world given the tools and the sand, it doesn't mean "gank fest".
And you wonder why those indie games fail one after the other.
No sandbox means, player driven communities were the player makes the rules not some dev created script.
Wrong, otherwise there could be no single player sandbox games for instance. Once again, the same crowd confuses "sandbox" and "anarchy".
"Sandbox" is pretty much self explanatory. A place where the player can create stuff. The bullies destroying your creations are NOT necessary for a game to be a sandbox.
I mean, look at the mechanics those people plan to add to their game... There's room for everyone in there. The crafting alone seems awesome. They could triple their potential player base by offering CHOICES. Yet no, it's another "head up his ass" indie developer who will fail because of that proverbial "head up his ass".
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
You probably didn't play UO in Renaissance? Probably the third biggest sandbox game success ever made (after SWG and EVE).
Even EVE would have been dead ages ago if it didn't have high-sec space and Concord.
Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
Exactly! But there should be consequences if you do hit that player in the mouth. You shouldn't be able to just murder someone and not be accountable for it. Otherwise it's just meaningless slaughter which is just as pointless as "tick box so i can attack you".
I completely agree with you. There needs to be a consequence a player should face for committing unjust acts in a sandbox, but it shouldn't be a consequence or punishment that is placed on you BY THE DEVELOPER just for committing the act. Players should have the tools to make consequences for committing unlawful or evil acts. There should be a sense of morality in a sandbox, because you can do ANYTHING. Developers haven't made a worthwhile sandbox in quite some time though. Games don't need arbitrary rules about the players you can and can't attack. You should be free you do anything you want, but as in the real world there should be consequences for your actions.
TLDR: I can punch some one in real life, and there are no inherent consequences for JUST ME DOING IT, but I could be charged with assault from some one in authority for doing it, or the man could turn around and punch me for punching him. I don't want to punch him and just be punished by an invisible force that is not apart of my world. I want to punch some one and be punished by an authority that isn't built into the game. Players make other players accountable for their actions, like humans make other humans accountable for their actions.
What would make accountability work?
The same thing that makes accountability work in the real world, people choosing to be accountable for what happens in the area around them, and doing something about it OR NOT. If you don't like murderers, bring those murderers to justice however you see fit! You could kill them, but that would create a cyclical process which wouldn't result in any fun. Developers have the ability to put in systems that may aid in helping make players accountable for what they do, but they shouldn't put in rules that make accountability mandatory. I think a game COULD have a functioning mini justice system if the players wanted, but they would need the proper resources and interface to do it in game. If you want some one to be accountable for murdering a village, you make them accountable. Your character should never be penalized for making a moral/character decision in a game. They should be penalized by other players/conscious forces that see what they did as deplorable.
There we go. Here comes the same vocal minority thinking sandbox automatically means FFA PvP with full loot.
Sandbox means players building stuff in the world given the tools and the sand, it doesn't mean "gank fest".
And you wonder why those indie games fail one after the other.
No sandbox means, player driven communities were the player makes the rules not some dev created script.
Wrong, otherwise there could be no single player sandbox games for instance. Once again, the same crowd confuses "sandbox" and "anarchy".
"Sandbox" is pretty much self explanatory. A place where the player can create stuff. The bullies destroying your creations are NOT necessary for a game to be a sandbox.
I mean, look at the mechanics those people plan to add to their game... There's room for everyone in there. The crafting alone seems awesome. They could triple their potential player base by offering CHOICES. Yet no, it's another "head up his ass" indie developer who will fail because of that proverbial "head up his ass".
All games don't have to be for everyone.
Oh yes, they can also fail because they aim such small of a niche that they aren't viable.
You failed to read my post and understand it though... I'm not saying the game should not be FFA PvP. In the game those people create, if they manage to make all those systems as deep as they pretend to (which remains to be proven... promises from "AAA" developers are already often not honored, even less promises from "head up their ass" indies), they could easily do one FFA PvP server and one server with restricted PvP. There would be still enough left to do without the forced PvP, and they would hugely increase their potential player base. This would benefit everyone.
If an indie developer wants to "stir the pot" and try to make things change, he needs to address a larger player base than just some tiny niche. As long as those developers keep on believing "FFA PvP" = "Sandbox", they will never influence the genre, and we will have to stick with what the big development houses provide.
Comments
Should be a smash hit, huh?
inb4 - animations suck, grinder, clunky combat, gear treadmill, p2w.....
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
You are asking for too much restriction on a sandbox. You have to choose which one you really need.
I would like a middle ground, you can kill anyone but there are consequences. You get flagged for 24 hours, if bounty hunter capture you, you do jail time or something of the sort.
You wouldn't get flagged for guild wars, killing someones that stole from you, killing someone spying in your land etc...
Still need to allow to kill anyone but having some sort of penalty for mindless slaughter to try and reduce griefing.
This game looks like Wurm Online with more combat. It said a realistic combat system...does that mean one or two hits will kill an opponent and gangrene can be expected even if they survive? Doesn't sound fun to me.
Interesting concept, but not my kind of game. Still, more power to them.
Exactly! But there should be consequences if you do hit that player in the mouth. You shouldn't be able to just murder someone and not be accountable for it. Otherwise it's just meaningless slaughter which is just as pointless as "tick box so i can attack you".
These games failed because they were poorly made, not because of the concepts behind them. The players they are aimed at tend to try them and quit because they just weren't good games. There is certainly room for a game like this if it is actually well made. I will agree that FFA PvP doesn't really work very well if there is no PvE system in place as well. Just fighting for no reason isn't enough game for most.
I'll check this one out if it has some sort of way to try it for free. I'd never pay up front for a game like this though, just way too easy for it to fail.
wurm online isn't a smash hit, but it is successful. This game wont be a smash hit but it might be successful. That is if you really believe that 90%* of the people who ask for a "real" sandbox will last a month without a yellow brick road to follow
You also have to keep in mind that "everyone" here still isn't a very large number. They just like to pretend it is.
I hate how sandbox players are expected to play bad games because its a sandbox. Its like going to the store and wanting a piece of chicken and the store offers shit flavored chicken. The next guy says "I thought you wanted chicken. There is your chicken."
I completely agree with you. There needs to be a consequence a player should face for committing unjust acts in a sandbox, but it shouldn't be a consequence or punishment that is placed on you BY THE DEVELOPER just for committing the act. Players should have the tools to make consequences for committing unlawful or evil acts. There should be a sense of morality in a sandbox, because you can do ANYTHING. Developers haven't made a worthwhile sandbox in quite some time though. Games don't need arbitrary rules about the players you can and can't attack. You should be free you do anything you want, but as in the real world there should be consequences for your actions.
TLDR: I can punch some one in real life, and there are no inherent consequences for JUST ME DOING IT, but I could be charged with assault from some one in authority for doing it, or the man could turn around and punch me for punching him. I don't want to punch him and just be punished by an invisible force that is not apart of my world. I want to punch some one and be punished by an authority that isn't built into the game. Players make other players accountable for their actions, like humans make other humans accountable for their actions.
Exactly
There we go. Here comes the same vocal minority thinking sandbox automatically means FFA PvP with full loot.
Sandbox means players building stuff in the world given the tools and the sand, it doesn't mean "gank fest".
And you wonder why those indie games fail one after the other.
My computer is better than yours.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
No sandbox means, player driven communities were the player makes the rules not some dev created script.
Those indie games have failed because they're bad games period. Most players likely never get to worry about being ganked in DF or MO because they can't get past the horrible mechanics.
Sandboxes don't have to be FFA nor do they even have to be sandboxes. I don't get the point in pointing it out. Not all games have to be for you or everyone. Its a shame fellow sandbox fans try to discouraged sandboxes like many mainstream themepark fans do.
Wrong, otherwise there could be no single player sandbox games for instance. Once again, the same crowd confuses "sandbox" and "anarchy".
"Sandbox" is pretty much self explanatory. A place where the player can create stuff. The bullies destroying your creations are NOT necessary for a game to be a sandbox.
I mean, look at the mechanics those people plan to add to their game... There's room for everyone in there. The crafting alone seems awesome. They could triple their potential player base by offering CHOICES. Yet no, it's another "head up his ass" indie developer who will fail because of that proverbial "head up his ass".
My computer is better than yours.
Neither does rampant PKing in a world where characters never die, nor suffer any other form of social justice. These games turn into nothing more than a Battle Arena.
Once upon a time....
What would make accountability work?
Once upon a time....
No sandbox means, player driven communities were the player makes the rules not some dev created script.
Wrong, otherwise there could be no single player sandbox games for instance. Once again, the same crowd confuses "sandbox" and "anarchy".
"Sandbox" is pretty much self explanatory. A place where the player can create stuff. The bullies destroying your creations are NOT necessary for a game to be a sandbox.
I mean, look at the mechanics those people plan to add to their game... There's room for everyone in there. The crafting alone seems awesome. They could triple their potential player base by offering CHOICES. Yet no, it's another "head up his ass" indie developer who will fail because of that proverbial "head up his ass".
Sandbox isn't a binary state. No game is either total sandbox or complete lack of sandbox. It's based on the many many features in the game. Each one can either be MORE or LESS "sandboxy." Not restricting pvp and not restricting looting is more sandboxy than developer imposed restrictions such as flagging systems etc.No 1 feature is essential to a game being called a sandbox, it's a sliding scale. So you can have a pretty sandboxy game without having ow pvp and full loot, but those features are still inherently sandboxy features.
- free loot pvp
- no instances
- look like very mundane setting, with little magic nor fantasy elements
- probably cannot be solo
.... i will pass
All games don't have to be for everyone.
You probably didn't play UO in Renaissance? Probably the third biggest sandbox game success ever made (after SWG and EVE).
Even EVE would have been dead ages ago if it didn't have high-sec space and Concord.
The same thing that makes accountability work in the real world, people choosing to be accountable for what happens in the area around them, and doing something about it OR NOT. If you don't like murderers, bring those murderers to justice however you see fit! You could kill them, but that would create a cyclical process which wouldn't result in any fun. Developers have the ability to put in systems that may aid in helping make players accountable for what they do, but they shouldn't put in rules that make accountability mandatory. I think a game COULD have a functioning mini justice system if the players wanted, but they would need the proper resources and interface to do it in game. If you want some one to be accountable for murdering a village, you make them accountable. Your character should never be penalized for making a moral/character decision in a game. They should be penalized by other players/conscious forces that see what they did as deplorable.
Oh yes, they can also fail because they aim such small of a niche that they aren't viable.
You failed to read my post and understand it though... I'm not saying the game should not be FFA PvP. In the game those people create, if they manage to make all those systems as deep as they pretend to (which remains to be proven... promises from "AAA" developers are already often not honored, even less promises from "head up their ass" indies), they could easily do one FFA PvP server and one server with restricted PvP. There would be still enough left to do without the forced PvP, and they would hugely increase their potential player base. This would benefit everyone.
If an indie developer wants to "stir the pot" and try to make things change, he needs to address a larger player base than just some tiny niche. As long as those developers keep on believing "FFA PvP" = "Sandbox", they will never influence the genre, and we will have to stick with what the big development houses provide.
My computer is better than yours.