No its not ridiculous that WoW ruined the genre, its common sense. Prior to WoW every MMO was unique in its own right, and also contained a lot more sandbox elements, even the term "sandbox" wasn't even coined until after WoW's many clones to describe a time before the market was saturated with themeparks. And there were triple A mmos before WoW, practically all of them. Swg, uo, eq, daoc, etc. They weren't exactly made by indie companies.
Literally every triple A MMO since WoW is a clone, from the standard quest hub centered gameplay, to the interface, to the battlegrounds and raiding at max level, with the 8 playable classes and the segmented PvP and the optional crafting and yadada. WoW was the first MMO to do this in a streamlined fashion, its its major success meant every other studio was going to emulate it to generate less risky shareholder profits. This is a fact if you have followed MMO's since their inception.
Also its a fact there are many ways to make a successful sandbox, there are multiplayer games out now (rust, dayz, minecraft, 7 days to die, etc) that are highly successful exploring this model. Its not hard to image an MMO format to these type of games, EvE is successful in spite of its incredibly large learning curve and mundane combat and exploration (in my opinion). If these things were corrected (not hard to fix honestly) then you could attract a much larger crowd to this form of gameplay.
Also Landmark is by no means a true sandbox. Just because it offers worldbuilding in claims doesn't grant it the title, although worldbuilding is a sandbox element. From my understanding, EQ Next is a standard questing/leveling/class based MMO with highly customizable plots. A sandbox in the true sense is a game like EvE or face of mankind that offers complete player freedom. Just giving people the ability to build shit and terra form doesn't mean they are free to do whatever they want. They are still guided through the game by developer made content and not player made content.
No its pretty much the opposite. You are clearly too emotional to see this objectively.
If one defines "WoW clone" with such broad terms, within that broad definition, you can have dozens of different types of games not even remotely similar to WoW, thus defeating the use of the word "clone".
I have not seen anyone using the term but in a derogatory sense. Therefore, I can't take them seriously because they are merely labeling the group of games they don't like. Whether those games are actually similar to WoW seems to be irrelevant.
Would you think it prudent for me to pick up a game, say Mortal Online, and say any game that doesn't have quest hubs, classes and completely open world, is a "Mortal Online clone"? It would mean that friggin' Eve Online would be a "Mortal Online clone"!
I can hardly understate how stupid this line of thought is. I propose just stop using the term entirely. You'll sound a lot smarter.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes we do. The word sandbox wad not chosen randomly. It was a weird that already had meaning. In a sandbox you could create something. The word wad chosen for games to reflect that this particular game, whatever game is being discussed, let you create something. Hence sandbox.
Lack of content has nothing to do with it. You could have lots or little.
Linear or not is harder. It may not be a defining trait but in my mind is critical simply because the more linear typically the more restricted their the less creative ability. But not always.
But you still have to create. Whether that means the ability to construct new things or strange then in New ways or make quests... arguably they could all be considered creation. It offs nit limited to building. Just creating.
Agreed, which is why the scale image above is ridiculous, as it assumes the creation content is low or zero rules/mechanics, and themepark is more rules/mechanics. It is actually the opposite. Scripted content often requires less rules to be defined, as the players options are far less. Sandbox is creation, meaningful choices and emergent gameplay. In order for that to happen there have to be mechanics that allow for it and support it.
Too many people confuse lack of content with sandbox content, and the two couldn't be further apart.
All games are about meaningful choices only sandboxes tend to have more meaningless choices in them.
And games, specifically, are about rules and objectives. For example, there's a difference between playing a game and playing with LEGO. The way I see it, themepark is geared more toward being a game whereas sandboxes generally try to lean towards the other.
LOL, I would tend to argue the opposite. In Themeparks the choice tends to be meaningless because no matter what choice you make you always end up at the same place.... not true for sandboxes.
I fear that the Golden Age for sandbox MMOs could be the downfall for that genre.
Sandbox MMOs just are not that popular than Themepark MMOs if they would be in high demand by enough we would have more of them.
If one good Sandbox would come out now i do not doubt that the number of players would be enough to be satisfying but if we have several good ones coming out the people will spread out and each of the games might not be counted as a success for the lag of a big playerbase.
So in the end it could really discourage Company's to release anymore sandbox games after that since they would see them as failed.
Of course its also possible that suddenly all the Themepark fans fall in love with Sandbox games but if we see how long players are now contempt with the same old over and over it would be quite a miracle to suddenly have a huge change like that.
Or they could reach out to a different audience not currently playing MMO's. They might not look alot like the MMO's you are used to or interested in playing but that doesn't mean they couldn't be successfull in thier own right and expand the genre.
For example, my wife really enjoys playing Lego's with our kid. I showed her an MMO once but she thought it was silly and boring. The one thing she really liked was chatting with people in my guild. She also enjoys creating writing. She'd probably be a pretty prime customer for a social MMO that centered on RPing and building but was light on the combat and dungeon running, etc. She's someone who doesn't even think about trying to play MMO's now.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes we do. The word sandbox wad not chosen randomly. It was a weird that already had meaning. In a sandbox you could create something. The word wad chosen for games to reflect that this particular game, whatever game is being discussed, let you create something. Hence sandbox.
Lack of content has nothing to do with it. You could have lots or little.
Linear or not is harder. It may not be a defining trait but in my mind is critical simply because the more linear typically the more restricted their the less creative ability. But not always.
But you still have to create. Whether that means the ability to construct new things or strange then in New ways or make quests... arguably they could all be considered creation. It offs nit limited to building. Just creating.
Agreed, which is why the scale image above is ridiculous, as it assumes the creation content is low or zero rules/mechanics, and themepark is more rules/mechanics. It is actually the opposite. Scripted content often requires less rules to be defined, as the players options are far less. Sandbox is creation, meaningful choices and emergent gameplay. In order for that to happen there have to be mechanics that allow for it and support it.
Too many people confuse lack of content with sandbox content, and the two couldn't be further apart.
All games are about meaningful choices only sandboxes tend to have more meaningless choices in them.
And games, specifically, are about rules and objectives. For example, there's a difference between playing a game and playing with LEGO. The way I see it, themepark is geared more toward being a game whereas sandboxes generally try to lean towards the other.
LOL, I would tend to argue the opposite. In Themeparks the choice tends to be meaningless because no matter what choice you make you always end up at the same place.... not true for sandboxes.
Agreed. Brice at Gamasutra explains it rather well in his article on Meaningful Choices. As there are more options and outcomes in sandbox games, there are far more rules and mechanics in place for each scenario. This is the opposite of the contention presented that a game engine devoid of gameplay rules or restrictions is a sandbox.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by FinalFikus The creation is the minor. Play is the major.
If an element is truly sandbox, the creation is the play.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
You've established through this and other posts in the thread that you are confused about the implications of the sandbox analogy. Refer to previous posts for clarification, multiple posters have explained it clearly and accurately already.
Nope. I understand it.
I don't care what post you find more accurate. If there was a post I thought was accurate I would refer to that. I didn't. So.
Ill refer to people who play them and how and why they play them, and how that differs from other types and how it differs from my own experiences. Then ill see how they are similar. Then I will observe.
Then, I will make my own decision.
I don't question that you played LOTRO mostly as a sandbox....any game (or non-game application) that features a chat client CAN be played as a sandbox, that doesn't mean that the game and gameplay is focused on sandbox play.
I played LOTRO too... in a RP Guild... The set of features it has to support sandbox play is fairly limited...mostly the muisic system, housing customization and chat... if you kinda ignore alot of what gameplay is going on around you or use it as props for RP, you can kinda play it as a sandbox.... although you are not alot better off doing that then you would be using a simple chat room client and your imagination. There is a qualitative difference between that and a game where the gameplay and toolset are focused on sandbox play. YMMV.
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
You've established through this and other posts in the thread that you are confused about the implications of the sandbox analogy. Refer to previous posts for clarification, multiple posters have explained it clearly and accurately already.
Nope. I understand it.
I don't care what post you find more accurate. If there was a post I thought was accurate I would refer to that. I didn't. So.
Ill refer to people who play them and how and why they play them, and how that differs from other types and how it differs from my own experiences. Then ill see how they are similar. Then I will observe.
Then, I will make my own decision.
I don't question that you played LOTRO mostly as a sandbox....any game (or non-game application) that features a chat client CAN be played as a sandbox, that doesn't mean that the game and gameplay is focused on sandbox play.
I played LOTRO too... in a RP Guild... The set of features it has to support sandbox play is fairly limited...mostly the muisic system, housing customization and chat... if you kinda ignore alot of what gameplay is going on around you or use it as props for RP, you can kinda play it as a sandbox.... although you are not alot better off doing that then you would be using a simple chat room client and your imagination. There is a qualitative difference between that and a game where the gameplay and toolset are focused on sandbox play. YMMV.
I understand. I don't call lotro a sandbox. I was informed it was impossible for us to play as one without official toolsets.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The only problem with WoW .....and I actualy enjoyed the game for the 18 months or so that I played it.... is that after it OTHER Developers assumed it was a formula that they MUST follow tightly in order to produce a successfull game. That stagnated creativity and variety. Like someone creating a Pizza and forever after assuming that EVERY dish created must be Pizza or Pizza-like.
Truth is human beings, even gamers, are not at all as narrow in thier tastes as that. Here's the dirty secret....even though I'm a huge sandbox advocate on these boards..... I don't dislike Themeparks. When I'm in the right mood, I'll even play a good quality Themepark. What I dislike is not having a variety of choice in the type of quality games on offer to play. For a long while that was very much true....and still is to an extent. If I look at movies released over the course of any given year, I've got a HUGE variety of things I can see.... and I'm sure to find multiple entries in different styles that I can enjoy. If I look to MMO's....meh....it's pretty much the same game released over in over again with minor variations or tweaks in the formula.... THAT is what seems to be starting to change now.
I don't question that you played LOTRO mostly as a sandbox....any game (or non-game application) that features a chat client CAN be played as a sandbox, that doesn't mean that the game and gameplay is focused on sandbox play.
That is why I generally talk about sandbox "elements." If the closest thing a game has to a sandbox element is the chat window, the game itself is basically 100% themepark.
Originally posted by FinalFikus
Creation is part of play. The minor.
Developers don't make games to admire from a distance. Nor do we build sand castles to admire. We build them to defend or attack or..play with.
Perfectly fair to say creation is minor, but if you are doing so, you are saying the actual sandbox elements of the game are minor. The things created via sandbox play are not themselves "sandbox," that is simply the production route by which they entered the game. A ride doesn't stop being a ride just because it was built by a player instead of a developer.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
No its not ridiculous that WoW ruined the genre, its common sense. Prior to WoW every MMO was unique in its own right, and also contained a lot more sandbox elements, even the term "sandbox" wasn't even coined until after WoW's many clones to describe a time before the market was saturated with themeparks. And there were triple A mmos before WoW, practically all of them. Swg, uo, eq, daoc, etc. They weren't exactly made by indie companies.
Literally every triple A MMO since WoW is a clone, from the standard quest hub centered gameplay, to the interface, to the battlegrounds and raiding at max level, with the 8 playable classes and the segmented PvP and the optional crafting and yadada. WoW was the first MMO to do this in a streamlined fashion, its its major success meant every other studio was going to emulate it to generate less risky shareholder profits. This is a fact if you have followed MMO's since their inception.
Also its a fact there are many ways to make a successful sandbox, there are multiplayer games out now (rust, dayz, minecraft, 7 days to die, etc) that are highly successful exploring this model. Its not hard to image an MMO format to these type of games, EvE is successful in spite of its incredibly large learning curve and mundane combat and exploration (in my opinion). If these things were corrected (not hard to fix honestly) then you could attract a much larger crowd to this form of gameplay.
Also Landmark is by no means a true sandbox. Just because it offers worldbuilding in claims doesn't grant it the title, although worldbuilding is a sandbox element. From my understanding, EQ Next is a standard questing/leveling/class based MMO with highly customizable plots. A sandbox in the true sense is a game like EvE or face of mankind that offers complete player freedom. Just giving people the ability to build shit and terra form doesn't mean they are free to do whatever they want. They are still guided through the game by developer made content and not player made content.
No its pretty much the opposite. You are clearly too emotional to see this objectively.
If one defines "WoW clone" with such broad terms, within that broad definition, you can have dozens of different types of games not even remotely similar to WoW, thus defeating the use of the word "clone".
I have not seen anyone using the term but in a derogatory sense. Therefore, I can't take them seriously because they are merely labeling the group of games they don't like. Whether those games are actually similar to WoW seems to be irrelevant.
Would you think it prudent for me to pick up a game, say Mortal Online, and say any game that doesn't have quest hubs, classes and completely open world, is a "Mortal Online clone"? It would mean that friggin' Eve Online would be a "Mortal Online clone"!
I can hardly understate how stupid this line of thought is. I propose just stop using the term entirely. You'll sound a lot smarter.
The opposite? I've been following MMO's and playing them virtually every week since 1999, I think I'm seeing this quite objectively. WoW clone is a proper term and if you have any idea what your talking about you can clearly see the obvious shift in the genre after WoW came out. When development companies are looking to raise capital, investors are only going to hand money over to people modeling their product after the most successful game, which after 2005 became WoW. Hence now the market is saturated with linear quest hub grinding themeparks (This is like saying the sky is blue)
And the mortal clone term is just laughable. EvE came out 6 years before MO, so I have no idea why you would call it a MO clone. And if you ever played the two games they are different in virtually every aspect, the only similarity is that they offer high levels of player freedom. As opposed to every MMO that came out after WoW, that used the game as a direct template Same 8 classes, same quest hub progression, same segmented pvp, same battlegrounds, same raiding at max level, same optional crafting. Hell even the games share the same interface and hotbar.
Heres a video that explains perfectly why your an idiot.
Comments
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
No its pretty much the opposite. You are clearly too emotional to see this objectively.
If one defines "WoW clone" with such broad terms, within that broad definition, you can have dozens of different types of games not even remotely similar to WoW, thus defeating the use of the word "clone".
I have not seen anyone using the term but in a derogatory sense. Therefore, I can't take them seriously because they are merely labeling the group of games they don't like. Whether those games are actually similar to WoW seems to be irrelevant.
Would you think it prudent for me to pick up a game, say Mortal Online, and say any game that doesn't have quest hubs, classes and completely open world, is a "Mortal Online clone"? It would mean that friggin' Eve Online would be a "Mortal Online clone"!
I can hardly understate how stupid this line of thought is. I propose just stop using the term entirely. You'll sound a lot smarter.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
LOL, I would tend to argue the opposite. In Themeparks the choice tends to be meaningless because no matter what choice you make you always end up at the same place.... not true for sandboxes.
Or they could reach out to a different audience not currently playing MMO's. They might not look alot like the MMO's you are used to or interested in playing but that doesn't mean they couldn't be successfull in thier own right and expand the genre.
For example, my wife really enjoys playing Lego's with our kid. I showed her an MMO once but she thought it was silly and boring. The one thing she really liked was chatting with people in my guild. She also enjoys creating writing. She'd probably be a pretty prime customer for a social MMO that centered on RPing and building but was light on the combat and dungeon running, etc. She's someone who doesn't even think about trying to play MMO's now.
Agreed. Brice at Gamasutra explains it rather well in his article on Meaningful Choices. As there are more options and outcomes in sandbox games, there are far more rules and mechanics in place for each scenario. This is the opposite of the contention presented that a game engine devoid of gameplay rules or restrictions is a sandbox.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If an element is truly sandbox, the creation is the play.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I don't question that you played LOTRO mostly as a sandbox....any game (or non-game application) that features a chat client CAN be played as a sandbox, that doesn't mean that the game and gameplay is focused on sandbox play.
I played LOTRO too... in a RP Guild... The set of features it has to support sandbox play is fairly limited...mostly the muisic system, housing customization and chat... if you kinda ignore alot of what gameplay is going on around you or use it as props for RP, you can kinda play it as a sandbox.... although you are not alot better off doing that then you would be using a simple chat room client and your imagination. There is a qualitative difference between that and a game where the gameplay and toolset are focused on sandbox play. YMMV.
Creation is part of play. The minor.
Developers don't make games to admire from a distance. Nor do we build sand castles to admire. We build them to defend or attack or..play with.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I understand. I don't call lotro a sandbox. I was informed it was impossible for us to play as one without official toolsets.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The only problem with WoW .....and I actualy enjoyed the game for the 18 months or so that I played it.... is that after it OTHER Developers assumed it was a formula that they MUST follow tightly in order to produce a successfull game. That stagnated creativity and variety. Like someone creating a Pizza and forever after assuming that EVERY dish created must be Pizza or Pizza-like.
Truth is human beings, even gamers, are not at all as narrow in thier tastes as that. Here's the dirty secret....even though I'm a huge sandbox advocate on these boards..... I don't dislike Themeparks. When I'm in the right mood, I'll even play a good quality Themepark. What I dislike is not having a variety of choice in the type of quality games on offer to play. For a long while that was very much true....and still is to an extent. If I look at movies released over the course of any given year, I've got a HUGE variety of things I can see.... and I'm sure to find multiple entries in different styles that I can enjoy. If I look to MMO's....meh....it's pretty much the same game released over in over again with minor variations or tweaks in the formula.... THAT is what seems to be starting to change now.
Perfectly fair to say creation is minor, but if you are doing so, you are saying the actual sandbox elements of the game are minor. The things created via sandbox play are not themselves "sandbox," that is simply the production route by which they entered the game. A ride doesn't stop being a ride just because it was built by a player instead of a developer.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
The opposite? I've been following MMO's and playing them virtually every week since 1999, I think I'm seeing this quite objectively. WoW clone is a proper term and if you have any idea what your talking about you can clearly see the obvious shift in the genre after WoW came out. When development companies are looking to raise capital, investors are only going to hand money over to people modeling their product after the most successful game, which after 2005 became WoW. Hence now the market is saturated with linear quest hub grinding themeparks (This is like saying the sky is blue)
And the mortal clone term is just laughable. EvE came out 6 years before MO, so I have no idea why you would call it a MO clone. And if you ever played the two games they are different in virtually every aspect, the only similarity is that they offer high levels of player freedom. As opposed to every MMO that came out after WoW, that used the game as a direct template Same 8 classes, same quest hub progression, same segmented pvp, same battlegrounds, same raiding at max level, same optional crafting. Hell even the games share the same interface and hotbar.
Heres a video that explains perfectly why your an idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK8fua6O64