Pvp exists in every mmo, just not necessarily combat pvp. The difference is the level of control an individual has over there involvement in that pvp. Play the market or ignore it, compete for the spawn, be the best crafter or don’t care and the list goes on. With combat pvp, especially open world, the individual doesn’t have control over that conflict and is at the mercy of another player to make that choice even if they themselves don’t want to at that time.
Most people want full or as much control as possible over their interactions. That’s why people like PVE mmos, and there is nothing wrong with that.
That's because the "typical case" is for multiple people to make fundamentally the same user experience.
And it can still be a sandbox MMO without PvP. It just focuses fundamentally on the aforementioned development of culture and potential PvE user experience.
Conflict does not have to be predicated on PvP. Even in the case of PvE driven conflict, you can have a variety of user experiences built on more than just the basic things most tend to deliver. The problem is narrow scope of gameplay styles commonly used.
A PvE sandbox MMO is about collaborative user experiences, not competitive, simple as that.
No. You have to remove the conflict.
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
I don't think sandboxes can actually become good unless they become sandparks instead of boxes - as someone mentioned on the first page, the lack of NPCs which is totally characteristic of sandboxes is a major factor making the game worlds feel empty. Without NPCs and pre-build or partially pre-built locations you can't really tell stories to the players, and that makes the world feel meaningless or unknowable.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
I don't think sandboxes can actually become good unless they become sandparks instead of boxes - as someone mentioned on the first page, the lack of NPCs which is totally characteristic of sandboxes is a major factor making the game worlds feel empty. Without NPCs and pre-build or partially pre-built locations you can't really tell stories to the players, and that makes the world feel meaningless or unknowable.
I just want to chime in here and say that having NPCs is not what makes a theme park and does not take away from sandbox. It has nothing to do with it at all. Theme park games guide you on rails, taking you down a path that you must follow to advance. NPCs are fine additions to any type of game.
I don't think sandboxes can actually become good unless they become sandparks instead of boxes - as someone mentioned on the first page, the lack of NPCs which is totally characteristic of sandboxes is a major factor making the game worlds feel empty. Without NPCs and pre-build or partially pre-built locations you can't really tell stories to the players, and that makes the world feel meaningless or unknowable.
I just want to chime in here and say that having NPCs is not what makes a theme park and does not take away from sandbox. It has nothing to do with it at all. Theme park games guide you on rails, taking you down a path that you must follow to advance. NPCs are fine additions to any type of game.
I'm quite curious how a themepark game with no NPCs would guide its players down that path, which is usually done by presenting the game's story through quests and dialogue about lore. But ok I'll grant that it's theoretically possible.
However, themeparks often are not rigidly linear these days. If you were to play, say, Rift, the tutorial area requires you to complete the quest sequence there unless you use a method to teleport yourself out of that area (which is possible through 3 different means). After that there isn't one required quest until level 50 to unlock your secondary stat/skill tree, and then there are none for the rest of the game. You can spend all your time hunting artifacts or gathering crafting mats or decorating dimensions (instanced housing) or grinding mobs if you want. But it's clearly a themepark game. So I think it's good proof that themeparks aren't necessarily about rails. Rather, the easiest way to identify a themepark is that basically all themeparks have NPC quest-givers, bosses that act like NPCs by delivering dialogue, and perhaps most importantly, themeparks do not allow players to alter the game world except in the most transient of ways, or ways that affect the visuals served to that player only.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
I don't think sandboxes can actually become good unless they become sandparks instead of boxes - as someone mentioned on the first page, the lack of NPCs which is totally characteristic of sandboxes is a major factor making the game worlds feel empty. Without NPCs and pre-build or partially pre-built locations you can't really tell stories to the players, and that makes the world feel meaningless or unknowable.
I just want to chime in here and say that having NPCs is not what makes a theme park and does not take away from sandbox. It has nothing to do with it at all. Theme park games guide you on rails, taking you down a path that you must follow to advance. NPCs are fine additions to any type of game.
I'm quite curious how a themepark game with no NPCs would guide its players down that path, which is usually done by presenting the game's story through quests and dialogue about lore. But ok I'll grant that it's theoretically possible.
However, themeparks often are not rigidly linear these days. If you were to play, say, Rift, the tutorial area requires you to complete the quest sequence there unless you use a method to teleport yourself out of that area (which is possible through 3 different means). After that there isn't one required quest until level 50 to unlock your secondary stat/skill tree, and then there are none for the rest of the game. You can spend all your time hunting artifacts or gathering crafting mats or decorating dimensions (instanced housing) or grinding mobs if you want. But it's clearly a themepark game. So I think it's good proof that themeparks aren't necessarily about rails. Rather, the easiest way to identify a themepark is that basically all themeparks have NPC quest-givers, bosses that act like NPCs by delivering dialogue, and perhaps most importantly, themeparks do not allow players to alter the game world except in the most transient of ways, or ways that affect the visuals served to that player only.
The term “ theme park” is literally about taking pre determined rides.
Saying we can't have sandbox without PVP is the exact problem holding back these games. If you enjoy a PVP based sandbox, then that's absolutely great for you. I'd prefer a PVE based sandbox.
I don't think sandboxes can actually become good unless they become sandparks instead of boxes - as someone mentioned on the first page, the lack of NPCs which is totally characteristic of sandboxes is a major factor making the game worlds feel empty. Without NPCs and pre-build or partially pre-built locations you can't really tell stories to the players, and that makes the world feel meaningless or unknowable.
I just want to chime in here and say that having NPCs is not what makes a theme park and does not take away from sandbox. It has nothing to do with it at all. Theme park games guide you on rails, taking you down a path that you must follow to advance. NPCs are fine additions to any type of game.
I'm quite curious how a themepark game with no NPCs would guide its players down that path, which is usually done by presenting the game's story through quests and dialogue about lore. But ok I'll grant that it's theoretically possible.
However, themeparks often are not rigidly linear these days. If you were to play, say, Rift, the tutorial area requires you to complete the quest sequence there unless you use a method to teleport yourself out of that area (which is possible through 3 different means). After that there isn't one required quest until level 50 to unlock your secondary stat/skill tree, and then there are none for the rest of the game. You can spend all your time hunting artifacts or gathering crafting mats or decorating dimensions (instanced housing) or grinding mobs if you want. But it's clearly a themepark game. So I think it's good proof that themeparks aren't necessarily about rails. Rather, the easiest way to identify a themepark is that basically all themeparks have NPC quest-givers, bosses that act like NPCs by delivering dialogue, and perhaps most importantly, themeparks do not allow players to alter the game world except in the most transient of ways, or ways that affect the visuals served to that player only.
The term “ theme park” is literally about taking pre determined rides.
That's true, but think about a real theme park - you don't have to ride the rides in any particular order and you don't have to ride them all. The experience as a whole isn't on rails, only the individual rides. But even when you choose not to go on a ride, just walking past a ride probably exposes you to that ride's story through its name, decorations, and sounds. And when you think back on your day at the theme park, your memories are mostly of the vivid sensory impressions created by the different rides. NPCs with their costumes and background dialogue are like that in themepark MMOs.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
I'd like to see a themeparkish sandbox where players change the world. examples:
i don't want to build my house one square of wall at a time, let me choose from pre-existing houses and choose the furniture etc also from pre-existing ones and let me place the furniture myself
the pre-existing houses could be crafting related: a blacksmiths house, a mill, a lighthouse, a hunter's cottage etc...
building settlements with pre-existing houses, settlement fortifications etc, warehouses etc, moats etc
overall i'd like to see same mechanics i see in an rts game, where each unit is a player, is tied to a house, is tied to a settlement etc
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
Fortnite is a MMO, you may not like it, but that is the result of the evolution of the genre. Sims online is also an MMO. And indeed, we are talking about the design. So, the conflict as the cooperation are natural human behaviors. And most multiplayer games include both - from poker and football to EVE. So, what is the reason to remove the competition? Obviously you target some specific audience. And I'm trying to understand why that players do not want to compete.
Sims Online is not Sims, it also doesn't exist any more.
And Fortnite is only classed as an online videogame, not an MMO. I'm not sure where you pulled that idea from, but there is no official claim of that game being an MMO. That's simply not where the genre has evolved.
And no, most multiplayer games tend to focus on a relatively narrow scope. Poker for example is a fundamentally competitive game, you don;t have teams committing cooperative play, that's technically against the rules most of the time.
Football, however, is a team sport. By it's nature it's focus is competitive play, but the only way to win is through a competent and cooperative team beating the opposition. However, that is the scope of it.
A game that fundamentally pushes cooperative play first is, well, fundamentally different in that the style of game choices has to all push for that "collaborative" angle. IE, world building, puzzle solving, boss/monster hunting, etc.
It's again, not a matter of "removing" competition, it's not adding it in the first place if the focus is to be on a collaborative user experience, and more over it remains the point that PvP and player competition is not itself a necessity in any form, simply a preference for some people.
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
Fortnite is a MMO, you may not like it, but that is the result of the evolution of the genre. Sims online is also an MMO. And indeed, we are talking about the design. So, the conflict as the cooperation are natural human behaviors. And most multiplayer games include both - from poker and football to EVE. So, what is the reason to remove the competition? Obviously you target some specific audience. And I'm trying to understand why that players do not want to compete.
100 people on a map is not massively multiplayer. You are so far off on all your posts it’s literally a headache.
Unrestricted PVP. I think it's a bad idea. I think most players can settle for giild war, duels and the like. As long as there is no accountability open world PVP will never been popular with the current MMORPG player base.
Small worlds with limited building area. A large world serves few purposes. It gives players enough area to build without every inch of buildable land covered. If you are doing PVP you give players space to breath. I think a guy is less likely to run 30 minutes to hours to grief some village or town. Especially if there is no friendly resurrection point nearby.
Lack of urban planning. It is just ugly to see towns just be a hobble of houses close to each other. No roads, walls monuments or anything.
Vast vertical progression. In a game that scream let me just play and work it out. We don't need power gaps or directed game play.
Make player cities mostly secure zones. They should be as safe as NPC towns with guards. You want players to conduct business in peace even in a PVP game. Of course there can be exceptions with seiges from other groups or monster invasions.
Poor animations and graphics. I don't need the best graphics. I just hate bad realistic graphics. Also animations need to at least relay what's going on and be clean as possible. Not easy feats in the least.
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
Fortnite is a MMO, you may not like it, but that is the result of the evolution of the genre. Sims online is also an MMO. And indeed, we are talking about the design. So, the conflict as the cooperation are natural human behaviors. And most multiplayer games include both - from poker and football to EVE. So, what is the reason to remove the competition? Obviously you target some specific audience. And I'm trying to understand why that players do not want to compete.
100 people on a map is not massively multiplayer. You are so far off on all your posts it’s literally a headache.
And why 100 people is not massively multiplayer? For example Fortnite championship - all 200 millions of players could participate and compete on instanced battlegrounds. It is the biggest MMO ever.
Google and learn what things mean. You’ll have an easier time discussing with others when you actually understand what it is you are discussing.
I like sandbox until it involves killing other players and looting them. That mechanic alone will turn me away every time.
So full loot without "killing" is not a problem? I'm curious is it the mechanic or the animation
Actually I am not against open world pvp, what I am against is FFA PvP and harsh desth penalties. I rather have Faction pvp with Faction lore, loyalty and PvE content. No matter how realistic you all think Sandboxes are, this is the internet. The internet breeds trolls. I rather have the game divided into pvp Factions that can be in the area to come to my aid when trolls attack. Back in Vanilla WoW when high levels would come to low level zones killing and ganking low level newbies, a quick cry out in the map had a group of high level faction members come to fight those high level gankers off. I loved that aspect of Faction PvP. It cant be replaced. Not everybody does the guild stuff. I been playing long enough to know Guild PvP and Forced Guild Content is just as bad as FFA pvp. I pass on that. There is no Sandbox Faction PvP MMOs. I would be down for one that went this route.
Open world PvP and FFA PvP are actually the same thing.
No, no they are bloody not at all! Where the hell do you dream this utter bullshit up?
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
Fortnite is a MMO, you may not like it, but that is the result of the evolution of the genre. Sims online is also an MMO. And indeed, we are talking about the design. So, the conflict as the cooperation are natural human behaviors. And most multiplayer games include both - from poker and football to EVE. So, what is the reason to remove the competition? Obviously you target some specific audience. And I'm trying to understand why that players do not want to compete.
100 people on a map is not massively multiplayer. You are so far off on all your posts it’s literally a headache.
And why 100 people is not massively multiplayer? For example Fortnite championship - all 200 millions of players could participate and compete on instanced battlegrounds. It is the biggest MMO ever.
... See , i told you people *sigh
When people don't even give a **** about what's MMO , then how do we have good MMO in first place ?
here we have Fortine , new king of the hill , most populated MMO , WOW killer , i mean lol killer , i mean ... candy crush killer
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
Fortnite is a MMO, you may not like it, but that is the result of the evolution of the genre. Sims online is also an MMO. And indeed, we are talking about the design. So, the conflict as the cooperation are natural human behaviors. And most multiplayer games include both - from poker and football to EVE. So, what is the reason to remove the competition? Obviously you target some specific audience. And I'm trying to understand why that players do not want to compete.
100 people on a map is not massively multiplayer. You are so far off on all your posts it’s literally a headache.
You should see my sig
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
Fortnite is a MMO, you may not like it, but that is the result of the evolution of the genre. Sims online is also an MMO. And indeed, we are talking about the design. So, the conflict as the cooperation are natural human behaviors. And most multiplayer games include both - from poker and football to EVE. So, what is the reason to remove the competition? Obviously you target some specific audience. And I'm trying to understand why that players do not want to compete.
100 people on a map is not massively multiplayer. You are so far off on all your posts it’s literally a headache.
There is nothing here I could disagree. Still I'm curious why the developers should not implement competition. As a person who never interested of purely cooperative games (all kind of games, not only video) I can explain my behavior. It is the fun from wining over the competitors.
A simple reason is budget. A more complex reason is focus.
The simple reason is just the case that the more features and scope you add to a game, the more you have to spread out your development and the more shallow (or fragmentary) the overall content will become. This plagues a lot of games already.
The other reason, focus, is in how it affects the game not just at it's initial design and implementation, but over the life of it's existence. When a game focuses on PvP and competitive play, the "balance" in the game features has to wrap around that. This can often be to the detriment of other forms of play, such as PvE directly.
Not everyone wants a competitive user experience, and when a game includes it, even if the user does not participate, it can affect the quality of the player's experience as a direct consequence of it's presence within the game.
I like sandbox until it involves killing other players and looting them. That mechanic alone will turn me away every time.
So full loot without "killing" is not a problem? I'm curious is it the mechanic or the animation
Actually I am not against open world pvp, what I am against is FFA PvP and harsh desth penalties. I rather have Faction pvp with Faction lore, loyalty and PvE content. No matter how realistic you all think Sandboxes are, this is the internet. The internet breeds trolls. I rather have the game divided into pvp Factions that can be in the area to come to my aid when trolls attack. Back in Vanilla WoW when high levels would come to low level zones killing and ganking low level newbies, a quick cry out in the map had a group of high level faction members come to fight those high level gankers off. I loved that aspect of Faction PvP. It cant be replaced. Not everybody does the guild stuff. I been playing long enough to know Guild PvP and Forced Guild Content is just as bad as FFA pvp. I pass on that. There is no Sandbox Faction PvP MMOs. I would be down for one that went this route.
Open world PvP and FFA PvP are actually the same thing. But I get what you mean. Faction PvP is not open world. You have safe instance - your faction. In fact in the most games it is literally instance - a part of the map, where you are safe from the enemies. Now imagine if both factions are placed on the same coordinates of the map. So you could be attacked and looted in every moment, everywhere. This is open world. Then the factions will be even more stupid, as they only will limit your choice of friends and enemies. I like more the L2 and EVE design where you are free to choose clan or corporation, or even to make a new one. Also like that the cooperative element is much stronger, as you choose your allies. Let be honest most players play, they do not role play, so they do not care about faction lore and they have no loyalty to the faction, as it is not their choice. They choose the look of the character, then the skills, the rumors for the power gaps and balance also affect the choice. And then they are forced to be part of some faction. Let take AA - most players have characters from the both factions. You are talking about "forced guild content", but the faction content is much more "forced".
Open World and FFA pvp are not the same thing. Open World means just that, you have pvp in the open outside of instances. WoW had open world pvp. It was faction based like all of its pvp until Arenas came. FFA pvp means no factions anybody can attack anybody. Open World pvp can be 100% faction based just like WoW's pvp servers. It's not stupid since like I said, WoW had pvp servers in which you can be attacked by enemy faction anywhere. That's Open World pvp. It works just like that it would also work like that in a sandbox mmo. Two or Three factions, the world shared by these faction player base, each with it's own lore and loyalty they each compete for resources in the world and do pve in the world with their own faction allies while pvpers of their faction hold defenses and protect faction allies. This isnt anything radical since it's been done many years before in theme park MMOs, sandbox mmos never really do this because they really never shake up the model really. Doesnt mean it cant be done in a sandbox mmo.
Most players dont role play, never said they did, but story and Faction Pride is a real thing. WoW again is a more recent example of the importance of Faction Pride, were as GW2 WvW doesnt have this since every world is a copy of the other so has no loyalty or even it's own look and feel. Factions do. Again this has nothing to do with Roleplay in the traditional sense of the term as used in the MMO genre. I didnt roleplay but I stayed true to my faction Alliance in WoW and Defiant in Rift.
EvE is FFA PVP which again is the problem. This been done to death in the Sandbox MMO industry. How about trying something new and do Faction PvP in a sandbox instead of keep doing same old same old that hasn't struck gold in modern times in the sandbox MMO industry.
That's because the "typical case" is for multiple people to make fundamentally the same user experience.
And it can still be a sandbox MMO without PvP. It just focuses fundamentally on the aforementioned development of culture and potential PvE user experience.
Conflict does not have to be predicated on PvP. Even in the case of PvE driven conflict, you can have a variety of user experiences built on more than just the basic things most tend to deliver. The problem is narrow scope of gameplay styles commonly used.
A PvE sandbox MMO is about collaborative user experiences, not competitive, simple as that.
No. You have to remove the conflict.
No, you just don't add in player conflict in the first place. That is nothing but a game design choice and a gameplay decision. Your opinion of PvE is irrelevant to that fact.
Pretty much like Non WvW GW2 content is all ove. It can work. But I still rather have pvp factions even if they have a pve world map that there is no flagging. I still like having a pve theme of conflict between factions in the story writing. One of my main complaints about GW2 is that it's hard for me to get attached to the lore and story telling.
I like sandbox until it involves killing other players and looting them. That mechanic alone will turn me away every time.
So full loot without "killing" is not a problem? I'm curious is it the mechanic or the animation
Actually I am not against open world pvp, what I am against is FFA PvP and harsh desth penalties. I rather have Faction pvp with Faction lore, loyalty and PvE content. No matter how realistic you all think Sandboxes are, this is the internet. The internet breeds trolls. I rather have the game divided into pvp Factions that can be in the area to come to my aid when trolls attack. Back in Vanilla WoW when high levels would come to low level zones killing and ganking low level newbies, a quick cry out in the map had a group of high level faction members come to fight those high level gankers off. I loved that aspect of Faction PvP. It cant be replaced. Not everybody does the guild stuff. I been playing long enough to know Guild PvP and Forced Guild Content is just as bad as FFA pvp. I pass on that. There is no Sandbox Faction PvP MMOs. I would be down for one that went this route.
Open world PvP and FFA PvP are actually the same thing. But I get what you mean. Faction PvP is not open world. You have safe instance - your faction. In fact in the most games it is literally instance - a part of the map, where you are safe from the enemies. Now imagine if both factions are placed on the same coordinates of the map. So you could be attacked and looted in every moment, everywhere. This is open world. Then the factions will be even more stupid, as they only will limit your choice of friends and enemies. I like more the L2 and EVE design where you are free to choose clan or corporation, or even to make a new one. Also like that the cooperative element is much stronger, as you choose your allies. Let be honest most players play, they do not role play, so they do not care about faction lore and they have no loyalty to the faction, as it is not their choice. They choose the look of the character, then the skills, the rumors for the power gaps and balance also affect the choice. And then they are forced to be part of some faction. Let take AA - most players have characters from the both factions. You are talking about "forced guild content", but the faction content is much more "forced".
Open World and FFA pvp are not the same thing. Open World means just that, you have pvp in the open outside of instances. WoW had open world pvp. It was faction based like all of its pvp until Arenas came. FFA pvp means no factions anybody can attack anybody. Open World pvp can be 100% faction based just like WoW's pvp servers. It's not stupid since like I said, WoW had pvp servers in which you can be attacked by enemy faction anywhere. That's Open World pvp. It works just like that it would also work like that in a sandbox mmo. Two or Three factions, the world shared by these faction player base, each with it's own lore and loyalty they each compete for resources in the world and do pve in the world with their own faction allies while pvpers of their faction hold defenses and protect faction allies. This isnt anything radical since it's been done many years before in theme park MMOs, sandbox mmos never really do this because they really never shake up the model really. Doesnt mean it cant be done in a sandbox mmo.
Most players dont role play, never said they did, but story and Faction Pride is a real thing. WoW again is a more recent example of the importance of Faction Pride, were as GW2 WvW doesnt have this since every world is a copy of the other so has no loyalty or even it's own look and feel. Factions do. Again this has nothing to do with Roleplay in the traditional sense of the term as used in the MMO genre. I didnt roleplay but I stayed true to my faction Alliance in WoW and Defiant in Rift.
EvE is FFA PVP which again is the problem. This been done to death in the Sandbox MMO industry. How about trying something new and do Faction PvP in a sandbox instead of keep doing same old same old that hasn't struck gold in modern times in the sandbox MMO industry.
Thank you. I was about to go ahead and try to educate this guy, but I am losing hope he will learn.
@ikcin google is your friend. A lot of what you assert is so wildly off the mark one has to wonder if you are simply trying to click bait.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
MMOExposed said: One of my main complaints about GW2 is that it's hard for me to get attached to the lore and story telling.
Same.
I'm an old DAoC vet who played on an RP server - not because I'm an RPer but because those servers tended to attract more dedicated players that wanted to immerse. I've never seen faction pride like we Albs had on Guin anywhere else but I'm still looking for it. It makes all the difference in the world for my enjoyment.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't think sandboxes can actually become good unless they become sandparks instead of boxes - as someone mentioned on the first page, the lack of NPCs which is totally characteristic of sandboxes is a major factor making the game worlds feel empty. Without NPCs and pre-build or partially pre-built locations you can't really tell stories to the players, and that makes the world feel meaningless or unknowable.
I just want to chime in here and say that having NPCs is not what makes a theme park and does not take away from sandbox. It has nothing to do with it at all. Theme park games guide you on rails, taking you down a path that you must follow to advance. NPCs are fine additions to any type of game.
I'm quite curious how a themepark game with no NPCs would guide its players down that path, which is usually done by presenting the game's story through quests and dialogue about lore. But ok I'll grant that it's theoretically possible.
However, themeparks often are not rigidly linear these days. If you were to play, say, Rift, the tutorial area requires you to complete the quest sequence there unless you use a method to teleport yourself out of that area (which is possible through 3 different means). After that there isn't one required quest until level 50 to unlock your secondary stat/skill tree, and then there are none for the rest of the game. You can spend all your time hunting artifacts or gathering crafting mats or decorating dimensions (instanced housing) or grinding mobs if you want. But it's clearly a themepark game. So I think it's good proof that themeparks aren't necessarily about rails. Rather, the easiest way to identify a themepark is that basically all themeparks have NPC quest-givers, bosses that act like NPCs by delivering dialogue, and perhaps most importantly, themeparks do not allow players to alter the game world except in the most transient of ways, or ways that affect the visuals served to that player only.
The term “ theme park” is literally about taking pre determined rides.
Theme parks have rides and attractions. Only the rollercoaster themselves are on rails. Nothing else. You can go anywhere in the the park and pick which ride you want to ride in whatever order you want. Nobody can tell you which ride you have to take beforehand just to get on ride number 5. There isnt a predetermined path. Again only the Rollercoaster is a predetermined on rails experience.
Comments
Most people want full or as much control as possible over their interactions. That’s why people like PVE mmos, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Do you even know what you're talking about?
However, themeparks often are not rigidly linear these days. If you were to play, say, Rift, the tutorial area requires you to complete the quest sequence there unless you use a method to teleport yourself out of that area (which is possible through 3 different means). After that there isn't one required quest until level 50 to unlock your secondary stat/skill tree, and then there are none for the rest of the game. You can spend all your time hunting artifacts or gathering crafting mats or decorating dimensions (instanced housing) or grinding mobs if you want. But it's clearly a themepark game. So I think it's good proof that themeparks aren't necessarily about rails. Rather, the easiest way to identify a themepark is that basically all themeparks have NPC quest-givers, bosses that act like NPCs by delivering dialogue, and perhaps most importantly, themeparks do not allow players to alter the game world except in the most transient of ways, or ways that affect the visuals served to that player only.
Saying we can't have sandbox without PVP is the exact problem holding back these games. If you enjoy a PVP based sandbox, then that's absolutely great for you. I'd prefer a PVE based sandbox.
i don't want to build my house one square of wall at a time, let me choose from pre-existing houses and choose the furniture etc also from pre-existing ones and let me place the furniture myself
the pre-existing houses could be crafting related: a blacksmiths house, a mill, a lighthouse, a hunter's cottage etc...
building settlements with pre-existing houses, settlement fortifications etc, warehouses etc, moats etc
overall i'd like to see same mechanics i see in an rts game, where each unit is a player, is tied to a house, is tied to a settlement etc
And Fortnite is only classed as an online videogame, not an MMO. I'm not sure where you pulled that idea from, but there is no official claim of that game being an MMO. That's simply not where the genre has evolved.
And no, most multiplayer games tend to focus on a relatively narrow scope. Poker for example is a fundamentally competitive game, you don;t have teams committing cooperative play, that's technically against the rules most of the time.
Football, however, is a team sport. By it's nature it's focus is competitive play, but the only way to win is through a competent and cooperative team beating the opposition. However, that is the scope of it.
A game that fundamentally pushes cooperative play first is, well, fundamentally different in that the style of game choices has to all push for that "collaborative" angle. IE, world building, puzzle solving, boss/monster hunting, etc.
It's again, not a matter of "removing" competition, it's not adding it in the first place if the focus is to be on a collaborative user experience, and more over it remains the point that PvP and player competition is not itself a necessity in any form, simply a preference for some people.
Small worlds with limited building area. A large world serves few purposes. It gives players enough area to build without every inch of buildable land covered. If you are doing PVP you give players space to breath. I think a guy is less likely to run 30 minutes to hours to grief some village or town. Especially if there is no friendly resurrection point nearby.
Lack of urban planning. It is just ugly to see towns just be a hobble of houses close to each other. No roads, walls monuments or anything.
Vast vertical progression. In a game that scream let me just play and work it out. We don't need power gaps or directed game play.
Make player cities mostly secure zones. They should be as safe as NPC towns with guards. You want players to conduct business in peace even in a PVP game. Of course there can be exceptions with seiges from other groups or monster invasions.
Poor animations and graphics. I don't need the best graphics. I just hate bad realistic graphics. Also animations need to at least relay what's going on and be clean as possible. Not easy feats in the least.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The simple reason is just the case that the more features and scope you add to a game, the more you have to spread out your development and the more shallow (or fragmentary) the overall content will become. This plagues a lot of games already.
The other reason, focus, is in how it affects the game not just at it's initial design and implementation, but over the life of it's existence. When a game focuses on PvP and competitive play, the "balance" in the game features has to wrap around that. This can often be to the detriment of other forms of play, such as PvE directly.
Not everyone wants a competitive user experience, and when a game includes it, even if the user does not participate, it can affect the quality of the player's experience as a direct consequence of it's presence within the game.
Most players dont role play, never said they did, but story and Faction Pride is a real thing. WoW again is a more recent example of the importance of Faction Pride, were as GW2 WvW doesnt have this since every world is a copy of the other so has no loyalty or even it's own look and feel. Factions do. Again this has nothing to do with Roleplay in the traditional sense of the term as used in the MMO genre. I didnt roleplay but I stayed true to my faction Alliance in WoW and Defiant in Rift.
EvE is FFA PVP which again is the problem. This been done to death in the Sandbox MMO industry. How about trying something new and do Faction PvP in a sandbox instead of keep doing same old same old that hasn't struck gold in modern times in the sandbox MMO industry.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
@ikcin google is your friend. A lot of what you assert is so wildly off the mark one has to wonder if you are simply trying to click bait.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I'm an old DAoC vet who played on an RP server - not because I'm an RPer but because those servers tended to attract more dedicated players that wanted to immerse. I've never seen faction pride like we Albs had on Guin anywhere else but I'm still looking for it. It makes all the difference in the world for my enjoyment.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Philosophy of MMO Game Design