Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

with all the pro Sandbox talk over the last decade, no sandbox game really changed the formula

2456

Comments

  • aleosaleos Member UncommonPosts: 1,934
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,379
    This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while. 

    I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula.  This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.

    Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.  

    We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model.  People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here. 

    The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula,  like we did for the WoW Clones.
    try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,220
    There are games that do not fit the classic mold. Here are a couple of examples:

    https://www.desert-nomad.com

    http://onehouronelife.com


  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,526
    People like to win.  In a true PvP game the expected win rate should be around 50% -- This is not enough.

    Personally, I think for a PvP game to succeed, it would need fake players.  NPCs that mimick players and coded well enough that you wouldn't think they are fake, but geared poorly enough // played poorly enough that they would usually lose, and possibly hired players paid to lose. 

    If they could make the win rate 70% average for all of the actual players then the game would be far more successful.
    bcbullyAlBQuirkySpottyGekkoGdemami
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 13,322
    edited May 2019
    Sandbox was not just about PvP MMORPG's, it was about the ability to build and effect your environment. Somewhat like TROVE, even more like Minecraft. It was meant to be about freedom of play rather than theme park rides, not just PvP or survival.
    LackingMMOAmarantharAlBQuirkySpottyGekkoSteelhelmGdemamiobii

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,839
    madazz said:
    Whenever an online game has FFA-PVP rules, that combat inevitably defines the game. 

    The first "sandbox" MMO (UO) proved that there's no way to successfully mix those players that enjoy PVP and those that don't.

    Sandbox has become synonymous with FFA-PVP, because it's the easiest form of "content"...
    not just easiest, but cheapest too

    What is more expensive for a dev to make in this example (fits with the endless pvp deathmatch mmo clones as well)?

    A battle royale game with a few assets and throw players into a box to kill each other

    or

    A game like skyrim or witcher 3 or even divinity series with massive amounts of voice acting, story, quests, content, monsters etc? With the latter even having multiplayer (with the latest in series)

    There is a reason the devs for these sandbox MMOs keep making contentless pvp MMOs where they want "players" to make the content. because its literally pretty much free content with little to do on the developers part. They are ALWAYS indie, and almost always fail

    EVE Online is an exception because it allows a TON of content for everyone. Surprise surprise its the only successful sandbox MMO...funny that heh?
    UO wasn't successful? I guess we have very different definitions of what successful is.
    UO was, yes. But only because it became PvP optional, it was bleeding mass amount of players before that

    I should have been more...precise with my wording.

    But I meant pvp forced MMOs, only EVE Online is the exception. UO however shows for most part, a PvP optional sandbox MMO has far more success than pvp forced mmos.
    I can't tell... are you lieing or you just aren't educated on the matter and you're echoing other lies.

    I do recall one of the devs told bold lies stating that it was dropping in population (no it wasn't, it was increasing... they just stretched the truth about the amount that DIDN'T stay).

    UO was steadily increasing players over time. Its an indisputable fact that can be proven with actual data. Did Trammel increase those number significantly? Yes it did. For months. Then it dropped to lower than pre-trammel numbers.

    Edit - Wanted to add some numbers to show it was increasing population:

    9/1997: UO's launch
    -- Start, 0 subs
    10/1998: T2A's launch (Lost Lands)
    -- ~90,000 subs
    5/2000: Renaissance's launch (Trammel)
    -- ~130,000 subs

    It hit like 190k with Trammel in 2001. Then it dropped. Then the 3D client released which brought it up to 200k, which then dropped again after people realized it was shit. A few other expansions created surges in the population, but none of them created the community and dedicated player base that was steadily growing pre-trammel.
    While I guess if you ignore all the devs' reports (including the ones I know personally), you can come to that conclusion.  Of course you can come to any conclusion that way.  And your numbers actually point to growth of the game post Trammel. At a certain point UO got real competition in the game arena.  That might have something to do with ongoing things.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,839
    Scot said:
    Sandbox was not just about PvP MMORPG's, it was about the ability to build and effect your environment. Somewhat like TROVE, even more like Minecraft. It was meant to be about freedom of play rather than theme park rides, not just PvP or survival.
    It'll be interesting to see what happens in 20 years, when the generation of game designers who were raised on Minecraft from an early age hit their stride in the industry.   I think it will be a major influence.
    LackingMMOAlBQuirkyScot

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,370
    edited May 2019
    madazz said:
    Whenever an online game has FFA-PVP rules, that combat inevitably defines the game. 

    The first "sandbox" MMO (UO) proved that there's no way to successfully mix those players that enjoy PVP and those that don't.

    Sandbox has become synonymous with FFA-PVP, because it's the easiest form of "content"...
    not just easiest, but cheapest too

    What is more expensive for a dev to make in this example (fits with the endless pvp deathmatch mmo clones as well)?

    A battle royale game with a few assets and throw players into a box to kill each other

    or

    A game like skyrim or witcher 3 or even divinity series with massive amounts of voice acting, story, quests, content, monsters etc? With the latter even having multiplayer (with the latest in series)

    There is a reason the devs for these sandbox MMOs keep making contentless pvp MMOs where they want "players" to make the content. because its literally pretty much free content with little to do on the developers part. They are ALWAYS indie, and almost always fail

    EVE Online is an exception because it allows a TON of content for everyone. Surprise surprise its the only successful sandbox MMO...funny that heh?
    UO wasn't successful? I guess we have very different definitions of what successful is.
    UO was, yes. But only because it became PvP optional, it was bleeding mass amount of players before that

    I should have been more...precise with my wording.

    But I meant pvp forced MMOs, only EVE Online is the exception. UO however shows for most part, a PvP optional sandbox MMO has far more success than pvp forced mmos.
    I can't tell... are you lieing or you just aren't educated on the matter and you're echoing other lies.

    I do recall one of the devs told bold lies stating that it was dropping in population (no it wasn't, it was increasing... they just stretched the truth about the amount that DIDN'T stay).

    UO was steadily increasing players over time. Its an indisputable fact that can be proven with actual data. Did Trammel increase those number significantly? Yes it did. For months. Then it dropped to lower than pre-trammel numbers.

    Edit - Wanted to add some numbers to show it was increasing population:

    9/1997: UO's launch
    -- Start, 0 subs
    10/1998: T2A's launch (Lost Lands)
    -- ~90,000 subs
    5/2000: Renaissance's launch (Trammel)
    -- ~130,000 subs

    It hit like 190k with Trammel in 2001. Then it dropped. Then the 3D client released which brought it up to 200k, which then dropped again after people realized it was shit. A few other expansions created surges in the population, but none of them created the community and dedicated player base that was steadily growing pre-trammel.
    The Introduction of Elves and specialized Gear and quests with Mondains  really started to drive players away , seemed the biggest drop off to me ( and ive been there all 21 years now )

      Like you pointed out the game was thriving before and after Trammel , and also it was orginally conceived because of lack of Land , this was the biggest challenge and bitch among players by 98 .. there was nowhere to build , making Trammel non PvP was just killing 2 birds with one stone for Origin at that point ..
     
        Il also add , that stil today if anyone wants a PVE sandbox UO is still the best , offering more player tools and activities than any other game by far ..
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,211
    He guys let’s build some meaningless houses, on some meaningless territory..... oh wait they tried that.

    EQ Landmark. Never forget.
    VinterkrigAlBQuirky
  • TillerTiller Member EpicPosts: 8,876
    bcbully said:
    He guys let’s build some meaningless houses, on some meaningless territory..... oh wait they tried that.

    EQ Landmark. Never forget.
    There was also no real PvE questing in that game, so the whole game was pointless. You don't need to fight over territory to give it meaning. In Galaxies house spots had value based on proximity to services, whether you wanted to be far away from everyone, or close to everything, or in a city with shuttleport. Fighting over it would have made the game more annoying, especially before they added house packup.
    Steelhelm
    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter

  • VinterkrigVinterkrig Member UncommonPosts: 1,867
    bcbully said:
    He guys let’s build some meaningless houses, on some meaningless territory..... oh wait they tried that.

    EQ Landmark. Never forget.

    In all fairness that didn't get fully developed and it was dropped after Daybreak realized they couldn't just slightly more than maintenance mode the game to get it going.


    All I'm reading in this thread are PVE people who think they've come up with a gotcha on the sandbox/pvp crowd.  All I'll say is that take a look at all the people PvPing in  Ark, Rust, Conan and Atlas. The sandbox MMOs have been plagued by small dev teams and lots of mismanagement. 
    Steelhelm
  • TillerTiller Member EpicPosts: 8,876
    edited May 2019
    bcbully said:
    He guys let’s build some meaningless houses, on some meaningless territory..... oh wait they tried that.

    EQ Landmark. Never forget.

    In all fairness that didn't get fully developed and it was dropped after Daybreak realized they couldn't just slightly more than maintenance mode the game to get it going.


    All I'm reading in this thread are PVE people who think they've come up with a gotcha on the sandbox/pvp crowd.  All I'll say is that take a look at all the people PvPing in  Ark, Rust, Conan and Atlas. The sandbox MMOs have been plagued by small dev teams and lots of mismanagement. 
    I don't think it's a gotcha, I think there are a lot of folks who want choices to do wtf ever they want in a sandbox game and still be fun. Kind of like you could in a game that came out in 2003 called Star Wars Galaxies. The one thing I hear is that they feel forgotten when it comes to the sandbox MMORPG genera. No one is harshing on anyone beyond genuine frustration.

    Back in the day SWG worked, they just didn't have enough variety of things to do, like actual star wars story, outside grinding in spin groups for Piket and Bol on Dantooine or doing the themeparks. PvP was fun, though unbalanced, PvE was shit but doable, hell you didn't even have to have combat skills to contribute to the game. I knew people who did nothing but dance in the cantina and offer up conversation. A few others became well known and rich making food. At least you could do a bit of whatever, even if it was fundamentally broken in some aspects.

    Would that work now? Not sure. Second Life does some of that simulation stuff already. They would have to build a pretty robust simulation system on top of PvE and PvP, which none seems interested in doing. There is a market there though, live in a Star Wars universe, or whatever universe. PvP doesn't have to be the main focus to be viable, it's just easier.

    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed Member RarePosts: 7,115
    This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while. 

    I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula.  This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.

    Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.  

    We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model.  People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here. 

    The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula,  like we did for the WoW Clones.
    try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
    I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized.  Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different.  Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
    AlBQuirky

    image

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,354
    This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while. 

    I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula.  This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.

    Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.  

    We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model.  People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here. 

    The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula,  like we did for the WoW Clones.
    try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
    I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized.  Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different.  Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
    Seen plenty of post dissing FFA pvp full loot game(and how it simply don't work)...

    Usually it is from themepark players, but some are from SWG players too.
    Vinterkrig
  • HefaistosHefaistos Member UncommonPosts: 346
    edited May 2019
    Ive stopped searching for new games and returned to Eve Online. This game is single handedly the definition on FFA PVP Sandbox experience a true pvper could search for. It has the biggest fleets/teams in history of gaming and the drama that comes along with it. The wars between the 2 major alliances its here for years.

    The nr of things you can do in game is sick. I have friends here who cant answer some of the aspects of the game because they did other things...for 10 years.

    PS: im here on this forum since 2004 and Eve Online is the most complex mmo earth had up to date.

    If you like sandbox ffa pvp you will never need another main game in your life :)
    SpottyGekko
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,896
    Whenever an online game has FFA-PVP rules, that combat inevitably defines the game. 

    The first "sandbox" MMO (UO) proved that there's no way to successfully mix those players that enjoy PVP and those that don't.

    Sandbox has become synonymous with FFA-PVP, because it's the easiest form of "content"...
    not just easiest, but cheapest too

    What is more expensive for a dev to make in this example (fits with the endless pvp deathmatch mmo clones as well)?

    A battle royale game with a few assets and throw players into a box to kill each other

    or

    A game like skyrim or witcher 3 or even divinity series with massive amounts of voice acting, story, quests, content, monsters etc? With the latter even having multiplayer (with the latest in series)

    There is a reason the devs for these sandbox MMOs keep making contentless pvp MMOs where they want "players" to make the content. because its literally pretty much free content with little to do on the developers part. They are ALWAYS indie, and almost always fail

    EVE Online is an exception because it allows a TON of content for everyone. Surprise surprise its the only successful sandbox MMO...funny that heh?
    UO wasn't successful? I guess we have very different definitions of what successful is.
    UO was, yes. But only because it became PvP optional, it was bleeding mass amount of players before that

    I should have been more...precise with my wording.

    But I meant pvp forced MMOs, only EVE Online is the exception. UO however shows for most part, a PvP optional sandbox MMO has far more success than pvp forced mmos.
    I would argue that Eve is as close to pvp optional as you can get without it "technically" being optional. Which is why it has survived as well add it has. If it were not optional we'd be having a very different discussion.

    The reason forced Pvp MMORPGs, sandbox or not, don't survive well even though we have hugely successful games like fortnite or ark/ rust types is because of the RPG and progression involved.
    AmarantharAlBQuirkyVinterkrig
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,199
    madazz said:
    Whenever an online game has FFA-PVP rules, that combat inevitably defines the game. 

    The first "sandbox" MMO (UO) proved that there's no way to successfully mix those players that enjoy PVP and those that don't.

    Sandbox has become synonymous with FFA-PVP, because it's the easiest form of "content"...
    not just easiest, but cheapest too

    What is more expensive for a dev to make in this example (fits with the endless pvp deathmatch mmo clones as well)?

    A battle royale game with a few assets and throw players into a box to kill each other

    or

    A game like skyrim or witcher 3 or even divinity series with massive amounts of voice acting, story, quests, content, monsters etc? With the latter even having multiplayer (with the latest in series)

    There is a reason the devs for these sandbox MMOs keep making contentless pvp MMOs where they want "players" to make the content. because its literally pretty much free content with little to do on the developers part. They are ALWAYS indie, and almost always fail

    EVE Online is an exception because it allows a TON of content for everyone. Surprise surprise its the only successful sandbox MMO...funny that heh?
    UO wasn't successful? I guess we have very different definitions of what successful is.
    UO was, yes. But only because it became PvP optional, it was bleeding mass amount of players before that

    I should have been more...precise with my wording.

    But I meant pvp forced MMOs, only EVE Online is the exception. UO however shows for most part, a PvP optional sandbox MMO has far more success than pvp forced mmos.
    I can't tell... are you lieing or you just aren't educated on the matter and you're echoing other lies.

    I do recall one of the devs told bold lies stating that it was dropping in population (no it wasn't, it was increasing... they just stretched the truth about the amount that DIDN'T stay).

    UO was steadily increasing players over time. Its an indisputable fact that can be proven with actual data. Did Trammel increase those number significantly? Yes it did. For months. Then it dropped to lower than pre-trammel numbers.

    Edit - Wanted to add some numbers to show it was increasing population:

    9/1997: UO's launch
    -- Start, 0 subs
    10/1998: T2A's launch (Lost Lands)
    -- ~90,000 subs
    5/2000: Renaissance's launch (Trammel)
    -- ~130,000 subs

    It hit like 190k with Trammel in 2001. Then it dropped. Then the 3D client released which brought it up to 200k, which then dropped again after people realized it was shit. A few other expansions created surges in the population, but none of them created the community and dedicated player base that was steadily growing pre-trammel.
    Madazz, UO was bleeding subs.
    Just because the overall subscription count was going up, that doesn't say anything about the numbers that were leaving.

    And it was not just one developer telling "bold lies."
    The creator, Richard Garriott, and the Lead Designer, Raph Koster, both have said multiple times that UO was bleeding subs specifically because of PKing, as the cancelling players told them so.

    In short, they would have had a lot more players subscribed if not for the PKing.
    The two top people have said so, repeatedly.

    Ungood

    Once upon a time....

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,211
    It’s almost 2020. Wake up. The world does not care that you were traumatized 20 years ago in UO. Get over it. 
    Vinterkrig
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,199
    edited May 2019
    bcbully said:
    It’s almost 2020. Wake up. The world does not care that you were traumatized 20 years ago in UO. Get over it. 
    PKers, it's in their blood. lol

    By the way, Mr. Bully, I played UO for 10 or 12 years or so.
    I was so traumatized by you lot. It just took a little time for it to sink in, I guess.
    Vinterkrig

    Once upon a time....

  • Veiled_lightVeiled_light Member UncommonPosts: 836
    People love to blame other players or whatever... but the real reason is there have been no good games. 
    SteelhelmVinterkrig
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,250
    ...

    As for FFA OW PvP, it can easily exist in a game without defining it. The developers just need to show a bit of fantasy regarding ideas how to regulate it.
    I think believing that is believing in a fantasy, lol

    There's only one viable play style if the whole world is FFA-PVP, and that's PVP. Anyone else is just going to be killed and looted, sooner or later, usually on a regular basis. That's why most non-PVP'ers will avoid that rule set, and if they don't realise the implications, they very soon learn them and leave the game. Or become PVP'ers...

    EVE walked the middle road by keeping 30% of the game world relatively safe. Not totally safe, but manageable if you were prepared to adapt. CCP vigorously defended that design and modified it whenever the playerbase found "workarounds". A section of the EVE community has endlessly campaigned for the removal or watering-down of the safezone protections, but their arguments have always been ignored by CCP. There's a very good reason why EVE's safezone is by far the highest populated part of that game world !  :D

    But PVP still defines everything that happens in EVE, because whatever you do, you have to consider the dangers and calculate the risks.
    I cannot believe someone is actually convinced that it is impossible to regulate PVP in a PC game. Something so trivial comparing to things that humans have already achieved.
    It's not really that they "can't", but rather the players they built these games for (FFA OW PvP) don't want it and will leave. FFA means "Free For All", which boils down to total anarchy.  Once you start "regulating" it, it no longer exists as FFA.

    That's why I'll never play an FFA PvP game. It's very nature means no regulations/consequences.
    bcbullyVinterkrig

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,250
    centkin said:
    People like to win.  In a true PvP game the expected win rate should be around 50% -- This is not enough.

    Personally, I think for a PvP game to succeed, it would need fake players.  NPCs that mimick players and coded well enough that you wouldn't think they are fake, but geared poorly enough // played poorly enough that they would usually lose, and possibly hired players paid to lose. 

    If they could make the win rate 70% average for all of the actual players then the game would be far more successful.
    They could just clone me! That AI sure sounds like my playstyle :)
    Vinterkrig

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,250
    AAAMEOW said:
    This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while. 

    I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula.  This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.

    Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.  

    We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model.  People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here. 

    The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula,  like we did for the WoW Clones.
    try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
    I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized.  Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different.  Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
    Seen plenty of post dissing FFA pvp full loot game(and how it simply don't work)...

    Usually it is from themepark players, but some are from SWG players too.
    So... FFA PvP is your definition of "sandbox?" The phrase, "Do whetever I want" is unobtainable in a video game. The possibilities are endless and coding can NOT cover it all.
    VinterkrigGdemamiScot

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,354
    AlBQuirky said:
    AAAMEOW said:
    This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while. 

    I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula.  This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.

    Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.  

    We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model.  People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here. 

    The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula,  like we did for the WoW Clones.
    try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
    I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized.  Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different.  Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
    Seen plenty of post dissing FFA pvp full loot game(and how it simply don't work)...

    Usually it is from themepark players, but some are from SWG players too.
    So... FFA PvP is your definition of "sandbox?" The phrase, "Do whetever I want" is unobtainable in a video game. The possibilities are endless and coding can NOT cover it all.
    I'm just saying contrary to what the OP is saying "there have been many post or topic complaining about Full loot pvp sandbox formula".  
    AlBQuirkyVinterkrig
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    AlBQuirky said:
    AAAMEOW said:
    This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while. 

    I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula.  This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.

    Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.  

    We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model.  People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here. 

    The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula,  like we did for the WoW Clones.
    try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
    I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized.  Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different.  Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
    Seen plenty of post dissing FFA pvp full loot game(and how it simply don't work)...

    Usually it is from themepark players, but some are from SWG players too.
    So... FFA PvP is your definition of "sandbox?" The phrase, "Do whetever I want" is unobtainable in a video game. The possibilities are endless and coding can NOT cover it all.
    There is no requirement for PVP in a sandbox game, both Eve Online and SWG pre-CU, pvp was/is entirely optional, as for FFA full loot PVP games, its been tried so many times, never really works because the interest in that kind of game is minimal. The best 'sandbox' games tend to have mechanics that punish players who wantonly engage in indescriminate PK'ing or have it as an entirely 'opt-in' feature, and that seems to work pretty well. :/
    AlBQuirky
Sign In or Register to comment.