I was in the first group of beta testers for the game Seed, which billed itself as the ultimate non-combat sandbox game. Instead of combat, we had to do repairs all day long (click, click, click, click), and all the political/ social aspects came to nothing. The game launched, now it's gone, and you've probably never even heard of it.
I would love to have more complex character development options in an MMO; I would love to see developers get more creative in every aspect of mmo design; and I enjoyed the economy in EVE more than I enjoyed the combat. But I only log in to Second Life, the only true sandbox game, about twice a year, when someone I knew from college or graduate school e-mails to tell me he's just discovered the game and I must check out his new dildo store.
A t the end of the day, I mostly just want to unwind when I play a game, and in an MMO that usually means killing things. Going to committe meetings and dealing with interpersonal politics. . . that's what I do at work.
How many times does this have to come up before people realize there is a good reason that sandboxes are rare? Sandbox games require independent thinking and creativity. Most gamers, as in most people in life, need their hands held. Sandbox games typically throw you to the wolves and let you do whatever you want, most people are not built for that sort of thinking.
Not bad, but let it be added, A player driven sandbox requires interaction,sucessful interaction requires a certain level of politeness, politeness requires maturity,paitence,and placing the other player before yourself.
Originally posted by PatchDay Originally posted by -aLpHa- Whoever says EvE economy is good got no clue. I mean if you look into the whole T2 prices (especially HAC's) and how to get the BPO's, it's just screwed up.
So the whole entire economy sucks because you want to complain about something being overpriced? It's risk vs reward. You want to fly something overpowered like a Titan/Dread/Carrier, etc fine but if you lose it will cost you a lot more then T1 ships. Encourages veterans to fly cheaper ships to keep warfare balanced out If you cant see the benefits to that then just go play WoW where everyone always wears their best gear. Perhaps you were not there at launch so let me fill you in. Raiders stomped the living daylights out of pvpers in pvp. This is what happenes when there is no risk vs reward, veterans will stomp the crap out of you 24/7 because they will always bring their best equipment to every fight
Do you want everyone to fly a Titan in EVE? If not then quit complaining. Without the price hikes everyone will be able to fully insure their ships. I fly tech 2 ships all the time and pay the price jumps. Everyone deals with that just fin It's a perfect balance. Veterans are discouraged from bringing their best equipment due to high risks. Newbies suffer virtually no penalty with fully insurable T1 ships. I don't read anyone at all complaining bout this on the boards Also I saw overpriced items all the time in World of Warcraft auction house anyway. So even if this is an issue it is one shared across virtually any MMO where goods can be traded.
What kind of answer is this? Even if you can buy a Titan you still got a restriction with the skill system, even HAC's need months before you can fly them and don't even start if you don't have good weapon/shildskills. So your fear that new players can fly those ships, is total crap.
What i am talking about is how BPO's get shared to the community, with some kind of Lottery system and the owners of rare BPO's making deals with each other to keep the prices high.
Originally posted by daarco I think its a really bad sign when peoiple actually defend thier right to not wanting more features and freedom in MMOs. Dont think i ever have heard that before. Most players talk about what more they want in a MMO, not that they have to much already! And thats especially bad right now, when we have almost feature free MMOs out there. When i played Pre CU SWG, i had two jobs and a family. I used to play with a 16-19 year old dude from Denmark, and i think he played about 40 hours every week. I played about five. Still we could play togeather and had a lot of fun. Thats something thats would be impossible in a lesser MMOs. You can only do that in a sandbox game.
I agree but I think we should frame the debate properly as most of the people arguing so vehemently for a sandbox universe are presenting it in a utopian light. In concept it is fine.
It seems to me that no matter what the game the majority of players gravitate to known templates. In other words the builds that actually succeed in the environment. The notion of freedom is there in sandbox characters but rarely tested. If you are constantly defeated by using a staff wielding warrior regardless of tactics it may be the fault of the game design but only the truly masochistic will continue down that path.
All games seem to have gaps such as this. Some out of the norm builds might succeed but then....are noticed and quickly copied. Now you have clones of your wonderful experiment. Sounds like a class to me.
Build strength/axe by swinging an axe over and over? Set him up in a forest, go to sleep, wake up to a maxed out character.
The appeal of a sandbox then becomes less about character concept than it does an open flavor as daarco mentions. Stealing, betrayal, new alliances on the fly, random occurrences that might never occur in a more structured environment. If you want to assault someone in a city you simply swing a club. There may be in-game repercussions or player created retaliation or vigilantes upholding 'justice' based on this action. A domino effect unrealized in most games.
The lure of a sandbox is the player's ability to inform the immediate universe by his actions. Creating/prompting change.
Discussing the merits between the skill based system and class based system doesn't approach the real differences in my opinion and detracts from the real desire of most open worlders.
The thing with Darkfall is that Aventurine have added FFAPvP and Full Loot as a "glue feature" that holds the game togeather.
Sure you can make a "sword trining macro" out in a forest. Not sure if your sword skill goes up if you dont make any damage to anythig, Still, a macro wont mean anything if another character kills you character. You cant leave it alone in this world.
And that appeals to everyone. You will never be safe in Darkfall. You can be alot more safer sometimes. And that fuels all the players driven sandbox content. From the smallest shipwright to the strongerst worrior.
We can almost say that self preservation is what makes Darkfall work. And thats something we lack in many other MMOs.
the thing that scares me about a game completely controlled by the players is this, the players. take for instance economies in other mmo's that are pretty much run by the players. they go from ok to bad to worse. people cant even run the real world properly, and thats just the adults, now throw the youth in with equal power and your gonna have a bigger mess. people cant even agree on anything in the forums, now put all these people in the same game and watch what happens. if and when darkfall comes out i will probably play it. i will be the monk alone up in the hills watching the chaos that ensues below.
the thing that scares me about a game completely controlled by the players is this, the players. take for instance economies in other mmo's that are pretty much run by the players. they go from ok to bad to worse. people cant even run the real world properly, and thats just the adults, now throw the youth in with equal power and your gonna have a bigger mess. people cant even agree on anything in the forums, now put all these people in the same game and watch what happens. if and when darkfall comes out i will probably play it. i will be the monk alone up in the hills watching the chaos that ensues below.
But isnt that what makes it interesting? What id everyone got along just fine and lauged all te time in a MMO?
We need some chaos and conflict. And remember this: You are as important as anyone else in a sandbox MMO. Some tend to forget that, and let the idiotes run the show. Never let that happen.
This thread is long so I didn't read through the whole thing, but most of it.
It seems the common responses for not wanting a sandbox are:
1) I don't want to have to rely on other people.
2) I like to play solo.
3) I don't have time, I want to play for an hour and have fun.
4) I like guided content.
5) Only the hardcore players like sandbox, casuals don't.
Frankly, my best suggestion for all the people that think like this are, Play a single player game!
Why would you play an MMO if you don't want to interact with other people? Why play an MMO if you like playing solo? Why play an MMO if you only want to play for an hour and have fun? Why play an MMO if you like guided content? You can do all of this in single player games for a lot cheaper without having to worry about socializing with others or having others ruin your day.
Honestly these reasons just seem silly. I wouldn't go to a rock concert and tell them I don't like loud noises. Why would you play an MMO and tell us you like to play solo.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
People want some easy hack-n-slash with games. They don't want any headaches. I heard that players in Eve Online Corps even have regular meetings. I bet 99.9% of the market won't want to go anywhere close to that.
I bet 95% of the games market is actually in Wii/XBox/PS3 sales. I guess we should just shut down production of anything that isn't a console first person shooter...
*sigh*
Hmm ... you have numbers to back that up? Just that WOW has almost 11M subscribers seem to prove what you said is wrong. Just look at sales number of Diablo, WOW should prove my point succinctly.
Just because a MMO labels themselves as a sandbox does not make it the end all of MMOs. Like I said in an earlier post: 50% of all sandbox MMOs Ive played were great 50% of all sandbox MMOs Ive played were shitty. It depends on how that MMO handles the sandbox experience
This post should have ended this thread. Bravo Enigma.
It's a matter of personal preference. Some people like story and direction and just play for fun etc. etc. while others like doing their own thing, going against the grain, making their own legacy etc. etc.
Blame Everquest for the "linear" direction of MMOs. UO vs. EQ and EQ won.
Hmm ... you have numbers to back that up? Just that WOW has almost 11M subscribers seem to prove what you said is wrong. Just look at sales number of Diablo, WOW should prove my point succinctly. I doubt even HALO makes as much money as WOW.
WoW is a subscription service, you have to compare it to the entire console market at once.
You can find the numbers of console sales in this article - (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3162770). Approximately 21.5 million consoles sold worldwide as of last year. That is not including any online services or additional games. It's also not counting all the people who haven't upgraded to a Wii, XBox 360, or PlayStation 3. The point is that not everyone plays geeky computer MMOs - so should Blizzard shut down World of Warcraft and start programming for the console? It's apparently what most people like.
No, obviously not.
The majority of all people worldwide don't control what goes into a game, especially not a sandbox game. The target customerbase are the only ones that really matter. That's why it's so hilarious to read all the negative comments about Darkfall's new gameplay video. Not only are most of the critics clueless about how sandbox MMO gameplay works, they are acting like every game should be something that appeals to them.
I don't get mad at my kids for playing Tic-Tac-Toe or Candyland.
Hmm ... you have numbers to back that up? Just that WOW has almost 11M subscribers seem to prove what you said is wrong. Just look at sales number of Diablo, WOW should prove my point succinctly. I doubt even HALO makes as much money as WOW.
WoW is a subscription service, you have to compare it to the entire console market at once.
You can find the numbers of console sales in this article - (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3162770). Approximately 21.5 million consoles sold worldwide as of last year. That is not including any online services or additional games. It's also not counting all the people who haven't upgraded to a Wii, XBox 360, or PlayStation 3. The point is that not everyone plays geeky computer MMOs - so should Blizzard shut down World of Warcraft and start programming for the console? It's apparently what most people like.
No, obviously not.
The majority of all people worldwide don't control what goes into a game, especially not a sandbox game. The target customerbase are the only ones that really matter. That's why it's so hilarious to read all the negative comments about Darkfall's new gameplay video. Not only are most of the critics clueless about how sandbox MMO gameplay works, they are acting like every game should be something that appeals to them.
I don't get mad at my kids for playing Tic-Tac-Toe or Candyland.
Nope. All you have to do is to compare how much money a game is generating.
WOW is obviously WAY up there for the return on investment. That is how publishers decide to fund games. There are very few games as big as WOW. There is no reason why Blizzard should shut down WOW when it is making higher ROI than most console games.
You logic is just wrong.
And what I said is the reason why there are few sandbox games out there. Look at the most successful one, Eve Online. It has only 1/4 M players. Sure it makes money and it serves a small market. But there is no market out there to support a lot more of these kind of games.
Nope. All you have to do is to compare how much money a game is generating. WOW is obviously WAY up there for the return on investment. That is how publishers decide to fund games. There are very few games as big as WOW. There is no reason why Blizzard should shut down WOW when it is making higher ROI than most console games. You logic is just wrong. And what I said is the reason why there are few sandbox games out there. Look at the most successful one, Eve Online. It has only 1/4 M players. Sure it makes money and it serves a small market. But there is no market out there to support a lot more of these kind of games.
Trying to switch sides of the argument? I was making fun of the concept of shutting down WoW because most gamers are console gamers, not defending it. That was your propaganda.
Yes, return on investment makes an impact on what a particular developer creates - but it isn't the only criteria. The skills and talent of the development team and the original purpose of the company or organization make a bigger impact. Development teams often come together just to create a MMO. Because of that, the people that are important to their design decisions are only those who would consider playing such a game, not "99.9% of everyone." Of the people who would consider playing an MMO, most are interested in sandbox play.
Yes, most of the people playing WoW and Runescape are playing for the sandbox elements of the games: socialization, crafting, commerce, and exploration. Your attempts to divert attention to the larger market and the insinuation that WoW is anti-sandbox are merely feeble attempts to paint the world in your own color scheme.
Comments
I was in the first group of beta testers for the game Seed, which billed itself as the ultimate non-combat sandbox game. Instead of combat, we had to do repairs all day long (click, click, click, click), and all the political/ social aspects came to nothing. The game launched, now it's gone, and you've probably never even heard of it.
I would love to have more complex character development options in an MMO; I would love to see developers get more creative in every aspect of mmo design; and I enjoyed the economy in EVE more than I enjoyed the combat. But I only log in to Second Life, the only true sandbox game, about twice a year, when someone I knew from college or graduate school e-mails to tell me he's just discovered the game and I must check out his new dildo store.
A t the end of the day, I mostly just want to unwind when I play a game, and in an MMO that usually means killing things. Going to committe meetings and dealing with interpersonal politics. . . that's what I do at work.
Not bad, but let it be added, A player driven sandbox requires interaction,sucessful interaction requires a certain level of politeness, politeness requires maturity,paitence,and placing the other player before yourself.
So the whole entire economy sucks because you want to complain about something being overpriced? It's risk vs reward. You want to fly something overpowered like a Titan/Dread/Carrier, etc fine but if you lose it will cost you a lot more then T1 ships. Encourages veterans to fly cheaper ships to keep warfare balanced out
If you cant see the benefits to that then just go play WoW where everyone always wears their best gear. Perhaps you were not there at launch so let me fill you in. Raiders stomped the living daylights out of pvpers in pvp. This is what happenes when there is no risk vs reward, veterans will stomp the crap out of you 24/7 because they will always bring their best equipment to every fight
Do you want everyone to fly a Titan in EVE? If not then quit complaining. Without the price hikes everyone will be able to fully insure their ships. I fly tech 2 ships all the time and pay the price jumps. Everyone deals with that just fin
It's a perfect balance. Veterans are discouraged from bringing their best equipment due to high risks. Newbies suffer virtually no penalty with fully insurable T1 ships. I don't read anyone at all complaining bout this on the boards
Also I saw overpriced items all the time in World of Warcraft auction house anyway. So even if this is an issue it is one shared across virtually any MMO where goods can be traded.
What kind of answer is this? Even if you can buy a Titan you still got a restriction with the skill system, even HAC's need months before you can fly them and don't even start if you don't have good weapon/shildskills. So your fear that new players can fly those ships, is total crap.
What i am talking about is how BPO's get shared to the community, with some kind of Lottery system and the owners of rare BPO's making deals with each other to keep the prices high.
I agree but I think we should frame the debate properly as most of the people arguing so vehemently for a sandbox universe are presenting it in a utopian light. In concept it is fine.
It seems to me that no matter what the game the majority of players gravitate to known templates. In other words the builds that actually succeed in the environment. The notion of freedom is there in sandbox characters but rarely tested. If you are constantly defeated by using a staff wielding warrior regardless of tactics it may be the fault of the game design but only the truly masochistic will continue down that path.
All games seem to have gaps such as this. Some out of the norm builds might succeed but then....are noticed and quickly copied. Now you have clones of your wonderful experiment. Sounds like a class to me.
Build strength/axe by swinging an axe over and over? Set him up in a forest, go to sleep, wake up to a maxed out character.
The appeal of a sandbox then becomes less about character concept than it does an open flavor as daarco mentions. Stealing, betrayal, new alliances on the fly, random occurrences that might never occur in a more structured environment. If you want to assault someone in a city you simply swing a club. There may be in-game repercussions or player created retaliation or vigilantes upholding 'justice' based on this action. A domino effect unrealized in most games.
The lure of a sandbox is the player's ability to inform the immediate universe by his actions. Creating/prompting change.
Discussing the merits between the skill based system and class based system doesn't approach the real differences in my opinion and detracts from the real desire of most open worlders.
I'm rambling again...
The thing with Darkfall is that Aventurine have added FFAPvP and Full Loot as a "glue feature" that holds the game togeather.
Sure you can make a "sword trining macro" out in a forest. Not sure if your sword skill goes up if you dont make any damage to anythig, Still, a macro wont mean anything if another character kills you character. You cant leave it alone in this world.
And that appeals to everyone. You will never be safe in Darkfall. You can be alot more safer sometimes. And that fuels all the players driven sandbox content. From the smallest shipwright to the strongerst worrior.
We can almost say that self preservation is what makes Darkfall work. And thats something we lack in many other MMOs.
the thing that scares me about a game completely controlled by the players is this, the players. take for instance economies in other mmo's that are pretty much run by the players. they go from ok to bad to worse. people cant even run the real world properly, and thats just the adults, now throw the youth in with equal power and your gonna have a bigger mess. people cant even agree on anything in the forums, now put all these people in the same game and watch what happens. if and when darkfall comes out i will probably play it. i will be the monk alone up in the hills watching the chaos that ensues below.
But isnt that what makes it interesting? What id everyone got along just fine and lauged all te time in a MMO?
We need some chaos and conflict. And remember this: You are as important as anyone else in a sandbox MMO. Some tend to forget that, and let the idiotes run the show. Never let that happen.
This thread is long so I didn't read through the whole thing, but most of it.
It seems the common responses for not wanting a sandbox are:
1) I don't want to have to rely on other people.
2) I like to play solo.
3) I don't have time, I want to play for an hour and have fun.
4) I like guided content.
5) Only the hardcore players like sandbox, casuals don't.
Frankly, my best suggestion for all the people that think like this are, Play a single player game!
Why would you play an MMO if you don't want to interact with other people? Why play an MMO if you like playing solo? Why play an MMO if you only want to play for an hour and have fun? Why play an MMO if you like guided content? You can do all of this in single player games for a lot cheaper without having to worry about socializing with others or having others ruin your day.
Honestly these reasons just seem silly. I wouldn't go to a rock concert and tell them I don't like loud noises. Why would you play an MMO and tell us you like to play solo.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
So true Abrahmm.
I agree Darrco.
I bet 95% of the games market is actually in Wii/XBox/PS3 sales. I guess we should just shut down production of anything that isn't a console first person shooter...
*sigh*
Hmm ... you have numbers to back that up? Just that WOW has almost 11M subscribers seem to prove what you said is wrong. Just look at sales number of Diablo, WOW should prove my point succinctly.
I doubt even HALO makes as much money as WOW.
This post should have ended this thread. Bravo Enigma.
It's a matter of personal preference. Some people like story and direction and just play for fun etc. etc. while others like doing their own thing, going against the grain, making their own legacy etc. etc.
Blame Everquest for the "linear" direction of MMOs. UO vs. EQ and EQ won.
WoW is a subscription service, you have to compare it to the entire console market at once.
You can find the numbers of console sales in this article - (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3162770). Approximately 21.5 million consoles sold worldwide as of last year. That is not including any online services or additional games. It's also not counting all the people who haven't upgraded to a Wii, XBox 360, or PlayStation 3. The point is that not everyone plays geeky computer MMOs - so should Blizzard shut down World of Warcraft and start programming for the console? It's apparently what most people like.
No, obviously not.
The majority of all people worldwide don't control what goes into a game, especially not a sandbox game. The target customerbase are the only ones that really matter. That's why it's so hilarious to read all the negative comments about Darkfall's new gameplay video. Not only are most of the critics clueless about how sandbox MMO gameplay works, they are acting like every game should be something that appeals to them.
I don't get mad at my kids for playing Tic-Tac-Toe or Candyland.
WoW is a subscription service, you have to compare it to the entire console market at once.
You can find the numbers of console sales in this article - (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3162770). Approximately 21.5 million consoles sold worldwide as of last year. That is not including any online services or additional games. It's also not counting all the people who haven't upgraded to a Wii, XBox 360, or PlayStation 3. The point is that not everyone plays geeky computer MMOs - so should Blizzard shut down World of Warcraft and start programming for the console? It's apparently what most people like.
No, obviously not.
The majority of all people worldwide don't control what goes into a game, especially not a sandbox game. The target customerbase are the only ones that really matter. That's why it's so hilarious to read all the negative comments about Darkfall's new gameplay video. Not only are most of the critics clueless about how sandbox MMO gameplay works, they are acting like every game should be something that appeals to them.
I don't get mad at my kids for playing Tic-Tac-Toe or Candyland.
Nope. All you have to do is to compare how much money a game is generating.
WOW is obviously WAY up there for the return on investment. That is how publishers decide to fund games. There are very few games as big as WOW. There is no reason why Blizzard should shut down WOW when it is making higher ROI than most console games.
You logic is just wrong.
And what I said is the reason why there are few sandbox games out there. Look at the most successful one, Eve Online. It has only 1/4 M players. Sure it makes money and it serves a small market. But there is no market out there to support a lot more of these kind of games.
Trying to switch sides of the argument? I was making fun of the concept of shutting down WoW because most gamers are console gamers, not defending it. That was your propaganda.
Yes, return on investment makes an impact on what a particular developer creates - but it isn't the only criteria. The skills and talent of the development team and the original purpose of the company or organization make a bigger impact. Development teams often come together just to create a MMO. Because of that, the people that are important to their design decisions are only those who would consider playing such a game, not "99.9% of everyone." Of the people who would consider playing an MMO, most are interested in sandbox play.
Yes, most of the people playing WoW and Runescape are playing for the sandbox elements of the games: socialization, crafting, commerce, and exploration. Your attempts to divert attention to the larger market and the insinuation that WoW is anti-sandbox are merely feeble attempts to paint the world in your own color scheme.