If you look at a game like Darkfall, they have learned this lesson as well. It started out as a barren sandbox. They have eventually learned that they need to add in some form of extra content to ENHANCE the sandbox. Contrary to some people's belief, well added content and systems ADDS to the sandbox instead of taking it away.
To what, pray tell, are you referring? Sea towers? The intended dungeon revamp? Nothing that has been implemented along those lines (and not a lot has been) has actually provided any positive results, because the true problem wasn't related to their game design. The true problem was who wound up spending the most time playing their game (namely people who don't really like sandbox rpgs).
Themepark is not the name of an MMO. It's merely a descriptive metaphor for the absence of real choices and player interaction including consequences. The terms "themepark" and "sandbox" are thus mutually exclusive. One describes a situation where gameplay is linear and heavily protected from unwanted player interaction. The other describes a situation where that is not the case. Note that no one is going to conciously market their MMO game as a "themepark" game, or even a hybrid of "themepark" and "sandbox." Only the term "sandbox" has a positive connotation in this context.
It needs to be understood that threads like this one are simply the results of mass confusion. A long (longer than short, anyway) time ago games in this genre were fun due to the interaction of the type of people that wanted to play them. Online gamers back then were mostly made up of hobbyists, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and artists who were looking for simply another way to turn their occupational interests and philosophies into entertainment. That changed sometime in the years between 2000 and 2005 and now the internet has become saturated with a type of gamer that is looking for their identity and its validation online as a first attempt.
This has resulted in a drastic shift in development focus that has yet to prove any success. One should note that no MMO that has been released since EVE or maybe LOTRO has been noticably profitable or popular. "Themepark" was the vivid metaphor that someone had originally used to describe the obvious error in analysis. Item shop games are experiencing success because they act as surrogates for real-world comparisons of stature and wealth, at least to the individuals that are highly attracted to that form of gaming - but that doesn't mean that they have anything in common with a true virtual society game that begs immersion and roleplaying.
I guess my point is that I view a particular large section of those who call themselves MMO-ers as being lost in self-deception. The reality of this genre is that true mmorpg fans (who would make a "sandbox" game shine) have for the most part become disillusioned and no longer play. The self-deceivers who used to like to feed off the imaginative energies now want developers to take over the production of such. Unfortunately no development company or computer system is currently up to the task.
I agree with you overall. But Darkfall is NOT a sandbox game in the concept of a sandbox. There is little you can actually do that effects the game in any way. While a clan can build a city and raze another city, that is the entire amount of sand that Darkfall has.
If you truely want to understand and see what a sandbox game is then look no more then old school Ultima Online. It is the shining concept of what a sandbox game is. Ultima Online took themepark style content and added it to its base to create what a sandbox game is. While some games claim to be sandbox games they lost what makes a sandbox game a sandbox game. Rich story, ability to effect the game world, endless play options, and the ability to play your character the way you want.
I have to say Darkfall is anything but a modern day Ultima Online. They missed so much that made Ultima Online what it is that Darkfall is really nothing more then a limited themepark game that attempts to place some sand about.
Darkfall is still in paid-beta pretty much . .. I mean the game has been in development for so damn long that they probably needed money too bad to wait for a later release when the game was more finished so released it with a big grind while they worked on more content for it. This was a monumental failure but at least it gave them money to hire a larger development team and continue adding content. Do you have any idea how hard it would be for a small team like AV to add as much content to Darkfall as UO had? Its not like its a 2.5d game . .. its the biggest open map without instances ever made (besides Vanguard) and supported by a very small yet dedicated crew. Darkfall is a million times funner than UO is now!!
Darkfall has added a lot of content for being out for only a year. I mean . ... villages, sea towers, housing, etc. it keeps getting better and better so they have my money. Just give it some time and keep checking back and you will find more and more added. They added trade-routes which may end up being caravans with local banking so they you could rob them and stuff in a year. They have wanted a NPC thieves guild with pickpocketing before it was released and have recently talked about having 'bounty hunter' player-controlled quests and more visual customizations like clan banners and armor dyes, etc. AV wants more sand than the players do . .. they are the ones who will get paid for it.
The core of Darkfall is totally awesome though! The combat is so damn fun that even the PVE is more enjoyable than most other games . .. the physics and bunny-hopping and launching yourself foward, etc. is the coolest! Very fun 'empty box' they have there and yes they keep adding more content. It is fun enough how it is now that I will play it until it is dead (since there is nothing like it coming out at all . .. and dont even say games like 'earthrise' will compete since it is not twitch-based, etc.).
Even with the content that they have so far, I have had the most epic experiences that no other game can match.
I will not play theme-park games anymore . .. they bother me way too much when there are sandboxes that I can play in. I have so much more fun in sandbox games but I do like a grindless themepark on the side (like Guildwars) for when I want a change of pace.
Vanguard is already very much a combination of both and was a pretty fun game as well . .. go play that!
To be honest the more a sandbox adds themepark elements = the less I will like it. Darkfalls DEVs are on the right track by making sure all of their content is controlled or changed by players. Just wait if you do not like it now as it is still in development. Do you even know what DF2010 is bringing? What about DF2011?!?!? I am so excited!
After playing Darkfall for 16 months (and still excited for the next time that I can log on for a few hours!) it has really raised the bar of what I expect out of a game and all of the side games and games that I have tried since then seem totally dull in comparison or just wayyy too easy to enjoy.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
If you look at a game like Darkfall, they have learned this lesson as well. It started out as a barren sandbox. They have eventually learned that they need to add in some form of extra content to ENHANCE the sandbox. Contrary to some people's belief, well added content and systems ADDS to the sandbox instead of taking it away.
To what, pray tell, are you referring? Sea towers? The intended dungeon revamp? Nothing that has been implemented along those lines (and not a lot has been) has actually provided any positive results, because the true problem wasn't related to their game design. The true problem was who wound up spending the most time playing their game (namely people who don't really like sandbox rpgs).
Themepark is not the name of an MMO. It's merely a descriptive metaphor for the absence of real choices and player interaction including consequences. The terms "themepark" and "sandbox" are thus mutually exclusive. One describes a situation where gameplay is linear and heavily protected from unwanted player interaction. The other describes a situation where that is not the case. Note that no one is going to conciously market their MMO game as a "themepark" game, or even a hybrid of "themepark" and "sandbox." Only the term "sandbox" has a positive connotation in this context.
It needs to be understood that threads like this one are simply the results of mass confusion. A long (longer than short, anyway) time ago games in this genre were fun due to the interaction of the type of people that wanted to play them. Online gamers back then were mostly made up of hobbyists, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and artists who were looking for simply another way to turn their occupational interests and philosophies into entertainment. That changed sometime in the years between 2000 and 2005 and now the internet has become saturated with a type of gamer that is looking for their identity and its validation online as a first attempt.
This has resulted in a drastic shift in development focus that has yet to prove any success. One should note that no MMO that has been released since EVE or maybe LOTRO has been noticably profitable or popular. "Themepark" was the vivid metaphor that someone had originally used to describe the obvious error in analysis. Item shop games are experiencing success because they act as surrogates for real-world comparisons of stature and wealth, at least to the individuals that are highly attracted to that form of gaming - but that doesn't mean that they have anything in common with a true virtual society game that begs immersion and roleplaying.
I guess my point is that I view a particular large section of those who call themselves MMO-ers as being lost in self-deception. The reality of this genre is that true mmorpg fans (who would make a "sandbox" game shine) have for the most part become disillusioned and no longer play. The self-deceivers who used to like to feed off the imaginative energies now want developers to take over the production of such. Unfortunately no development company or computer system is currently up to the task.
No offense, but your post stinks of elitism. "Real" MMo players are people who play MMOs. Your imagination of what "real" mmo players are is an illusion. For the record EVE launched before WOW, and in case you hadn't noticed, it seems to be wildly popular...
There is no need to actually bash on WOW (As popular a pass time as that is) because, it is in all honesty, a well made game. It was largely derivative of everything that came before it, but it was innovative enough, polished enough, and accessible enough to make it the "uber-game".
I agree, unfortunatly game makers are SO overly concerned with capital growth and not enough with artistic growth and there will have to be a number of sandbox games as cannon fodder before an "excepted formula" for these types of games to be worth it to them... I could be wrong though, its happened before, lets hope I am.
I agree, unfortunatly game makers are SO overly concerned with capital growth and not enough with artistic growth and there will have to be a number of sandbox games as cannon fodder before an "excepted formula" for these types of games to be worth it to them... I could be wrong though, its happened before, lets hope I am.
Personally I think we need a new term to describe the hybrid game that has both "theme park" and "Sandbox" elements. I go with something along the lines of "Playground" game.
I agree, unfortunatly game makers are SO overly concerned with capital growth and not enough with artistic growth and there will have to be a number of sandbox games as cannon fodder before an "excepted formula" for these types of games to be worth it to them... I could be wrong though, its happened before, lets hope I am.
Personally I think we need a new term to describe the hybrid game that has both "theme park" and "Sandbox" elements. I go with something along the lines of "Playground" game.
How about "Naturewalk"! Bikepath? Stroll on the beach? Poolside adventure?
No offense, but your post stinks of elitism. "Real" MMo players are people who play MMOs. Your imagination of what "real" mmo players are is an illusion. For the record EVE launched before WOW, and in case you hadn't noticed, it seems to be wildly popular...
There is no need to actually bash on WOW (As popular a pass time as that is) because, it is in all honesty, a well made game. It was largely derivative of everything that came before it, but it was innovative enough, polished enough, and accessible enough to make it the "uber-game".
EVE launched before WoW (by about a year), but didn't become a hit until after WoW had made its headllines. WoW was also announced clear back in 2001, I'm not sure EVE was. I guess to avoid confusion I'll have to go with LOTRO as the last success story, even though I personally think it was only a partial success and many other games released shortly before and around the same time were utter flops.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post, however. You can call whoever you want "real" MMOers, but it doesn't bridge the gap between players. You are here with the assertion that games need to be designed with both sandbox and themepark concepts in mind. I'm telling you that you are being self-delusional.
1) The terms are mutually exclusive.
2) What you are really recommending is that developers find a way to mimic the player-provided content that old-school sandboxes had while maintaining the player isolation that keeps themepark games from experiencing large amounts of failure, tragedy, and interplayer conflict.
Even if development companies were large enough or computer systems sophisticated enough, the human-based solution to your misconstrued problem would be a superior choice.
IMO a sanbox with a compelling narrative would be the way to go. Think of Morrowind and Oblivion, without as much freedom. Replace the things that won't work as well in a multi-player setting with community related aspects, like city building.
Add enough diversion to deviate from the narative when ever you wish. As far as longevity is concerned episodic narratives would take care of that. As well as true community focused game-play. Steal a bit from SWG in this regard. If the game-play was well done this is the game I'd be playing (if it existed of course).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't think these concepts are mutually exclusive. The problem may be the misconception of the terms, but I won't get into that.
Some prime examples of a Themepark/Sandbox marriage would be inFamous, Prototype, GTA, Just Cause 2, etc. Obviously, these are all standalone, single-player games. The concept, however, is sound (and well developed).
It just requires some innovative designers to work those types of mechanics into an MMO.
I don't think these concepts are mutually exclusive. The problem may be the misconception of the terms, but I won't get into that.
Some prime examples of a Themepark/Sandbox marriage would be inFamous, Prototype, GTA, Just Cause 2, etc. Obviously, these are all standalone, single-player games. The concept, however, is sound (and well developed).
It just requires some innovative designers to work those types of mechanics into an MMO.
Those who want to claim the two are mutually exclusive, I can only think that it has to do with an extreme dislike of one or the other.
I remember the comment of "Go back to WOW" when someone suggested quests would be useful for a game like Darkfall. It seems that in the minds of many people, it must be 100% one way, or 100% the other.
Final Fantasy games (from about 5-12) are another example of a compromise. Frequently these games are linear up until a certain point about 1/2-3/4 of the way through the game, and then they become open semi-sandbox games.
The general problem with this is that when the developers make content, they want the players to use it. If its something that the players never get to/discover (because they weren't directed there by some NPC), then they've wasted their time making it.
What the hell? It's hardly a waste to put content out there without directing the players to it. First and most importantly, the players who enjoy exploring suddenly have a good reason to play their game, and when they find something, they'll put it out there for other players who have less patience. If anything it's more satisfying, and thus more valuable for a player to find content that they weren't directed to.
Maybe our definition differ, but I see the primary difference between a "sandbox" game and a "theme park" game is the amount of hand holding. A theme park game starts you with quest A and when you complete it tells you "now go here and do quest B" and so on to Z. A sandbox game starts yuo with quest A and when you complete it tells you "now you can go here to do quest B, or go over here and do quest C, or here to quest D". B, C and D each may lead to quest lines totally unrelated to each other, where you can follow B the whole way through then go on to C then D or juggle all three as you do along. One big difference being that to get to quest R you may never have to touch quests D, E or G. A sandbox game doesn't have that feeling of being on "rails" which you may prefer or not. Some folks like being able to know exactly what to do next. Others like exlporing and suddenly coming on some mountain hermit who tells you about a dragon lair in a nearby cave.
The idea of affecting the game world meaningfully for either is invalid. In either game you may slay the dragon and save the princess. Which in an MMO regardless of style lasts for 10 minutes until the dragon respawns and the princess swoons for the next in line to save her. The trollop.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Maybe our definition differ, but I see the primary difference between a "sandbox" game and a "theme park" game is the amount of hand holding. A theme park game starts you with quest A and when you complete it tells you "now go here and do quest B" and so on to Z. A sandbox game starts yuo with quest A and when you complete it tells you "now you can go here to do quest B, or go over here and do quest C, or here to quest D". B, C and D each may lead to quest lines totally unrelated to each other, where you can follow B the whole way through then go on to C then D or juggle all three as you do along. One big difference being that to get to quest R you may never have to touch quests D, E or G. A sandbox game doesn't have that feeling of being on "rails" which you may prefer or not. Some folks like being able to know exactly what to do next. Others like exlporing and suddenly coming on some mountain hermit who tells you about a dragon lair in a nearby cave.
The idea of affecting the game world meaningfully for either is invalid. In either game you may slay the dragon and save the princess. Which in an MMO regardless of style lasts for 10 minutes until the dragon respawns and the princess swoons for the next in line to save her. The trollop.
To me, that is an example of a hybrid game, not a sandbox. The true sandbox has no quests to follow. You do what you want when you want with your friends. Just a world created for players to interact with. You have some guidelines to follow, world lore and game features to use. Then you creat your story in this created world.
I would like to see your example though. I would like to see structure such as a story to the game world. But not a linear story that you have to progress through from beginning to end. I would like to see many many variables and having your character be a small peace of the story instead of every player being the hero.
Take TOR for an example. The 2 separate story arcs, class and world, give you options to the story. You do not have to follow just one or the other. You can do both and they can coexist. What would make it a great hybrid would be to have the mountain hermit, as in your example, give you a local story arc to do as you please. It would have nothing to do with your class story or world story. It would just be a story you happened apon while exploring. This could lead to hours of game play with no other point but just having fun.
A hybrid game should be the future of MMO's IMO. All sandbox or all themepark games will never be as good as having both in one game. That means meaningfull PvP as well as all the PvE you could want. Something like throwing a WoW type themepark in the middle of Darkfall. Or STO's questing inside EVE's universe using EVE's features.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
For me, work in real life is kind of 'themepark', where as my days off are kind of 'sandboxy'.
At work, I am put into a very specific role, and I am expected to accomplish xyz in a certain amount of time, in a certain place, and in a very specific way. Themepark.
At home, I can do whatever I want. I sleep in, have breakfast if I'm hungery, then decide what I want to do that day. Maybe I want to go jogging. I can go 3 miles or 5 miles....outside on the street or inside at the gym. Or I could lift weights. Or I could stay home, read a book, watch tv, play a videogame. Sandboxy.
Now if I was going to vacation in one of those two worlds a few hours a day, I would choose to live in a sandboxy world, which more closely mimics my days off from work. It is a world in which I make choices and define myself, rather than being forced down a path to achieve an objective someone else has set for me.
Umm, quests are a way to "interact with your world". As far as an example, I would point to Asheron's Call. A game with a vast world full of quests, critters, crafting, etc, the vast bulk of which can be taken on in whatever order you choose, barring being strong enough to handle any given situation. You can choose which groups in the world you want to help and which to fight. One distinction we need to establish is whether you are talking about a social game or a true MMORPG. A MMORPG involves character advancement/improvement, whether level based or skill based, while a social game such as Second Life may involve accumulation of wealth, social status, etc, but without concrete changes to your character. A MMORPG involves conflict and fighting, on an individual level: fighting "wandering monsters" to use a phrase from D&D, and PvP duels, and/or opposing one or more groups of npcs just because they're "evil" and mass PvP organized by group/race as in WAR or DAoC. A social game does not include conflict or renders it irrelevent as it has no concerte affect on your character.
As far as TOR I must admit I've never heard of it. There's no game on the game list here with those initials. What is it? As far as my mountain hermit example, we are talking about the exact same thing. It isn't connected to any other quest or aspect of the game. In a linear game it would be labelled a side quest.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
For me, work in real life is kind of 'themepark', where as my days off are kind of 'sandboxy'.
At work, I am put into a very specific role, and I am expected to accomplish xyz in a certain amount of time, in a certain place, and in a very specific way. Themepark.
At home, I can do whatever I want. I sleep in, have breakfast if I'm hungery, then decide what I want to do that day. Maybe I want to go jogging. I can go 3 miles or 5 miles....outside on the street or inside at the gym. Or I could lift weights. Or I could stay home, read a book, watch tv, play a videogame. Sandboxy.
Now if I was going to vacation in one of those two worlds a few hours a day, I would choose to live in a sandboxy world, which more closely mimics my days off from work. It is a world in which I make choices and define myself, rather than being forced down a path to achieve an objective someone else has set for me.
There are still a lot of things you can't do even in your free time so it isn't a 100% sandbox. There are laws, economical factors and so on. And watching a movie sounds more like a themepark even if you decide what movie.
I do agree that a game needs a lot of options for the players but 100% player made content tends to be boring, as is 100% pre made content.
Your spare time is a little bit of both. You can create something yourself, like writing a book or you can decide to read a book someone else wrote. And that is fun and freedom.
As far as TOR I must admit I've never heard of it. There's no game on the game list here with those initials. What is it? As far as my mountain hermit example, we are talking about the exact same thing. It isn't connected to any other quest or aspect of the game. In a linear game it would be labelled a side quest.
Is that sarcasm? Sometimes it is hard to tell.
If it isn't you must be a hermit yourself, The old republic online is one of the most discussed upcoming games right now.
So we want a WoW clone to mate with a Ryzom clone? Then raise the poor bastard into thinking he needs to make everyone happy? Only to see in his developing years that he would need a lot of professional help?
I think a lot of the modern games post 2006 have tried to take the 'magic' from both extremes and quite frankly that has sucked too. Age of Conan being one to talk about, but it did manage a moderate success.
Still the blend has happened and there's no 50% super happy measure of what people would want to enjoy.
I think the world has to have the two extremes and companies should focus on making them well. Good content and development is all it takes. Regardless of what rule-set is behind 'i hit it wif muh axe' or even art direction.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
Umm, quests are a way to "interact with your world". As far as an example, I would point to Asheron's Call. A game with a vast world full of quests, critters, crafting, etc, the vast bulk of which can be taken on in whatever order you choose, barring being strong enough to handle any given situation. You can choose which groups in the world you want to help and which to fight. One distinction we need to establish is whether you are talking about a social game or a true MMORPG. A MMORPG involves character advancement/improvement, whether level based or skill based, while a social game such as Second Life may involve accumulation of wealth, social status, etc, but without concrete changes to your character. A MMORPG involves conflict and fighting, on an individual level: fighting "wandering monsters" to use a phrase from D&D, and PvP duels, and/or opposing one or more groups of npcs just because they're "evil" and mass PvP organized by group/race as in WAR or DAoC. A social game does not include conflict or renders it irrelevent as it has no concerte affect on your character.
As far as TOR I must admit I've never heard of it. There's no game on the game list here with those initials. What is it? As far as my mountain hermit example, we are talking about the exact same thing. It isn't connected to any other quest or aspect of the game. In a linear game it would be labelled a side quest.
I kind of think just the opposite in terms of what an mmorpg is. To me, a 'massively multiplayer' online rpg makes it a social experience first, or atleast it should. I think this is one reason mmo's have been such a recent failure. Older games required community to overcome obstacles, whereas todays games are geared more towards a solo/small group experience, more closely resembling single player or co op type game design.
There is nothing really that says there must be combat in a mmo for it to qualify as such, but you almost never see an mmo without it. Still, I wouldn't say that if a game does not have combat it is not an mmo, but rather combat is something that is inherent in our nature and so would be conspicuously absent were it not included.
Umm, quests are a way to "interact with your world". As far as an example, I would point to Asheron's Call. A game with a vast world full of quests, critters, crafting, etc, the vast bulk of which can be taken on in whatever order you choose, barring being strong enough to handle any given situation. You can choose which groups in the world you want to help and which to fight. One distinction we need to establish is whether you are talking about a social game or a true MMORPG. A MMORPG involves character advancement/improvement, whether level based or skill based, while a social game such as Second Life may involve accumulation of wealth, social status, etc, but without concrete changes to your character. A MMORPG involves conflict and fighting, on an individual level: fighting "wandering monsters" to use a phrase from D&D, and PvP duels, and/or opposing one or more groups of npcs just because they're "evil" and mass PvP organized by group/race as in WAR or DAoC. A social game does not include conflict or renders it irrelevent as it has no concerte affect on your character.
As far as TOR I must admit I've never heard of it. There's no game on the game list here with those initials. What is it? As far as my mountain hermit example, we are talking about the exact same thing. It isn't connected to any other quest or aspect of the game. In a linear game it would be labelled a side quest.
I kind of think just the opposite in terms of what an mmorpg is. To me, a 'massively multiplayer' online rpg makes it a social experience first, or atleast it should. While the social aspect is required, without the other parts it simply becomes a graphics intensive chat room. I think this is one reason mmo's have been such a recent failure. I disagree with the "recent failure" label. Pre-WoW there were fewer games and the genre was new and exciting. Post-WoW there have been far more games made per year, meaning more competition for player dollars. As the genre matured players developed a clearer picture of what they wanted. Couple these two phenomena with companies attempts to differentiate their games in an increasingly crowded market and you inevitibly have some failures. However pre-WoW vs. post-WoW there are far more games making a profit with a far larger player base. That is success. Older games required community to overcome obstacles, whereas todays games are geared more towards a solo/small group experience, more closely resembling single player or co op type game design. There are two issue with this, the first being technical. In older games such as Asheron's Call or DAoC there was no stated programmed limit to how many players could be in an area. But in reality get too many folks in a town in AC and you were portal stormed away. In DAoC get too many folks in realm vs. realm combat fighting for a keep, and the game turned into an unplayable slideshow. Instancing is just a way to keep servers from overloading. The second issue is practical/monetary. Some people like playing MMO's in large groups while others like solo/small group play. For companies to attract and keep the most customers they try to appeal to both types. DDO had probably the single best IP for an MMO. But it flopped and this is one of the most cited reasons why. There was almost nothing to do solo. Folks didn't want to be forced to group so they left. And while it's only one game out of many, I think WoW's 40 person raid dungeons qualify as a large group situation.
There is nothing really that says there must be combat in a mmo for it to qualify as such, but you almost never see an mmo without it. Still, I wouldn't say that if a game does not have combat it is not an mmo, but rather combat is something that is inherent in our nature and so would be conspicuously absent were it not included.
You don't see MMO's without combat because no one has developed a comparable method of character advancement. Without advancement there's no way for players to feel their success. Without it gaining wealth or building the biggest building becomes merely work. Getting that millionth dollar is no harder then getting the first one, it just takes longer. As a character gains levels, skills and strength they can say "10 levels ago that monster stomped me flat. Today I beat it!" It's that feeling of accomplishment and reward that is one of the main reasons folks keep playing and paying.
Loke666: It's not sarcasm. I'm not into Star Wars and genuinely haven't paid attention to it. I jusT looked at the game list starting with T and left it at that.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
You know, sandboxes in real life, you can add things to them to make them better. Adding a little water, to be able to form castles, or adding toys to make it more enjoyable. Exactly how the games are.
Sandbox games are intended for players that enjoy world simulations, games that are a bit on the realistic side.
These games tend to be overly complicated, require a great deal of time investment and are very guild/clan/corp/alliance focused.
A game like eve could be a real bore to a person looking for a x-wing vs tie fighter experience. just like a person playing Gran turismo would be bored to tears if he really wanted Burnout.
Also i disagree with hybrids being the future. I've seen enough attempts to know those games turn out being confused pieces of software that noone actually plays.
want a overly complicated game? a game that shoves realism in your face? a game that has a harsh (or realistic) death penalty and one that forces you to band to together with other players? you play a sandbox.
for everything else there are themeparks, you cant combine them.
Sandbox games are intended for players that enjoy world simulations, games that are a bit on the realistic side.
These games tend to be overly complicated, require a great deal of time investment and are very guild/clan/corp/alliance focused.
A game like eve could be a real bore to a person looking for a x-wing vs tie fighter experience. just like a person playing Gran turismo would be bored to tears if he really wanted Burnout.
Also i disagree with hybrids being the future. I've seen enough attempts to know those games turn out being confused pieces of software that noone actually plays.
want a overly complicated game? a game that shoves realism in your face? a game that has a harsh (or realistic) death penalty and one that forces you to band to together with other players? you play a sandbox.
for everything else there are themeparks, you cant combine them.
Which is why I never said make the game a 50/50 hybrid. You are going to always end up having an over-arching vision of one of the two game styles.
The concept though is to take the overarching styel, and borrow elements from the other style that can enhance the feel of your world.
Comments
To what, pray tell, are you referring? Sea towers? The intended dungeon revamp? Nothing that has been implemented along those lines (and not a lot has been) has actually provided any positive results, because the true problem wasn't related to their game design. The true problem was who wound up spending the most time playing their game (namely people who don't really like sandbox rpgs).
Themepark is not the name of an MMO. It's merely a descriptive metaphor for the absence of real choices and player interaction including consequences. The terms "themepark" and "sandbox" are thus mutually exclusive. One describes a situation where gameplay is linear and heavily protected from unwanted player interaction. The other describes a situation where that is not the case. Note that no one is going to conciously market their MMO game as a "themepark" game, or even a hybrid of "themepark" and "sandbox." Only the term "sandbox" has a positive connotation in this context.
It needs to be understood that threads like this one are simply the results of mass confusion. A long (longer than short, anyway) time ago games in this genre were fun due to the interaction of the type of people that wanted to play them. Online gamers back then were mostly made up of hobbyists, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and artists who were looking for simply another way to turn their occupational interests and philosophies into entertainment. That changed sometime in the years between 2000 and 2005 and now the internet has become saturated with a type of gamer that is looking for their identity and its validation online as a first attempt.
This has resulted in a drastic shift in development focus that has yet to prove any success. One should note that no MMO that has been released since EVE or maybe LOTRO has been noticably profitable or popular. "Themepark" was the vivid metaphor that someone had originally used to describe the obvious error in analysis. Item shop games are experiencing success because they act as surrogates for real-world comparisons of stature and wealth, at least to the individuals that are highly attracted to that form of gaming - but that doesn't mean that they have anything in common with a true virtual society game that begs immersion and roleplaying.
I guess my point is that I view a particular large section of those who call themselves MMO-ers as being lost in self-deception. The reality of this genre is that true mmorpg fans (who would make a "sandbox" game shine) have for the most part become disillusioned and no longer play. The self-deceivers who used to like to feed off the imaginative energies now want developers to take over the production of such. Unfortunately no development company or computer system is currently up to the task.
Darkfall is still in paid-beta pretty much . .. I mean the game has been in development for so damn long that they probably needed money too bad to wait for a later release when the game was more finished so released it with a big grind while they worked on more content for it. This was a monumental failure but at least it gave them money to hire a larger development team and continue adding content. Do you have any idea how hard it would be for a small team like AV to add as much content to Darkfall as UO had? Its not like its a 2.5d game . .. its the biggest open map without instances ever made (besides Vanguard) and supported by a very small yet dedicated crew. Darkfall is a million times funner than UO is now!!
Darkfall has added a lot of content for being out for only a year. I mean . ... villages, sea towers, housing, etc. it keeps getting better and better so they have my money. Just give it some time and keep checking back and you will find more and more added. They added trade-routes which may end up being caravans with local banking so they you could rob them and stuff in a year. They have wanted a NPC thieves guild with pickpocketing before it was released and have recently talked about having 'bounty hunter' player-controlled quests and more visual customizations like clan banners and armor dyes, etc. AV wants more sand than the players do . .. they are the ones who will get paid for it.
The core of Darkfall is totally awesome though! The combat is so damn fun that even the PVE is more enjoyable than most other games . .. the physics and bunny-hopping and launching yourself foward, etc. is the coolest! Very fun 'empty box' they have there and yes they keep adding more content. It is fun enough how it is now that I will play it until it is dead (since there is nothing like it coming out at all . .. and dont even say games like 'earthrise' will compete since it is not twitch-based, etc.).
Even with the content that they have so far, I have had the most epic experiences that no other game can match.
I will not play theme-park games anymore . .. they bother me way too much when there are sandboxes that I can play in. I have so much more fun in sandbox games but I do like a grindless themepark on the side (like Guildwars) for when I want a change of pace.
Vanguard is already very much a combination of both and was a pretty fun game as well . .. go play that!
To be honest the more a sandbox adds themepark elements = the less I will like it. Darkfalls DEVs are on the right track by making sure all of their content is controlled or changed by players. Just wait if you do not like it now as it is still in development. Do you even know what DF2010 is bringing? What about DF2011?!?!? I am so excited!
After playing Darkfall for 16 months (and still excited for the next time that I can log on for a few hours!) it has really raised the bar of what I expect out of a game and all of the side games and games that I have tried since then seem totally dull in comparison or just wayyy too easy to enjoy.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
No offense, but your post stinks of elitism. "Real" MMo players are people who play MMOs. Your imagination of what "real" mmo players are is an illusion. For the record EVE launched before WOW, and in case you hadn't noticed, it seems to be wildly popular...
There is no need to actually bash on WOW (As popular a pass time as that is) because, it is in all honesty, a well made game. It was largely derivative of everything that came before it, but it was innovative enough, polished enough, and accessible enough to make it the "uber-game".
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I agree, unfortunatly game makers are SO overly concerned with capital growth and not enough with artistic growth and there will have to be a number of sandbox games as cannon fodder before an "excepted formula" for these types of games to be worth it to them... I could be wrong though, its happened before, lets hope I am.
Personally I think we need a new term to describe the hybrid game that has both "theme park" and "Sandbox" elements. I go with something along the lines of "Playground" game.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
How about "Naturewalk"! Bikepath? Stroll on the beach? Poolside adventure?
I'm done now... just being silly need to eat.
EVE launched before WoW (by about a year), but didn't become a hit until after WoW had made its headllines. WoW was also announced clear back in 2001, I'm not sure EVE was. I guess to avoid confusion I'll have to go with LOTRO as the last success story, even though I personally think it was only a partial success and many other games released shortly before and around the same time were utter flops.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post, however. You can call whoever you want "real" MMOers, but it doesn't bridge the gap between players. You are here with the assertion that games need to be designed with both sandbox and themepark concepts in mind. I'm telling you that you are being self-delusional.
1) The terms are mutually exclusive.
2) What you are really recommending is that developers find a way to mimic the player-provided content that old-school sandboxes had while maintaining the player isolation that keeps themepark games from experiencing large amounts of failure, tragedy, and interplayer conflict.
Even if development companies were large enough or computer systems sophisticated enough, the human-based solution to your misconstrued problem would be a superior choice.
IMO a sanbox with a compelling narrative would be the way to go. Think of Morrowind and Oblivion, without as much freedom. Replace the things that won't work as well in a multi-player setting with community related aspects, like city building.
Add enough diversion to deviate from the narative when ever you wish. As far as longevity is concerned episodic narratives would take care of that. As well as true community focused game-play. Steal a bit from SWG in this regard. If the game-play was well done this is the game I'd be playing (if it existed of course).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't think these concepts are mutually exclusive. The problem may be the misconception of the terms, but I won't get into that.
Some prime examples of a Themepark/Sandbox marriage would be inFamous, Prototype, GTA, Just Cause 2, etc. Obviously, these are all standalone, single-player games. The concept, however, is sound (and well developed).
It just requires some innovative designers to work those types of mechanics into an MMO.
*Enter Pillar 4 Entertainment!!!* ~self-righteous plug
Great examples!
Those who want to claim the two are mutually exclusive, I can only think that it has to do with an extreme dislike of one or the other.
I remember the comment of "Go back to WOW" when someone suggested quests would be useful for a game like Darkfall. It seems that in the minds of many people, it must be 100% one way, or 100% the other.
Final Fantasy games (from about 5-12) are another example of a compromise. Frequently these games are linear up until a certain point about 1/2-3/4 of the way through the game, and then they become open semi-sandbox games.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
What the hell? It's hardly a waste to put content out there without directing the players to it. First and most importantly, the players who enjoy exploring suddenly have a good reason to play their game, and when they find something, they'll put it out there for other players who have less patience. If anything it's more satisfying, and thus more valuable for a player to find content that they weren't directed to.
Just my opinion, but . . .
SWG Pre-CU blended sandbox and Themepark quite nicely
Maybe our definition differ, but I see the primary difference between a "sandbox" game and a "theme park" game is the amount of hand holding. A theme park game starts you with quest A and when you complete it tells you "now go here and do quest B" and so on to Z. A sandbox game starts yuo with quest A and when you complete it tells you "now you can go here to do quest B, or go over here and do quest C, or here to quest D". B, C and D each may lead to quest lines totally unrelated to each other, where you can follow B the whole way through then go on to C then D or juggle all three as you do along. One big difference being that to get to quest R you may never have to touch quests D, E or G. A sandbox game doesn't have that feeling of being on "rails" which you may prefer or not. Some folks like being able to know exactly what to do next. Others like exlporing and suddenly coming on some mountain hermit who tells you about a dragon lair in a nearby cave.
The idea of affecting the game world meaningfully for either is invalid. In either game you may slay the dragon and save the princess. Which in an MMO regardless of style lasts for 10 minutes until the dragon respawns and the princess swoons for the next in line to save her. The trollop.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
~Omar Khayyam
To me, that is an example of a hybrid game, not a sandbox. The true sandbox has no quests to follow. You do what you want when you want with your friends. Just a world created for players to interact with. You have some guidelines to follow, world lore and game features to use. Then you creat your story in this created world.
I would like to see your example though. I would like to see structure such as a story to the game world. But not a linear story that you have to progress through from beginning to end. I would like to see many many variables and having your character be a small peace of the story instead of every player being the hero.
Take TOR for an example. The 2 separate story arcs, class and world, give you options to the story. You do not have to follow just one or the other. You can do both and they can coexist. What would make it a great hybrid would be to have the mountain hermit, as in your example, give you a local story arc to do as you please. It would have nothing to do with your class story or world story. It would just be a story you happened apon while exploring. This could lead to hours of game play with no other point but just having fun.
A hybrid game should be the future of MMO's IMO. All sandbox or all themepark games will never be as good as having both in one game. That means meaningfull PvP as well as all the PvE you could want. Something like throwing a WoW type themepark in the middle of Darkfall. Or STO's questing inside EVE's universe using EVE's features.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
For me, work in real life is kind of 'themepark', where as my days off are kind of 'sandboxy'.
At work, I am put into a very specific role, and I am expected to accomplish xyz in a certain amount of time, in a certain place, and in a very specific way. Themepark.
At home, I can do whatever I want. I sleep in, have breakfast if I'm hungery, then decide what I want to do that day. Maybe I want to go jogging. I can go 3 miles or 5 miles....outside on the street or inside at the gym. Or I could lift weights. Or I could stay home, read a book, watch tv, play a videogame. Sandboxy.
Now if I was going to vacation in one of those two worlds a few hours a day, I would choose to live in a sandboxy world, which more closely mimics my days off from work. It is a world in which I make choices and define myself, rather than being forced down a path to achieve an objective someone else has set for me.
Umm, quests are a way to "interact with your world". As far as an example, I would point to Asheron's Call. A game with a vast world full of quests, critters, crafting, etc, the vast bulk of which can be taken on in whatever order you choose, barring being strong enough to handle any given situation. You can choose which groups in the world you want to help and which to fight. One distinction we need to establish is whether you are talking about a social game or a true MMORPG. A MMORPG involves character advancement/improvement, whether level based or skill based, while a social game such as Second Life may involve accumulation of wealth, social status, etc, but without concrete changes to your character. A MMORPG involves conflict and fighting, on an individual level: fighting "wandering monsters" to use a phrase from D&D, and PvP duels, and/or opposing one or more groups of npcs just because they're "evil" and mass PvP organized by group/race as in WAR or DAoC. A social game does not include conflict or renders it irrelevent as it has no concerte affect on your character.
As far as TOR I must admit I've never heard of it. There's no game on the game list here with those initials. What is it? As far as my mountain hermit example, we are talking about the exact same thing. It isn't connected to any other quest or aspect of the game. In a linear game it would be labelled a side quest.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
~Omar Khayyam
There are still a lot of things you can't do even in your free time so it isn't a 100% sandbox. There are laws, economical factors and so on. And watching a movie sounds more like a themepark even if you decide what movie.
I do agree that a game needs a lot of options for the players but 100% player made content tends to be boring, as is 100% pre made content.
Your spare time is a little bit of both. You can create something yourself, like writing a book or you can decide to read a book someone else wrote. And that is fun and freedom.
Is that sarcasm? Sometimes it is hard to tell.
If it isn't you must be a hermit yourself, The old republic online is one of the most discussed upcoming games right now.
good show, good show. carry on.
So we want a WoW clone to mate with a Ryzom clone? Then raise the poor bastard into thinking he needs to make everyone happy? Only to see in his developing years that he would need a lot of professional help?
I think a lot of the modern games post 2006 have tried to take the 'magic' from both extremes and quite frankly that has sucked too. Age of Conan being one to talk about, but it did manage a moderate success.
Still the blend has happened and there's no 50% super happy measure of what people would want to enjoy.
I think the world has to have the two extremes and companies should focus on making them well. Good content and development is all it takes. Regardless of what rule-set is behind 'i hit it wif muh axe' or even art direction.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
I kind of think just the opposite in terms of what an mmorpg is. To me, a 'massively multiplayer' online rpg makes it a social experience first, or atleast it should. I think this is one reason mmo's have been such a recent failure. Older games required community to overcome obstacles, whereas todays games are geared more towards a solo/small group experience, more closely resembling single player or co op type game design.
There is nothing really that says there must be combat in a mmo for it to qualify as such, but you almost never see an mmo without it. Still, I wouldn't say that if a game does not have combat it is not an mmo, but rather combat is something that is inherent in our nature and so would be conspicuously absent were it not included.
Loke666: It's not sarcasm. I'm not into Star Wars and genuinely haven't paid attention to it. I jusT looked at the game list starting with T and left it at that.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
~Omar Khayyam
You know, sandboxes in real life, you can add things to them to make them better. Adding a little water, to be able to form castles, or adding toys to make it more enjoyable. Exactly how the games are.
No they don't suck (for everyone).
Sandbox games are intended for players that enjoy world simulations, games that are a bit on the realistic side.
These games tend to be overly complicated, require a great deal of time investment and are very guild/clan/corp/alliance focused.
A game like eve could be a real bore to a person looking for a x-wing vs tie fighter experience. just like a person playing Gran turismo would be bored to tears if he really wanted Burnout.
Also i disagree with hybrids being the future. I've seen enough attempts to know those games turn out being confused pieces of software that noone actually plays.
want a overly complicated game? a game that shoves realism in your face? a game that has a harsh (or realistic) death penalty and one that forces you to band to together with other players? you play a sandbox.
for everything else there are themeparks, you cant combine them.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Which is why I never said make the game a 50/50 hybrid. You are going to always end up having an over-arching vision of one of the two game styles.
The concept though is to take the overarching styel, and borrow elements from the other style that can enhance the feel of your world.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!