Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why must there be only Sand Boxes and Theme Parks?
UnleadedRev
Member UncommonPosts: 568
Are game designers not creative enough or are they being strangled by the suits who think they know best, but are detached from PC game player reality?
Game makers do not provide a public service...they make games to make money...nothing wrong with that.
Why else would they make one?
However, someone needs to come along and create a MMO that is FUN first....then figure out how it will make money.
That would be the WoW killer that finally gets rid of all these same old same old WoW clones.
A good example would be the Warhammer and Warhammer 40K universe.
There are still mega sales and money being made, while providing tons of enjoyment, from Warhammer/40K novels and table top games, despite horrible decisions by Games Workshop to alienate brick and mortor stores, online retailers, and offer their IP to any game maker regardless of the junk they produce under the Warhammer/40K IP.
Attempts to bring the tabletop experience to the PC and console gaming have failed, mainly due to mis management by publishers and game makers, as no one can deny the Dawn of War II series was not great, despite some obvious flaws.
It always seems despite huge sales, successful warhammer/40K game makers always go bankrupt, i.e. Relic.
Why is that? Is Games Workshop sucking them dry?
Regardless, my hope is that someone breaks this horrible template that all games seem to be stuck in and break new ground.
They can start by not making WoW clones or jumping on band wagons of the same old thing in a different wrapper.
Comments
You are probably right...gamers seem really into the ritual of the habitual.
Exactly. People just like to dump things into one category or another when all MMO's fall within the two boundaries.
"Why must there be only Sand Boxes and Theme Parks?"
Because that is the only kind of design they teach in school...
You work from a formula, you get formula back...
There hasn't been any real innovation in game design for decades, just technological advances...
You'd blow your mind if they actually did something original...
You get exactly what you ask for...
Ask this question again in 2055 and they will say "What's a Sand Box?" "Theme Parks?"
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
1. Hot and cold describes an amount of heat. Sandbox and themepark describe an amount of player control.
A game will always have some measure of player control, just as objects always have some measure of heat.
The spectrum of entertainment:
2. So this thread is like calling artists uncreative for failing to invent new colors.
3. Uh, Relic is still going. THQ is the company that went bankrupt.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What are you talking about?
You haven't seen MOBAs, instanced games, single player games with MMO elements, and other stuff?
An mmo that embraces RTS and 4X genres along with the game Risk
Nations vs Nations conquering the world piece by piece. Technology Apochs and the like from RTS games.
Tell me you wouldn't play a mmo version of Starcraft, Age of Empires or Sins of a Solar Empire...
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
The games you listed have online play, how would you make them an MMO but not Sandbox or Themepark?
Theme parks.....
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
They wouldn't be either the only "thing" sandbox about them is the fact that you would be taking over individual characters. Most sandboxes do not have goals other than the players making their own goal. Most themeparks are making you follow on an established path. The ultimate point of the game is Expanding, Exploring, Exterminating and Exploiting. On the surface to lure MMO players in the game looks like a sandbox but looking at it from a greater scope it plays like an RTS/4X game.
The key point is we are all part of -one- nation looking to establish its dominance. Imagine Daoc with the same realm vs realm setup but instead of constant tug of war a world map that looks like a RISK map with other factions all working to conquer the world.
Normal RTS games have me controlling one "nation" and you controlling another. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about Starcraft where every individual piece is controlled by a player. IE: All of the terrans are actual players working together to take out those guys the Protoss or the Zerg who are also made up of players controlling an individual piece of each "nation army".Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
You just described Starcraft and AoE. Not sure I follow how you make an MMO out of that. If you played just one char and not an army, then you would have a PvP BG but it would just be the same game and you would be playing a smaller part. BG MMOs have been done and more are in development. CU is such a game.
You missed my clarification of why I said that.
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
Exactly, you've just given examples that are not placed within Sandbox or Themepark, yet you have a poster wanting you to pick one to make it fit, why?
I doubt CU will be like that, seems to just be another Daoc to me
And yes I described Starcraft and AOE that was the point
The point that I'm making is that the game ultimately would be more 4x with players playing individual roles. Whether pve or pvp. PVEr's would have their place as would PVPers
PVE roles = crafting, monster hunting, exploring, farming
PVP roles = nation military,. bodyguards, mercenaries
You make both depend on each other through nation pride and nation goals. The PVEr's are feeding the "war machine" that the pvpers need to operate on. The PVP players are the nation militaries responsible for conquering new territories. Afterwards the PVEr's clear these territories of any monsters, they "exploit" the mineral and other resources of these newly conquered territories which in exchange helps to bolster the "Military/PVPers" which in turn go to conquer another territory.
You then end up with a system where there are no limits of options of play. Both sides PVP/PVE feed each other content by doing the things that they like to do. They also come to depend on each other. And if one side treats the other like crap in one particular nation, those that are part of the side that is being mistreated can defect and join another nation thus bolstering said nation.
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
Not asking him to pick one. Asking how you make say Starcraft an MMO without being a themepark or sandbox. At best I dont think you know what a MMO is and maybe describing a MOG not an MMO but at this point no onehas been clear on how or what would go into your game to make it a MMO but not Sandbox or Themepark.
make them into a MOBA. Make them into an instanced games ... plenty of ways. It has been done before.
MOBA is not a MMO its a MOBA. I think thats where the confusion is in this thread. Using the wrong terms.
This is like asking why are you always served food or drinks to eat. There's a spectrum. And things fall within that spectrum. As long as you are being served content (or in the above example, food), there is a limited number of extremes in which that content can be delivered.
On one extreme you have sandboxes (maximum freedom in gameplay) on the other you have themepark (heavily guided gameplay). They are the basic (and yet opposite) perspectives on content within gameplay.
That said, developers have done a lot to mix aspects of both within some games. Which is where we get terms like 'sandpark' and 'themebox', amongst others. However, as long there is a video game being played, the gameplay will always be labeled based on whether it has more or less open content. There are certainly other labels that get placed on games, many of them, but by bringing up the terms sandbox or themepark you immediately steer the labels towards how open the content is, instead of the nature of that content (what genre it's in). Etc.
First, the game you're imagining (and the ones you named) are all some mix of themepark and sandbox elements. Themepark and sandbox are words which describe an amount of player control, and every game exists somewhere on the spectrum of player control.
So you haven't designed something which isn't sandbox or themepark, you've simply designed a new type of game.
Second, you haven't actually designed a new type of game. MMORTSes have been done. The major variants are Travian, Clash of Clans, and Shattered Galaxy. In fact if you trace the Travian variant back it goes all the way to Solar Realms Elite (1990) which was played as a BBS door game.
Third, by being MMORTSes, they actually lose critical pieces of RTS identity. Shattered Galaxy is the closest to playing like a typical RTS (16 vs. 16 players controlling 6-12 units apiece, but with no economic gameplay). But most MMORTSes (Travian/Clash clones) play very different, focusing far more on strategy and far less on tactics than typical RTSes. So what you're proposing has existed for quite a while, but are never all that similar to the RTSes they're inspired by.
(Coincidentally I've worked on a couple Age of Empires games and Rise of Nations.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver