I did not read through the whole thread, probably it was mentioned before. There are no real AAA sandboxes out. The last AAA i remember is SWG. I had great fun in a cool roleplaying guild and it was the only game i enjoyed crafting and gathering. PvP was exciting (ohh a red dot on my map, kill!!). It was nearly perfect, except of combat and the skill system.
if you would make SWG2 it would be a success. 80% of the old game with 20% improvements and of course, new graphics.
Chronicle of Elyria got some good ideas aswell. That in starwars setting would be cool.
PS. I only played pre CU and pre NGE
So it was successful in the past...is that why it is still around? Or was it just a small niche of people that liked it that probably could not pay the license fees?
It was the time were publishers found out there are better ways to get the money from customers. And it was not a perfect game too. It had a lot of great things, this is why i said 80%. But after all, the combat wasnt good enough and the servers had extreme lag when too many players around.
games changed. People changed. I miss those days, players were communicating in a game, grouping for various things and staying together for hours with random people... Anarchy Online, SWG. "The first cut is the deepest"
If there is a sandbox anywhere with a huge world that can be explored without constantly running into mobs every 5 meters, PvP and all that, has some crafting and gathering PLEASE tell me.
These are very simple requirements but I am not going to build it although I could.
try salem
Looked it over. Is this PvP? Nothing saying that on the description just kind of saying the world gets dangerous further out.
There's not much PVP. If you could, post what you think of it afterwards.
I don't know Lokto, I signed up on Monday and never got my account. Thought I may have made a mistake and tried yesterday still waiting. If you happen to read this advise please.
I think It falls to this, too many developers tie sandbox to pvp gankfest and that makes the Sandboxes niche. When the bullies have run off all the victims then there is no one left to pick on and the games die. It is unfortunate that we cannot have great Sandboxes that promote cooperative play over "Murder Everyone!!!!"
I've seen a lot of people talking about FFA OWPVP and how it's so essential to a sandbox because it provides player choice. I think we can pretty much agree that sandboxes are built on player choice, and in order for a game to be built on player choice all choices must be more or less equally valid. The problem with FFA OWPVP is that it's not built on player choice, because it makes the option of not engaging in PVP less valid. I can make the choice to not engage in PVP, but if another player attacks me then they are making the choice for me that I will engage in PVP. Essentially the players that want PVP are freely able to impose their will on those that don't want PVP. This renders the whole idea of player choice moot, because I'm no longer able to make a choice to not participate in PVP. The games I've seen with FFA OWPVP (Darkfall, for instance) aren't really sandbox games; they're just an echo chamber of all the people that wanted to PVP assuming there is a choice to make but not seeing that there isn't, because they all made the same choice.
I guess the long and short of it is that your rights end where the next person's begin. FFA OWPVP gives one group all the power to make decisions for the whole. Not very sandboxy to me.
You see, I wouldn't even call EVE a sandbox. You are limited by how you play it i.e. you can't land on a planet in the game, you can't fly your ship around in space (it flies for you), you can't walk around in pubic areas and do things with other characters - it's very constrained.
And there's no ketchup. Then again, I can't do a barbecue anyway in EVE. And the livestock? Can't make burgers.
and you can't roast hot dogs with the sub-light engines, either. What kind of themepark tripe is that game???
People seem to want a sandbox but they are all dead compared to other mmo's. Why are these games failing when they seem so ideal? My theory is the developers are making anarchy sandbox games instead of civilized sandbox games. Once they start putting order to the sandbox people cry and start calling it themepark. I feel that anarchy sandbox designs do not work at all. But has anyone made a sandbox where they had civilized towns with guards enforcing laws if you were stupid enough to break them? Mortal Online attempts such feats but the way it is implemented gives much reason for player dislikes. Sandboxers claim they want total anarchy gameplay yet developers know this is just a waste of time because without civilizations to create a box for the sand you just have a sandpile.
Games don't fail because of OWPVP, they fail because they're bad.
Games don't fail by being 80% escort missions, they fail because they're bad.
As much as I can see the logic and sound reasoning behind the idea that games fail because they're bad, I'm not sure that's actually the case. I think historically we've seen bad games succeed and thrive despite apparent shortcomings. We've also seen some pretty good games fail. Of course this also depends largely on how you define success and failure.
Games don't fail because of OWPVP, they fail because they're bad.
Games don't fail by being 80% escort missions, they fail because they're bad.
As much as I can see the logic and sound reasoning behind the idea that games fail because they're bad, I'm not sure that's actually the case. I think historically we've seen bad games succeed and thrive despite apparent shortcomings. We've also seen some pretty good games fail. Of course this also depends largely on how you define success and failure.
I wasn't making that simple statement that bad games are bad and good games are good. I was making the point that bad game ideas will probably result in a bad game.
Escort missions and OWPvP are both bad game ideas. Somebody could say that "that's just RobSoLF's opinion", which it is, but there's a fair amount of marketing data to back it up.
In vague terms though, I agree. Some good games fail, and some not so great games succeed. There are many reasons that that could be. Bad timing, bad management, sheer bad luck. Or maybe most people are horrible bizarro people that just hate all good stuff and like all bad stuff. If you believe it to be the latter though, get used to it.
Games don't fail because of OWPVP, they fail because they're bad.
Games don't fail by being 80% escort missions, they fail because they're bad.
As much as I can see the logic and sound reasoning behind the idea that games fail because they're bad, I'm not sure that's actually the case. I think historically we've seen bad games succeed and thrive despite apparent shortcomings. We've also seen some pretty good games fail. Of course this also depends largely on how you define success and failure.
In vague terms though, I agree. Some good games fail, and some not so great games succeed. There are many reasons that that could be. Bad timing, bad management, sheer bad luck. Or maybe most people are horrible bizarro people that just hate all good stuff and like all bad stuff. If you believe it to be the latter though, get used to it.
I think it's because people are easily manipulated by marketing messages, peer pressure, and a lot of other factors. What we like or what is good actually plays remarkably little in our decisions about what to consume.
Games don't fail because of OWPVP, they fail because they're bad.
Games don't fail by being 80% escort missions, they fail because they're bad.
As much as I can see the logic and sound reasoning behind the idea that games fail because they're bad, I'm not sure that's actually the case. I think historically we've seen bad games succeed and thrive despite apparent shortcomings. We've also seen some pretty good games fail. Of course this also depends largely on how you define success and failure.
In vague terms though, I agree. Some good games fail, and some not so great games succeed. There are many reasons that that could be. Bad timing, bad management, sheer bad luck. Or maybe most people are horrible bizarro people that just hate all good stuff and like all bad stuff. If you believe it to be the latter though, get used to it.
"I think it's because people are easily manipulated by marketing messages, peer pressure, and a lot of other factors."
I don't disagree with that, though we do ourselves a disservice to think it's that simple. For example, I tend to wonder if people who like unpopular things are peer pressured and marketed into other things that are no better than the things they rebel against.
Whole Foods... nuff said.
"What we like or what is good actually plays remarkably little in our decisions about what to consume."
Completely disagree, on a personal level. I like what I like. Always have.
Games don't fail because of OWPVP, they fail because they're bad.
Games don't fail by being 80% escort missions, they fail because they're bad.
As much as I can see the logic and sound reasoning behind the idea that games fail because they're bad, I'm not sure that's actually the case. I think historically we've seen bad games succeed and thrive despite apparent shortcomings. We've also seen some pretty good games fail. Of course this also depends largely on how you define success and failure.
In vague terms though, I agree. Some good games fail, and some not so great games succeed. There are many reasons that that could be. Bad timing, bad management, sheer bad luck. Or maybe most people are horrible bizarro people that just hate all good stuff and like all bad stuff. If you believe it to be the latter though, get used to it.
"What we like or what is good actually plays remarkably little in our decisions about what to consume."
Completely disagree, on a personal level. I like what I like. Always have.
There are fringe cases of people that are less easily manipulated, but rest assured those millions are spent on advertising for a reason.
jalexbrown said"What we like or what is good actually plays remarkably little in our decisions about what to consume."
Completely disagree, on a personal level. I like what I like. Always have.
There are fringe cases of people that are less easily manipulated, but rest assured those millions are spent on advertising for a reason.
That's true.
We're the special little snowflakes that have ducked the Eye of Sauron.
You go save Middle Earth, whilst I go blow up the Death Star.
Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like, which leads to the possibility that they legitimately think they like something but have still been manipulated. As an example I know what toothpaste I like, but I couldn't tell you why really. Could I have been subconsciously influenced? Very likely. I don't know anything about toothpaste. As they say, "I may not know art, but I know what I like." If you don't know why you like it though, you can never really be sure you haven't been persuaded into that preference subliminally or subconsciously.
jalexbrown said"What we like or what is good actually plays remarkably little in our decisions about what to consume."
Completely disagree, on a personal level. I like what I like. Always have.
There are fringe cases of people that are less easily manipulated, but rest assured those millions are spent on advertising for a reason.
That's true.
We're the special little snowflakes that have ducked the Eye of Sauron.
You go save Middle Earth, whilst I go blow up the Death Star.
Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like, which leads to the possibility that they legitimately think they like something but have still been manipulated. As an example I know what toothpaste I like, but I couldn't tell you why really. Could I have been subconsciously influenced? Very likely. I don't know anything about toothpaste. As they say, "I may not know art, but I know what I like." If you don't know why you like it though, you can never really be sure you haven't been persuaded into that preference subliminally or subconsciously.
"Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like"
In review, do you see anything wrong with this statement?
Eve online and Minecraft aren't failing. just like WoW isn't failing. the situation for Themeparks are the same if you look at it this way. however it's easier to get into themeparks for a temporarily amount of time and move on. meaning it's easier to make early cash with them.
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
"Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like"
In review, do you see anything wrong with this statement?
No, I don't see anything wrong with it. I even gave a personal example to back it up, but I'll break down that example into how it fits into the statement quoted.
The example was: "As an example I know what toothpaste I like, but I couldn't tell you why really."
I know the toothpaste that I like. This is a given, I'd say.
I don't know why I like the toothpaste I like.
The reason I don't know why, is because I don't know anything about the ins and outs of toothpaste. I'm not educated enough on toothpaste to comprehend what makes one different from another.
If you see anything faulty about that, I'd be curious to know what it is.
Eve online and Minecraft aren't failing. just like WoW isn't failing. the situation for Themeparks are the same if you look at it this way. however it's easier to get into themeparks for a temporarily amount of time and move on. meaning it's easier to make early cash with them.
Themeparks are designed for a consumer culture that prefers disposable products, which we currently are. This is why World of Warcraft can get so many subscribers relative to other MMOs: I can sub, consume the content, and cancel my subscription until the next batch of content is released. The game has essentially become a disposable good. Play, throw away, move on. The tipping point towards sandbox games will come when we've culturally shifted our thinking away from short-term, disposable MMOs and towards looking at MMOs as a long-term investment.
"Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like"
In review, do you see anything wrong with this statement?
No, I don't see anything wrong with it. I even gave a personal example to back it up, but I'll break down that example into how it fits into the statement quoted.
The example was: "As an example I know what toothpaste I like, but I couldn't tell you why really."
I know the toothpaste that I like. This is a given, I'd say.
I don't know why I like the toothpaste I like.
The reason I don't know why, is because I don't know anything about the ins and outs of toothpaste. I'm not educated enough on toothpaste to comprehend what makes one different from another.
If you see anything faulty about that, I'd be curious to know what it is.
Go to bed. You're drunk/stoned/who knows...
Sorry OP for letting this drag out as long as it did. I honestly thought this was going somewhere relevant!
Eve online and Minecraft aren't failing. just like WoW isn't failing. the situation for Themeparks are the same if you look at it this way. however it's easier to get into themeparks for a temporarily amount of time and move on. meaning it's easier to make early cash with them.
Themeparks are designed for a consumer culture that prefers disposable products, which we currently are. This is why World of Warcraft can get so many subscribers relative to other MMOs: I can sub, consume the content, and cancel my subscription until the next batch of content is released. The game has essentially become a disposable good. Play, throw away, move on. The tipping point towards sandbox games will come when we've culturally shifted our thinking away from short-term, disposable MMOs and towards looking at MMOs as a long-term investment.
does that make sandboxes the "communism" to themeparks "capitalism"? because it sure seems like it; that everybodies ideal sandbox is right up there with everybody and their moms ideal construct of a communistic utopia where X, Y and Z systems are totally different from all the other failed interpretations of said government type.
"Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like"
In review, do you see anything wrong with this statement?
No, I don't see anything wrong with it. I even gave a personal example to back it up, but I'll break down that example into how it fits into the statement quoted.
The example was: "As an example I know what toothpaste I like, but I couldn't tell you why really."
I know the toothpaste that I like. This is a given, I'd say.
I don't know why I like the toothpaste I like.
The reason I don't know why, is because I don't know anything about the ins and outs of toothpaste. I'm not educated enough on toothpaste to comprehend what makes one different from another.
If you see anything faulty about that, I'd be curious to know what it is.
Go to bed. You're drunk/stoned/who knows...
Sorry OP for letting this drag out as long as it did. I honestly thought this was going somewhere relevant!
I don't understand why you're suddenly acting like I'm saying something nonsensical. Would you care to explain what exactly you're issue is with the statements I've made? Because otherwise I only see you veering off towards irrelevancy.
Eve online and Minecraft aren't failing. just like WoW isn't failing. the situation for Themeparks are the same if you look at it this way. however it's easier to get into themeparks for a temporarily amount of time and move on. meaning it's easier to make early cash with them.
Themeparks are designed for a consumer culture that prefers disposable products, which we currently are. This is why World of Warcraft can get so many subscribers relative to other MMOs: I can sub, consume the content, and cancel my subscription until the next batch of content is released. The game has essentially become a disposable good. Play, throw away, move on. The tipping point towards sandbox games will come when we've culturally shifted our thinking away from short-term, disposable MMOs and towards looking at MMOs as a long-term investment.
does that make sandboxes the "communism" to themeparks "capitalism"? because it sure seems like it; that everybodies ideal sandbox is right up there with everybody and their moms ideal construct of a communistic utopia where X, Y and Z systems are totally different from all the other failed interpretations of said government type.
It might be a bit of a forced metaphor, but I think I see where you're going with this. I do believe there is a certain degree of goalpost moving being done by sandbox supporters. They talk about how great sandbox games are, and one might be released only to be greeted with outcry about how sandbox games can still be good but this/that/the other were just wrong and need to be done differently. A broken clock is right twice a day, and as long as they keep moving the goalposts they'll eventually look right.
(I'm not personally saying I dislike sandbox games or that people that want sandbox games are wrong. I'm saying this seems to be the mentality I see from the most vocal supporters of sandbox games.)
People who claim to like sandbox games are setting impossible standards for developers. Where a sandbox was once just a general statement made about having many options or forms of gameplay in a game, today a game cannot have anything except terrain, resources and a skill system.
Does nobody see the problem with such a design? Who is going to be compelled to play a game with such a dull world? The answer is, next to no one - and that is exactly who plays them.
Comments
games changed. People changed. I miss those days, players were communicating in a game, grouping for various things and staying together for hours with random people... Anarchy Online, SWG. "The first cut is the deepest"
I don't know Lokto, I signed up on Monday and never got my account. Thought I may have made a mistake and tried yesterday still waiting. If you happen to read this advise please.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Help support an artist and gamer who has lost his tools to create and play: http://www.gofundme.com/u63nzcgk
I guess the long and short of it is that your rights end where the next person's begin. FFA OWPVP gives one group all the power to make decisions for the whole. Not very sandboxy to me.
As much as I can see the logic and sound reasoning behind the idea that games fail because they're bad, I'm not sure that's actually the case. I think historically we've seen bad games succeed and thrive despite apparent shortcomings. We've also seen some pretty good games fail. Of course this also depends largely on how you define success and failure.
I wasn't making that simple statement that bad games are bad and good games are good. I was making the point that bad game ideas will probably result in a bad game.
Escort missions and OWPvP are both bad game ideas. Somebody could say that "that's just RobSoLF's opinion", which it is, but there's a fair amount of marketing data to back it up.
In vague terms though, I agree. Some good games fail, and some not so great games succeed. There are many reasons that that could be. Bad timing, bad management, sheer bad luck. Or maybe most people are horrible bizarro people that just hate all good stuff and like all bad stuff. If you believe it to be the latter though, get used to it.
I think it's because people are easily manipulated by marketing messages, peer pressure, and a lot of other factors. What we like or what is good actually plays remarkably little in our decisions about what to consume.
There are fringe cases of people that are less easily manipulated, but rest assured those millions are spent on advertising for a reason.
That's true.
We're the special little snowflakes that have ducked the Eye of Sauron.
You go save Middle Earth, whilst I go blow up the Death Star.
Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like, which leads to the possibility that they legitimately think they like something but have still been manipulated. As an example I know what toothpaste I like, but I couldn't tell you why really. Could I have been subconsciously influenced? Very likely. I don't know anything about toothpaste. As they say, "I may not know art, but I know what I like." If you don't know why you like it though, you can never really be sure you haven't been persuaded into that preference subliminally or subconsciously.
"Something else to consider is that often times people aren't really educated enough to know why they like what they like"
In review, do you see anything wrong with this statement?
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
No, I don't see anything wrong with it. I even gave a personal example to back it up, but I'll break down that example into how it fits into the statement quoted.
The example was: "As an example I know what toothpaste I like, but I couldn't tell you why really."
I know the toothpaste that I like. This is a given, I'd say.
I don't know why I like the toothpaste I like.
The reason I don't know why, is because I don't know anything about the ins and outs of toothpaste. I'm not educated enough on toothpaste to comprehend what makes one different from another.
If you see anything faulty about that, I'd be curious to know what it is.
Themeparks are designed for a consumer culture that prefers disposable products, which we currently are. This is why World of Warcraft can get so many subscribers relative to other MMOs: I can sub, consume the content, and cancel my subscription until the next batch of content is released. The game has essentially become a disposable good. Play, throw away, move on. The tipping point towards sandbox games will come when we've culturally shifted our thinking away from short-term, disposable MMOs and towards looking at MMOs as a long-term investment.
Sorry OP for letting this drag out as long as it did. I honestly thought this was going somewhere relevant!
I don't understand why you're suddenly acting like I'm saying something nonsensical. Would you care to explain what exactly you're issue is with the statements I've made? Because otherwise I only see you veering off towards irrelevancy.
It might be a bit of a forced metaphor, but I think I see where you're going with this. I do believe there is a certain degree of goalpost moving being done by sandbox supporters. They talk about how great sandbox games are, and one might be released only to be greeted with outcry about how sandbox games can still be good but this/that/the other were just wrong and need to be done differently. A broken clock is right twice a day, and as long as they keep moving the goalposts they'll eventually look right.
(I'm not personally saying I dislike sandbox games or that people that want sandbox games are wrong. I'm saying this seems to be the mentality I see from the most vocal supporters of sandbox games.)
Does nobody see the problem with such a design? Who is going to be compelled to play a game with such a dull world? The answer is, next to no one - and that is exactly who plays them.