Developers Corner

Originally posted by Tatum

 

Originally posted by Josher

Great discussion.   People would rather not pay a monthly fee to entertain themselves.  Thats what a sandbox is.  Compare it to buying a car for $40k or buying every single part of a car for the same price and being forced to put it together yourself and with your friends.   People just want to PLAY a game, just like they just want to buy a car.  They don't want to PLAY mechanic.  They want to play the driver.  They want those who actually have the ability to build it properly in the 1st place, instead of having a car that might not be all that much fun to drive or won't even get out of 1st gear. 

Yes, but many car enthusiasts would rather build their own, custom, the way they want. 

 

The point is, you can't just say that "people" want this or that in an MMO.  Some do, some don't.  Some MMO players just want to be entertained and some want more freedom and tools to entertain themselves.  More than likely, if you could some how poll every single MMO player out there you'd find:

- a small amount that prefer sandbox

- a small amount that prefer linear

- and the majority who either don't know or don't care

So, until we see a sandbox MMO that has the same amount of polish as WOW (not to mention then name brand, IP, and hype) it's hard to say exactly how well a really good sandbox game could do in the market. 

Personally, I don't hate the linear, theme park style MMO's, I'm just not all that impressed or entertained by them.  With an MMO like WOW or LOTRO I feel like I might as well just play a single player RPG... 

The majority know generally what they want.  Check that!  They know what they LIKE.  Its certainly not sandboxes.  You only need to follow the sales figures=)

You could say MOST prefer linear class based MMOs, because thats where MOST players have always gone.  Saying people will play a sandbox once a "good one" comes along means exactly what?  Whats good mean anyway?  Most didn't play UO and its considered pretty good.  Most didn't play SWG and was considered good in its day, until it had to change just to stay competitive.  Most didn't play SB, but it was never considered all that great=)  Most didn't play Saga of Ryzome.  Most didn't play Eve and most won't play the next sandbox that comes along because most people have no interest in them.  Thats not to say they're BAD.  They're just not as fun or as interesting for most people.   I don't hate sandbox MMOs.   I just found every one of them quite boring and pointless, much like MOST people.  It doesn't matter what happens once a GOOD one comes along because unless I have measurable content I can complete, the game will never be fun and never be good for me or most other people.  Chatting is a HUGE chunk of what people do in a sandbox.   I've never considered that content and never will.  Until a sandbox MMO comes along that doesn't rely on its PLAYERS making the content, it'll never be popular or fun for most people. 

Actually, what I said was...

Originally posted by Tatum

So, until we see a sandbox MMO that has the same amount of polish as WOW (not to mention then name brand, IP, and hype) it's hard to say exactly how well a really good sandbox game could do in the market. 

You can't compare WOW's subs to any other sandbox MMO ever made, it's just not a fair comparison.  We've never seen a sandbox MMO with the polish of WOW or the name brand, IP, and marketing.  So, unless Blizzard makes a sandbox MMO with the Starcraft IP (no way thats gonna happen) we don't really know how one would stack up.  A more realistic comparison would be the peak subs of UO vs. EQ or even EVE/SWG vs. EQ2.   

I'm still going to argue that most MMO players fall into the "don't know don't care" catagory.  Seriously, ask the average WOW player whether they prefer sandbox or linear and see if you get anything other than a blank stare.  They're not playing WOW because it's linear, they're playing WOW because it's WOW.  I'm not going to make the statement that most people would choose sandbox, but there are definately enough to make a really great one successful. 

The whole "content" debate is another issue, but I'm not at all impressed by what passes as "content" in most linear MMO's.  If the best "content" they have to offer is kill tasks and static quests, then well, we might as well just stick to single player RPG's... 

Originally posted by Tatum

Actually, what I said was...

 

Originally posted by Tatum

So, until we see a sandbox MMO that has the same amount of polish as WOW (not to mention then name brand, IP, and hype) it's hard to say exactly how well a really good sandbox game could do in the market. 

You can't compare WOW's subs to any other sandbox MMO ever made, it's just not a fair comparison.  We've never seen a sandbox MMO with the polish of WOW or the name brand, IP, and marketing.  So, unless Blizzard makes a sandbox MMO with the Starcraft IP (no way thats gonna happen) we don't really know how one would stack up.  A more realistic comparison would be the peak subs of UO vs. EQ or even EVE/SWG vs. EQ2.   

I'm still going to argue that most MMO players fall into the "don't know don't care" catagory.  Seriously, ask the average WOW player whether they prefer sandbox or linear and see if you get anything other than a blank stare.  They're not playing WOW because it's linear, they're playing WOW because it's WOW.  I'm not going to make the statement that most people would choose sandbox, but there are definately enough to make a really great one successful. 

The whole "content" debate is another issue, but I'm not at all impressed by what passes as "content" in most linear MMO's.  If the best "content" they have to offer is kill tasks and static quests, then well, we might as well just stick to single player RPG's... 

I agree. Most content in these linear quest based games are boring. There are some nice quest chains and instances, but they are the minority. Imagine a sandbox game where they took out the boring repetitive quests and kept the good epic like quests. The rest of the game you can be whatever you want and do whatever you want.

Sandbox players don't pay to play a game and that is what pro-linear players won't ever understand. Sandbox players pay to live a second life through a game. A life that is utterly impossible to live in the real world. You can't be a sword swinging, fire ball slinging Warrior Mage in the real world, but you can in a sandbox game. Sandbox games are for people who want to see what it's like to be that Warrior Mage in a world like Earth, yet maybe set in a different time. We want the freedom to seek out land to build a city with other people. Perhaps eventually build a barracks for our military, an academy for the mages, and a town hall for the council leaders. We want the ability to build a house and hire a decorator to customize it for us or customize it ourselves with the riches we made during our adventures or by plying our trade.

If we wanted to follow a story line or do quests, we would be playing a single player RPG or a Co-op game. They are better suited for that type of gameplay. MMORPG's have the potential to offer people who would like to know what it is like to live in the future when humanity starts to colonize other worlds or in a time when swords and sorcery ruled the land. You don't "live" in games like WoW, you instead ride the quest ride to max level. You "live" in games like SWG pre-NGE and like Darkfall.

The world of sandbox games is unexplored and it is exciting for players to colonize that new world and build their future and write history as the years go by. Even the developers don't know what the future holds or what history would be written for their game. That is exciting. It is not exciting to play a game where the future has been determined and the past of every player is the same.

I'm not sure if my definition of a sandbox game is either right or wrong. I tend to view a sandbox game (which by the way is the type of game that I like) as a game where you can set your own goals.

Let me put it a little different first.

World of Warcraft has developer-set goals. Get to level 70, get the best gear, get the highest pvp ranking, kill the biggest bosses, do all the quests - win the game.

Ultima Online does NOT have developer-set goals. You do not need to make money, you do not need to craft items, you do not need to have the best gear, you do not need to max your skills. All you need to do is have a goal, and try to achieve it using the means in the game.

Second Life does NOT have developer-set goals. You do not need to make money, you do not need to build things, you do not need to design items, you do not need to go shopping, you do not need to have a fancy looking avatar. You do what you damn well please.

And just for kicks, I'd like to say that Elder Scrolls has developer set goals. All single player games do. No matter how much you can deviate from your original purpose, the goal of the game is still to win by doing the storyline in some way or shape.

So I suppose using these examples I can say that my definition of a sandbox game is a game that does not have a specific goal or rather, a place you can reach and then say "I have everything in this game". I like games where you can do whatever you please. Sure games need to have restrictions in some places (unfortunately) but I don't necessarily think restrictions in gameplay need to mean it's not possible to use your imagination.

I think that's really what differs between openended sandbox games and streamlined games. The level of imagination required...

But as for Wikipedia not being credible; I wish people would stop saying that. It's been proven countless times that Wikipedia easily compares to Encyclopedia Britannia which is by far considered the most credible source of encyclopedic information on the planet, as far as I know. The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that all information it contains is to be considered coming from _the_ one dumbest person on the internet. Most information on Wikipedia is credited to confirmed sources outside of Wikipedia, and if it is not from a respected source or no source is provided, you are informed. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even do that.

But I do agree that providing only Wikiepdia as a reference is generally a bad idea. Always look more than one place.

Originally posted by keke`

 

But as for Wikipedia not being credible; I wish people would stop saying that. It's been proven countless times that Wikipedia easily compares to Encyclopedia Britannia which is by far considered the most credible source of encyclopedic information on the planet, as far as I know. The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that all information it contains is to be considered coming from _the_ one dumbest person on the internet. Most information on Wikipedia is credited to confirmed sources outside of Wikipedia, and if it is not from a respected source or no source is provided, you are informed. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even do that.

But I do agree that providing only Wikiepdia as a reference is generally a bad idea. Always look more than one place.

Colleges decide on what source is reputable or not. If a college does not allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference, because it is not reputable, then the source is not reputable. No offense, but I take the word of an academic institution over the word of a gaming forumer. I have no doubt that you are smart and probably successful in life, but if you are college educated, you know that Wikipedia is not a reputable source. There are some good material in Wikipedia backed up by citations of reputable works, but a lot of it isn't. Since there are no official "experts" of the MMORPG genre, it is up to the community on how to define "sandbox." Being a philosophy student, I tend to approach a situation like this with logical questions. If you take the literal definition of a sandbox and then apply it to a game using what every so called sandbox game has in common, you can come up with a pretty universal definition. Whoever wrote about sandbox MMORPGs on Wikipedia is no more better of a person than you or I on deciding what the definition of a sandbox game is. Therefore the best definition is the one made by using logic and reason and the majority of people agree upon.

The biggest hurdle for sandbox games is the fact that the best developers that can make them are in the single player market of games, where the demand for sand box exceeds that of the demand for linear games. MMOs are probably the last refuge of the linear gamer and developer, and I expect to see them fight tooth and nail against the rise of emergence in all games, but that's how it goes, you gotta fight money with money, or in this case, code with code.

-- Brede

[quote]Originally posted by Josher
 
The majority know generally what they want.  Check that!  They know what they LIKE.  Its certainly not sandboxes.  You only need to follow the sales figures=)
 [/b][/quote]

You can't say the majority of gamers does not want sandbox when World of Warcraft is merely 8% of the PC market (if we looked at Consoles then that number would be way smaller). The rest of the market playtime is spent with The Sims, GTA, etc. I contend that MMOs are still niche altogether so using WoW as an example really doesn't cut it nor give strength to your arguments

---

Originally posted by Josher
Great discussion.   People would rather not pay a monthly fee to entertain themselves.  Thats what a sandbox is. 
<