General Discussion

There seems to be frequent talk and reference to "sandbox" MMO's being the way developers should go.  However, I believe there are many reasons this cannot and will not work, and that an MMO made in that fashion will not be successful.  I will, however, concede from the beginning that an "indie" MMO could be made in this way as a small-scale niche game so long as it didn't require much investment or funding to maintain.  Here are my reasonings why I think an mainstream MMO can't be "sandbox":

Players want/need to achieve/progress - People play games for a variety of minor reasons, but most importantly it comes down to "fun".  Social interaction aside (as there are some people who play MMO's just to chat with others), there would be no reason to play a game that didn't offer some kind of progression.  In an MMO, players create a character/characters and expect them to change over time in their persistant world.  This is one of the main things that sets apart the MMO genre from others such as the FPS games like Halo, etc.

Without character development and progression of some kind, there is nothing to demonstrate a reward for the time invested in the game.  In single-player games this is also true.  There may often be a number of ways to achieve your goals or to progress, but there is ALWAYS something to achieve or obtain.  Even in a FPS game the player gains a "fun" factor through defeating others via skill or tactics (or cheating).  But in the mythical "sandbox" MMO, players should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the "restrictions" of levelling, points, advancement, etc.

Computer programs are not infinite - When considering what a game SHOULD be, players often don't understand the limitations on what a game CAN be.  It simply isn't viable, or often possible, for a game to be everything to everyone, or to offer limitless possibilities.  Content development alone, such as models, textures, and other physical representations, take a LONG time to create.  It's not as if developers can simply create thousands of entities for everyone's possible interactions.  It's not as easy as you might think.

And it would take a massive undertaking to try and create an "open" world where players could do nearly anything they wanted, and this was possible for all other players as well.  The more possibilities you have, the more ways something can be done, the more difficult the programming becomes.  And it doesn't simply ADD to the complexity, but it increases it EXPONENTIALLY.  It isn't to say that something like that isn't possible, but it would take more time than players would be willing to wait and more investment than a company would be willing to give.  Developers have enough trouble with the existing level of AI and options in MMO's.

... So, it's not to say that the MMO genre doesn't need a breath of fresh air and more innovation.  But to expect this kind of "sandbox" gameplay is, for lack of a better word, "fantasy".  And any MMO claiming to be "sandbox" is either using the term as a ploy to attract bored players, or just plain lying to sound different.  Perhaps an indie project could create something PARTIALLY sandbox on a small scale, but even that would take a massive amount of skill and would likely not offer enough incentive for players to remain (aside from those who play for social purposes only).

I'm sure there are many who disagree, and I look forward to your thoughts...

I would kill for another great sandbox game about right now

Eve online = sci fi sandbox mmo = major success

What makes you think a sandbox mmo can't have progression? SWG-preCU did an excellent job with their tier skilled system, an easy enough system to implent in any mmo if the dev's wanted to. Their are also plenty of ways to "progress" through your actions and the role you take in the game. Ill use eve as an example, as a pirate hunter I earned money by taking on missions to hunt down pirates and earning their bounty. I used the money to buy better ships and gear. Thats progression in its own way.

Yes a game will have limitations that is unfortunate, however again using eve, look at the number of ways you could play the game and compare it to lets say WoW or Lotro. In eve i could become a miner and join a mining/research coorp and help build ships/etc. I could become a pirate hunter, a pirate, join numerous coorps that have their own individual goals and such, or I could start my own coorp and seek out w/e it is I want to do in Eve. I may not even join a coorp and just go and try and make a name for myself. In WoW your only purpose is to level up pretty much

Eve is a perfect example of how good a sandbox mmo can be, it is more difficult to pull off probably for the dev's I would imagine though, and im sure from their perspective its a risk that might not be worth any lost money.

Originally posted by Raora

I would kill for another great sandbox game about right now

 

 

Don't know about killing for it, but more and more I read it's more like what I prefer. Openess, and the ability to "get off the script". The immersion factor alone is tempting.

Originally posted by brihtwulf

There seems to be frequent talk and reference to "sandbox" MMO's being the way developers should go.  However, I believe there are many reasons this cannot and will not work, and that an MMO made in that fashion will not be successful.  I will, however, concede from the beginning that an "indie" MMO could be made in this way as a small-scale niche game so long as it didn't require much investment or funding to maintain.  Here are my reasonings why I think an mainstream MMO can't be "sandbox":

Players want/need to achieve/progress - People play games for a variety of minor reasons, but most importantly it comes down to "fun".  Social interaction aside (as there are some people who play MMO's just to chat with others), there would be no reason to play a game that didn't offer some kind of progression.  In an MMO, players create a character/characters and expect them to change over time in their persistant world.  This is one of the main things that sets apart the MMO genre from others such as the FPS games like Halo, etc.

Without character development and progression of some kind, there is nothing to demonstrate a reward for the time invested in the game.  In single-player games this is also true.  There may often be a number of ways to achieve your goals or to progress, but there is ALWAYS something to achieve or obtain.  Even in a FPS game the player gains a "fun" factor through defeating others via skill or tactics (or cheating).  But in the mythical "sandbox" MMO, players should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want without the "restrictions" of levelling, points, advancement, etc.

Computer programs are not infinite - When considering what a game SHOULD be, players often don't understand the limitations on what a game CAN be.  It simply isn't viable, or often possible, for a game to be everything to everyone, or to offer limitless possibilities.  Content development alone, such as models, textures, and other physical representations, take a LONG time to create.  It's not as if developers can simply create thousands of entities for everyone's possible interactions.  It's not as easy as you might think.

And it would take a massive undertaking to try and create an "open" world where players could do nearly anything they wanted, and this was possible for all other players as well.  The more possibilities you have, the more ways something can be done, the more difficult the programming becomes.  And it doesn't simply ADD to the complexity, but it increases it EXPONENTIALLY.  It isn't to say that something like that isn't possible, but it would take more time than players would be willing to wait and more investment than a company would be willing to give.  Developers have enough trouble with the existing level of AI and options in MMO's.

... So, it's not to say that the MMO genre doesn't need a breath of fresh air and more innovation.  But to expect this kind of "sandbox" gameplay is, for lack of a better word, "fantasy".  And any MMO claiming to be "sandbox" is either using the term as a ploy to attract bored players, or just plain lying to sound different.  Perhaps an indie project could create something PARTIALLY sandbox on a small scale, but even that would take a massive amount of skill and would likely not offer enough incentive for players to remain (aside from those who play for social purposes only).

I'm sure there are many who disagree, and I look forward to your thoughts...

For a person who has SWG on the top of their list of mmo's played as well as being a pre pub 9 jedi, i would think you would understand how stale and repetative mmo's have become. I am also a SWG pre pub 9 vet and still to this day long for that type of gameplay.

I never once sat in front of my monitor while playing SWG and thought that i was never accomplishing nothing. You are correct in saying that the word sandbox is getting thrown around alot these days, without many new mmo gamers actually ever playing one.

Some even go out on a limb and think games such as WOW and LOTR are true sandbox mmo's. I think that mmo gamers of today have been brainwashed to think that the only type of content that will please the masses is dev spoonfed.

This type of thinking has done more damage to the genre than anything else in the last 3 or 4 yrs. The other situation that has made mmo's more horrible than ever is dev companies who think they can make a game that can appeal to both fps and traditional type gamers.

If you want to see proof of ultimate fail for this type of game, look no further than SWG-NGE.  Since the SOE debacle, their devs have introduced the spoonfed, instanced content with lvls and predetermened classes, and what has it gotten them. Empty servers and an mmo that is hanging on by a thread. It wasn't like that in the pre-cu days.

I have a feeling that you are basing your thoughts on this subject from a WOW standpoint, in which no mmo then and into the future will ever do what it has done, ever again. It was an anomily nothing more or less.

Games in the past such as, UO, SWG pre-cu, EVE, and all other's that were sandbox games did very well with sub numbers, and they weren't niche games at all. To think that a new sandbox mmo couldn't attract a huge fanbase is subjective and speculation and is kind of being a little short sighted.

If you want another example, look at AOC. This mmo had the chance to be a phenom of a mmo, but it being so linear and the world of Hyboria being so small and closed off, with instancing out the yahoo, it turned masses of people off from the get go.

If AOC would have been built in the true vain of a open sandbox, and actually been released with all the things that the devs had promised, it could have had well over a million players not hitting the cancel button after their free month is up.

A open sandbox mmo can be successful, but only if it is done properly and not rushed out the door before it is fined tuned and highly polished. I will go out on a limb and say the majority of mmo gamer's are sick and tired of these hold your hand dev spoonfed content type of mmo's that have plagued the genre for way to long.

It is opinion and it is also depends on what 'successful' means.

I LOVE sandbox type games. I LOVED to play Wurm. However, there were lacking areas so I quit for the time being. If they fixed some stuff, I'd be back in a moment.

I'm also in the process of designing a MMO, and I even find 1,000 players a success. I don't care if I get 100k - 1 million subs. Yeah, that'd be nice, but 1k X $8 a month = 8k a month. Now, I'd have to pay this guy that pay that fee for network etc etc, but if you look at raw income, that is NICE.

Most people are out for the big money. I am out for offering a great gameplay experience. Not to say I do not want 10 million players, but I'd be fine with *MUCH* less.

Blessings,

1. UO may or may not be considered a mainstream MMO, but it was a sandbox, and was very good. If you have noticed...it is ranked i think 8.1 on this website, and the graphicsa re horrid. The game is beating most current games, and I believe that is because you can do what you want...when you want.

2. You do not have to create infinite coded programs...you just have to program the world to work. Let the world seem alive, and let you be able to do what you could do in real life. If it was the problem with infinite coding then Sandboxes in general would be impossible to make, but they have been made before.

the investment that took to make EvE  begs to differ, especially compared to it's sucess.

SecondLife is also getting ready to land on your property to boot as well.  This thing really prints out the money.

the very indy game that is WurmOnline begs to differ as well.  if it were an everclone game it would have 15 players online at any one time.

Edit:

I'd be willing to shove Runescape as being sandbox enough as well.   there are no required paths in it at all.  and it's more popular than everclone(s), even if that sucess can be attributed to other things it's still that stinking gorrilla in the corner.   (note players will typically look for games similar to their first)