Great article, the best definition of a sandbox MMO I've seen so far.

Unfortunately the recent ones are merely PvP focused no-level worlds rather than Sandboxes, and if you craft, you're crafting for combat anyway. Housing? Just a new bind point to get to PvP. Villages? Moar Pvp to capture resources. Weather? You guessed it, the premisse is to influenciate PvP.

We have no "UO clone" yet :P

Originally posted by Bureyku

Brilliant.

Maybe Blizzard's next MMO will be a Sandbox now they've popped so many MMO cherries with WoW.

Also keep an eye on World of Darkness from CCP/White Wolf.  CCP knows sandbox, and are partnered with a great IP in WoD.  Very exciting stuff when you consider that the avatar system from World of Darkness could contribute to walking on stations and ships in EVE.

Yep, I'm definitely keeping my eye open for WoD, would be fun to have a more fantasy based game a la CCP.

MindTrigger -

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree a 'sandbox' game is needed, and as a long-time UO player I really wish there was anything that innovative out there again now - but my point is there's zero appetite for it in the major companies, they really are not showing any signs of interest in adventurous design or genuine innovation either in mmo or standalone games, and unless they stop seeing the big $ pouring in from what they turn out now they have no incentive to take the risky step. A smaller independent company would be the best hope, but the costs nowadays make it extremely unlikely they could fund something without being taken into partnership with one of the 'giants', and that would end up killing the potential innovation on offer.

I can't see a 'sandbox' mainstream mmorpg until such time as profits from the generic version fall far enough that someone in the corporates thinks 'might be worth taking the risk', and I fear that will not happen soon. Sure, people get disillusioned with the existing games eventually, and then are further disappointed that there's so little real variety on offer from the others in the market - but as long as the existing product gives a big payoff to the makers, they really have no reason to change the recipe.

Originally posted by MindTrigger 

Sooner or later you get the impression you are on a treadmill wasting your time when you play a theme-park. The same is not true of a sandbox game because there is a real dynamic community and countless options.  The game gets out of your way and gives you the world and tools to forge your own adventure, however epic or mundane you want it to be on any given day.

That is purely based on the game and a 'sandbox' game can limit your actions just as badly as any thempark game.  My primary problem with SWG was that whenever I tried to do something interesting (to me) in the game, it would throw a roadblock before me and seemed to channel me toward mission running and farming.

Originally posted by AureliusLH

MindTrigger -

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree a 'sandbox' game is needed, and as a long-time UO player I really wish there was anything that innovative out there again now - but my point is there's zero appetite for it in the major companies, they really are not showing any signs of interest in adventurous design or genuine innovation either in mmo or standalone games, and unless they stop seeing the big $ pouring in from what they turn out now they have no incentive to take the risky step. A smaller independent company would be the best hope, but the costs nowadays make it extremely unlikely they could fund something without being taken into partnership with one of the 'giants', and that would end up killing the potential innovation on offer.

I can't see a 'sandbox' mainstream mmorpg until such time as profits from the generic version fall far enough that someone in the corporates thinks 'might be worth taking the risk', and I fear that will not happen soon. Sure, people get disillusioned with the existing games eventually, and then are further disappointed that there's so little real variety on offer from the others in the market - but as long as the existing product gives a big payoff to the makers, they really have no reason to change the recipe.

I agree.  I have said many times on this site that it's going to take an indy game developer who is willing to take chances and doesn't have to answer to a board of directors that knows nothing about games to really make some changes.  The problem is, due to WoW's success (right place, right time, right minimum system requirements if you ask me), game companies think you need 10 million subscribers to be "successful".  It's a ludicrous idea. You can still make a nice chunk of money with 200-500k subscribers cranking out $50 per box, and $15 per month.

Originally posted by AureliusLH

MindTrigger -

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree a 'sandbox' game is needed, and as a long-time UO player I really wish there was anything that innovative out there again now - but my point is there's zero appetite for it in the major companies, they really are not showing any signs of interest in adventurous design or genuine innovation either in mmo or standalone games, and unless they stop seeing the big $ pouring in from what they turn out now they have no incentive to take the risky step. A smaller independent company would be the best hope, but the costs nowadays make it extremely unlikely they could fund something without being taken into partnership with one of the 'giants', and that would end up killing the potential innovation on offer.

I can't see a 'sandbox' mainstream mmorpg until such time as profits from the generic version fall far enough that someone in the corporates thinks 'might be worth taking the risk', and I fear that will not happen soon. Sure, people get disillusioned with the existing games eventually, and then are further disappointed that there's so little real variety on offer from the others in the market - but as long as the existing product gives a big payoff to the makers, they really have no reason to change the recipe.

It doesn't give a big payoff though.  WoW succeeded and Blizzard has buttloads of money and that is it.  Vanguard, SWG NGE, EQ2, WAR, LotRO, even AoC to an extent have all failed to even come close to accomplishing a lasting MMO with a ton of healthy revenue (I know LotRO does ok, but it's never done great..).  Alot of that is because of early launches and such, but overall these games had tons of money pumped into them and they failed in the eyes of the people who saw $_$ and the devs who sold their souls (Mythic).

No new MMO's are coming close to their goals besides Aion since WoW.  Now as a game maker or investor if I looked at all of these titles, and I saw these trends, and I saw EVE online which grew from nothing to being extremely healthy and successful with a game with no avatars because it grants freedom as a sandbox I would think that a Sandbox in today's market of MMO's would be the only way to go.

People are bored of the same old, and even all of WoW's current subs will get there.  Give something truly unique and different, build it well, and it will grow like EVE has grown.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by MindTrigger 

Sooner or later you get the impression you are on a treadmill wasting your time when you play a theme-park. The same is not true of a sandbox game because there is a real dynamic community and countless options.  The game gets out of your way and gives you the world and tools to forge your own adventure, however epic or mundane you want it to be on any given day.

That is purely based on the game and a 'sandbox' game can limit your actions just as badly as any thempark game.  My primary problem with SWG was that whenever I tried to do something interesting (to me) in the game, it would throw a roadblock before me and seemed to channel me toward mission running and farming.

Interesting.  I played SWG for 3 years and never, ever felt like I was being channeled toward anything.  In fact, they had a few quest theme parks and the story arch quests, but other than that there wasn't much for questing out there. Yeah, we had to grind missions to skill up, but back pre-NGE you could get your character to max out your skill points in a few days of playing. Because of this people were encouraged to try all kinds of different skill tree builds until they settled on something they loved (Master Ranger/Master Riflemen was my fav hunting build).  I agree there was a grind element to SWG, but it didn't last long at all compared to the current theme park games which are all about grinding out quests until you reach the end-game. Hell, only a few percentage points of WoW's population, for example, ends up doing end-game so you have to wonder why they are designed this way in the first place. 

Originally posted by Bureyku

People are bored of the same old, and even all of WoW's current subs will get there.  Give something truly unique and different, build it well, and it will grow like EVE has grown.

 

Here's the problem. It's no longer 2003, when Eve came out it wasnt a very good game but people gave it a shot and it endured and grew overtime.

Take a look at Darkfall, It isnt a very good game atm and while most know that this game could have tons of potential they drop it like a bad habit.

Sure DF is limiting with its forced pvp but overtime who says AV couldn't design new mechanics to really open the game up.

They could make the game less of a grind, Make more ways to play the game and even tighten griefing up a bit so the game is open to more players.

In time DF could be as good as Eve but will anyone in 2009 give it a shot? I doubt it.

With the way WoW is and how its effected the market you can't release a game how Eve released its game back in 2003.

Just look at a game like tabula rasa if you want an example of people having patience with the development of a game. If TR released in the early 2000's it would be still going today.

SWG-preNGE was a good sandbox MMORPG, and SOE screwed it up.    Truly SWG-preNGE was awesome.   God I miss it for what it gave us.   Yes - SOE sucks for ruining such a good game.

As usual, Dana Massey is wrong on so many things that I wonder if he also believes that the Obama healthcare plan is going to be a glowing success story.

He keeps confusing "freedom" with "lack of direction".

Just because UO lacked any "end game" content and players had to resort to PKing to do something new doesn't mean it's the holy grail of gaming.

And he paints with far too wide a brush the point about levels mattering in EQ1 to mean that every game with levels has to use exponential power curves. I've played plenty of MUD's that didn't. And they weren't "sandbox"... They were far more like EQ1 than UO.

And his point about a writer in UO actually being a WRITER in real life... well hell, take out the "RPG" bit from the name why don't ya. Perhaps SOME PEOPLE might want to PLAY a ROLE where they have skills in GAME where they don't in REAL LIFE (you know, writing... poetry... picking berries.... SWORDPLAY....MAGIC USING...)...

And most of his points are already done in the level based games anyways. Berry picking? WoW has that. Fishing? Got that too.

And heck, you can't even (legally) MACRO those abilities like everyone did in UO...

This article brought back many memories.  Writing a history for a new character with it including the Black Ogre event that happen between Trinsic and Skara.  Working with Friends trying to Clear the undead out of Trinsic,  Spending 13 hours of chopping wood, paying people to bring me wood and carving bows to get my last .1 as a bowyer to become a Grand Master Bowyer.  Running Player Inclusive Events like Archery Contest giving away small prizes or Even Drunken Archery for the Fishing guild,  because they could not shoot an arrow straight unless the area was pitching to and fro. 

For those who say people that would not know what to do,  there will always be players like me that believe half the fun of a MMORPG is helping people getting started.

I will say one of the biggest mistakes EA made was doing away with the seer program.  People with the power to Start an short Live event and place the items in place fo help creeate that event and those items vanishing once it was over was sorely missed when that program was done away with.  I know one of the seer's on my server spent tons of time in the planning and executing her events. 

Originally posted by eric_w66

As usual, Dana Massey is wrong on so many things that I wonder if he also believes that the Obama healthcare plan is going to be a glowing success story.

He keeps confusing "freedom" with "lack of direction".

Just because UO lacked any "end game" content and players had to resort to PKing to do something new doesn't mean it's the holy grail of gaming.

And he paints with far too wide a brush the point about levels mattering in EQ1 to mean that every game with levels has to use exponential power curves. I've played plenty of MUD's that didn't. And they weren't "sandbox"... They were far more like EQ1 than UO.

And his point about a writer in UO actually being a WRITER in real life... well hell, take out the "RPG" bit from the name why don't ya. Perhaps SOME PEOPLE might want to PLAY a ROLE where they have skills in GAME where they don't in REAL LIFE (you know, writing... poetry... picking berries.... SWORDPLAY....MAGIC USING...)...

And most of his points are already done in the level based games anyways. Berry picking? WoW has that. Fishing? Got that too.

And heck, you can't even (legally) MACRO those abilities like everyone did in UO...

 

I find it funny that someone could defend a game or type of games that lead you around the game world like a Dog and gives the player no creativity outside a very limited talent tree.

The differences in freedom between UO and WoW are fucking amazing.

People choose to PK because they were pirates or thieves not because they were bored and had no content to run.

People also choose to hunt in groups, in dungeons and do all types of things not just run around due to lack of direction.

Maybe YOU need direction, Maybe YOU needed to just PK because you had no imagination at all while playing UO.

Enjoy your leash.

Originally posted by eric_w66

As usual, Dana Massey is wrong on so many things that I wonder if he also believes that the Obama healthcare plan is going to be a glowing success story.

He keeps confusing "freedom" with "lack of direction".

It's not freedom vs. lack of direction. These theme parks don't simply offer direction. They give you a straight line with a few curves that go right back into line. There is no freedom from the minute you make your character you are pigeon holed. You can take up different crafts, but you do the exact same thing in every single one of them. You can gather different things, but you do the exact same thing with every single one of them.

Just because UO lacked any "end game" content and players had to resort to PKing to do something new doesn't mean it's the holy grail of gaming.

End game is a term that only exists in linear theme parks.  Sandboxes don't have an 'end game'.  You play, you journey, you meet people, you travel, you learn about the world, it is a sandbox.  The tools are there for you to make your own story not follow along in the same predefined story that every single other player is following.

And he paints with far too wide a brush the point about levels mattering in EQ1 to mean that every game with levels has to use exponential power curves. I've played plenty of MUD's that didn't. And they weren't "sandbox"... They were far more like EQ1 than UO.

Levels in general don't make a game a themepark or a sandbox so a brush can be as thin or wide as possible when talking about this.  The problem with overall character levels is that it generally denotes what content they can tackle, and thus divides the playerbase and is the foundation for putting players on this line that makes up these ridiculously linear games.

And his point about a writer in UO actually being a WRITER in real life... well hell, take out the "RPG" bit from the name why don't ya. Perhaps SOME PEOPLE might want to PLAY a ROLE where they have skills in GAME where they don't in REAL LIFE (you know, writing... poetry... picking berries.... SWORDPLAY....MAGIC USING...)...

The point is that in a sandbox you can play whatever role you want.  You can craft, fight with a sword, pick up a staff, harvest, craft, run a player organized shop, etc.  Usually in a theme park game you are pigeon holed into a role (DPS, TANK, etc.) for the life of your character, limited to one craft, can easily harvest for yourself making most people independant and eliminating a true player driven economy like what exists in EVE.  Sandboxes generally create a large number of tools and methods for players to do whatever they want such as writing in books and selling them, placing buildings in the open wilderness, fighting over said buildings, etc., etc.

And most of his points are already done in the level based games anyways. Berry picking? WoW has that. Fishing? Got that too.

Now you are just getting nitpicky.  Yes some theme park games have some things that can be done in sandbox games, but that is not the big picture.  The point is you are generally on a treadmill going down a single path in these games where the story is already written, you have little freedom to make choices, and the whole point is to grind, grind, grind just to get to a shallow end game that makes up like 3% of the game in area and is usually instanced... 

And heck, you can't even (legally) MACRO those abilities like everyone did in UO...

Again nitpicky.  The thread is about Sandbox vs. Themepark and not the ability to macro or not.

Still though, how will the dreded cookie cutter be stoped? Once people have a perception of what is best ( whether its true or not) for a given situation, then it dosnt differ from a class system...everyone is the same anyway.

Originally posted by eric_w66

As usual, Dana Massey is wrong on so many things that I wonder if he also believes that the Obama healthcare plan is going to be a glowing success story.

He keeps confusing "freedom" with "lack of direction".

Just because UO lacked any "end game" content and players had to resort to PKing to do something new doesn't mean it's the holy grail of gaming.

And he paints with far too wide a brush the point about levels mattering in EQ1 to mean that every game with levels has to use exponential power curves. I've played plenty of MUD's that didn't. And they weren't "sandbox"... They were far more like EQ1 than UO.

And his point about a writer in UO actually being a WRITER in real life... well hell, take out the "RPG" bit from the name why don't ya. Perhaps SOME PEOPLE might want to PLAY a ROLE where they have skills in GAME where they don't in REAL LIFE (you know, writing... poetry... picking berries.... SWORDPLAY....MAGIC USING...)...

And most of his points are already done in the level based games anyways. Berry picking? WoW has that. Fishing? Got that too.

And heck, you can't even (legally) MACRO those abilities like everyone did in UO...

 

It's amazing how people can read something and miss the entire point.  Nothing else nice to say (don't need anymore nasty grams from the mods) so I'll leave it at that.  This article is a true work of genius.

You already have a sandbox on your computer, its called paint.

Sand boxes do have their advantages. I have fond memories of UO from long ago myself. But lets not forget some of the disadvantages. If everyone is free to do what they wish, that means griefers and gankers are as well.  Thats what finally drove me away from UO. It turned in to a gankfest.   If a games mechanics can be abused(and griefers and gankers tend to be "creative" in that regard) then they WILL be abused.  Countless games have demonstrated that all too well.  So, right from the start, one has to impose limitations(flagging as in WoW PvE realms) or one allows the griefers and gankers to drive off paying customers.

No doubt some will claim that these types can be controlled by "criminal" systems and other such. But from personal experience, those leave MUCH to be desired.  Griefers and gankers will ALWAYS find some way around limitation systems. If other players can be attacked, they WILL be attacked. But using flagging, leads to howls from the griefers and gankers that "this isn't REAL PvP!!".  It all depends on a games focus. Eve comes to mind in that regard, and the evolution of Concord(as a response to "creative" types antics in high sec).  Its a sad fact that total freedom can carry a high price, and Dev's that do not wish to niche their game, need to be aware of it.

Definitely a great read.

I often find myself nostalgic of the UO glory days too...

There seems to be a large group of people (at least on these forums) who would be very interested in a new sandbox like you describe. I hear them complaining on almost every non-sandbox game's forum. I honestly don't know why some developer doesn't give it a shot. It might not be the mainstream formula at this point, but I know there would be a decent following.

Unfortunately, I think that the ultimate failure of SWG has done a lot to ensure that developers won't be trying a similar formula again any time soon. Even though it had nothing to do with the sandbox element, the problems from that game will be the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about a sandbox-style design.

Well said, well said Dana. Now heres hoping that representatives from one or more of the bigger named companies actually read that and makes a decision to pump "AAA" money into such an effort. Such a game would make a profit for them, for sure.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by Torik 

That is purely based on the game and a 'sandbox' game can limit your actions just as badly as any thempark game.  My primary problem with SWG was that whenever I tried to do something interesting (to me) in the game, it would throw a roadblock before me and seemed to channel me toward mission running and farming.

Interesting.  I played SWG for 3 years and never, ever felt like I was being channeled toward anything.  In fact, they had a few quest theme parks and the story arch quests, but other than that there wasn't much for questing out there. Yeah, we had to grind missions to skill up, but back pre-NGE you could get your character to max out your skill points in a few days of playing. Because of this people were encouraged to try all kinds of different skill tree builds until they settled on something they loved (Master Ranger/Master Riflemen was my fav hunting build).  I agree there was a grind element to SWG, but it didn't last long at all compared to the current theme park games which are all about grinding out quests until you reach the end-game. Hell, only a few percentage points of WoW's population, for example, ends up doing end-game so you have to wonder why they are designed this way in the first place. 

Funny enough Master Ranger/Master Rifleman was the build that appealed to me the most.  Sadly the very short ranges in which you could engage mobs made it not possible to play the role of Sniper I wanted so I was forced into a more traditional role for my character.

My beef with SWG is based on two things:

-I am a big fan of meaningfull crafting.  The SWG crafting system seemed like a perfect fit for me with all the customization options.  I was going to start out as a weaponsmith.  I gathered a stash of resources and started leveling it.  I was forced to make a ton of useless junk so my skill box could fill up a bit.  I probably could have handled it but the interface was so atricious that after 10 minutes of craft grinding my wrist started hurting.  For my pain I got a very small increase in xp and still no abiltiy to make anything meaningfull.  I finally chucked the profession and went with a combat build that while grindy would not leave me with physical damage to my body.  That was such an unnecessary grind that turned me off the most promising feature of the game.

-After you skilled up your character there was not much meaningfull to do after a while.  My Master Ranger/Master Rifleman got very good at hunting and harvesting biologicals but after a while I wanted something different to do.   I got a house and my guild build a full player city but that was a finite experience as well.  Since we could not level alts in the game, I would have had to chuck my Master Ranger/Master Rifleman to try a new set of professions and that just kills any immersion in the character.  The big exciting thing to try were the themeparks.  If my options are to do the same dull stuff I have been doing for months or do quest chains then I might as well go to WoW.  The social interaction is great but I can do that in any MMO.