sandboxes just don't appeal to the masses cause well its essentially a niche genre

 Because its harder. Harder to get into, harder to make. Devs love taking the easy way out, and targeting people who wouldn't normally play real MMOs. So they make MMO wannabes like AoC. 

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Bingo!  It's not a matter of sandbox games failing because they are sandbox games.  They fail because they don't work worth a damn and are frustrating as hell to play (e.g. StarWars Galaxies at release and after every one of their massive game revamps, and DarkFall at release).

For some bizarre reason companies think that the sandbox model is to blame.  Why not try releasing one that isn't flat out busted?  EVE had a troubled release, I'm told, but they seemed to listen hard to the players and fix the real bugs and issues in a timely manner.  Just imagine if a sandbox game actually released in a polished state.  To be quite honest, I've simply never seen that and I've been following these games for many years now.

See my earlier post. You're not likely to see this because no one who has studied the market will commit ~100M or so to designing a game which will not appeal to a mass audience. So you have to deal with small companies willing to take a shot at a niche market.

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Originally posted by Lizard_SF

Originally posted by LynxJSA

I wholly believe that if you took MMORPG.com's finest and locked them in a dev studio with a 20 million dollar budget, they could probably make a sandbox game that many of the MMORPG.com players would enjoy playing for years and years.

 

 

 

I wholly believe that if you did that, it would take less than an hour before they were strangling each other.

I'd pay good money to watch that.

Lol.  Forums certainly can be hostile places at times :P.

Having said that, I'm part of an open source project that is developing an amazing sandbox game.  It's a fantasitc community effort and experience.  The game is being made on a shoe-string budget, and all of the work is done by volunteer programmers, testers, community folks that simply love games and enjoy working/playing with other gamers.

Frankly, it puts a lot of the junk pushed out by high budget companies to shame.  The server for beta testing is maxed out in terms of population.  It's like trying to get into WoW at peak times, just to test the thing.  Funny thing is, in its current state it works a helluva lot better than many games that have been out for years.

So we're to believe that some magical land exists when some nameless open source project crushes all of the current mmo's out? Link or it isn't real.

And on top of that you better be prepared to have most or all of your ideas and concepts stolen, IF this thing exists in the first place. Sorry, but I'm a cynic. Either show me proof or get the hell out.

Only a small percentage of players in the community like sandbox/open ended games.

Honestly? I wouldn't have it any other way.

Eve has a great community of ruthless bastards, Ryzom is filled with cultish soil humping hippies, FE has a friendly Fallout/mad max reject playerbase, UO houses one of the best small mmo communities on the market and DF is following suit with Eve and getting better as time goes on.

I love it!

Who gives a shit that all the themepark players won't play those games? 

I can deal with the indy developers, I can deal with the mmo release issues but what i can't deal with is those players from themepark communities sharing the same server as me.

Stay in your games and i'll stay in mine.

I say Keep Sandboxs games niche and keep creating more generic themeparks! We need a place to put those people. Blizzard, NCsoft you doing a fine job keep it up

What is a sandbox?  No one knows.  Everybody define it the way he pleases and uphold that as if it is the holy grail.

If a sandbox means freedom, many games offers that.  Just ignore the NPC quest givers, the quests.  Just ignore the levels, the drops, ignore whatever in game that you think is not sandboxy.  Whatever left is the sandbox you want.  Whatever feature helps your gaming satisfaction is your sandbox.

After all, what is sandbox?  What do you want to do in your sandbox?  Kill everyone and loot them (ffa pvp full loot), exploration (fly, dive in ocean bottom ...), crafting (I always think of early day SWG crafting), merchanting (SWG ftw) or what?  Find that aspect that you want and check if any title provides it.

All those hardcore moans about WoW or the major titles are self contradictory.  They want sandbox playstyle, but they keep talking about the elements of these major titles they are supposed to ignore.  They keep complaining about the handholding quest systems, why do they need to worry about it?  Just ignore them quest givers and be truly creative.  They criticize the lacking of creative gameplay from the normal pve players and yet these hardcores need the game developer to overhaul game design for THEM, so they can play.  Frankly, these hardcore are totally inconsistent and hypocratic.  They are just as lazy as those they try to criticise, they cannot play a game in which some of the elements are not specifically designed to fit their taste.  They need a spoonfed game in which everything is "sandboxy".

I do play WoW among a few titles I concurrently sub.  I do not like every aspect of WoW gameplay.  Specifically, I almost never pvp, and very seldom get involved in the seasonal events or achievement runs.  Do I moan about handholding events, handholding achievement?  NO.  I play the aspect I find fun, and log out when my mood runs out.  Those hardcore cannot, they skin is so thick, they need to shout and moan about everything else they are supposed not to play.  They just need to moan to gain attention.

As for Darkfall, its a total disaster, from game design to implementation, to marketing and support.  It is practically a scam product run by a crook.  It is unfair to dismiss "sandbox" (whatever it is) just b/c of the total demise of Darkfall.  Given that kind of quality, Darkfall is doom to total failure, whatever game it is.

Originally posted by Lizard_SF

Originally posted by ericbelser

So, it includes (but is by no means limited to): PvP systems, crafting, economics/vendors/merchants, player housing/cities, politics/alliances/guilds/families, player-created quests/dungeons/points of interest. A degree of permanence, persistent alteration of the game world is sandboxy. Even dev-designed "dynamic" quests with sufficient options/variant paths could be "sandboxish"...traditional quests, with or without glowing exclamation points and quest trackers; are "themepark" elements.

 

Any examples? Or is this a shadow on Plato's cave?

Most games have some of those things; I can't think of a game with all of them.

Ultima Online

Would it really be so hard to make a game like SWG pre-NGE or pre-CU?

Set it in the 1800's, or in the Wild West, or in a fantasy world, or another sci-fi world. Even if it only had as much polish as it did back then I'd be happy. Polish it half as good as WoW's been polished and I think they'd have the masses.

Originally posted by Lizard_SF

 You might notice I keep emphasizing $$$MONEY$$$ in my posts. If you can't come up with a game concept which will attract enough players to pay for the development costs,

I've never said *everyone* has to like a sandbox game. The continual litmus test that "99% of the players won't do XX" is not only idiotic, it is self-defeating.

What I have found most depressing about recent MMO dev trends is this insane desire to try and justify massive development budgets by appealing to every possible gamer. You don't have to make THE GAME for everyone; you certainly don't have to spend $100m on starting it...the first games out didn't have that kind of budget and it is arguably easier to make them now than ever.

I've been gaming in various forms for ~30yrs now...back when I bought my first copy of "Squad Leader" from Avalon Hill, I knew it was a "niche" game. When I bought War in the South Pacific from SSI for my first Apple IIC, I knew it was a "niche" game. When I left EQ to play Dark Age of Camelot it wasn't because EQ was bad, DAoC was just a slightly different niche that I liked better.

I think there are enough "sandboxistas" out there who would love a well done game to support the costs; just like I think there are a lot of other niches that are being ignored or very badly served because of the current mania to be all inclusive among devs and always go for the biggest common denominator.

PS People can knock SOE and crew as much as they like, but I long for the days of devs with a vision and the balls to stick to it. Make *your* vision and if I like it enough, I will pay for it; stop pandering to every john on the internet trying to make the "perfect" game already.

To the OP...

Most "sandbox" games that come out arent really sandboxes, they are just partial sandboxes.   Where you can  bot or macro your way through life. 

Others that come out, Roma Victor comes to mind as a TRUE sandbox, that are just TOO hardcore for the masses.   Most people are scared off by actually haveing to work for something.   When you think about it, why should you spend a week buildings a small roundhouse thats barely big enough to fit in, when you can go play WoW or any number of mindless games out there where you can just buy a house and plop it down without working.    

Then there is the ever present quality control issues.  Most sandbox games, TRUE sandbox games, are under taken by small development firms with very limited funding.      EVE being one of those few "sandbox" games that worked out.   But even it didnt start out that great, and really truely isnt that much of a sandbox.    (I know that will draw flames)   But think about the term "sandbox", when you mention that, most people assume a world with no real NPC interaction just players doing EVERYTHING.   From roving bands on bandits, to merchents.      

When I think of true sandbox MMOs, I think of Eve, Roma Victor, Darkfall, and Second Life.    But there are others in development that look promising, but the odds are stacked against them.   There is Mortal Online, yes another fantasy sandbox MMO (FSMMO),  Face of Mankind, yeah its possibly coming back but is as I see it Anarchy Online the sandbox.   

But a true sandbox, I dont think they will be as huge as most would like.   To many crushing factors, from hacking, boting, macroing, and sweatshop "gold" farming.  

Originally posted by ericbelser

 

I've never said *everyone* has to like a sandbox game. The continual litmus test that "99% of the players won't do XX" is not only idiotic, it is self-defeating.

What I have found most depressing about recent MMO dev trends is this insane desire to try and justify massive development budgets by appealing to every possible gamer. You don't have to make THE GAME for everyone; you certainly don't have to spend $100m on starting it...the first games out didn't have that kind of budget and it is arguably easier to make them now than ever.

I've been gaming in various forms for ~30yrs now...back when I bought my first copy of "Squad Leader" from Avalon Hill, I knew it was a "niche" game. When I bought War in the South Pacific from SSI for my first Apple IIC, I knew it was a "niche" game. When I left EQ to play Dark Age of Camelot it wasn't because EQ was bad, DAoC was just a slightly different niche that I liked better.

I think there are enough "sandboxistas" out there who would love a well done game to support the costs; just like I think there are a lot of other niches that are being ignored or very badly served because of the current mania to be all inclusive among devs and always go for the biggest common denominator.

PS People can knock SOE and crew as much as they like, but I long for the days of devs with a vision and the balls to stick to it. Make *your* vision and if I like it enough, I will pay for it; stop pandering to every john on the internet trying to make the "perfect" game already.

 

Very good post.

I think people knock SOE for abandoning the game vision for the business model WRT to SWG.

BTW, my first was 'Panzer Leader'. It was about 1977. First computer wargame was 'Midway Campaign'. A golden age for wargaming, back then.

Nice to hear from another wargamer. Some of these games could use our insights.

Originally posted by tensspotting

Originally posted by LuckyR

Originally posted by Yohanu

Originally posted by SonofSeth

Quality issues?

This. Darkfall lacked crafting content, proper player housing and was solely based around ffa pvp, this isn't the main attraction for me, and surely applies to many others as well.

 

FFA PVP is like a turd in the sandbox, makes you want to run away! The vast majority do NOT want FFA losing an item and coin is fine, but to lose everything you work hard to get just sucks. And yes make games more crafter oriented also will help.

 

That's because most players are the biggest wusses around...beta males IMO

ya your the alpha playing video games

i pvp'ed for real in the army has nothing to do with alpha-beta has to do with duty and honor

btw im one of those so called "wusses" that hate FFA PVP

Originally posted by grunt187

Originally posted by tensspotting

Originally posted by LuckyR

Originally posted by Yohanu

Originally posted by SonofSeth

Quality issues?

This. Darkfall lacked crafting content, proper player housing and was solely based around ffa pvp, this isn't the main attraction for me, and surely applies to many others as well.

 

FFA PVP is like a turd in the sandbox, makes you want to run away! The vast majority do NOT want FFA losing an item and coin is fine, but to lose everything you work hard to get just sucks. And yes make games more crafter oriented also will help.

 

That's because most players are the biggest wusses around...beta males IMO

ya your the alpha playing video games

i pvp'ed for real in the army has nothing to do with alpha-beta has to do with duty and honor

btw im one of those so called "wusses" that hate FFA PVP

I hate responses like this. I was in the military for 6 years and I don't use it as an example to prove any point, especially as to prove a point in a video game.

I do like FFA PvP to an extent. I like there to at least be some safe areas where I can hang out and chat if I want. I also prefer Realm PvP, but where it is possible to do in anything except for a couple city safe zones.

Now for the real issue, a lot of these sandbox games are lacking so they don't fit the sandbox style players. And the rest of the players don't like sandbox games.

As much as most people bitch about wanting an open world they really don't. They want involved quests and content premade to entertain them. So the sandbox games will never be as big as regular games UNLESS players can control everything, like setting up quests. It would have to be more along the lines of a second life but for an actual MMO. So you build towns, create unique items and art and sell them and setup quests that other players can do. That becomes a monumental task when combat and especially PvP is conserned, and no company wants to go through that headache.

Current sandboxes are mostly empty worlds, no quests, and players can't really control/change/effect the world. So instead of create your own fun, most of them become create your own boredom.

Originally posted by grunt187 

ya your the alpha playing video games

i pvp'ed for real in the army has nothing to do with alpha-beta has to do with duty and honor

Two incompatible concepts.That must be difficult.

btw im one of those so called "wusses" that hate FFA PVP

Every group will have an Alpha. Mind you, there is a lot to be said for 'a big fish in a small pond'

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by grunt187

Originally posted by tensspotting

Originally posted by LuckyR

Originally posted by Yohanu

Originally posted by SonofSeth

Quality issues?

This. Darkfall lacked crafting content, proper player housing and was solely based around ffa pvp, this isn't the main attraction for me, and surely applies to many others as well.

 

FFA PVP is like a turd in the sandbox, makes you want to run away! The vast majority do NOT want FFA losing an item and coin is fine, but to lose everything you work hard to get just sucks. And yes make games more crafter oriented also will help.

 

That's because most players are the biggest wusses around...beta males IMO

ya your the alpha playing video games

i pvp'ed for real in the army has nothing to do with alpha-beta has to do with duty and honor

btw im one of those so called "wusses" that hate FFA PVP

 

I hate responses like this. I was in the military for 6 years and I don't use it as an example to prove any point, especially as to prove a point in a video game.

 

I do like FFA PvP to an extent. I like there to at least be some safe areas where I can hang out and chat if I want. I also prefer Realm PvP, but where it is possible to do in anything except for a couple city safe zones.

 

 

Now for the real issue, a lot of these sandbox games are lacking so they don't fit the sandbox style players. And the rest of the players don't like sandbox games.

 

As much as most people bitch about wanting an open world they really don't. They want involved quests and content premade to entertain them. So the sandbox games will never be as big as regular games UNLESS players can control everything, like setting up quests. It would have to be more along the lines of a second life but for an actual MMO. So you build towns, create unique items and art and sell them and setup quests that other players can do. That becomes a monumental task when combat and especially PvP is conserned, and no company wants to go through that headache.

 

Current sandboxes are mostly empty worlds, no quests, and players can't really control/change/effect the world. So instead of create your own fun, most of them become create your own boredom.

lol calling people beta males for hating ffa pvp is what i hate and as far as using my military to prove a point

my point was in my company there were more beta males that were serving than alphas so being a "real" man to ffa pvp is

what pissed me off

I'm sure this has already been said repeatedly, but there are no AAA sandbox MMOs, really. Not since UO and pre-cu SWG, both very successful games, given the scope of the market during their first years. Since then, no one's seriously even tried it.

The Masses are used to games put out at a certain level of professionalism and polish, and most MMOs are complete crap in comparison. You can't expect people to look past that, unless they're core MMORPG players, and even then, a lot of us are sick of wading through broken unpolished crap games, too.

I bet if WoW had been a sandbox MMO, it could have been just as popular. It's how well it was made and marketed, by a company with such a strong history, that made it such a success, not the fact that it's such a themepark.

IMO games being released to early and being half A$$ed

Originally posted by Lizard_SF

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Bingo!  It's not a matter of sandbox games failing because they are sandbox games.  They fail because they don't work worth a damn and are frustrating as hell to play (e.g. StarWars Galaxies at release and after every one of their massive game revamps, and DarkFall at release).

For some bizarre reason companies think that the sandbox model is to blame.  Why not try releasing one that isn't flat out busted?  EVE had a troubled release, I'm told, but they seemed to listen hard to the players and fix the real bugs and issues in a timely manner.  Just imagine if a sandbox game actually released in a polished state.  To be quite honest, I've simply never seen that and I've been following these games for many years now.

 

See my earlier post. You're not likely to see this because no one who has studied the market will commit ~100M or so to designing a game which will not appeal to a mass audience. So you have to deal with small companies willing to take a shot at a niche market.

We have had at least one large company invest heavily in a sandbox game, but then change its vision multiple times after releasing it in a disastrous state.  With each vision change, there were new disasters.  In fact, the disasters seemed to get worse over time.  Then we have people say, "see sandbox games don't work."  

They then tend to compare games like this to highly polished linear games with a consistent vision, and say, "see linear games are better."  This is like comparing a brand-new, functional Honda to a rusted out Toyota from the 70's that has no engine, and saying, "see Honda's are better."  I think it's whack.

The following two comments from other posters summarize my thoughts exactly:

"I think there are enough "sandboxistas" out there who would love a well done game to support the costs; just like I think there are a lot of other niches that are being ignored or very badly served because of the current mania to be all inclusive among devs and always go for the biggest common denominator."

and,

"I bet if WoW had been a sandbox MMO, it could have been just as popular. It's how well it was made and marketed, by a company with such a strong history, that made it such a success, not the fact that it's such a themepark."

/QFE

Originally posted by Vhaln

I bet if WoW had been a sandbox MMO, it could have been just as popular. It's how well it was made and marketed, by a company with such a strong history, that made it such a success, not the fact that it's such a themepark.

I agree. This speaks volumes about what I believe about the MMORPG industry.

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

The following two comments from other posters summarize my thoughts exactly:

"I think there are enough "sandboxistas" out there who would love a well done game to support the costs; just like I think there are a lot of other niches that are being ignored or very badly served because of the current mania to be all inclusive among devs and always go for the biggest common denominator."

and,

"I bet if WoW had been a sandbox MMO, it could have been just as popular. It's how well it was made and marketed, by a company with such a strong history, that made it such a success, not the fact that it's such a themepark."

/QFE

 

 

But the key is, do you want to play only a game of your "genre", or a very well developed game?
 

I for one would be ready to venture into any game type, so long as there is fun for the moment.  A game is not a marriage, I can always dab into it for as long as my interest holds, and log out or leave the table the moment I feel like doing something else.

So the real and only factor of consideration is fun.  As for the post above listing Roma Victor and Darkfall, I do not need to play those crap games just b/c it is different.  It is crap partly b/c it tried to be different, but failed at the end to deliver a fun game.  You throw the baby out with the bathewater.  So to speak.

Originally posted by Darth_Osor

Maybe the sandbox format isn't as popular amongst the masses as the vocal minority that inhabit MMO forums would like to think.  Maybe the sandbox games that get released are pure crap.  Maybe the IP isn't interesting enough.  Maybe design decisions like FPS combat or full loot or too much PvP turn off the masses.  Lots of potential reasons to pick from.

Anyway, things go in cycles...maybe a few more years of no MMOs other than WoW breaking a sustained sub mark of over 300k will get one of the big boys to risk big bucks on an old school sandboxy MMO. 

LOL, I think, this post comes close to the truth. Let's face it: We - who are inhabiting all these forums concerning MMOs - are NERDs. We like Sandbox MMOs. SURE! But the usual Player is like a Popcorn movie. If he doesn't get his action, if he doesn't get a real real simple story which he can follow, he is not satisfied. I think that applies for MMOs too.

Why do has WoW sooooo many players? Because most of them do not care for great game depth. They want quick action, they want others too show what great gear they possess, they like spending years in the same instance, they do not like to lose their stuff, shortly: They do not like Sandbox MMOs.

Look at UO: What do you think why OSI puts Trammel into the game? Simply because most people didn't like to be killed and loose their stuff. Only a minority of players like Full loot. Only a minority of players like to actually "PLAY" the game without taken by the hand from one quest to another.

Do I have to like this system? NO! But I can't change it either! I will appreciate every MMO that decides to follow another path (the UO-path perhaps). But as long as I do not find a GOOD sandbox MMO, I will be playing Ultima Online.

What is the deal with Darkfall Online and Mortal Online? Imho they are just copying UO without reaching the same level of game depth? If it isn't for the modern graphics, why should I bother to play this instead of just playing the original?

Look at Darkfall for example: It strives to be like UO: But where is the Taming? Where is the Stealing?

Originally posted by Kalvasflamm

Originally posted by Darth_Osor

Maybe the sandbox format isn't as popular amongst the masses as the vocal minority that inhabit MMO forums would like to think.  Maybe the sandbox games that get released are pure crap.  Maybe the IP isn't interesting enough.  Maybe design decisions like FPS combat or full loot or too much PvP turn off the masses.  Lots of potential reasons to pick from.

Anyway, things go in cycles...maybe a few more years of no MMOs other than WoW breaking a sustained sub mark of over 300k will get one of the big boys to risk big bucks on an old school sandboxy MMO. 

 

LOL, I think, this post comes close to the truth. Let's face it: We - who are inhabiting all these forums concerning MMOs - are NERDs. We like Sandbox MMOs. SURE! But the usual Player is like a Popcorn movie. If he doesn't get his action, if he doesn't get a real real simple story which he can follow, he is not satisfied. I think that applies for MMOs too.

Why do has WoW sooooo many players? Because most of them do not care for great game depth. They want quick action, they want others too show what great gear they possess, they like spending years in the same instance, they do not like to lose their stuff, shortly: They do not like Sandbox MMOs.

Look at UO: What do you think why OSI puts Trammel into the game? Simply because most people didn't like to be killed and loose their stuff. Only a minority of players like Full loot. Only a minority of players like to actually "PLAY" the game without taken by the hand from one quest to another.

Do I have to like this system? NO! But I can't change it either! I will appreciate every MMO that decides to follow another path (the UO-path perhaps). But as long as I do not find a GOOD sandbox MMO, I will be playing Ultima Online.

What is the deal with Darkfall Online and Mortal Online? Imho they are just copying UO without reaching the same level of game depth? If it isn't for the modern graphics, why should I bother to play this instead of just playing the original?

Look at Darkfall for example: It strives to be like UO: But where is the Taming? Where is the Stealing?

Mortal Online is good on it's way to the same dept. Awesome crafting system, player housing, animal taming and a surprisingly fun way of riding!

Originally posted by Yohanu

Mortal Online is good on it's way to the same dept. Awesome crafting system, player housing, animal taming and a surprisingly fun way of riding!

Sorry, but I can not agree at the moment. Although I like what I see (basically a 3D-UO), MO has to walk a looooong road before release. ATM there isnt hardly any content in the game except for pvping and very basically crafting.

I hope that MO holds what it promises in the end.

Originally posted by Kalvasflamm

Originally posted by Yohanu

Mortal Online is good on it's way to the same dept. Awesome crafting system, player housing, animal taming and a surprisingly fun way of riding!

 

Sorry, but I can not agree at the moment. Although I like what I see (basically a 3D-UO), MO has to walk a looooong road before release. ATM there isnt hardly any content in the game except for pvping and very basically crafting.

I hope that MO holds what it promises in the end.

It's a road I'm willing to walk based on their feature set.  As long as the core design is solid, the game will have a good foundation to grow.