Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by johnmatthais

Originally posted by Creslin321

I love the sandbox genre, and I didn't want to come off as saying it is bad.  I get the feeling that "Why something fails" is commonly thrown around on this forum as a perjorative against that something.  I didn't mean to do this.  I meant to say, "here are some reasons that I think these games weren't good, what could make it better?"

But as for having no direction, I think that sandbox games NEED to have direction, it just has to be a kind of implicit direction.  For example, in UO you could buy houses.  You did not have to buy a house but you COULD and thus people did it.  After enough people bought houses, they though "hey?  why don't we make a town."  So they made towns and the GMs and staff supported this and put special landmarks in towns to differentiate them from the rest of the world.  It's things like this that give you purpose.  The game doesn't have to tell you what to do, but it needs to provide you the tools to find your own purpose.  This is just one example though, there are plenty of things that could motivate you in a game...

Why does it all have to come back around to UO? The UO you knew is dead. Move on.

These games aren't trying to be UO. They're trying to entertain you. See past your own inner frustration and just let one in. It's not that hard. 

LOL you basically repeated what I said about UO in my original post.  It's definitely dead, however it is still a good example of a successful sandbox game.  So if I'm going to bring up an example of something that worked in a sandbox game I may as well use UO.

And I put forth that if UO launched today with the same level of quality that it had back then, it would be compared to Darkfall right now.  (I recall Computer Gaming World giving it Coaster of the Year at launch)

It was successful because it was new and had little competition.  Soon as it got some,  (EQ1) people fled in droves.

Sandbox games haven't failed, but we've yet to see one created by anything other than small, Indy Dev houses.  Would be really interesting to see what a well funded company could actually do these days with them.

Originally posted by GTwander

I'm getting sick of these "why something is fail" threads... it's just a way for PvEr's and PvPer's to have a circle-jerk over how much they hate each other, and now you raise a topic that will lead to an inevitable "Why themepark MMOs fail" thread (if it hasn't happened already). If anything, the only thing these threads do is destroy any credibility for those tempted to bite back after a topic offends them, or they see a chance to vent why they agree everything is fail.

AMEN

Originally posted by bloodaxes

I will never play a sandbox until they try to implement it something similar to oblivion or fallout 3.

You can go where ever you want and have choices BUT you always have a main story to do regardless if you just go wander around in the forest and help people there.

So until they do something similar to these types of games sandbox will never beat themeparks in subscriptions, no everyone likes to pop in a world and don't have any information on what he's doing there or what's happening but only you can do whatever you want.

It is not only you who waits for a new generation of MMOs: a theme park and sandbox hybrid

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by bloodaxes

I will never play a sandbox until they try to implement it something similar to oblivion or fallout 3.

You can go where ever you want and have choices BUT you always have a main story to do regardless if you just go wander around in the forest and help people there.

So until they do something similar to these types of games sandbox will never beat themeparks in subscriptions, no everyone likes to pop in a world and don't have any information on what he's doing there or what's happening but only you can do whatever you want.

While that sounds like a good plan, it always leads to people hitting the end of the content and screaming for more, and at a rate the devs can't keep up with. A sandbox game with the tiniest bit of driven content will make players see how shallow the game is, and much faster. At least in a game with zero direction you won't come to the conclusion as fast.

Yeah I know what you mean but that is their problem imo.

When I played oblivion and fallout 3 I just went into the world wandering around then when I was a bit bored of searching I would move a bit forward into the story.

This way fallout 3 especially lasted me a hell lot of time and I would be still playing it but had to format hard disk and lost save and don't have the patience on beginning from scratch after I have beated the main story and was just discovering every place left in the whole world while gathering all the rare weapons and doing any quest I found along and was hoping on getting the alien event which never happened :(

Anyways till your enjoying it there's nothing wrong and I was enjoying discovering the maps and finding cave's and buildings with enemies inside to beat with a chance on getting some quest and/or a special weapon.

Originally posted by CoffeeGrunt

Originally posted by GTwander

I'm getting sick of these "why something is fail" threads... it's just a way for PvEr's and PvPer's to have a circle-jerk over how much they hate each other, and now you raise a topic that will lead to an inevitable "Why themepark MMOs fail" thread (if it hasn't happened already). If anything, the only thing these threads do is destroy any credibility for those tempted to bite back after a topic offends them, or they see a chance to vent why they agree everything is fail.

 

AMEN

Hahah I wish you guys would actually read the post ;).

Originally posted by Creslin321

I don't know about you all, but I'm really tired of monotonous quest-based leveling MMORPGs.  However, every time I try a new sandbox MMO it winds up being very underwhelming.  So I thought I would create this post so that we could discuss why we think sandbox MMO's have just been less successful in general than the quest based (theme park) ones.  Also, I have to admit that I have never played Eve, I've heard good things, but I just wasn't interested in a ship based MMO.

Anyway, here are some reasons that I feel like sandbox MMO's tend to fail:

1. There is no motivation.
   
   Some sandbox MMO's I have played just seem to have no direction.  Other than killing masses of monsters to skill up, there's not really anything worthwhile to do.  In order to be successful, the player needs to feel driven for some purpose.  Most sandbox MMO's make this purpose the accrual of power.  However this power has to MEAN something.  I don't really care about having a powerful character if it's not doing anything for me.
    
2. They provide the freedom, but not the tools.
   
   In order to be a successful sandbox MMO, you really need to provide the tools for the player base to modify the world.  It is not enough to simply not constrain players with a linear design.  After all, what is a sand box where you can't build sand castles?  Some classic tools are player housing and player cities.  Other tools could be things like the ability for guilds to control land and set policies (such as laws) in the land they control.  So land controlled by one guild could be a lawless frontier with no penalty for murderers, while land controlled by another guild could be very harsh on murderers, having them KOS by guards and harsh death penalties.
    
3. They all try to emulate UO, but ultimately fail.
   
   Hey UO was a great game, I loved it, but I think that gamers today will want something more than what UO (at release) had to offer.  When it came out it was so new and exciting that it grew to hold a nostalgic place in many a gamer's heart (mine included!).  However, if a game came out now with the features that UO had at release, I don't think it would do well.  We've just come to expect so much more.  We need something revolutionary to revive the sandbox MMORPG, not just a recreation of the past.
    

 

I don't think it has anything to do with us expecting more from our games than we did when we were playing UO, aside from technical updates like graphics and enhanced UI's, just to name a few. Honestly, I'd be more than happy to play UO: Second Age with a 3D engine. What I do think the real problem is lies within the developers of these new sandbox MMO's trying to replicate UO: they're not focusing on the finite details. UO was all about creating a world that would bring players of all types into its environment, including the wide range from PvE'ers, RP'ers, Crafters, to PvP'ers and all those inbetween. The heart of the matter is that we get sandbox MMO's like DarkFall, that are almost entirely centered around PvP, while there are relatively no resources for the RP'er. While some of the other elements such as PvE are mixed in as well, the game boils down to combat. I think there's also much to be said about the interactivity in the world itself. With UO, nearly every item in the world was craftable. Forges, chairs, tables, beds, weapons, armor - whatever. On top of that, decorating your house with these items resulted in an endless amount of possibilities, and even further house placing itself was far more open and free than any other MMO I've ever played. That's just one example of one activity.

At the end of the day, you have to realize that continuing to create niche MMO's for niche groups isn't nearly as fullfilling an experience as trying to create an online world for everyone, where all play styles are accepted and viable, and where all players are allowed the freedom and possibility to do nearly anything they desire. That's a real MMO.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by CoffeeGrunt

Originally posted by GTwander

I'm getting sick of these "why something is fail" threads... it's just a way for PvEr's and PvPer's to have a circle-jerk over how much they hate each other, and now you raise a topic that will lead to an inevitable "Why themepark MMOs fail" thread (if it hasn't happened already). If anything, the only thing these threads do is destroy any credibility for those tempted to bite back after a topic offends them, or they see a chance to vent why they agree everything is fail.

 

AMEN

 

Hahah I wish you guys would actually read the post ;).

It doesn't matter if you changed the title, it's still in the same vein as all the other "everything is fail" /wrist threads.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by johnmatthais

Originally posted by Creslin321

I love the sandbox genre, and I didn't want to come off as saying it is bad.  I get the feeling that "Why something fails" is commonly thrown around on this forum as a perjorative against that something.  I didn't mean to do this.  I meant to say, "here are some reasons that I think these games weren't good, what could make it better?"

But as for having no direction, I think that sandbox games NEED to have direction, it just has to be a kind of implicit direction.  For example, in UO you could buy houses.  You did not have to buy a house but you COULD and thus people did it.  After enough people bought houses, they though "hey?  why don't we make a town."  So they made towns and the GMs and staff supported this and put special landmarks in towns to differentiate them from the rest of the world.  It's things like this that give you purpose.  The game doesn't have to tell you what to do, but it needs to provide you the tools to find your own purpose.  This is just one example though, there are plenty of things that could motivate you in a game...

Why does it all have to come back around to UO? The UO you knew is dead. Move on.

These games aren't trying to be UO. They're trying to entertain you. See past your own inner frustration and just let one in. It's not that hard. 

LOL you basically repeated what I said about UO in my original post.  It's definitely dead, however it is still a good example of a successful sandbox game.  So if I'm going to bring up an example of something that worked in a sandbox game I may as well use UO.

And I put forth that if UO launched today with the same level of quality that it had back then, it would be compared to Darkfall right now.  (I recall Computer Gaming World giving it Coaster of the Year at launch)

It was successful because it was new and had little competition.  Soon as it got some,  (EQ1) people fled in droves.

Sandbox games haven't failed, but we've yet to see one created by anything other than small, Indy Dev houses.  Would be really interesting to see what a well funded company could actually do these days with them.

 

 

This is a direct quote from my OP...we're obviously on the same wave length here.

When it (UO) came out it was so new and exciting that it grew to hold a nostalgic place in many a gamer's heart (mine included!). However, if a game came out now with the features that UO had at release, I don't think it would do well. We've just come to expect so much more. We need something revolutionary to revive the sandbox MMORPG, not just a recreation of the past.

And yes I agree about Sandbox MMO's not getting any big dollar support.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by CoffeeGrunt

Originally posted by GTwander

I'm getting sick of these "why something is fail" threads... it's just a way for PvEr's and PvPer's to have a circle-jerk over how much they hate each other, and now you raise a topic that will lead to an inevitable "Why themepark MMOs fail" thread (if it hasn't happened already). If anything, the only thing these threads do is destroy any credibility for those tempted to bite back after a topic offends them, or they see a chance to vent why they agree everything is fail.

 

AMEN

 

Hahah I wish you guys would actually read the post ;).

  i did FYI

But i could also ask this : Why should i ? There are already countless simular Threads, and its getting very boring.

This is why only a hybrid will ever succeed to a recognizable level in today's market. Of course, the moment you even think of including even the smallest element from a "noob lawl easymode retarded themepark MMO" in these "uber hardcore super-freedom sandboxes", you are met with flaming and trolling. At least, on this site.

What do I mean by a hybrid? Well, this would be my ideal mix, though there's room for variation (as always).

Levels? No. Skill-based training, but not so monotonous that people accept AFK training or macroing as the norm. Either have limited skill progression that is gained slowly, or extensive skill progression that is trained quickly. Training in real-world time, in my opinion, is a viable option, but more so for a sci-fi game than a fantasy one. Some people complain about it in EVE, but I see no problems. Those same people probably complain about lifetime subs, but both real-world time training and lifetime subs let you do one thing: take a break from the game if you want to. You don't feel as pressured to "get to level X" and you aren't met with a feeling of wasted money if you can't play the game enough. The game has to supply you with other tasks and goals when you do play, however, besides just skill training. EVE does this.

Open world? Yup. But instances (dungeons, not zones or cities) are okay. Despite some dissenting opinions on this site, no, it's not hardcore to sit at a spawn point for 5 hours only to have some other guild come and steal your rare kill.

On that subject, PvE? Should be interesting. Quests? Absolutely - but not Kill-X, FedEx, or Talk-to-X. Rather than explaining it all, look at Runescape if you want good quests in an MMO. This is a personal preference, but I'd rather fight more, less powerful mobs than fewer, more powerful ones. Not only does it make ME feel more powerful, but it's fun to slam your hammer on the ground and watch a dozen enemies around you explode in a shower of blood. This is one reason why I think, if done correctly, the Warhammer 40K MMO will be fuckin' epic. I'm quite excited about Space Marine, though it's not an MMO.

PvP? I'll consent to the "hardcore" crowd here. I'll accept FFA PvP, but with limits. UO, AC, whatever rules worked best. All meaningful PvP, i.e. territory or resource control, should be Faction vs. Faction or Guild vs. Guild. WHAT? FACTIONS? THAT NOT SANDBOX! YOU STOOPID! Well, while that's what some people would say, factions are not a bad thing. As long as your character develops the way you want it to, there's no problem if he's part of one. That's why I'm looking forward to Earthrise; there are 2 major factions, but you're not necessarily locked into the one you pick when creating your character. Same with EVE, unless you choose to engage in Militia warfare. Factions can, especially when roleplaying, provide a sense of purpose and belonging; you have an idea of why you're fighting, or why you're crafting weapons to give to your friends who are fighting. You also feel like part of a team. Hell, if any new game manages to establish a sense of "Realm Pride" like DAoC did, I'd be overjoyed. If someone wants to be a lone wolf or a rogue, go ahead; it should be harder for these individuals, though, because neutrality is often punished during wartime.

That's just a brief overview. Not everything found in "casual, easymode themepark" games is bad. Here's another one: automated travel. Look, it's great to have a big world, and it's great to have to explore it. But should you really be forced to run/ride everywhere... all the time? I don't think so. You go to a new place, you explore to your heart's content, you find a city or prominent town, and there's a gryphon station there. Bingo! Next time, you don't have to run all the way there if you don't want to. If you do want to, who is stopping you? Other people? Because they don't do it, you can't? Go explore all you want. The "big" feeling of the world is preserved, but some of the hassle of travel is eliminated. Win-win.

And, yes, if you dare tarnish the sacred name of "sandbox" around here, you will DIE!

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by CoffeeGrunt

Originally posted by GTwander

I'm getting sick of these "why something is fail" threads... it's just a way for PvEr's and PvPer's to have a circle-jerk over how much they hate each other, and now you raise a topic that will lead to an inevitable "Why themepark MMOs fail" thread (if it hasn't happened already). If anything, the only thing these threads do is destroy any credibility for those tempted to bite back after a topic offends them, or they see a chance to vent why they agree everything is fail.

 

AMEN

 

Hahah I wish you guys would actually read the post ;).

 

It doesn't matter if you changed the title, it's still in the same vein as all the other "everything is fail" /wrist threads.

I ask again...have you read the OP?  If so, I don't really see how it is QQ about sandbox games.  I would implore you to enlighten me as to how you perceive it this way.

Regardless, the fact remains that recent sandbox games released DID fail, i.e. they got poor reviews and poor market penetration.  Maybe we should look at why they failed and discuss what they could have done better?  THAT was the point of this thread, though woefully, it is not what happened.  Instead, it was met with random meta-whining (whining about whining) for no reason.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by CoffeeGrunt

Originally posted by GTwander

I'm getting sick of these "why something is fail" threads... it's just a way for PvEr's and PvPer's to have a circle-jerk over how much they hate each other, and now you raise a topic that will lead to an inevitable "Why themepark MMOs fail" thread (if it hasn't happened already). If anything, the only thing these threads do is destroy any credibility for those tempted to bite back after a topic offends them, or they see a chance to vent why they agree everything is fail.

 

AMEN

 

Hahah I wish you guys would actually read the post ;).

 

It doesn't matter if you changed the title, it's still in the same vein as all the other "everything is fail" /wrist threads.

 

I ask again...have you read the OP?  If so, I don't really see how it is QQ about sandbox games.  I would implore you to enlighten me as to how you perceive it this way.

Regardless, the fact remains that recent sandbox games released DID fail, i.e. they got poor reviews and poor market penetration.  Maybe we should look at why they failed and discuss what they could have done better?  THAT was the point of this thread, though woefully, it is not what happened.  Instead, it was met with random meta-whining (whining about whining) for no reason.

Which sandbox games failed recently?

Originally posted by Creslin321 

Instead, it was met with random meta-whining (whining about whining) for no reason.

No, you are trying to disguise a rant through "constructive criticism", anyone could see that in your original title.... which you changed because you realized people where seeing what this is about through it.

Originally posted by johnmatthais

Originally posted by uquipu

 Second Life is the only true sandbox game out there.

Remember, theme park is anything developed by a dev.

Sandbox is anything developed by a player.  Second Life is like 90% player created.

Second Life is successful.

Also, have you not looked at Blue Mars?!

No, first time I've heard of it.

When I get time I'll look at it.  I also want to try Wurm and Love.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321 

Instead, it was met with random meta-whining (whining about whining) for no reason.

 

No, you are trying to disguise a rant through "constructive criticism", anyone could see that in your original title.... which you changed because you realized people where seeing what this is about through it.

Spend less time attacking the OP and more time making some constructive posts. If this is a rant, I wish all rants were as thought-out and legible as this one.

Sandboxes have flaws? Your perfect MMOs from "back in the day" (*cough* nostalgia *cough*) have FLAWS? Oh no!!!! I think the OP makes good points but had a stupid title. So he changed it.

 Unfortunately, we've reached a point where the word "fail" has become the ultimate put down and not just a word you can use as part of a larger sentence. That said, your OP raises some good points. Of them, I think the matter of motivation is a big factor.  When people log into a game, they expect to be met with a fleshed out tutorial and some hand holding. Recently EvE improved their new player tutorials, but when they are over, I could see how someone could get a sense that they are tossed into the river without a boat. At this point, a person can sink or swim and I tend to think a lot of people sink and move on.

Another factor is how we measure success. Before the mass popularity of MMOs, the targeted audience was much smaller. In addition to that, I believe this audience was already inclined to playing pen and paper games that required a certain level of imagination. Later on EQ came out, then WoW, and a whole new audience started getting into online gaming that may not be likely to enjoy a game like UO or EvE. So, do we measure success by the number of subscribers, or whether the company is cash flow positive? If the former, then there is only one P2P success at the moment. If we look at cash flow, then there are a number of games, with small player bases, that are successful, but just not highly visible.

Still, as constructive as your intentions may be, the inevitable debate will fall to the faithful old "what is a sandbox" conversation. There are as many different ways people define this as there are people posting in this thread. Someone will say "game x is a sandbox" and a bunch of people will shout them down about "game y". Wash hands, repeat.

Originally posted by Creslin321

EDIT:  I changed the title of this thread from "Why Sandbox MMO's fail" to "What is wrong with Sandbox MMO's?"  I seem to have hit some kind of funny bone on this forum with my original title, so hopefully the second one gets my point across better :).

I don't know about you all, but I'm really tired of monotonous quest-based leveling MMORPGs.  However, every time I try a new sandbox MMO it winds up being very underwhelming.  So I thought I would create this post so that we could discuss why we think sandbox MMO's have just been less successful in general than the quest based (theme park) ones.  Also, I have to admit that I have never played Eve, I've heard good things, but I just wasn't interested in a ship based MMO.

Anyway, here are some reasons that I feel like sandbox MMO's tend to fail:

1. There is no motivation.
   
   Some sandbox MMO's I have played just seem to have no direction.  Other than killing masses of monsters to skill up, there's not really anything worthwhile to do.  In order to be successful, the player needs to feel driven for some purpose.  Most sandbox MMO's make this purpose the accrual of power.  However this power has to MEAN something.  I don't really care about having a powerful character if it's not doing anything for me.
    
2. They provide the freedom, but not the tools.
   
   In order to be a successful sandbox MMO, you really need to provide the tools for the player base to modify the world.  It is not enough to simply not constrain players with a linear design.  After all, what is a sand box where you can't build sand castles?  Some classic tools are player housing and player cities.  Other tools could be things like the ability for guilds to control land and set policies (such as laws) in the land they control.  So land controlled by one guild could be a lawless frontier with no penalty for murderers, while land controlled by another guild could be very harsh on murderers, having them KOS by guards and harsh death penalties.
    
3. They all try to emulate UO, but ultimately fail.
   
   Hey UO was a great game, I loved it, but I think that gamers today will want something more than what UO (at release) had to offer.  When it came out it was so new and exciting that it grew to hold a nostalgic place in many a gamer's heart (mine included!).  However, if a game came out now with the features that UO had at release, I don't think it would do well.  We've just come to expect so much more.  We need something revolutionary to revive the sandbox MMORPG, not just a recreation of the past.
    

 

I feel you've done a good job of summing up some of the issues which mire the current breed of sandbox mmo's. But lets look at the flipside and play devils advocate.

EVE Online is considered a Sandbox Sci-Fi mmo because of it's open world nature and consistantly shifting powers and dynamic creation of resources and conflicts. EVE offers NPC missions to earn cash, although this became a mechanic to provide funds to players to buy ships to "play" the game. When your ship is destroyed you run missions to aford a new one, or buy new weapons. Running missions is akin to kill 10 rats for 10 silver quests in fantasy MMO's.

So EVE added story arc's with item rewards to incentivize people to do the mission chains to earn unique rewards, faction boosts to unlock items from faction groups and provide a reward for doing these repedative missions. This became a meta-game to the already existing sand-box world of PVP and Stationbuilding.

From the get-go a player saw impressive ships, learned about player run space stations, corp battles, mining and raiders. EVE did a good job of incorporating meta-games into their sandbox elements to incentivize players to do those rather repedative tasks.

Now lets take fallen earth, having played it for 2 months I felt that while it offered all the sand-box mechanics of crafting, resource gathering, faction building, it ultimatly lacked much else. There were player run townships akin to the space stations, but those townships didn't provide the players with any unqiue rewards unobtainable outside of being part of a township. PvP was limited to arena's. I found FE had the tools but not the motivation to push a player. There were no impressive armor, or mounts to make me want to go through the grind and time to one day become that person and feel powerful and cool. It's focus was simply to exist and socialize.. and as a gamer I want to be entertained with goals. Sure I want an immursive world with people to socialize with but if I wanted just that I'd play second life. I play an MMO for goals, long term and short term to feel my character grow and achieve, aquire, explore and repeat twards a sense of accomplishment.

And ultimatly that's where successful Sandbox's like EVE excel, they offer visual and desirable accomplishments, peppering in rewards for the mundane and repedative tasks which come with existing in these sandbox worlds. Weather your crafting or resource gathering, running missions or pvp'ing there are rewards to be gained. Greater goals such as rediculously powerful and expensive ships which are long-term goals. Presented to the player early on it gives you that carrot to drive you.

This entire reply of mine is to elaborate on what I feel is the most noteworthy of your comments, #1 the motivation.

I think one of the reason UO stands out as a Sandbox success is because it was new. It was, for all intense and purposes, the first.

Yes, there were MMO's before it. Even graphical ones. But not with it's level of graphics, options, and open platform (IE: everyone, on all ISP's could play it. Where as before GenieNet members could only play GenieNet games. AOL members would only play AOL games, etc).

And players flocked to it going, "What's this? This is new. This is different."
No one really had anything to compare it too. And, on the few things you COULD compare it to in other games, it won.

But today's gamers are far more demanding. We've seen it before. We've done it before.

20 years I've been MUD'ing and MMO'ing. Do you have any idea how hard it is to make something "new" for me where I don't go, "1991... X game had this same feature."?

It's hard. I know a lot of games.
And today, MUCH more then yesterday, I "know what I like."

Before I was willing to  go, "This is exciting, what's this do? And that??"
Today I go, "I know what all this does... what else do you have for me? Impress me."

Sandbox games don't impress today's gamers. We've been in open worlds before. We've built empires, and developed chars.... now what? What's next?

In the old days we didn't know bad game design, because we hadn't seen good game design yet.

Today, we've seen GREAT game design, and HORRIBLE game design. And we have a measure stick in our heads.

Sandbox games need to be more then just "an open world".
Just like a themepark game can't be a EQ clone and think we'll be impressed.

UO is consdered one of the greats because it was the right game, in the right time.

Re-release UO today. Classic old school 1997 rules. With super modern graphics.... and the game will not succeed.
In theory... would be the most played, most awesome MMO in history.... but in reality, that game would fail in 2010.

Originally posted by Comnitus

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Creslin321 

Instead, it was met with random meta-whining (whining about whining) for no reason.

 

No, you are trying to disguise a rant through "constructive criticism", anyone could see that in your original title.... which you changed because you realized people where seeing what this is about through it.

Spend less time attacking the OP and more time making some constructive posts. If this is a rant, I wish all rants were as thought-out and legible as this one.

Sandboxes have flaws? Your perfect MMOs from "back in the day" (*cough* nostalgia *cough*) have FLAWS? Oh no!!!! I think the OP makes good points but had a stupid title. So he changed it.

THANK YOU :).

 I think everyone's making a lot of confounded assumptions about eachother again.

OP, reword your argument in a response and we'll go from there.