Originally posted by vajuras

 

---

Originally posted by Tatum

---

Originally posted by paulscott

thus lesson based, do whatever you want and 'earn lessons'.    you can earn them by doing just about anything ranging from the exploration, crafting, questing or the normal combat(anything you consider fun).   after that you apply those lessons to any skills you want.
you also get some nice openings like aprenticship systems, skill bonuses for learning from players(a lesson suddenly becoming 1.1 lessons), and maybe a few other bonuses.

---

Yea, I would prefer a skill system where you spend xp or skill points, rather than grind the skills.  IMO, this type of system has the least amount of "grind" to it and it's the most fluid.  Essentially, you just play the game, pick up xp along the way, and spend it however you want.  Only problem I can see would be players finding the easiest way to get xp, then just grinding on that activity.  I swear, no matter what, some players just look for the grind...

---

I think a sandbox title that employs this system (skill point system) has best chance to succeed because it retains the value we have with Quests. Quests are good (in theory) because they allow gamers to access other areas of their brain other then just combat

Quests tend to be rather too simplified in MMO space. But if they were fun like we see in Mass Effect I'd do Quests all day long.

like yourself I'd be open to either

Nope, I don't agree.  How do you gain XP in order to use those skill points?  I'll assume killing things.  Maybe crafter quests?  But then you can just use that XP to buy skill points in combat areas.  It works but it's not realistic.  What ever happened to this...  In order to be a strong sword weilding warrior, you train with a sword.  In order to gain experience in magic, you cast spells.

??

Originally posted by TheTooke                                                                                                                                                                      A full sandbox game just doesn't work.  SWG is a perfect example.  They tried, it failed. 

I'd argue that your particular example failed (which I agree, it did) more because of the cognitive dissonance of trying to make a sandbox brownie-baker's paradise out of the Star Wars franchise.   People came to SWG wanting to be Jedi and do great things, not make Wookie bar dancers.

I must agree though, with your other statement (unquoted) that peopel want direction.  Yes, quite an astounding number of them do.  And quite a shocking number of people play Farmville, too.

Sandboxes are for the rest of us, who want an immersive virtual world to play in and change dynamically based on our actions.  Or on other days, maybe we just want to show up in the market, bake some bread, sell it, and chat with our pals.  In a decent sandbox game, we should be able to do both.

Originally posted by DAS1337

 In WoW, you are forced to fight in order to level up your crafting profession.  In order to make gear and in order to continue gaining more skill, you must continue to level up by fighting.  In a sandbox, you don't have to fight.  You can be a miner and blacksmith and still be successful.  WoW forces you to do something, while a sandbox doesn't. 

So your definition of a 'sandbox' MMO is whether you can pursue a crafting profession sans combat?  That's it?  You do realize that's probably the least of things that a true sandbox game would offer, right?

WoW has no real crafting system, it just has side-activities that players do while leveling up.  Horizons had a more fleshed-out crafting system, by your definition a 'sandbox' game, and it suffered from a lack of content.

Content is what most players want, from what I can tell even those in this thread mistakenly asking for Sandbox.  Content that would span a multi-tude of activities, including crafting, creating businesses, ruling kingdoms, raiding dungeons, conquering enemies, and even crab fishing.  A good game has a wide and diverse selection of content that appeals to a wide base of players, particularly those that tend to have eclectic tastes or play habits.  Simply saying it is "Sandbox" or it has lots of "Freedom" are vague, ambigious and dangerously misleading words.   Vanguard's ability to master everything from ship building to diplomacy is a good example.  Conversely, the game lacks serious PvP content.  Trying to say the game is 45% Sandbox or 67.3% sandbox is ridiculous.

The word 'sandbox' is simply misused.  A sandbox MMO would resemble Sim City, not UO.  What we should be asking for is a game that has lots of content, not a game that tosses it out the window in the hopes that players will mystically create their own.

Originally posted by Diross

Looking at so many games over the years, why aren't more sandbox MMORPG's being made over the number of linear MMORPG's?  

Because most/all of the companies including existing ones that have been around for years but not making mmorpg's, are making these RPG style games but repackaged for online play. Too many years they have been getting their RPG's pirated, and it's truly insane at this point, so their choice is to mix in enough mmo element and call them mmorpg's. The existing mmo companies see the influx of RPG players so are catering to them, though unsuccessfully in most cases.


RPG = Linear game play with multi-player.
New/reformed MMO’s = Linear game play with instancing (multi-player).

Not going to read through this entire thread, but I bet I can summarize the main arguments:

- Modern gamer "kids" are stupid morons who can't pick their own noses without someone showing them how.

- Evil gaming companies are swayed by the false possibilities of gold and prestige that stem from WoW's unholy, genre-destroying example. They try to copy WoW, they fail, and the whole genre suffers because of it. Despite multiple failures, these evil companies are also, apparently, as stupid as modern gamers; thus, they never learn from their mistakes.

- The only good gamers, the ones who were around for UO, SWG, and the like, are being swallowed up by the aforementioned modern gamers. A great generation is slowly (though not quietly) fading away.

Will everyone phrase these points like I did? Of course not, they'll probably be a little nicer and less satirical. However, the points still stand. An interesting possibility, though, is that companies will start incorporating more sandboxy elements back into future MMOs. The genre may make a full circle, and while we may not get pure sandboxes, we'll more than likely get sandbox-themepark hybrids. BioWare says they're trying to make the first one (TOR), so we'll see if it works or not. Maybe there really is no room for compromise between two radical design concepts. We're all very, very picky...

Originally posted by Comnitus

Not going to read through this entire thread, but I bet I can summarize the main arguments:

- Modern gamer "kids" are stupid morons who can't pick their own noses without someone showing them how.

- Evil gaming companies are swayed by the false possibilities of gold and prestige that stem from WoW's unholy, genre-destroying example. They try to copy WoW, they fail, and the whole genre suffers because of it. Despite multiple failures, these evil companies are also, apparently, as stupid as modern gamers; thus, they never learn from their mistakes.

- The only good gamers, the ones who were around for UO, SWG, and the like, are being swallowed up by the aforementioned modern gamers. A great generation is slowly (though not quietly) fading away.

Will everyone phrase these points like I did? Of course not, they'll probably be a little nicer and less satirical. However, the points still stand. An interesting possibility, though, is that companies will start incorporating more sandboxy elements back into future MMOs. The genre may make a full circle, and while we may not get pure sandboxes, we'll more than likely get sandbox-themepark hybrids. BioWare says they're trying to make the first one (TOR), so we'll see if it works or not. Maybe there really is no room for compromise between two radical design concepts. We're all very, very picky...

Exactly how I see it, but it's not going to go "full circle" because like all trends; it's on a parabola. We are just on the shallowest end atm, and guaranteed that future games will get better (until they get stupid all over again).

i really only think of 3 games that are a true in my definition sand box, wurm online second life and A tale in the desert. and possibly this new game Xyson.

I would never consider SWG or any of the other major mmos a sand box. To me a Sand box is 4 walls with nothing in it the players make up everything.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Comnitus

Not going to read through this entire thread, but I bet I can summarize the main arguments:

- Modern gamer "kids" are stupid morons who can't pick their own noses without someone showing them how.

- Evil gaming companies are swayed by the false possibilities of gold and prestige that stem from WoW's unholy, genre-destroying example. They try to copy WoW, they fail, and the whole genre suffers because of it. Despite multiple failures, these evil companies are also, apparently, as stupid as modern gamers; thus, they never learn from their mistakes.

- The only good gamers, the ones who were around for UO, SWG, and the like, are being swallowed up by the aforementioned modern gamers. A great generation is slowly (though not quietly) fading away.

Will everyone phrase these points like I did? Of course not, they'll probably be a little nicer and less satirical. However, the points still stand. An interesting possibility, though, is that companies will start incorporating more sandboxy elements back into future MMOs. The genre may make a full circle, and while we may not get pure sandboxes, we'll more than likely get sandbox-themepark hybrids. BioWare says they're trying to make the first one (TOR), so we'll see if it works or not. Maybe there really is no room for compromise between two radical design concepts. We're all very, very picky...

 

Exactly how I see it, but it's not going to go "full circle" because like all trends; it's on a parabola. We are just on the shallowest end atm, and guaranteed that future games will get better (until they get stupid all over again).

Yeah, dere we go. A parabola. That's a better geometric object to use. Maybe if it's wide and opens vertically, and we place two points above it, it'll look like a smiley face. That should make the vets happy.

Comnitus, I’m trying to figure out if you were being serious or facetious… ;) I’ll let it remain gray hehe

I would say, though yes Blizzard has had a major impact on mmo’s, much of the sudden influx of new players were following Blizzards lead, that some of the existing mmo developers were headed in that direction, primarily when instancing was introduced. Blizzard capitalized on the idea and saturated the market, they were skilled RPG developers already, and had an existing playerbase to load up it's subs. Other companies saw the influx and reformed their existing games to resemble what Blizzard had done while new development projects simply cloned the end-result. But yes, the problem with those games is simple, “their still not WoW”, so most likely doomed.
 

Originally posted by Comnitus

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Comnitus

Not going to read through this entire thread, but I bet I can summarize the main arguments:

- Modern gamer "kids" are stupid morons who can't pick their own noses without someone showing them how.

- Evil gaming companies are swayed by the false possibilities of gold and prestige that stem from WoW's unholy, genre-destroying example. They try to copy WoW, they fail, and the whole genre suffers because of it. Despite multiple failures, these evil companies are also, apparently, as stupid as modern gamers; thus, they never learn from their mistakes.

- The only good gamers, the ones who were around for UO, SWG, and the like, are being swallowed up by the aforementioned modern gamers. A great generation is slowly (though not quietly) fading away.

Will everyone phrase these points like I did? Of course not, they'll probably be a little nicer and less satirical. However, the points still stand. An interesting possibility, though, is that companies will start incorporating more sandboxy elements back into future MMOs. The genre may make a full circle, and while we may not get pure sandboxes, we'll more than likely get sandbox-themepark hybrids. BioWare says they're trying to make the first one (TOR), so we'll see if it works or not. Maybe there really is no room for compromise between two radical design concepts. We're all very, very picky...

 

Exactly how I see it, but it's not going to go "full circle" because like all trends; it's on a parabola. We are just on the shallowest end atm, and guaranteed that future games will get better (until they get stupid all over again).

Yeah, dere we go. A parabola. That's a better geometric object to use. Maybe if it's wide and opens vertically, and we place two points above it, it'll look like a smiley face. That should make the vets happy.

Like this?

Even though, funnily enough, many people will see this in reverse, with WoW being at the highest apex and the other games sucking on thier way up to it, and equally sucking afterwards. Most of them never played anything prior to WoW though, so they need to "stuff it".

Originally posted by Zarcob

Originally posted by DAS1337

 In WoW, you are forced to fight in order to level up your crafting profession.  In order to make gear and in order to continue gaining more skill, you must continue to level up by fighting.  In a sandbox, you don't have to fight.  You can be a miner and blacksmith and still be successful.  WoW forces you to do something, while a sandbox doesn't. 

So your definition of a 'sandbox' MMO is whether you can pursue a crafting profession sans combat?  That's it?  You do realize that's probably the least of things that a true sandbox game would offer, right?

 

WoW has no real crafting system, it just has side-activities that players do while leveling up.  Horizons had a more fleshed-out crafting system, by your definition a 'sandbox' game, and it suffered from a lack of content.

 

Content is what most players want, from what I can tell even those in this thread mistakenly asking for Sandbox.  Content that would span a multi-tude of activities, including crafting, creating businesses, ruling kingdoms, raiding dungeons, conquering enemies, and even crab fishing.  A good game has a wide and diverse selection of content that appeals to a wide base of players, particularly those that tend to have eclectic tastes or play habits.  Simply saying it is "Sandbox" or it has lots of "Freedom" are vague, ambigious and dangerously misleading words.   Vanguard's ability to master everything from ship building to diplomacy is a good example.  Conversely, the game lacks serious PvP content.  Trying to say the game is 45% Sandbox or 67.3% sandbox is ridiculous.

 

The word 'sandbox' is simply misused.  A sandbox MMO would resemble Sim City, not UO.  What we should be asking for is a game that has lots of content, not a game that tosses it out the window in the hopes that players will mystically create their own.

I never defined what I thought sandbox was.  I just used an example to show a difference between WoW and a sandbox.  I never said it was the only difference now did I?

You're right with everything you said.  Well, mostly.  People do want content.  But, not all people want content in the same form.  Thus, Sandbox and Theme-Park.  Some people want raid dungeons, epic loot, arena combat, and a level based character progression.  Others want public dungeons, FFAPvP with full loot, meaningful player economy, and a skill based progression system.  There are many other bulletpoints for each side, but I think you get the point.

Most people don't even know what sandbox is.  They use it as a replacement for hardcore, and most don't even know what that really is either.  What I know is that it's the indie companies taking the chances, not the big gaming companies.  Those indie companies do not have the experience or the resources to pull off what sandbox gamers want.  So everyone's perception of sandbox is what they've seen from companies such as adventurine and starvault.  They've seen absolute failures of a product and none of it has to do with the game mechanics.  It sits squarely on the shouders of these inexperienced companies that simply have gotten way in over their heads.  Sandboxes are most definitely difficult to make.  That doesn't mean it wouldn't be popular.  I'm willing to bet everything I own that if it was done right, there would be record breaking subscription numbers for a sandbox.  No company of significance has tried though.  Then again, without the indie companies making an attempt, we wouldn't have a single sandbox to play at all.  Funny how that works out.

*ahem*

There is not much of a difference in how a game with/without quests works. In SWG you would choose where to hunt based on many factors; XP gain, loot/resources dropped, holocron BS. The mission terminal was there to add monitary incentive to figuring out what you wanted to hunt, and was smart imo. This is how it is for most sandbox games, just look at MO. Nothing tells you to kill pigs, you do it to raise skill and get thier resources for crafting. If you don't need to do any of those, you then don't feel the need to kill pigs, and the game would feel empty when it's really your drives in-game that are. WoW on the other hand tells you that *it* wants you to kill pigs, even when *you* don't want to. It's just a clever disguise for the ancient content that is mob hunting and collection, you could do it on your own if you had incentive.

The only thing that I think non-sandboxes are doing right is the instanced content. WoW's entire point, along with tons of others, is to wade through crap everybody tends to hate in order to reach the good stuff. It's the one thing sandboxes need to pick up on -endgame group content... but again, in a sandbos you won't do *anything* without the proper incentive to do so. It's always been the case, but since the deployment of themepark-style reward structures there has been more and more people that can't think for themselves anymore. The only place I do see it applied in WoW is perhaps how nothing tells you that you *need to craft*, the player typically figures it out all the way from the start to finish - though maybe they do have craft quests now afaik. At least it was something that left the player up to his own devices on how to accomplish it - because you can kill X animals on your own whether you're *told* to, or because of some need of what they have and you *want* to.

Because the few who have tried made shitty games and the big corporate types see that and think that means the whole idea of sandbox is faulty.

The only sandbox to ever really get it right was plagued to death with bugs and an all around garbage code base. It can be done, I have a few in my head alone that could compete with WoW. We just gotta wait and hope to get lucky.

Boy, 132 posts, pardon me if I don't read every one before responding, and I will just respond to the original question.

It all boils down to $$$, and the differences between how players, developers, designers and CEO's think. 

MMO's were small niche games until WoW, which everybody here is well aware of.  The mindset of the modern CEO is if it worked for them it will work for us.  The success of WoW will drive the creation of more WoW style games until two things happen..

1) That paradigm must fail *repeatedly*.

2) Another paradigm must succeed while others are failing.

Luckilly the failures that were WAR and AoC (though AoC might recover), STO and arguably Aion are starting to show #1. /happy dance

For #2 all I have to say is thank God for EVE and CCP.

edit: typo

Originally posted by GT wander Most of them never played anything prior to WoW though, so they need to "stuff it".

Well they played RPG's before WoW and that is pretty much what they are seeing in the mmo market as it stands. Heck, I played RPG's to, but not so many since most are stale. But this comment is very true in the sense as I've seen people criticize the older mmorpg's saying they played them and they suck. Then they describe features that were added in after they changed gameplay... not having an idea they are nothing like the release and up to a few expansions to follow. I agree, they do suck... nooow, most at least(just like RPG's). Then it just turns into childish arguments, like "mmo's were nothing until WoW" etc etc etc.. I'm not sure I can fully categorize WoW as an mmo, it's designed for RPG players. It's like someone saying all motorcycles suck because there are so many cars, so they expect all motorcycles to be crushed. Just childish arguments. MMORPG to define, are not really based on RPG's but from MUD's. This is more about an RPG invasion, MUD's are well set apart from RPG's in many ways, and don't coexist very well... if at all.

-----------

Anyway, I took it that the OP was about open and persistent worlds, since "linear" was mentioned. I don’t really want to debate over definitions, I know what was meant. But yes, as has been mentioned, games like SecondLife are true sandbox games. But you can still see that in some mmo's where you have multiple directions that you can travel, not forced into one engagement after another, so sandbox simply being opposed to linear progression environment. Semantics.

sand and or box shortage?

Originally posted by lttexxan

sand and or box shortage?

It's usually all there, but there's a definite lack of plastic shovels.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by lttexxan

sand and or box shortage?

It's usually all there, but there's a definite lack of plastic shovels.

And don't forget the Tonka Tractor :D
Of course keep in mind that there are also school yard bully wanabe's that may come by and kick sand and shout that the sandbox is boring and for sissies as they run off to the vertical monkey bars near the Teacher. But don't worry, I think most like that grow up to be on welfare and QQ'ing form more government entitlement programs to be created to make it fair for everyone.