Originally posted by crunchyblack

Ryzom

Darkfall

Mortal Online

Fallen Earth

 [ *snip* ]

So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all. 

Darkfall/Mortal Online: full PvP.  I have zero interest in PvP.  That rules them out immediately.

Fallen Earth: I have to admit I may have erred here - I had seen it was post-apocolyptic and had a rather loud trailer so just assumed right away that it too was PvP-heavy without researching any further.  Thank you for prodding me into a second look.

Ryzom: ok, this one might end up embarassing me a little.  I had honestly never heard of it.  Researching it a little, it does look interesting.  There are a few alarm bells (like saying that the best resources are available in PvP zones) that tell me that I probably wouldn't be happy there long-term, but on the other hand, the description of the dynamic ecology gives me geeky goosebumps so I may give it a try anyway.

I don't normally thank people rage against a forum, but in this case, you've given exactly the sort of feedback I needed to link threads of my wandering imagination with worlds I have not yet visited.  So ... thank you.

Originally posted by illorion

Are there any in development that i am just not aware off/ didnt get the memo. Or is everything in the near future themeparkin it up

Sandboxes havn't done so well lately. But of course the ones that have been made are small indie games with lousy budget.

The only upcoming that seems to be really good is CCPs and White wolfs World of darkness online. but the release date for it is unknown, the more optimistic hopes late 2011, most guesses are 2012.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by gorthox

I love how people say sandbox games are niche.

 

EvE is one of the top played MMOs in North America. UO and SWG were both top MMOs in their time (up there with EQ, AC, etc.).  If 300k is niche, how many MMOs besides WoW have non-niche numbers in NA?  I mean, if we discard WoW for a moment and look at AoC, WAR, TR, Vanguard, etc. - I would say the status quo is not what people want.

Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.

EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.

UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?

UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.

At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?

But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?

And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.

In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.

Sayhing a game has 300k subs is impressive but sayign a game has 300k subs, some of those alt accounts, when there aren't a lot of games and only about 300k players willing to play in a relatively new genre isn't all that impressive. I'm sure I can find 300k people who are into the freakiest things on the net but what they are interested in might still be considered a niche bit of entertaiment.

I just don't buy explanations like this... When I look at consoles sandboxes dominate on a regular basis. GTA 4, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Burnout, Saints Row, Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Crackdown, etc the list goes on and on..... It's rare in my eyes to see a major sandbox fail. I fail to see all the risks involved and high production costs. I am pretty sure CCP was really small when they initially launched EVE. 

Imagine something like Little Big planet on an MMO scale. It would pretty much rake all the MMOs I see listed on this site. Just the number of maps released alone burry the pop caps for most common MMO. 

Edit- Anyone remember Two Worlds? Another console RPG. Was a little like Elder Scrolls Oblivion but they didnt have mob scaling and had some coop support. It was rough around the edges but even that game (which regularly got 7s and lower) still earned enough money to keep the devs going and they claim they have a sequel in work.

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by crunchyblack

Ryzom

Darkfall

Mortal Online

Fallen Earth

 [ *snip* ]

So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all. 

Darkfall/Mortal Online: full PvP.  I have zero interest in PvP.  That rules them out immediately.

Fallen Earth: I have to admit I may have erred here - I had seen it was post-apocolyptic and had a rather loud trailer so just assumed right away that it too was PvP-heavy without researching any further.  Thank you for prodding me into a second look.

Ryzom: ok, this one might end up embarassing me a little.  I had honestly never heard of it.  Researching it a little, it does look interesting.  There are a few alarm bells (like saying that the best resources are available in PvP zones) that tell me that I probably wouldn't be happy there long-term, but on the other hand, the description of the dynamic ecology gives me geeky goosebumps so I may give it a try anyway.

I don't normally thank people rage against a forum, but in this case, you've given exactly the sort of feedback I needed to link threads of my wandering imagination with worlds I have not yet visited.  So ... thank you.

 

Checkout Link Realms as well then: http://www.linkrealms.com/

PVE focused. When I played awhile back I had a ton of fun. I recall the dungeons were open pvp so beware but I don't recall ever being ganked. You can seriously bypass the dungeons though and just focus on building your house, garden, and realm. I used to train all the time in the privacy of my house with my friends. Then I would teleport to town and kick it with friends.

probably said too much but that game is bloody cool. Support indie devs!!!

Originally posted by crunchyblack

Im sorry if this has already come up, as i didnt feel like reading 3 pages of posts....

 

I love this topic and the OP......where are all the sandboxes?

 

Well There is:

Ryzom

Darkfall

Mortal Online

Fallen Earth

 

All are made by smaller companies (everyone hate SOE/Blizzard or any other mega gaming company remember)

 

All are in various phases of death, due to lack of support.  Not saying that they are or will be dead, just that they are all STRUGGLING.

 

 

This is a classic case of gamers wanting sooo bad for indie sandbox games, then, when they dont get the wow stability, or the instant gratification of theme park activities, they uninstall.

 

So what the larger companies, and other small companies see..... these games not doing well..... they see how they better get cracking on their mega theme park EQ style mmorpg, since those will make them and their investors a return, whereas sandboxes will not.

 

And rest assured, the half asses, as most would call it, releases of the above mentioned games, and various issues are due to the lack of investment.   See when they get desperate for money, and ivestors threaten to pull out or sue, their choice is to scrap the whole project and go under, or immediately release (or as soon as possible) in order to genereate revenue and continue work.

 

So all you folks out there claiming "if only they would make a sandbox" get ready for nothing of the sort if these current sandboxes, and the few that are in development, fail due to gamers saying they want sandboxes (i dont know is it the trendy thing now?) but voting with their wallets for the themepark.

 

All of the games i mentioned (aside from mortal online, have yet to play it, but have played all the others and subscribed at least a little) are VERY playable, and offer something diffrent from WOW type games....yet they struggle.

 

Put your money where your mouth is, its the ONLY thing a business cares about, if you dont tell them with money what you want, they will give you whatever you are willing to pay for.  And that is currently low risk cookie cutter wow style theme parks (which im not against by the way)

The only wat to change the trend is to do it yourself.

However we all know that the sandbox crowd is a very small nice crowd and most major developers are not going to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to make a blockbuster sandbox, that will most likely have under 90K subs...its not worth it to them....which is why you really only have indie sandboxes.  The indie companies are taking the risk, and are paying dearly for it right now.  You guys are the ones proving to the smart money that sandboxes dont work.

Remember how many shitty, barely running themepark mmorpgs people flocked to with their wallets before wow polished their game up?  Thats right, just about all of em.  Results: more development of what made money and better quality.

 Deal with what comes with the idie developers since its not been proven that sandboxes can generate enough revenue to support the investment needed for blockbuster sandbox mmorpgs.

 

So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all. 

You may ignore and continue your flame war over your various definitions of what a sandbox is.

Yeah thats true enough. Most of those sandboxes are in their death throes (no idea about Darkfall state). To be fair, I would say most would just rather stick with EVE though. It's the most highly polished sandbox MMO out there by a mile. Not sure about how Darkfall is right now. I had fun but found myself sticking with EVE.

CCP is really outstanding. They have expanded to takeover various game studios in various countries and have expanded the IP into books, etc.

And PVE lovers you can just stay in high sec space and not have to worry bout getting killed really. My PVE buddy been in high sec for years and enjoying himself and he even made an alt to come PVP once he realized how tighlty coupled pvp is with the economy.

Ok, enough dribbling from me for now!

Originally posted by PatchDay

And PVE lovers you can just stay in high sec space and not have to worry bout getting killed really. My PVE buddy been in high sec for years and enjoying himself and he even made an alt to come PVP once he realized how tighlty coupled pvp is with the economy.

I don't want to play a game where non-PvP play is treated as the shallow end of the pool.  Eve is a very entertaining looking game and I'm very happy to see it succeed, but it is aimed at a fundementally different audience and I don't want to dilute that community.

Originally posted by PatchDay

 

 

I just don't buy explanations like this... When I look at consoles sandboxes dominate on a regular basis. GTA 4, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Burnout, Saints Row, Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Crackdown, etc the list goes on and on..... It's rare in my eyes to see a major sandbox fail. I fail to see all the risks involved and high production costs. I am pretty sure CCP was really small when they initially launched EVE. 

Imagine something like Little Big planet on an MMO scale. It would pretty much rake all the MMOs I see listed on this site. Just the number of maps released alone burry the pop caps for most common MMO. 

 

Edit- Anyone remember Two Worlds? Another console RPG. Was a little like Elder Scrolls Oblivion but they didnt have mob scaling and had some coop support. It was rough around the edges but even that game (which regularly got 7s and lower) still earned enough money to keep the devs going and they claim they have a sequel in work.

 MMO definition of sandbox on spg definition seem to be differnt.  With the exception of little big planet (which I've never heard of so can't comment) most of those games you are following a single story, cannot build anything or affect the land in any way, can't participate in politics, clan wars...

For an mmo sandbox (to most people I think anyway) you need to be able to do all these to some extent.  Therefore if those were an MMO I wouldn't call them sandbox.

Venge Sunsoar

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by PatchDay

 

 

I just don't buy explanations like this... When I look at consoles sandboxes dominate on a regular basis. GTA 4, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Burnout, Saints Row, Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Crackdown, etc the list goes on and on..... It's rare in my eyes to see a major sandbox fail. I fail to see all the risks involved and high production costs. I am pretty sure CCP was really small when they initially launched EVE. 

Imagine something like Little Big planet on an MMO scale. It would pretty much rake all the MMOs I see listed on this site. Just the number of maps released alone burry the pop caps for most common MMO. 

 

Edit- Anyone remember Two Worlds? Another console RPG. Was a little like Elder Scrolls Oblivion but they didnt have mob scaling and had some coop support. It was rough around the edges but even that game (which regularly got 7s and lower) still earned enough money to keep the devs going and they claim they have a sequel in work.

 MMO definition of sandbox on spg definition seem to be differnt.  With the exception of little big planet (which I've never heard of so can't comment) most of those games you are following a single story, cannot build anything or affect the land in any way, can't participate in politics, clan wars...

For an mmo sandbox (to most people I think anyway) you need to be able to do all these to some extent.  Therefore if those were an MMO I wouldn't call them sandbox.

Venge Sunsoar

In most of the game from my list you can own land. for instance in Fallout you can buy a house. Fable 2 I have a multiple stores, houses, wives, children, etc. Elder Scrolls, same deal. I would dare say the sandbox MMOs are still years behind sandbox RPGs actually. 

Never heard of Little Big Planet? It's got millions and millions of user created content. But yeah its a PS3 game and a big reason many purchased that system

maplestone:

if you are not interested in pvp, you can try this games:

wurm (freedom server)

a tale in the desert

haven and hearth (which has more or less open pvp (and perma death) but i was actually never attacked by any player (nor did i attacked any)

Originally posted by PatchDay

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by PatchDay

 

 

I just don't buy explanations like this... When I look at consoles sandboxes dominate on a regular basis. GTA 4, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Burnout, Saints Row, Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Crackdown, etc the list goes on and on..... It's rare in my eyes to see a major sandbox fail. I fail to see all the risks involved and high production costs. I am pretty sure CCP was really small when they initially launched EVE. 

Imagine something like Little Big planet on an MMO scale. It would pretty much rake all the MMOs I see listed on this site. Just the number of maps released alone burry the pop caps for most common MMO. 

 

Edit- Anyone remember Two Worlds? Another console RPG. Was a little like Elder Scrolls Oblivion but they didnt have mob scaling and had some coop support. It was rough around the edges but even that game (which regularly got 7s and lower) still earned enough money to keep the devs going and they claim they have a sequel in work.

 MMO definition of sandbox on spg definition seem to be differnt.  With the exception of little big planet (which I've never heard of so can't comment) most of those games you are following a single story, cannot build anything or affect the land in any way, can't participate in politics, clan wars...

For an mmo sandbox (to most people I think anyway) you need to be able to do all these to some extent.  Therefore if those were an MMO I wouldn't call them sandbox.

Venge Sunsoar

 

In most of the game from my list you can own land. for instance in Fallout you can buy a house. Fable 2 I have a multiple stores, houses, wives, children, etc. Elder Scrolls, same deal. I would dare say the sandbox MMOs are still years behind sandbox RPGs actually. 

 

Never heard of Little Big Planet? It's got millions and millions of user created content. But yeah its a PS3 game and a big reason many purchased that system

 Yes you can own them but they are just storage.  You can't build them or anything really, nor can you participate in any of the other activities I mentioned.  In effect other than playing out the story you can't affect the world (other than playing out the story).

There is no real economy in those games as it's just you and npcs.  And even if you could do all the things I mentioned in an MMO you would have to be carefull in their implentation so other people can't negatively affect each others games too much.

Little big planet seems to be fairly free from - just quick wikipediea search.

Venge Sunsoar

It is hardly strange that we don't all agree on what a sandbox is. Thats the nature of words, when you get a group of people to define one they all come up with a differant definition. Especially when they have a personal conection to them.

Originally posted by PatchDay

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by gorthox

I love how people say sandbox games are niche.

 

EvE is one of the top played MMOs in North America. UO and SWG were both top MMOs in their time (up there with EQ, AC, etc.).  If 300k is niche, how many MMOs besides WoW have non-niche numbers in NA?  I mean, if we discard WoW for a moment and look at AoC, WAR, TR, Vanguard, etc. - I would say the status quo is not what people want.

Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.

EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.

UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?

UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.

At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?

But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?

And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.

In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.

Sayhing a game has 300k subs is impressive but sayign a game has 300k subs, some of those alt accounts, when there aren't a lot of games and only about 300k players willing to play in a relatively new genre isn't all that impressive. I'm sure I can find 300k people who are into the freakiest things on the net but what they are interested in might still be considered a niche bit of entertaiment.

 

I just don't buy explanations like this... When I look at consoles sandboxes dominate on a regular basis. GTA 4, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Burnout, Saints Row, Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Crackdown, etc the list goes on and on..... It's rare in my eyes to see a major sandbox fail. I fail to see all the risks involved and high production costs. I am pretty sure CCP was really small when they initially launched EVE. 

Imagine something like Little Big planet on an MMO scale. It would pretty much rake all the MMOs I see listed on this site. Just the number of maps released alone burry the pop caps for most common MMO. 

 

Edit- Anyone remember Two Worlds? Another console RPG. Was a little like Elder Scrolls Oblivion but they didnt have mob scaling and had some coop support. It was rough around the edges but even that game (which regularly got 7s and lower) still earned enough money to keep the devs going and they claim they have a sequel in work.

Well, a few things.

Those aren't solely console sandboxes. Bethesda has built, over time, a following with their pc games. They then made morrowind for pc and later brought it to the console. figuring out this worked they started bringing their games (oblivion and FAllout 3) to console as well as PC.

They have a built in audience that understands what they are offering. On top of that, I would propose that they aren't completely sandbox games because there are many quests including a main quest line. They are as themepark as a themepark game. however one can also play them completely as sandbox games.

Heck my roommate did that. He didn't finish any of the guild quests and certainly didn't do the main quest. He just explored and did quests when he found them.

But it was his own experience completely molded by him. And quite frankly I play "themepark games" more like I play Oblivion. Which is really my main game to this day come to think of it. that's why when I see players screaming about theme park games I usually offer the idea that they can break away from the dicatates of what they think a theme park game is and do their own thing. I know I do.

In any case, now bring in other people for sandbox mmo, who who also affect your game play, and you get a different experience.

Openness in a complete sandbox game means that you might have to deal with other players and their whims. Now you are getting a completely different experience and one that many players don't want. Not everyone is into pvp nor are they seeking combat for the sake of combat.

If you look at the morrowind, Oblivion boards you will see a lot of people who don't want an Oblivion mmo because they feel it will take away from the real experience.

So for many of these people, a quasi-Sandbox/Theme Park game is fine. Add people and it suddenly starts taking a turn for the worst.

the MMORPG genre proved that games really are designed for teenagers: blood, sugar, sex, magic.

In the first MMOs, players were low-20 and middle-aged geeks looking to experience the fantasy they read in books.

RP was king.

Ever since the mmo-that-must-not-be-named came out, MMORPG became all about "cool", "fast". The kiddies want to be Kratos rather than aragorn, and developpers are happy to give them what they want, since they are more numerous.

Altho i believe there is room for one quality sandox MMO, the market is too small for more, and developpers are too afraid to risk it anyway.

Originally posted by Omega3

the MMORPG genre proved that games really are for teenagers.

In the first MMOs, players were low-20 and middle-aged geeks looking to experience the fantasy they read in books.

RP was king.

Ever since the mmo-that-must-not-be-named came out, MMORPG became all about "cool", "fast". The kiddies want to be Kratos rather than aragorn, and developpers are happy to give them what they want, since they are more numerous.

Altho i believe there is room for one quality sandox MMO, the market is too small for more, and developpers are too afraid to risk it anyway.

I don't think so. I think that the games creates the players as much as the players creates the games.

The trend could turn to sandboxes again as long as some really good actually were made. One certain thing is that all trends turn sooner or later (including baggy pants). In some cases it takes longer than others but MMOs wont continue forever in the way we seen the last few years.

The problem with sandbox games is that no good one has been made in a long time. If someone competent made one it could be a huge hit. Someone like Bethesda, Rockstar or CCP. Bethesda and CCP are in fact making sandbox games right now and if both of them are great it might turn things around. Oblivion sold a lot of games, an online version can sell more.

A game that is made for teenagers will of course be played by them. A game for older people will b played by older. There are always a lot of people that is older or younger who plays but generally do games aimed for teenagers (like Wow) get a lot of teenage players. That doesn't mean all MMOs are for kids, just that some are.

I think that the future of MMOs will be a mix between modern things, oldschool ideas and some completely new stuff. By taking the best of the old and modern stuff and add some new things you could really make an awesome game.

Originally posted by Scot

It is hardly strange that we don't all agree on what a sandbox is. Thats the nature of words, when you get a group of people to define one they all come up with a differant definition. Especially when they have a personal conection to them.

Especially when the terms are "loosely coined" in the first place.

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by crunchyblack

Ryzom

Darkfall

Mortal Online

Fallen Earth

 [ *snip* ]

So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all. 

Darkfall/Mortal Online: full PvP.  I have zero interest in PvP.  That rules them out immediately.

Fallen Earth: I have to admit I may have erred here - I had seen it was post-apocolyptic and had a rather loud trailer so just assumed right away that it too was PvP-heavy without researching any further.  Thank you for prodding me into a second look.

Ryzom: ok, this one might end up embarassing me a little.  I had honestly never heard of it.  Researching it a little, it does look interesting.  There are a few alarm bells (like saying that the best resources are available in PvP zones) that tell me that I probably wouldn't be happy there long-term, but on the other hand, the description of the dynamic ecology gives me geeky goosebumps so I may give it a try anyway.

I don't normally thank people rage against a forum, but in this case, you've given exactly the sort of feedback I needed to link threads of my wandering imagination with worlds I have not yet visited.  So ... thank you.

 

Ahh yes, the picky gamer.   Will subscribe to a themepark on the fly, but offer a sandbox (which they so desperately want) with full loot pvp*gasp*, and they will avoid it like the plague.

You sir are why we will not see many more sandbox games.  You want a game uber talored to your specific template of what a sandbox should include, despite while you may whave thought this over a bit, a development company has researd greatly into.  Full loot Pvp is necessary for games like DF and MO, yet you rule them out without even trying based on your pre-concieved notion of what a full loot pvp game is.

Im playing DF right now, the full loot pvp is not what you think because loot and gear doesnt work like it does in wow, get it?

So sir, please get out of the sandbox discussion, go back to your mmorpg "safe zone" whatever game that may be. Leave the new ideas and new gaming concepts for those who are not afraid to step outside of their gaming comfort zone.

You really think full loot pvp included wow style gear that is uber rare and lasts forever?

Oh and this and my previous post are not forum rage, sorry if my strong language and unapologetic approach has caused you to step outside your forum comfort zone....seems to be an issue with people these days, unwilling to even take a peek at something out side their safety-zone worldview (on any subject).

Enjoy your year 2000 style themepark.  Its whats for dinner for the next 10 years as well, it seems.

Full loot Pvp is necessary for games like DF and MO, yet you rule them out without even trying based on your pre-concieved notion of what a full loot pvp game is.

DF and MO are in a different subset of sandboxes from the ones I'm looking for, based on a completely different model of roleplaying.  I saw the Lord of the Flies atmosphere that pre-Tram UO degenerated into - I don't need to ever see it again.

Originally posted by maplestone

Full loot Pvp is necessary for games like DF and MO, yet you rule them out without even trying based on your pre-concieved notion of what a full loot pvp game is.

DF and MO are based on a completely different concept of what a sandbox is, about what roleplaying is about.  I saw the Lord of the Flies atmosphere that pre-Tram UO degenerated into - I don't need to ever see it again.

You should have qualified that sentence with "a completely different concept of what I THINK a sandbox is, about what I THINK roleplaying is about. The term "sandbox" isn't neatly defined. Hence the countless threads here on the topic.

Originally posted by crunchyblack

Ahh yes, the picky gamer.   Will subscribe to a themepark on the fly, but offer a sandbox (which they so desperately want) with full loot pvp*gasp*, and they will avoid it like the plague.

You sir are why we will not see many more sandbox games.  You want a game uber talored to your specific template of what a sandbox should include, despite while you may whave thought this over a bit, a development company has researd greatly into.  Full loot Pvp is necessary for games like DF and MO, yet you rule them out without even trying based on your pre-concieved notion of what a full loot pvp game is.

Im playing DF right now, the full loot pvp is not what you think because loot and gear doesnt work like it does in wow, get it?

So sir, please get out of the sandbox discussion, go back to your mmorpg "safe zone" whatever game that may be. Leave the new ideas and new gaming concepts for those who are not afraid to step outside of their gaming comfort zone.

You really think full loot pvp included wow style gear that is uber rare and lasts forever?

Oh and this and my previous post are not forum rage, sorry if my strong language and unapologetic approach has caused you to step outside your forum comfort zone....seems to be an issue with people these days, unwilling to even take a peek at something out side their safety-zone worldview (on any subject).

Enjoy your year 2000 style themepark.  Its whats for dinner for the next 10 years as well, it seems.

I am picky too and the reason I don't play DF is because it is badly coded. The only AAA sandbox game out there now is Eve and I myself isn't so much into spaceships. That is the reason I am waiting for World of darkness online, a gothic horror sandbox by someone competent..

Full loot or no full loot, indie games like DF and MO are just not well enough made even if they have many great ideas (and some less great).

And you can't predict the future the next 10 year, 10 years ago from now people where arguing if EQ or UO would rule and which mechanics that we would see more off... For all we know, World of darkness online or Elder scrolls online could be the next huge game, both of them are popular IP made by competent programmers.

I also have to admit that I am interested to see what Zombie labs will do, they seems to be working on something that is very different from all other kinds of MMOs. Maybe next 10 years will be for consoles, it is hard to tell.

Originally posted by Nizur

You should have qualified that sentence with "a completely different concept of what I THINK a sandbox is, about what I THINK roleplaying is about. The term "sandbox" isn't neatly defined. Hence the countless threads here on the topic.

My wording was less than ideal.   I actually had "I think" in a longer first draft but removed it because it sounded like it implies that we now have to have an argument over who gets to write the dictionary ... I'd like to believe that we can talk about "PvP sandboxes" and "non-PvP sandboxes" as subsets of a larger concept of "sandbox" games that focus on the world rather than a story arc ... but it does seem that whenever we try to get together we do end up tearing at each other like wild animals tied up in a sack :(