| 203 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
9/28/10 8:35:43 AM#121
Originally posted by whilan
Your post holds well against today's sandbox attempts....but it does not hold up against games like UO in it's golden era. The world is never dead...you couldn't move 2 screens without seeing random animals or random orc camp spawns etc. Since there was no automatic fast-travel aside from marking your own runes, you had to know where you are...and navigating became fun. Most of the NPCs where in town, yes. But there were wandering healers and other NPCs from time to time that wandered for different reasons. More importantly in regards to story:
You do not have to make up your own stories in a really good sandbox game! Why? Because what actually happened is the story! What happened at your log cabin that night when you were logged into your tailor holding a candle and just chilling and making clothes when you witnessed your neighbor trying to trap in people and murder them inside their house. Then, you grabbed your fighter and went out to challenge him and had a battle for the ages on your front lawn! Or hell, maybe even on your blacksmith you made a huge profit in-town selling one day. That's enough on it's own for a story. UO (or even other sandboxes like SWG) were about what actually happened...not pretending you were the hero of the world. Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you. |
|
|
9/28/10 8:57:52 AM#122
Originally posted by Rockgod99
Yes they would. Blizzard did create WoW after all, with was a ninche market when they decided to create the game. It's called taking risks, shamefully in the current climate you will not see it as much, but that is what blizzard did. They would have been a lot saver creating a new diablo or Starcraft as they know this would be profitable. Also a ninche like the sandbox crowd might be a risk worth taking. It is not just about the amount of subscribers, but also about the competition you would have. If a company would pump million into a sandbox project they might actually get more subscribers then they would have gotten if they developed a mainsteam game. |
|
|
The genre certainly wasn't niche back before wow. UO, Eq, Daoc and Swg had quite a few subs. Wow is a freak of nature. If you look at pre wows average sub numbers and post wows sub numbers for the genre it's exactly the same floating around 150k subs. Niche is a game like ryzom that struggles with 3k to 5k subs of DFO with 10k. The genre as a whole wasn't niche then. Blizzard took what was popular (eq,daoc) and just improved on it. Sandbox games arent popular so that won't happen like it did with themeparks. You have a better chance of hell freezing over than someone like Blizzard making a sandbox mmo.
|
|
|
9/28/10 9:49:42 AM#124
Originally posted by Rockgod99 SWG wasn't sandbox at release? Ultima Online isn't a sandbox? You can't get much bigger or "NON-indy" than SoE and EA.
I agree with caalem. The vast majority of sandbox MMOs are released way too early and fail to deliver on the features that their fans were expecting to be present at release. Although you could make the same statement about non-sandbox MMOs as well. It's a problem with MMOs in general, not just sandbox MMOs... they are released before they should be. They always take more money and more time than the Devs. anticipate. Hence the early release... there seem to be few exceptions.
These are dead... Roma Victor (soon to be shut down) Shadowbane Dark and Light SWG (Original)
These are still kicking... and perhaps will succeed, time will tell. DarkFall Mortal Online Saga of Ryzom Wurm Online Istaria/Horizons (I think this game is still alive...)
These are the successes of the Sandbox MMO genre. Ultima Online EvE Second Life Runescape
These are "hybrid" MMOs, but have sandbox qualitites. Asheron's Call Fallen Earth SWG (current)
(And yes... the above are in my opinion). |
|
|
Ultima Online was created by Origin Systems and Swg by Verant Interactive both were Indy development houses. Origin was acquired by EA later on and SoE only published Swg at first before fully taking over and destroying that game.
Funny how both games were virtually stripped of what they originally were once EA and SoE took over. Again we have never had a AAA sandbox and never will
|
|
|
9/28/10 10:10:48 AM#126
I'd like to interject a bit of thought.
Sandboxy games, games that are more player-centric in entertainment, lets say a more player-centric ecosystem throughout much of the game and game-mechanics, are less appealing to a majority.
A more sandboxy world is one in which the players are the center of construction, interaction, character growth, social interaction towards community reliance, massively-multiplayer emphasis as opposed to solo-emphasis.
As with most AAA successful titles, most people want to punch a time-clock, want to be handed a competitive advantage rather than earn it. Most people will rather accept entitlements within a relaxing and safe environment, rather than accomplish events, tasks, challenges, without having to encounter the unexpected dynamic opposing player as an obsticle or potential competitor.
Most players in the mmorpg genre are not that competitive, and understand that they would prefer the welfare of a game that provides for them in-game with as little effort or mental acuity as possible. These folks prefer brief and predictable player encounters in short sperts, within tightly scripted and caged environments that have little to no effect on their npc-centric game-play world.
I use the word sandboxy as opposed to sandbox. A tale in the desert is more of a sandbox, EVE is more sandboxy, and World of Warcraft is more themepark.
Funny how EVE, as a sandboxy game, is either as or more successful than other supposed AAA mmorpgs, other than WoW and Aion. However, there are way more themepark-aligned mmorpgs for masses to distribute themselves across than sandboxy games also. Striving for Silver Stars since Gold is so effeminate. |
|
|
9/28/10 10:22:36 AM#127
Originally posted by Rockgod99 Ultima Online (UO)... released on September 24, 1997 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online
In September 1992, Electronic Arts acquired the company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_Systems
Not exactly what you would call "acquired by EA later on"
Also Verant had EverQuest under their belt as a previous MMO... I think most of us have heard of the little MMO called EverQuest. Actually LucasArts was the publisher for SWG... not SoE. http://www.lucasarts.com/company/release/news20000316.html
Read the above News Release from 2000 about SWG. It's pretty tough to sell that as an "Indy" development.
These links are another good refresher for reference when the Release of SWG was formally announced: http://www.lucasarts.com/company/release/news20021220.html http://www.lucasarts.com/company/release/news20030411.html
Notice that even before Release that Verant had been acquired/folded into SoE. Again, if you believe that SWG was a sandbox game at Release... you have to admit it was Developed/Produced by AAA organizations. It had funding galore... it had the premiere development/production houses at the time. You are correct though... SoE did kill it with the CU/NGE. |
|
|
9/28/10 10:29:17 AM#128
Originally posted by bunnyhopper I would say potential is important so I highly agree with you. I get the sense though that when I see people say "the masses need hand holding and they are unimaginative" that these people are implying that they are dullards. And as you say, and I agree, they are not. You are also correct that they are not as adventurous but that isn't a bad thing. How many of us have made an attempt to climb mt. everest? Or even climb a mountain? I think everyone has their own threshold for adventure and this is just how they are built. This is not a bad or good thing it "just is". The thing is not everyone is interested in potential. There are people who are very fine with what they know. Or they know what they like and if they don't like sandbox games then nothing is going to make them learn to love them. oh sure, some might discover them but I believe that people like "games" in general but are only willing to spend so much time and effort with them. |
|
|
9/28/10 10:30:35 AM#129
Originally posted by xzyax Origin Systems was a indie development house? LOL That part made me laugh ALOT Origin Systems was founded by some vets of a gaming industry. Both Robert and Richard had been creating / working on RPGs long before being a founding member of Origin Systems. That alone pushs the studio above a indie status. |
|
|
9/28/10 10:40:37 AM#130
Originally posted by Thomas2006 Yeah, a bit of revisionist history going on for those two MMOs.
It'll be interesting to see the take after I've provided some more links with my edit in the above post. UO and SWG were developed and produced by the biggest players in the MMO universe at the time. To try and say they were "indy" is at best naive. |
|
|
9/28/10 10:51:58 AM#131
Originally posted by Rockgod99 I am late to this party but I needed to reply to the OP. Because you are wrong, in an sandbox you CAN be a hero, and know full well that you are actually doing things everyone else in unable to do. In UO I had the highest bounty on Pacific for a while. I could run on the screen an literally 10 people would run away instead of band up and attack me. Would this every happen in a theme park game? No. You can stand out complely and be a hero or villan in a sandbox game, its just much harder. But, I agree with you there will probably never be a AAA sandbox game released.
|
|
|
9/28/10 10:52:19 AM#132
Originally posted by Rockgod99 That's a big bit of it. Also, methinx, dev companies are a bit sheepish about creating a world where a big enough team of d-bag players can ruin the experiences of everyone else... aka "putting your work and livlihood largely in the hands of the community". Not to say you can't be successful doing this, but control is a big issue, here. People want their work, their efforts, and their direction to determine the success or failure of their product. There's just TONS of wisdom in avoiding sandboxy game design. Sad, but true. |
|
|
All AAA means is money. Financal backing in surplus so someone could refine and polish their vision. Both Swg and UO were without that at first. Later on either through acquisition or a much more powerful studio stepped in both games while lead by extremely talented developers very much had a Indy way of doing things. Baiscally making a game for the love of it and not just changing their vision on a dime for more cash like AAAs do.
|
|
Originally posted by EndDreamOriginally posted by Rockgod99 No you weren't you were meaningless. Did the game support you as a hero? Was a story built around you? No. You were just a tricked out uncle Owen meaning very little when it comes to the overall game. Sorry. |
|
|
9/28/10 11:07:51 AM#135
Sandbox'y' games are as appealing for the reasons others have stated far more eloquently than I would have. Players enforcing rules backed up by the games engine is the only true defintion. I much more prefer these games as generally you will find a more intelligent and less "me" style player in it. Griefers and the like do flock there but generally hold no lands or establish any real power. Establishing player enforced rules/concepts ensures that like minded people will group together. My single largest complaint with these style of games (EVE, DF, apparently MO) is that they do require a large amount of time and can literally become second jobs for people. Themepark style games don't require this from what I've seen, for example one of my first MMO's ,CoH you could log in, group up and start figting within 2-3 mins of logging in to a server. I would imagine most themepark games are this way. These style of games promote solo play with little grouping. I now play FPS games for this. The reason why sandbox players are a "niche" group of players is because most are older. Older meaning over 30 or so, when you have a mortage, kids, spouses and other responsibilities that preclude you from spending 3-4 hours a night playing. However older gamers have more disposable income and we support indie developers with our wallets and not just with our mouths. I would imagine this cycle will continue to repeat itself when all the runescape/WoW kids graduate school and want a game that is less restrictive. Playing: BF3, Prototype and Skyrim |
|
|
9/28/10 11:16:09 AM#136
Originally posted by Rockgod99 Heh... that's quite a bit different from your first statement.
I'll still stick by my original statements. UO and SWG had the backing of the biggest names in MMO gaming at the time they were developed and released.
UO and it's developers were some of the biggest names in the industry and were backed by EA fully 5 years before the game was released.
SWG and it's developers were the king of the hill when it was being developed. They were the people behind the hugely successful EverQuest. They were backed and eventually purchased by SoE. They were produced by LucasArts. All of which were the biggest names available at the time.
To try and use revisionist history now and say that those two games were "indy" or didn't have the money needed to make them AAA games... heh, o.k. I was there, I know better. |
|
|
I was there also and watch as both games changed for the worst because of AAA greed. That doesn't matter because it's 2010 and today noone is making a sandbox that's even close to being AAA (backed) developer. It's all Indy created and requires investment by it's playerbase so that the game can become good over time. Problem is today's community doesn't get that. They wish and hope for a Blizzard or Turbine sandbox lol. Sorry folks... Back those Indy developers through the first rough couple of years and you may get the next Eve. Don't expect the big boys to give you one. Won't happen because the masses don't want it.
|
|
|
9/28/10 11:34:53 AM#138
Originally posted by Rockgod99 it seems in many industries (although not all) the larger the company is, the poorer the quality.
Classic case in point the ISP that Darkfall uses got bought out by a larger company, now we have had performance issues that AV has had to work with the new ISP over. Basically we had a drop in performance becuae a larger company bought the ISP, not becuase of anything AV did, other than sign the contract I suppose. does your game have rainbow sprinkles and magic ponies!? |
|
|
9/28/10 11:39:32 AM#139
Sandbox games don't appeal to the masses because they require far too much time and patience to accomplish anything truly meaningful. Most gamers cannot afford to dedicate themselves to a video game and essentially adopt a second job just so they can be successful at it. Because there are far more freedoms and consequences in a sandbox game, everything takes much longer to do and can become overly tedious to most gamers. In my opinion, there are fundamental flaws to the defining characteristics of sandbox games that doom them to never reach mainstream. 1 - Sandbox games provide almost no direction to the player. Most gamers log into this type of game and wander around aimlessly for a while trying to find something to do. These games requires too much time and study before one can really get into the most enjoyable activities they provide. Most casual gamers will not stick around long enough to fully figure out the game. 2 - Almost entirely player-driven economy. Player-run economies require lots of crafting and resource harvesting to be effective. I would say the majority of gamers find these processes to be very tedious and overly time-consuming. 3 - Grind is severe and is poorly masked. In most sandbox games, the grind can be quite severe (compared to many themepark games). Furthermore, because there is usually VERY little content built-into the game, there is nothing to mask the grind for players. Back in the day, this wasn't a problem because no one had played MMOs before and the entire concept of grind was new. Nowadays people are bored to tears with traditional MMO grinds and only those who are capable of doing the same thing over and over and over again without getting bored can survive them. I realize there are some exceptions to this, but I would say most sandbox games have very little content to disguise their grinds. 4 - Skill-based character progression. As much as I have enjoyed them in the past, skill-based progression systems are far too imbalanced and exploitable. They usually lead to one alpha spec ruling the roost and every competitive PvP player attempting to adopt the same spec. The developers are then forced to nerf that spec and everyone moves to whatever is the new hottest thing. Class-based systems do not have this flaw because fully defined classes can be fine-tuned against each other to make sure that everyone has a more enjoyable experience. Skill-bases systems also often lead to macroing and other exploits as people try to find ANY shortcut possible to reduct the grind (see point 3). 5 - Tough consequences for death (you will often lose everything). While I personally love tough death penalties, the majority of gamers don't. They find it extremely frustrating to lose all of their gear (or their ship) and they get discouraged. After all, they already have to deal with the the massive un-disquised grind and the tedious player economy... who can blame them? 6 - Heavy focus on PvP (often non-consensual). Again, this is something I personally love, but many do not. In fact, if you look at the most popular games and the numbers of players who play on PvE vs PvP servers, it is pretty obvious that the majority of MMO gamers don't want unconsentual PvP. Also, let's face it, when you give someone the tools to be a complete asshat on the internet, they invariably will. It leads to a bunch of highly-skilled mass murderers ruining the game for everyone else. Its no surprise that most people don't want to play a game like that. It takes a special breed to be able to survive a gaming environment that harsh. 7 - Player housing. This is another feature I love in sandbox games. Unfortunately, it often results in the game map being totally covered in houses at the expense of interesting content and encounters. This was a major problem for me in both UO and SWG, but I know some newer games are handling it a bit differently for this exact reason. Now before I get flamed, I would like to note that everything I listed above are features many people consider to be the best parts of these types of games. I agree for the most part. The fact is, however, the majority does not. Games that employ these mechanics are just too tedious to capture widespread appeal. |
|
|
9/28/10 11:40:19 AM#140
Originally posted by Rockgod99 And that is a valid opinion.
What I was exposing were these quotes: "we have never had a AAA sandbox and never will". http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3822723#3822723
"That's the end result of no AAA developer making a sandbox." http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3825523#3825523
Those are dishonest statements. When you try to use revisionist history to present a statement as fact... well, here we are. UO and SWG were AAA sandbox titles when they were released. I've shown links that I believe prove that to be true. Sure, a person can disregard the fact that EA owned UO fully 5 years before it was released, or that SWG was announced from the seemingly sure-fire trilogy of LucasArts, SoE, and Verant that many predicted to make success guaranteed.
So when you use statements like the above... expect to get called on it. |
|
