Originally posted by Anubisan

 

<snipped> 

Read above... Good stuff!!! 

 <snipped>

Well said, Anubisan.

 I think you hit it pretty much on the head on why Sandbox MMOs have lower populations than non-Sandbox MMOs.

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by Rockgod99
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.

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. 

Originally posted by Rockgod99

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by Rockgod99
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.

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. 

Bro... Who gives a shit? Did you just win the Internet? What does any of that have to do with why the masses won't play sandbox games? Stick to the op brother and stop nitpicking to make yourself feel special.

 

No need to resort to personal attacks.  If you don't like people critiquing your opinions or calling you out when you are not telling the truth... you probably should avoid posting in the first place.  

Ya know, I still don't get it why everyone still thinks in absolutes. There are sandbox games or theme parks games, end of story?

Sorry, I just can't follow that thinking. A pure sandbox without quests and story would be a tiny niche game without doubt. I donb't want that. But a total theme park where I am always confined to some rollercoaster experience is too narrow and not what I would want, either.

I want my ideal MMO to have both, rich story, cool questlines AND open world, free roaming, sandbox elements. Why does it have to be only one of them??

Actually verant was never not owned by SOE.  It was always a subsidiary, never an independent company.  For awhile at the start of EQ there were allowed to do their own thing but then SOE brought them back into the fold, there was no a buy at at all.  SOE alwasy owned Verant, SWG was alway back by SOE and Lucasarts.

There was nothing indie about either of them.

Venge Sunsoar

edit: apparently I can't spell

Sanboxes has gotten a bad rep through many bad launches and that´s certainly not anything that brings the masses. Yes it´s mostly indie developers that makes sandboxes, but what I can´t quite wrap my head around is why they do it the way they do.

Indie developers usually try to bring good graphics and a big world in their sandboxes, MO,DF, FE. I do feel if they would put a "smaller slice" of the game up and charge a small amount (5$ a month maybe) and then they build on that, adding more content as they go. In the end when they feel the game is upto standards up the sub to 15$.

No idea if people would grab this but it would be a more resonable deal then charging full AAA box price and monthly sub. I understand your a small developer and need the money but that´s only because you thought you had as much money and know how as the big guys why should we pay for you falling short and thinking too big?

I have played good sandboxes and bad.   And I am a fan of sandbox MMOs.   But I dont consider games like APB or PotBS sandboxes.   But games like Roma Victor, Mortal Online, Ultima Online, Second Life, and dozens of others are sandboxes.   Some are more true sandboxes than others.   

But I enjoy having the option of being a nobody, just a farmer, or a toolsmith, or a brick masson.   Sometimes I want to do something in a game that doesnt require me to be the greatest or the quickest.    This is what the draw of a sandbox is.   That and if you DO become somebody of note, then you truely earned it.   Not because you had the best macro grind program in history and cleared a level 80 dungeoun with a level 60 toon.   

And the OP is right, Sandbox games will never appeal to everyone.   But the same goes for games like WoW, or N4SOL, and Eve.   They are all great games in their own right, but not for everyone.    Most developers know when they make a sandbox game, it will not be for everyone.   The smart developers stick to this and just work towards the original goal.   The lesser willed ones dont, and fail.  

Originally posted by Hodo

I have played good sandboxes and bad.   And I am a fan of sandbox MMOs.   But I dont consider games like APB or PotBS sandboxes.   But games like Roma Victor, Mortal Online, Ultima Online, Second Life, and dozens of others are sandboxes.   Some are more true sandboxes than others.   

 

But I enjoy having the option of being a nobody, just a farmer, or a toolsmith, or a brick masson.   Sometimes I want to do something in a game that doesnt require me to be the greatest or the quickest.    This is what the draw of a sandbox is.   That and if you DO become somebody of note, then you truely earned it.   Not because you had the best macro grind program in history and cleared a level 80 dungeoun with a level 60 toon.   

 

And the OP is right, Sandbox games will never appeal to everyone.   But the same goes for games like WoW, or N4SOL, and Eve.   They are all great games in their own right, but not for everyone.    Most developers know when they make a sandbox game, it will not be for everyone.   The smart developers stick to this and just work towards the original goal.   The lesser willed ones dont, and fail.  

Surprise, a statement from a Sandbox fan that I can agree with. I find sandboxes very boring. Honestly, so do most of my friends. Now, I also understand that sandbox games have their fans. CCP (the Eve people) have done a good job making a game for Sandbox fans. Now, I would not expect their next game to be any different. World of Darkness will most likely be a sandbox game as well. I see no reason why a successful company should change their style. This is fine.

I do get annoyed at some whiny sandbox fans who believe every game should be made for them (see trolls in SWToR forums). Different companies produce different games for different types of people.  

Originally posted by Rockgod99
I know this is obvious to most of us old timers but I figured i'd dash the dreams of the newbies that think a AAA sandbox will ever release. People want to be a hero in a mmorpg, in a sandbox your this insignificant little nothing skilling up to be a even better nothing. Kind of like real life. Not many will pay for that type of simulation... Now you know.

Pretty ignorant post OP. Why wouldn't you feel like a hero in a sandbox game? You really think that it makes you feel more heroic to do the same things as hundreds of others are doing? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I consider the sandboxes like Darkfall and EVE AAA games when it comes down to how much fun I have. I don't care if you like it or not (unless the population dies) and most themepark games are so incredibly boring to me because they are trying to make me feel like I am a hero from some pretend story that was setup for me. I will only feel like a hero by winning others and taking on some hard challenges and being remembered by other real people as a legend (not NPCs, who gives a fuck what they think?). You call Darkfall shit but it is a great game (much better than all of the games that you have played imo) and it keeps getting better. It seems to have a lot of love from the DEVs like EVE had and they listen to what the people want and continously make it funner. Check back with Darkfall in a couple years and you may be pleasantly surprised or in the next couple weeks or months. I want to be a hero in other peoples eyes, not some NPCs (I do play MMOs afterall). Being a hero is just one of the many things that I work towards when playing a sandbox game and I think they are a lot funner with a lot more to do.

"In a sandbox your this insignificant little nothing skilling up to be a even better nothing." This is exactly how themepark games make me feel. The more sandbox the game is, the more I will get into my character and feel like a hero. I mean seriously, do you think that it is more epic to beat the legendary PVPer at his own game than it is to beat some mob boss in some crap game while others are doing the exact same thing as you in other instances at the same time? I really don't get how that could make anyone feel like a hero . ..

You are correct though in some ways of looking at it because most people dont want to compete with others nearly as much as I do. If some NPCs tell me that I am a hero I won't believe it though until other real life people do. I think that it is really sad that there is not more freindly competition found in MMOs. You get a lot of 'your a noob haha' or 'you fail at life' attitudes that chase people away in PVP games. My GF plays games with me and loves the sandbox the best even though she is not a PVPer and not competitive at all and I think it is mostly because she hates being told what to do or having to play a role like a tank or healer or something else that you are stuck with playing in other games. For us, Darkfall is AAA and we love the game to death and cannot see ourselves stopping for any other game. We feel like badass heroes whenever we log in . .. to each their own I guess?

The real reason that it doesnt appeal to the masses is this:

You've got your leaders and followers . .. people who get excited about opportunities or people who get scared away from them or do not see any point in them unless someone leads them in a direction.

For example, if someone logs into a game without an auction house and they either

a) Whine about not having an auction house and wonder how any game could be so much fail to not have something as simply as an auction house and are angry about having to work harder to trade.

b) Get excited that this means buying stuff in the market will feel more like it does in real life where you could end up getting robbed, have to travel to the seller and haggle with them, or see other opportunities from using their noggin how to benefit from this.

Most "sandbox" games have been skill based.

UO

Ryzom

SWG

EvE

All of them except for EvE have been essentially impossible to balance.  The only reason EvE is able to balanced is because of they way they do ships rather than skills as your main method of balancing.

Those of you arguing about AAA games and the quality of sandbox games need to be exploring the implications of Free-form build system NOT money.

The reason no one makes a UO or an SWG is because the developers realize they have absolutely no idea how to balance that system in a rigorous manner.

Some people will say its fine to have gimp builds.  But the fact is the gimp vs cookie cutter dynamic of UO or SWG is something that seriously affects people perception of the overall quality of the design.

Many games have opted for the DIKU style of game, by copying EQ (which copied DIKU).  They have opted for this because it is obvious and able to be decontrcuted sysemtatically for the purposes of balancing things.  Both balancing classes with each other and perhaps more importantly balancing players versus content.  This is why DIKU were the most popular MUDs and why EQ style MMO are the most common MMOs.

Personally I dislike how DIKU games map everything out for you.  This includes EQ.  I disilike how you know exactly whether you match up to the mob.  In the MUD I used to play you had to figure it all out yourself.  When new content was released you had to be prepared to run at a moments notice because you had no frigging idea what a developer might pull with a mob, even if it was relatively low hp it might have some crazy special attack.

I have found that decidedly lacking in MMOs and this is mostly because they feel like they have to tell the player whether the content is "balanced" for them.  Sandbox games are notoriously hard to do this in much of a consistent manner.  Even the newer sandbox or skill based games have attempted or very much enforce an idea of levels so that they may do this.

But even with a game like Asheron's Call two characters of the same level may be radically different in how effective they are.

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

The distinction is accessibility. A game that starts easy is accessible, even if it ends hard. But knowing this doesn't exactly give us any revolutionary insight. To truly understand casual, we must first dig deep into specifically what makes a game inaccessible -- what makes it hardcore.

Six things that make a game hardcore:

1. Difficult controls
2. Overwhelming options
3. Prerequisite knowledge
4. Abstract memorization
5. Unclear goals
6. Unclear solutions

Six things that do not make a game hardcore:

1. Challenge
2. Trial and Error
3. Strategy
4. Theme
5. Repetition
6. Depth / Graduated objectives

Funny, but Second Life actually qualifies as Hardcore under these circumstances.  The only thing I'd ever thought was hardcore about SL was what happened behind opaque prims on private islands.  It's not really a game though so it's not all that applicable.

Originally posted by Unlight

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

The distinction is accessibility. A game that starts easy is accessible, even if it ends hard. But knowing this doesn't exactly give us any revolutionary insight. To truly understand casual, we must first dig deep into specifically what makes a game inaccessible -- what makes it hardcore.

Six things that make a game hardcore:

1. Difficult controls
2. Overwhelming options
3. Prerequisite knowledge
4. Abstract memorization
5. Unclear goals
6. Unclear solutions

Six things that do not make a game hardcore:

1. Challenge
2. Trial and Error
3. Strategy
4. Theme
5. Repetition
6. Depth / Graduated objectives

Funny, but Second Life actually qualifies as Hardcore under these circumstances.  The only thing I'd ever thought was hardcore about SL was what happened behind opaque prims on private islands.  It's not really a game though so it's not all that applicable.

Hardcore people use DOS or unix shell command lines.

Casuals use GUI interfaces like Windows or Gnome or Mac crap.

If you don't know shell scrupting you are just a lazy bitch.

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by Unlight

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

The distinction is accessibility. A game that starts easy is accessible, even if it ends hard. But knowing this doesn't exactly give us any revolutionary insight. To truly understand casual, we must first dig deep into specifically what makes a game inaccessible -- what makes it hardcore.

Six things that make a game hardcore:

1. Difficult controls
2. Overwhelming options
3. Prerequisite knowledge
4. Abstract memorization
5. Unclear goals
6. Unclear solutions

Six things that do not make a game hardcore:

1. Challenge
2. Trial and Error
3. Strategy
4. Theme
5. Repetition
6. Depth / Graduated objectives

Funny, but Second Life actually qualifies as Hardcore under these circumstances.  The only thing I'd ever thought was hardcore about SL was what happened behind opaque prims on private islands.  It's not really a game though so it's not all that applicable.

Hardcore people use DOS or unix shell command lines.

 

Casuals use GUI interfaces like Windows or Gnome or Mac crap.

 

If you don't know shell scrupting you are just a lazy bitch.

LOL

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Originally posted by Sovrath

-snip-

...

People keep forgetting (or are unwilling to admit it) that we are wired differently.

It has nothing to do with being told what to do. It has everything to do with a conscious choice of how one wants to spend their time.

People who are invested in forging a world are the prime audience for a sandbox. These are the people who are very much engaged in the social part of the game and the player interactions. People who want to do quests and engage in pre-made content are there for entertainment.

And they are both very differnet experiences.

Well said, but would you translate that into being "there is a larger market of people who are casual compared to hardcore"?

It is more than possible that there are more casual players than hard core players.

The problem with "gamers" (or any demographic of people who have something they are passionate about) is that they tend to see the world solely through their eyes.

that's why I keep seeing the "people are unimaginiative and have to have their hands held".

 

It's essentially Plato's "Philosopher Priests". The argument being that only the Philosophers are enlightented enough to govern and everyone else should just stay in their own caste and not worry about higher thinking.

So essentially we have a self proclaimed group of people who "know better".

People have imaginations. They use their imaginations all the time. Whether it's to fantasize about that person they see on the bus or to take them away from their dull dreary job while imagining having won the lottery.

but not every person wants to dress up as cos-play or sit down in front of a computer and play video games or spend time wandering and crafting and spending effort making and trading things and fighting over imaginary territory.

That's why my friend felt that SWG was like a second job. He was playing the sandbox. He was playing it how one plays sandboxes as he was a crafter in demand and was keeping track of orders and making things for people, figuring out the market, etc. Then he realized that with the effort he was putting into the game he could just as well make his own business and make REAL money.

He's not interested in doing that but that was his thought. So he discovered everquest and that game was more to his liking.

People have to realize that setting someone in front of a computer and telling them they can do whatever they want is not necessarily great game play.

Why?

Because they have to "want" to be a crafter/explorer/politician/entertainer/warrior etc at the outset. And saying to someone that they are going to spend their time "living" in this world feels flat to me because if they are not driven to "live" in an imaginary world all it is going to be is drudgery.

Games with quests give people a spine to which they can afix their entertainment. Games that make you seek out an existence are games where people have to WANT to seek out that existence. And that goes back to my original statement that people are wired differently and that it's a hard sell to convince someone that existing in an "imaginary" world and figuring things out on your own is fun.

Some people like to, in real life, be adventurers and go out into the bush and live off the land. and some people just want to learn about the bush from their guided tour.

Has nothign to do with the quality of the person and everything to do with how they like to experience things.

Though I wonder if our hardcore sandbox people would be out in the jungle or bush or "wherever" and living off of the land or if they tend to hike in the national parks.

And what they would say if one of these world traveler adventureres said that they weren't really experiencing nature and that they were playing it safe.

I think this highlights the huge potential mmorpgs have that seems untapped, because of market conditions/tastes.

What would be interesting is if one of the great mmo themeparks of today, was rebuilt to be the great mmo sandbox of tomorrow.

Did my 3 weeks hiking over mountains, forests etc and camping & cooking etc and travelling over 00's of kms, not in an mmo but in June, outdoors. Makes you enjoy mmos that much more!

Btw: OP one of the best threads I've read for a while!

I don't know why people in general seem not to like sandbox games rather only why I don't.

I don't think the difference between a sandbox player and a themepark player is that sandboxers are intelligent creative types that love freedom and themepark players are ignorant sheep that need to be told what to do.  I mean really if anything screams I am a egotistical douche it is statements like that.

See I judge a game based on two things, emotional response and more objective criteria, like a film critic almost.  So when I play a game I look at things like how exciting, scary or beautiful is it? But I also look at stuff like possible meanings and how that is conveyed in the game, how do characters and levels and such develope and what that might convey.  A game can be interesting if it only has one, but I think you really need a game to be both emotionally and intellectually stimulating to be really good.

Now of the sandbox MMOs I have played, and I have played a lot, none I have found to be very good, the reason I think is that they are not emotionally nor intellectually stimulating.  An example of a game (not an MMO I know) that I think is both emotionallly and intellectually stimulating is Bioshock, it is beautifully, kind of scary at times and exciting at others, and it has all this symbolism and this intricate story to chew on the whole time, a great game with a great story and equally great game play. 

Sandbox games though don't have either, I play them and I feel like the developers didn't but much attention into these aspects of the game.  Ultimately I think games are art, you can have high art or low art, abstract or realism, but they are art.  Even if a game approaches a subject with all the merrit of a hamhanded action movie, it is still art just not very good, and you can even like it in a "it is so bad it is good" kind of way.  Artistically I can't figure out what sandbox games are suppose to be about, they seem to be more simulations, like a social experiment, rather than a game or indeed art.  It is the highly open ended nature that kills this aspect of the game I think, developers need a certain amount of control if they hope to try and add depth in terms of art to a game.  Sandoxes conversely seem to be heavily reliant on systems and go into a lot of depth with those systems, which I guess is a math majors wet dream but not something I find intellectually or emotionally satisfying because I don't much care about economic simulation or whatever.  Sandbox games seem to be for big science or math nerds, or programmers themselves, where as I am more of a philosophy and art nerd.  This is why I have come to belive that different people just want flatout different things from a game, sandbox players seem to want a hobby something to indulge their interest, I am looking for an experience that hopefully has some artistic merrit to it.

Granted I am not saying that themepark games are delivering these really great works of art, there is nothing like Bioshock out there and certainly nothing that is the Godfather of games, much less MMOs, but they try.  That is why I like WoW so much it doesn't have the highest artistic merrits but it has some, and good gameplay to boot, pretty much better than the other MMOs I have played, and this makes me think that eventually MMOs will get really great.  It is the "themepark" format that I think has more potential to deliver the type of game I am really looking for rather than the sandbox format.

Originally posted by Cactus-Man

I don't know why people in general seem not to like sandbox games rather only why I don't.

I don't think the difference between a sandbox player and a themepark player is that sandboxers are intelligent creative types that love freedom and themepark players are ignorant sheep that need to be told what to do.  I mean really if anything screams I am a egotistical douche it is statements like that.

See I judge a game based on two things, emotional response and more objective criteria, like a film critic almost.  So when I play a game I look at things like how exciting, scary or beautiful is it? But I also look at stuff like possible meanings and how that is conveyed in the game, how do characters and levels and such develope and what that might convey.  A game can be interesting if it only has one, but I think you really need a game to be both emotionally and intellectually stimulating to be really good.

Now of the sandbox MMOs I have played, and I have played a lot, none I have found to be very good, the reason I think is that they are not emotionally nor intellectually stimulating.  An example of a game (not an MMO I know) that I think is both emotionallly and intellectually stimulating is Bioshock, it is beautifully, kind of scary at times and exciting at others, and it has all this symbolism and this intricate story to chew on the whole time, a great game with a great story and equally great game play. 

Sandbox games though don't have either, I play them and I feel like the developers didn't but much attention into these aspects of the game.  Ultimately I think games are art, you can have high art or low art, abstract or realism, but they are art.  Even if a game approaches a subject with all the merrit of a hamhanded action movie, it is still art just not very good, and you can even like it in a "it is so bad it is good" kind of way.  Artistically I can't figure out what sandbox games are suppose to be about, they seem to be more simulations, like a social experiment, rather than a game or indeed art.  It is the highly open ended nature that kills this aspect of the game I think, developers need a certain amount of control if they hope to try and add depth in terms of art to a game.  Sandoxes conversely seem to be heavily reliant on systems and go into a lot of depth with those systems, which I guess is a math majors wet dream but not something I find intellectually or emotionally satisfying because I don't much care about economic simulation or whatever.  Sandbox games seem to be for big science or math nerds, or programmers themselves, where as I am more of a philosophy and art nerd.  This is why I have come to belive that different people just want flatout different things from a game, sandbox players seem to want a hobby something to indulge their interest, I am looking for an experience that hopefully has some artistic merrit to it.

Granted I am not saying that themepark games are delivering these really great works of art, there is nothing like Bioshock out there and certainly nothing that is the Godfather of games, much less MMOs, but they try.  That is why I like WoW so much it doesn't have the highest artistic merrits but it has some, and good gameplay to boot, pretty much better than the other MMOs I have played, and this makes me think that eventually MMOs will get really great.  It is the "themepark" format that I think has more potential to deliver the type of game I am really looking for rather than the sandbox format.

I didn't like Bioshock. A lot of times I couldn't tell what to shoot at. The game actually hurt my eyes after awhile. The short movie clips were the best thing about it for me but I was trying to play a game, not watch a movie. I won't try WoW because I find the art too cartoony.

Sandbox games are a hell of a lot more emotional and stimulating to me. Emotional highs and lows are extreme when you can kill someone and take all of their stuff or be trade ganked by someone in an entirely player controlled economy. It feels pretty epic when you create a city with your friends and then line the ramparts with the archers as invaders come riding down the hill on hundreds on mounts to try and take it from you. They are also extremely competitive which is a lot more stimulating to me since no mob's artificial intelligence can top the challenge of another persons human intelligence and creativity.

I understand what you are saying but I think that sandbox games offer more emotions and stimulation for certain people but it is not as often and not as immediate as themepark games can be so perhaps that is the biggest difference. Themepark games are a lot more casual friendly besides the original Everquest (which felt very sandboxy without instances and a huge world to explore and a bigger sense of community).

Not saying that you are a sheep for playing those types of games (especially Guildwars since you can create your own builds that no one else uses for a feeling of being truly unique and that takes a lot of intelligence and creativity to be the one who starts trends of good builds to use) but I am saying that good leaders shine more in sandbox games. You do not have enough player freedom for leaders to shine nearly as much. There is no building empires, not as much economical opportunities, and a stronger sense of community (auction houses and LFG spammers just make me feel like another scrub thats no different than the rest and the same goes with the way they usually do instances and having to do quests to unlock content and make it to your next instance . ..), and usually required to do the same quests as everyone else and go down the same storyline to unlock more content.

I'll use AoC as an example since I recently tried to get into it again:

"Hey Legolas!"

"Sup Meatflap!!!"

"Where have you been?"

"Oh I am the sole survivor of a ship that wrecked a few hours ago . .. just got that blacksmith to break my slave chains for me."

"Weird . .."

"What?"

"Same exact thing just happened to me! I am a slave too and have this crazy tattoo I am trying to figure out . .. you should join me."

"Funny coincidence! I have a tatoo in that same spot. I wonder what it means? What are you doing now?"

"Oh I am just headed over to some chumps house to get some baddies . .. that house right over there."

"Oh I already cleared them out a couple hours ago so don't worry. Check out what he gave me for it!"

"What the hell? He just asked me to do the same thing only a few minutes ago . ..?"

"Sounds like a trap! Maybe he found out your a slave and is setting up an ambush?"

"Yeah you could be right. Let's get out of here!"

"Where should we go?"

"Whoa whatever that is over the mountain definitely looks like its worth checking out! Maybe there is some treasure or something . ..?"

"Good idea! . ..*bump* What the hell??!? There is some sort of invisible barrier blocking the way."

"What is that? Weird! Lets try some running jumps . .." *BUMP!* "Ouch!!!"

"This is no good. We are going to have to go around."

"What are you freaks doing? lol"

"Trying to get around this wall! Do you know the way?"

"Nah I am just a slave who was shipwrecked a few minutes ago . .. trying to figure out where I got this tatoo . .. what wall?"

"Umm thats a little wierd. We are too. You can't see it but its there. Some kind of creepy magic I guess? So where did your ship wreck at?"

"Right over there. There was this hot chick chained up I found right when I washed ashore. You should have seen her!!"

"Ummm yeah I saw her and freed her . .."

"So did I . .."

"She was hot! I freed her too."

*stunned silence*

"Do you guys ever get the feeling that we are like puppets dangling from strings?"

"Bah who cares? Check out those boobs!"

"Something tells me that my fate wont allow me to touch them . .. and killing those bad guys in the house is starting to sound like the only thing to do. I have a hunch that somehow they will be there again like they were before . .."

"What other choice do we have?"

"Boobs!"

Get what I mean? Poor Meatflap found out later on that his class was totally useless in PVP pretty much and felt the need to reroll but when he did he found that he had to do all of the same content over again . ... exactly the same pretty much and couldnt handle being told what to do any more. You can find Meatflap these days flying a spaceship in outerspace doing whatever the hell he wants (or at least trying to . .. but some baddies occasionally stop him . ..).

Long... very long discussions. Why ppl don't play sandboxies as much as themeparks?

But ask from different angle of view - do we need that? Do we need masses of low-IQ a.holers who ruined so many quiet good titles into our old-timer's world? This is same question as why high quality, real art masterpieces movies don't gather such many visitors as som Hollywood next action-crap. How can such a braindead moving zombielike person sit in cinema and look few hours a movie like Kurosawa's one where no one spoke even a word at duration of movie? Nobody hits other into ass, npbody don't blow off other ppl heads and hearths, no blood, no gore, no violence, no sex, no drugs......

Mainstream don't never understand beauty of exclusiveness, aristocracy, .... So we can be glad that those zombie-hordes attack themeparks, ate their players life and souls. We need only time, time when some companies see that there is tens and hundreds thousands of players with Brains, waiting their time again back. That there was something what is nearly totally lost in now-a-day MMOs, and they see real mistakes of ol'timers, and then they (be it indie-co. or some AAA) wake up, and start to make something newly refreshing, addictive, adrenaline-boosting wide-wide open world which isn't stable but where devs use all they imagination to change it together with players. OK, there could be some hand-holding routes for sissies, but real men step into wilderness, be it planetary or more wider in space. I hope that will come. I still hope....   :)

---

Originally posted by Rockgod99
I know this is obvious to most of us old timers but I figured i'd dash the dreams of the newbies that think a AAA sandbox will ever release.
People want to be a hero in a mmorpg, in a sandbox your this insignificant little nothing skilling up to be a even better nothing. Kind of like real life. Not many will pay for that type of simulation... Now you know.

---

This.

I personaly stay away from sandbox games that have PvP as its main feature. I am more of a pve / crafter person but if given a CHOICE I will take part in PvP. The more recent sandbox game fail to take choice seriously and think all sandbox games are about killing another player just because they can.

Currently playing Craft of Gods which is more or less a sandbox game with PvP as an option BUT the exp per mob skill is terrible and it seems like I am the only person in the game at times.