Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Meowhead

Originally posted by Badaboom

But a lot of those features are very atmosphere oriented.  They pull you into the world.  Why wouldn't a AAA company want that?

Because they're prioritizing game-building over world-building?

I'm ashamed that this post was the first to acknowledge that AAA titles tend to focus on making a good game before adding barely noticable fluff. They wasted potentially hundreds or thousands of manhours on something that the player may or may not notice at all. First objective of the developers should be making a polished, strong core gameplay and only then worry about fluff features.

Why don't the big companies do such things? Because they are not "game making" features. In other words no one is going to seriously make up their mind about buying the game because his/her character shows visible aging. Additionally having chance to gain or shed weight of your character doesn't necessarily make it a good game. You could have all the realism you want in it but if the core gameplay sucks, the whole game sucks.

For example Fable was made with big money, and it had all sorts of useless features in it. Was it a good game? -First one, maybe. Second and third? -Not so much. And both of the latest versions had more and more fluff in them. Great majority of gamers skipped most, if not all, that fluff. Core gameplay stayed the same or in some cases got worse. Personally, I gave up on the series upon discovering where they had wasted their manhours.

You (and a couple others) seem to be arguing it as though it's an "either/or" situation. If that's not the case, then I'd stand corrected.

However, "solid gameplay" and "unique, interesting features" (fluff according to you, interesting and engaging content to others) are not mutually exclusive.

I absolutely agree, a MMO should have established, solid core gameplay first, then everything else adds on to that. However, I would not agree that either has to be done at the expense of the other.

If the goal, however, is to make a world sim with game-like elements included, then it seems they're right on track with Xsyon.  If their goal is to make a game first with sim-like elements included... then they may not be.

If thsoe aren't part of the "making money formula" then whatever they doing now it is not either. None of this last AAA mmos have survive all they get is box sale and die.

Originally posted by Anzie

If thsoe aren't part of the "making money formula" then whatever they doing now it is not either. None of this last AAA mmos have survive all they get is box sale and die.

Agree.

This "money grubbing capitalists" vs "idealist starry-eyed kids" cliche has grown very old..

In order for a game to pay it needs to be a good game at a right time. And it's quite easy to miss the right time.. It's that simple. If you guys think that all the AAA devs are without any ideal or vision or that indie devs don't care about the money at all then you're very mistaken.

The thing right now is that "themepark" market is bloated and it takes more and more money to launch a product that might compete. On the other hand "sandboxes" are pretty much open. So if you have a limited budget and want to make a game you'll be in a much better position to compete in sandbox genre than in themepark.

If sandboxes were the norm and mainstream today (which could have happened) you'd have "idealist" indie devs trying to create a themepark mmo despite the "popular wisdom" that these things cannot draw a popular appeal.

As to why the big AAA publishers and developers still don't believe sandbox could be a lucrative sub-genre of mmos... I have no idea why this is so. Just look at EVE, or those awful Zynga games, or the pre-mmo "god-game" genre which is the predecessor to sandboxes just like single player rpgs and ultimately super mario are predecessors to themeparks.

That "awful" Zynga and its games are worth 10 billion dollars.

Originally posted by Quirhid

That "awful" Zynga and its games are worth 10 billion dollars.

That's exactly right.

And now I want someone to tell me with a straight face that sandbox genre is not financially viable.

From the cloud that i'm sitting on I'd say that it is those "kill dragon, follow a hero story" games that are niche while "I water my garden and breed chickens so I can decorate my house" that are the real mainstream.

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by Quirhid

That "awful" Zynga and its games are worth 10 billion dollars.

That's exactly right.

And now I want someone to tell me with a straight face that sandbox genre is not financially viable.

From the cloud that i'm sitting on I'd say that it is those "kill dragon, follow a hero story" games that are niche while "I water my garden and breed chickens so I can decorate my house" that are the real mainstream.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Apples and oranges are both fruits, just like Video Games and Facebook Games are games, but the similarities stops there.

Facebook games requires very little time investment, are inexpensive, it is not required for the games to be top quality nor have a huge world. In most cases, it's merely a large mini-game with a Cash Shop.  If the game doesn't work very well, they can easily trash the game and release a new one. They're very easy to release and, Facebook being an international platform, is supported everywhere in the world.

MMOs on the other hand, requires several years to make, are extremely expensive, if they do not offer Quality from the get-go, they're doomed (HellGate, APB, etc). The games requires a large amount of content, have a good quality graphics, a design that catters to a specific market. MMOs requires some rather expensive materials, need to cover server cost, repay investments, and keep a constant team to work on all aspect of the game, and future content..

The implications are entirely different, the needs of the markets are entirely different, the methods are also completly different. You just can't compare them.

Originally posted by Teala

I think it is because most Indie game companies are made up of gamers that really love games.   Nowadays, many game design houses higher, artist and level designers, and what not from these game design schools and colleges and the people that go there are not gamers...they just wish to make money making games - they really do not care to make interesting or diverse games.   We can also blame the bean counters, the publishers.  I am sure they are making sure that game design houses ae sticking to a paradigm that some consider the only road map to follow.   Investors are afraid to take chances.  

There are numerous things, but I think the main one is Indie companies are made up of gamers that want to make a better game.

Nonsense. Total and complete nonsense.

Let me point out the ways -

Studios hire people with degrees? Go figure... game studios hire people based on their portfolio of work, work experience, and skill set - just like EVERYONE else. The difference between now and "back in the day" is that there were no game schools back in the day. It's a relatively new phenomenon. People went to school for programming or Art and got into gaming on their own time or through connections they made in the "business" world of computers.

The idea that people who go to these schools now are not "real" gamers is ridiculous and niave. If anything, they are more true to their art as their degrees with be useless in the non-gaming business unlike a Computer Science degree from a major university which could get you in a lot of doors in a lot of places.

Game devs are not rock stars and millionaires by any means.

99% of people at game development studios make comparable salary and benefits as your same-level IT or business counterpart.

The other 1% are the CEO's and GM's and producers/directors and they make less then someone in a similar level of hierarchy in the business/finance/professional fields.

As for investors/publishers, you have to be logical. If I ask you for a million dollars to make a game, I'd expect that when that game is finished not only will I pay you the million dollars back, but more back in interest and profits. That's how business works. That's how home loans work, business loans, car loans, student loans.

They have a right to step up and say "hey there, I don't think your game is going to be popular enough to make your loan payments after release. This is a problem for you, and for us."

True Indie is the Minecraft guy doing it all himself. Or people making iPhone games in their basement etc.

It is niave and foolish to think anyone who makes games professionally for a living wants to make bad games or games that won't be successful. 

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by Quirhid

That "awful" Zynga and its games are worth 10 billion dollars.

That's exactly right.

And now I want someone to tell me with a straight face that sandbox genre is not financially viable.

From the cloud that i'm sitting on I'd say that it is those "kill dragon, follow a hero story" games that are niche while "I water my garden and breed chickens so I can decorate my house" that are the real mainstream.

Depends on what you mean by "sand box".  From what I've seen, that translates to gank fests like DarkFall and Mortal Online.  Such games have a very limited appeal in the modern western market.  As for farmville... Well, what ever makes people happy I guess.  They do seem to make a lot of money from it.

Originally posted by MadnessRealm

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Rift probably isn't the best example, since Trion is both developer and publisher. That affords them more control over their IP and the direction of the game. When you have an outside publisher (or, with some titles, two or three publishers), they have a certain amount of stake in the product and sometimes a cartain amount of influence in the design or marketing of the game.

 

To my knowledge, Publishers have no control over the IP. Only a licensing agreement allowing them to publish in an area, but they have no control nor the ability to bring changes to the game, only the Developers does. I could be wrong though, so if someone can bring more hindsight on Publishers, would be great.

You have to look at publishers like EA and Funcom for that answer. EA "can" take a hands off approach, but as a general rule they are the decider on what makes it in, when it gets released and etc. more often than not. AoC was pretty much hung out to dry by funcom, everyone new it wasn't ready, many features were promised that never saw the light of day and most of it came down to the publisher having the reings. 

CO and STO, while Cryptic isn't my fav dev house for many many many reasons they still didn't deserve the rap they got from CO and STO. Both of those games came down to Atari making some bad decisions. Atari has Cryptic developing MMO's in a 12-18 month time frame with little to no room for error. 

Don't get me started on anything involving Lucas Arts. 

Devs don't have nearly as much control over there own projects as people think when working with the larger publishers. 

The problem is for many Devs a publisher isn't just someone that gets the games on the shelves. They become investors of a sort and have a staked interest in the game making money. This leads to bean counters running a show they have no business being involved in. 

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by Quirhid

That "awful" Zynga and its games are worth 10 billion dollars.

That's exactly right.

And now I want someone to tell me with a straight face that sandbox genre is not financially viable.

From the cloud that i'm sitting on I'd say that it is those "kill dragon, follow a hero story" games that are niche while "I water my garden and breed chickens so I can decorate my house" that are the real mainstream.

 

Depends on what you mean by "sand box".  From what I've seen, that translates to gank fests like DarkFall and Mortal Online.  Such games have a very limited appeal in the modern western market.  As for farmville... Well, what ever makes people happy I guess.  They do seem to make a lot of money from it.

The studio that makes a 3D non-PVP or at least minimal PvP sandbox-focused MMO will probably end up with more cash than they know what to do with.

People like toys and creative tools,  and they like sharing/showing they things they made. What most people don't like is someone ambushing them while they are playing, beating them about the head and face with a stick and then smashing or stealing all their toys. It jsut seems like devs looking to make sandbox worlds are either

a) looking for ways to make impactful, immersive, deep exeperiences in rich world environment to follow the UO/EVE route

or

b) maximize the customer experience, through synergistic synthesis of Web 2.0 engagement and a strategized emotional brand awareness to follow the Farmville/MobWars trail

Basically, sandbox-focused devs seem to either follow the lead of the god-complex development team or the buzzword-addled marketing team, but rarely the actual gameplay that they see players enjoying in the games that they are trying to emulate.

Originally posted by Wraithone 

Depends on what you mean by "sand box".  From what I've seen, that translates to gank fests like DarkFall and Mortal Online.  Such games have a very limited appeal in the modern western market.  

Because a true sandbox experience requires no grind.

No MMO has gotten this right since Ultima Online.

Think of it in terms of the sandbox analogy-

What is a sandbox? It's literally a box and in that box there are tools/toys to play with. Maybe in one corner there is a shovel and in another a toy truck.

Do you have to spend hours/days learning how to use a shovel in order to have fun with that shovel? No, you pick it up and start playing. You don't have to spend weeks at a driving school to pick up the toy truck and start playing with it. 

That is the big problem with post-UO sandbox games.

So much grinding. A true sandbox has no grind. 

But then would it be a RPG? 

And FFA PvP is simply a cop-out. A "feature" used by inexperienced and short-sighted developers who have no idea how to foster a strong community and long-term play experiences that are fun and engaging without simply turning every one against each other in a dog-eat-dog world and seeing what happens. 

Positive online interactions can only be fostered by some sense of structure and order for the vast majority of players.

Does this mean FPS style "matches" that directly neuter the open world experience of MMO games? Not at all. I think battlegrounds/warfronts etc. are a MASSIVE step backwards in MMO design and should be left to their FPS/console counterparts.

No MMO has ever gotten an alignment/morality system right and as such FFA PvP gives far too much power and freedom to those who would self destruct their own communities for the sake of a "quick fix" gain or rush. 

Originally posted by DaxPierce

{Mod Edit}

Originally posted by gauge2k3 {Mod Edit}

{Mod Edit}

Edit:

To the op: some of those features are cool and would fit nicely in an AAA TP.

Originally posted by Badaboom

For example some of the stuff in Xsyon:

Players can build roads, clear, level, raise and lower terrain.

Constantly changing resources can be renewed or depleted.

Availability dependent on season and weather conditions.

Four seasons: Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall.

Realistic sun path and shadows.

Realistic moon cycle and moonlight.

Volumetric and dynamic layered cloud system.

Accumulating snow.

Weather effects: Rain, Snow, Hail, Sleet.

Terrain surface affects movement.

Creatures react to adverse and favorable weather.

Weather conditions affect player actions and item durability.

Characters visibly gain or lose weight and muscle.

Characters age visibly. Ageing affects character statistics.

Different swim strokes are available based on skill.

Characters achieving the Supreme Master level of craftsmanship work with the Xsyon team to introduce a crafted item of their own design

 

No set creature spawns or re-spawns. Animals multiply based on the current creature population. Undead never truly die, or do they?

Creatures gain experience and power, potentially evolving into legendary beings.

Creatures can overrun areas or be depleted.

Creatures gravitate towards different areas based on mood and weather.

Creatures driven to the outer reaches of the world mutate.

Creatures possess realistic loot. If you see armor or a weapon on a creature you can take it. Animals can be carved up for raw materials.

Creatures are a primary resource for crafters.

Quests are assigned from one player to another using the quest system. Tribal chiefs and leaders will have the ability to assign specific quests.

 

Quests are posted at town totems so that players can obtain and complete quests without requiring the quest giver to be online. Types of quests include:

Delivery of goods.

Hunting.

Gathering resources.

Crafting.

Exploration.

 

 

I know that some AAA have some of these things but come on.  Do the AAA titles think that these are unwanted features?

Because they have nothing to loose on trying... Since they can not beat the AAA games at their own game.

Thats nice that xyson has all of those features but what is the point....this seems like a more complex farmville to me

Originally posted by Seffren

 Edit:

To the op: some of those features are cool and would fit nicely in an AAA TP.

Agreed.

Personally I think the golden combination is a themepark/sandbox hybrid MMO, that manages to combine themepark elements and sandbox elements successfully.

That way you have something that can keep MMO gamers of all kinds of different tastes happy.

Originally posted by andrewattheU

Thats nice that xyson has all of those features but what is the point....this seems like a more complex farmville to me

 What's the point of any game? Oh yeah, to have fun. XD

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by MadnessRealm

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Rift probably isn't the best example, since Trion is both developer and publisher. That affords them more control over their IP and the direction of the game. When you have an outside publisher (or, with some titles, two or three publishers), they have a certain amount of stake in the product and sometimes a cartain amount of influence in the design or marketing of the game.

 

To my knowledge, Publishers have no control over the IP. Only a licensing agreement allowing them to publish in an area, but they have no control nor the ability to bring changes to the game, only the Developers does. I could be wrong though, so if someone can bring more hindsight on Publishers, would be great.

You have to look at publishers like EA and Funcom for that answer. EA "can" take a hands off approach, but as a general rule they are the decider on what makes it in, when it gets released and etc. more often than not. AoC was pretty much hung out to dry by funcom, everyone new it wasn't ready, many features were promised that never saw the light of day and most of it came down to the publisher having the reings. 

CO and STO, while Cryptic isn't my fav dev house for many many many reasons they still didn't deserve the rap they got from CO and STO. Both of those games came down to Atari making some bad decisions. Atari has Cryptic developing MMO's in a 12-18 month time frame with little to no room for error. 

 

Don't get me started on anything involving Lucas Arts. 

 

Devs don't have nearly as much control over there own projects as people think when working with the larger publishers. 

 

The problem is for many Devs a publisher isn't just someone that gets the games on the shelves. They become investors of a sort and have a staked interest in the game making money. This leads to bean counters running a show they have no business being involved in. 

Read the Bill Roper interview on Gamasuta yesterday, provided some good information on Publisher/Investors. Great timing and very insightful interview.

Also, be carefull with giants like EA. In most cases, EA buys the actual studios rather than just publishing/investing. At this point, they are not only publishers, but have a much deeper involvement with the projects, unless it's an independent like Blizzard is to Activision.

Originally posted by Badaboom

For example some of the stuff in Xsyon:

Players can build roads, clear, level, raise and lower terrain.

Constantly changing resources can be renewed or depleted.

 

 

I know that some AAA have some of these things but come on.  Do the AAA titles think that these are unwanted features?

Because Xsyon looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwYUEGvFeRI

And we live in a very superficial world.

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Seffren

 Edit:

To the op: some of those features are cool and would fit nicely in an AAA TP.

Agreed.

Personally I think the golden combination is a themepark/sandbox hybrid MMO, that manages to combine themepark elements and sandbox elements successfully.

That way you have something that can keep MMO gamers of all kinds of different tastes happy.

I guess its just the way of things.

New stuff will allways be implemented first by the indies.

Only when it is received positively and gets a lot of noise, the bigger companies will implement it in their games.

So here's hoping Xsyon will be a success so the AAA's can take over the good stuff.

... only downside is the elitist pricks will start screaming bloody clone again.

Originally posted by ZDPhoenix

Originally posted by Badaboom

For example some of the stuff in Xsyon:

Players can build roads, clear, level, raise and lower terrain.

Constantly changing resources can be renewed or depleted.

 

 

I know that some AAA have some of these things but come on.  Do the AAA titles think that these are unwanted features?

Because Xsyon looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwYUEGvFeRI

And we live in a very superficial world.

Xsyon is a niche. And beside, this probably doesn't help the game either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlKcPzF2d5g

I don't think it's because we live in a superficial world either. Look at Minecraft,  it has the lowest quality graphics there is, yet is a major success. Of course it's not exactly an MMO, but still.