When someone mentions Sandbox, especially in a forum like WoW or SWTOR, people get so bent out of shape. Logic becomes polluted.

Many of the features that are missing from most modern games were once standard MMO mechanics: OPTIONAL SOCIAL TOOLS.

#1. The ability and meaning to adventure off the main road or story.

#2. Incentives to hangout in taverns and cantinas.

#3. Social games that are outside of combat, e.g., gambling, racing, arm wrestling, chess, etc.

#4. Player Housing / Guild Housing that can be customizable. A game like SWTOR is just too small to fit in World Housing. However, there is no excuse not to even entertain the idea of creating a few "vast & blank" planets that are player driven, e.g., being able to build houses next to friends - possibly uniting them into a simple player city.

#5. Player Shops for Crafters and Adventurers. If you're a fantastic crafter, then you should be able to plop down your very own store, purchase a NPC to manage the shop, and enjoy. Doing so should greatly lower the ultimate price one pays for buying in person as opposed to buying at the auction house.

#6. World PvP with meaning (worldly areas to dominate or control). Sanctions or Harsh Punishments placed on those who gank lowbies etc.

These are important social features and should be in every MMO. These features are OPTIONAL; these features will only increase the depth and complexity of a game. I still cannot believe AAA games shun such characteristics. They turn games from virtual worlds to gigantic co'op RPGs.

I think people should stop looking at MMO's as one single genre.

You see, the type of game you keep asking for and the type of game you keep complaining about are both vastly different from eachother, and both cater to completely different types of players. They're both perfectly viable as games, though. It's sort of like........turn-based strategy versus real-time strategy. Not really, but sort of.

The problem with this theory is that, in a sandbox style game, for those social tools to be effective, useful, or meaningful, they cannot also be optional.  They have to be part of the integrated design of the world in which all players are a member.

One of the key factors of "player driven content" relies on the ability for one player to actually be able to impact the play experience of another player.

As an example, you've listed world PvP, and world conquest/territorial control, with meaning, by establishing laws and such.  If players can establish laws or taxes that impact the play of other players, then it ceases to be optional.  If, on the other hand,  those laws and taxes are optional, and can be ignored by other players, then the system ceases to be meaningful.

You'll note that I personally prefer the sandbox style of MMO gaming and all that it entails, but many, many others do not.

Sadly AAA companies are after the big money, and maknig WoW clones seems to be the way to do it at the moment.

People who want anything different have to put their faith in Indie companies.. and sadly they are usually low budget and full of bugs..

Originally posted by BizkitNL

I think people should stop looking at MMO's as one single genre.

You see, the type of game you keep asking for and the type of game you keep complaining about are both vastly different from eachother, and both cater to completely different types of players. They're both perfectly viable as games, though. It's sort of like........turn-based strategy versus real-time strategy. Not really, but sort of.

Excellent point; I loved Civ, could never stand Command & Conquer or the Warcraft RTS games.

In the same vein, I'm really enjoying SWTOR, but wasn't tempted to SWG...ever.

While I'd love to see some 'sandboxy' stuff in SWTOR, player housing and player shops wouldn't be at the top of my list...in fact they wouldn't be on my list at all.

Reasons to hang around cantinas and  to explore to world off the carefully structured path, 'real' weather and day/night cycles so it feels more like a real world, absolutely; but I don't want to rely on other players for the interesting content, that's what I'm paying my sub for.

Originally posted by BizkitNL

I think people should stop looking at MMO's as one single genre.

You see, the type of game you keep asking for and the type of game you keep complaining about are both vastly different from eachother, and both cater to completely different types of players. They're both perfectly viable as games, though. It's sort of like........turn-based strategy versus real-time strategy. Not really, but sort of.

 This is the exact point that the OP is arguing against...

The features he mentions can very easily work in a "traditional" theme park MMORPG.  There is no reason they should be relegated to the low-budget, indie, barren wastelands that the "sandbox" sub-genre has become.

How would these social features in any way not work in a strongly-themepark game like SWTOR?

I only see them enchancing the game, and I think the OP makes a great point.

Tibia had some great sandbox features. Ever player a whole game of soccer in an MMO? I have. It actually works really well with the throw drop mechanisms in tibia.

I love saying the "F" word. I also love saying "Didgeridoo." As for "Sandbox," that too is a fun word. It'd be even better if there were more sandbox options in more MMOs. Sadly, that ship sailed with the death of SWG, AFAIC. I guess EVE can hold that candle, but that game really doesn't appeal to me beyond being a very pretty spreadsheet (and just as exciting). Now, a Shadowrun sandbox would be awesome-sauce-with-bacon-gravy, but that'll never happen.

Oh, and I actually agree with the op. There needs to be more of that at the very least in thempark games.

Originally posted by precious328

When someone mentions Sandbox, especially in a forum like WoW or SWTOR, people get so bent out of shape. Logic becomes polluted.

Many of the features that are missing from most modern games were once standard MMO mechanics: OPTIONAL SOCIAL TOOLS.

#1. The ability and meaning to adventure off the main road or story.

#2. Incentives to hangout in taverns and cantinas.

#3. Social games that are outside of combat, e.g., gambling, racing, arm wrestling, chess, etc.

#4. Player Housing / Guild Housing that can be customizable. A game like SWTOR is just too small to fit in World Housing. However, there is no excuse not to even entertain the idea of creating a few "vast & blank" planets that are player driven, e.g., being able to build houses next to friends - possibly uniting them into a simple player city.

#5. Player Shops for Crafters and Adventurers. If you're a fantastic crafter, then you should be able to plop down your very own store, purchase a NPC to manage the shop, and enjoy. Doing so should greatly lower the ultimate price one pays for buying in person as opposed to buying at the auction house.

#6. World PvP with meaning (worldly areas to dominate or control). Sanctions or Harsh Punishments placed on those who gank lowbies etc.

 

These are important social features and should be in every MMO. These features are OPTIONAL; these features will only increase the depth and complexity of a game. I still cannot believe AAA games shun such characteristics. They turn games from virtual worlds to gigantic co'op RPGs.

The social component (our team calls it 'the coffee' house') is one of three components of MMOs. I think there's too many that look at an MMO as just themepark and sandbox content, forgetting social. Each MMO is pretty much a combination of the three, although, as you point out, it doesn't seem that way lately.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by precious328

When someone mentions Sandbox, especially in a forum like WoW or SWTOR, people get so bent out of shape. Logic becomes polluted.

Many of the features that are missing from most modern games were once standard MMO mechanics: OPTIONAL SOCIAL TOOLS.

#1. The ability and meaning to adventure off the main road or story.

#2. Incentives to hangout in taverns and cantinas.

#3. Social games that are outside of combat, e.g., gambling, racing, arm wrestling, chess, etc.

#4. Player Housing / Guild Housing that can be customizable. A game like SWTOR is just too small to fit in World Housing. However, there is no excuse not to even entertain the idea of creating a few "vast & blank" planets that are player driven, e.g., being able to build houses next to friends - possibly uniting them into a simple player city.

#5. Player Shops for Crafters and Adventurers. If you're a fantastic crafter, then you should be able to plop down your very own store, purchase a NPC to manage the shop, and enjoy. Doing so should greatly lower the ultimate price one pays for buying in person as opposed to buying at the auction house.

#6. World PvP with meaning (worldly areas to dominate or control). Sanctions or Harsh Punishments placed on those who gank lowbies etc.

 

These are important social features and should be in every MMO. These features are OPTIONAL; these features will only increase the depth and complexity of a game. I still cannot believe AAA games shun such characteristics. They turn games from virtual worlds to gigantic co'op RPGs.

The social component (our team calls it 'the coffee' house') is one of three components of MMOs. I think there's too many that look at an MMO as just themepark and sandbox content, forgetting social. Each MMO is pretty much a combination of the three, although, as you point out, it doesn't seem that way lately.

 

 

When I was working on the design for my never to actually be completed MMO I did a lot of work on a social component. There was a really complex chat system that actually functioned as the guild system, the permissions system, a gated social system and so forth. There were also features that integrated all forms of mobile devices in varying capacities.

Your could log in with an app on a phone and be able to view and respond to any chat channels you could use in the game. You could modify those channels using any of the permissions you had in the game. So you could accept people into the guild or kick them out or modify permissions on storage boxes or buildings.

In any case you could do all sorts of things. Also there were no "channels". Every chat in the game was player created by inviting others to chat. And permissions could be assigned just by applying the proper list. So the player list for the chat used as guild chat could be assigned to guild accessible items and so forth. System was somewhat but not totally modeled on the chat in ATITD.

Originally posted by Rohn

The problem with this theory is that, in a sandbox style game, for those social tools to be effective, useful, or meaningful, they cannot also be optional.  They have to be part of the integrated design of the world in which all players are a member.

One of the key factors of "player driven content" relies on the ability for one player to actually be able to impact the play experience of another player.

As an example, you've listed world PvP, and world conquest/territorial control, with meaning, by establishing laws and such.  If players can establish laws or taxes that impact the play of other players, then it ceases to be optional.  If, on the other hand,  those laws and taxes are optional, and can be ignored by other players, then the system ceases to be meaningful.

You'll note that I personally prefer the sandbox style of MMO gaming and all that it entails, but many, many others do not.

You are thinking in too absolute terms, its all about incetives and its the devs job to facilitate that the optional stays optional, for example that there are areas without laws (as they are in our world), but that controlled areas stay beneficial for players (and the owner, if he has players in it contributing taxes for example, a castle does not come cheap...).

"Optional" within this system does not really mean "the same result at completely the same cost", but just "the same result".

In my opinion i think sandboxes are just a better set up for mmo's. I like sandboxes. I have seen so many features in sandboxes to allow player creativity and exploration of the game, not being led along like a dog on a leash.

The problem is lack of player creativity and the need for company content to take over and in most cases get charged a premium price for it. Games decades ago just seemed more fun, because after you ran all the missions, did all the other things on the side, your game didnt resort to warzones, dailies, and raids. Players took over set up shoops, battlefields, races, treasue hunting, and so much more. Its something i miss with mmo's, the fact that someone can make more enjoyable content due to creativity.

Few sandboxes coming our way, i look forward to them. Sandboxes bring much more to the table, and if im paying 15/month i want every damn feature i can get my hands onto even if i wont use it or dislike it. The fact that its there and available is whats important. Many here are ok with this, but to me i want an epic mmo with all the flavors of the rainbow. Kinda tired of doing the same things over and over in these themepark games- warzones, dailies, and the same raids over and over and over with different skins is all its feels like. I want a game i can dive into and have the world to explore, not just a piece of it.

In my opinion, and do think people should give sandboxes a better try. Not many have been made and i like the large virtual worlds with a great creative community backing it. So many talented and smart people post on these forums, i dont see why this would be an issue or why they are happy with mediocre mmo's.

Originally posted by precious328

When someone mentions Sandbox, especially in a forum like WoW or SWTOR, people get so bent out of shape. Logic becomes polluted.

What logic?

Oh you mean the logic that you don't and shouldn't have a say in the development of a game?

What's insane here is people like you who love sandbox features, insist on having it in a game that wasn't designed for it. Whether it enhances a game or not is irrelevant. The game wasn't designed for you nor was it designed for the sandbox crowd and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Developers are not obligated to follow your recipy no matter how good you feel it is.

On the topic of insane. This is the equivilant of me going down to the local race track, complaining why they don't have a mini golf course in the middle, to cater to people who also like mini golf. Then call it an epic fail when they tell me to go somewhere else.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the things you ask for. There is something wrong with slamming games because they don't have the things you want. You should just move on to something that falls in your favor instead. You as a consumer have the right to pass on a product that doesn't fall in line with your specifications and choose one that does. That's about it

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by precious328

When someone mentions Sandbox, especially in a forum like WoW or SWTOR, people get so bent out of shape. Logic becomes polluted.

What logic?

Oh you mean the logic that you don't and shouldn't have a say in the development of a game?

 

What's insane here is people like you who love sandbox features, insist on having it in a game that wasn't designed for it. Whether it enhances a game or not is irrelevant. The game wasn't designed for you nor was it designed for the sandbox crowd and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Developers are not obligated to follow your recipy no matter how good you feel it is.

 

On the topic of insane. This is the equivilant of me going down to the local race track, complaining why they don't have a mini golf course in the middle, to cater to people who also like mini golf. Then call it an epic fail when they tell me to go somewhere else.

Well to be fair and honest to the op, no sandbox has ever had the economic backing most these themepark games have had. We actualy dont know how well a good sandbox could do. Most people see the success of WOW and think thats the only path.

I bet if SWTOR, WOW, Rift, or any other major release this psat7+ years was a sandbox this conversation would be the other way around. But in all fairness, we cant debate this since sandboxes havent been given a fair deal or a proper game. The few that have been released were sort of in the infancy stages of mmo's. But games like UO, DAC, EQ, and a few other did manage well.

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by precious328

When someone mentions Sandbox, especially in a forum like WoW or SWTOR, people get so bent out of shape. Logic becomes polluted.

What logic?

Oh you mean the logic that you don't and shouldn't have a say in the development of a game?

 

What's insane here is people like you who love sandbox features, insist on having it in a game that wasn't designed for it. Whether it enhances a game or not is irrelevant. The game wasn't designed for you nor was it designed for the sandbox crowd and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Developers are not obligated to follow your recipy no matter how good you feel it is.

 

On the topic of insane. This is the equivilant of me going down to the local race track, complaining why they don't have a mini golf course in the middle, to cater to people who also like mini golf. Then call it an epic fail when they tell me to go somewhere else.

Well to be fair and honest to the op, no sandbox has ever had the economic backing most these themepark games have had. We actualy dont know how well a good sandbox could do. Most people see the success of WOW and think thats the only path.

I bet if SWTOR, WOW, Rift, or any other major release this psat7+ years was a sandbox this conversation would be the other way around. But in all fairness, we cant debate this since sandboxes havent been given a fair deal or a proper game. The few that have been released were sort of in the infancy stages of mmo's. But games like UO, DAC, EQ, and a few other did manage well.

Does that even matter?

Are you going to blame a game like SWTOR because your genre isn't getting the love you want? I would really like a sane logical explanation to that instead of en emotional illogical one. I'll be waiting

That's because turds seem to gravitate towards them. At least that was the case with DF and MO. There are no good sandbox MMOs for the casual player.

The OP seems to think a game should have XYZ features because of some illogical reasons.

If you do not like it, do not buy it.

I do not really care for Jazz, so to say every jazz album should have certain songs due to my personal preference is illogical.

"Saying SandBox is like saying the "F" Word."

Only is the F word is "FUN"!

Originally posted by xxpigxx
So, according to themepark fans in this thread, more options are a bad thing...

Being told where to go and what dungeons to farm for gear so they can farm slightly more difficult dungeons for slightly better gear is the way to go, apparently.