| 113 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
2/03/12 8:41:12 PM#21
I am going to say that I wouldn't play Skyrim if it were vacant of quests and there's not just a handful there are TONS of quests in Skyrim! It seems to me that when sandbox and MMO are done together there's always a lack of quests (UO). So, for me the comparison of Skyrim to a sandbox MMO is a poor one, it basically is open world with plenty to do (skyrim) versus open world with uh wait, what.... what are we going to do now brain? (Sandbox MMO) We are going to grind stats and craft and make our own quests/story... I'll take Skyrim any day of the week over a sandbox MMO without quests. |
|
|
2/03/12 8:43:00 PM#22
Possibly. It doesn't necessarily prove that people want to play sandbox mmo's so much as people like having their own personal sandbox to play in. |
|
|
2/03/12 8:44:20 PM#23
The problem with the sandbox genre is that there is no clear definition. For some Skyrim would not be a sandbox. Yes its not as linear as some games but you are still jumping from quest hub to quest hub completing quests and there is a single over arching storyline that is pretty linear.
I think what makes Skyrim different is that they somehow make even the simplest quest seem grand in scale. So the grind is much more bearable. |
|
|
2/03/12 8:47:01 PM#24
skyrims no different than themepark mmos, you run around and do quests for people, theres really nothing in skyrim that isnt ipresent in most themepark mmos.
Dont know where this comparison of skyrim and sandboxes keep coming from.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" |
|
|
2/03/12 9:13:05 PM#25
Originally posted by warmaster670
Very loose comparison (click to enlarge) |
|
|
2/03/12 9:16:27 PM#26
Originally posted by Wolfenpride loose sure, but it still works, skyrim is waaaay closer to themepark mmos than sandbox ones, the only thing sandboxy about skyrim is the class system. Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" |
|
|
2/03/12 9:18:09 PM#27
Except the sandbox mmorpg market is a niche market. It's also a small market. Minecraft and Terraria have a very different feel from mmorpg and Skyrim is way different. The million+ people who would play Minecraft or Skyrim are not a million+ people who would play a sandbox mmorpg where the nine hours of work they put into building a skull mountain with smokestacks and lava eye sockets gets wasted because it gets destroyed or taken over by a random group of @sshats. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
2/03/12 9:23:02 PM#28
No way I would want a Skyrim mmo for simple reason ppl think funcom produces bugging mmo's imagine how buggy and broken a Skyrim mmo wouild be.90+ days already since Skyrim release and the ps3 is still unplayable reports of it frying consoles constantly locking up and ruining the ps3 hdd.This isn''t the first steaming pile almost all of there games they have ever brought to market has been buggy or broken they are alot like funcom in that aspect they promise alot and cash grab and heck if ppl can play it or not. |
|
|
2/03/12 9:30:19 PM#29
Originally posted by lizardbones Thank you for enlightening us with the only scenario their is for a game with a lot of sandbox in it....Little tip, build a wall around your skull mountain next time....jesh! |
|
|
2/03/12 9:35:08 PM#30
Originally posted by laokoko That's up entirely up to the player community of the game. Interactivity beetween the players is the key element that is forgotten in current mmorpgs . |
|
|
2/03/12 9:39:22 PM#31
Originally posted by Emeraq This is just it. Skyrim scales the content according to the level of your character. That's why you can run the quests or just explore and you always meet a challenge. If they didn't it would be just like playing a Themepark and going to the wrong zone. But the point of the OP is still valid, that players do like the Sandbox play. The question is just what you, Emeraq, are stating. Would players give up the levels (and Skyrim does have levels), the big power gaps and increases in power, to be able to play a true Sandbox game that *played* like Skyrim. *Note that there's a difference between how a game plays and how it's mechanics like levelling skills/classes works.*
Once upon a time.... |
|
|
2/03/12 9:53:24 PM#32
(a) Nobody would be able to see Skull Mountain. (b) Walls would be useless against anyone with a pickaxe or a box of TNT. A game that is fantastic as a single player/multi player game, where modding in stuff that currently doesn't exist and where running your own servers is a large part of the reason it's so great would not necessarily translate well to an MMORPG where you don't mod stuff into the game, where you don't get to have your own server or your own space unless you play Link Realms. It's just not the same thing. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Now, don't get me wrong. I have spent the last week obsessing over a Minecraft server that would be an MMORPG with a unique setting (not random islands) and with an actual story of sorts. I'm afraid I'm going to have to try and do it before I can get it out of my head. That does not mean I think there are a million people who would want to play it. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
2/03/12 10:09:26 PM#33
If Skyrim is where people set the bar for "sandbox", I'm honestly a little disappointed. Just a bit of level-scaling for all generated threats, a few "main" linear questlines which have no interaction with each other, permadeath for non-essential npc's, and one eventually-conquered city? Is this really all it takes to "advance" beyond those "horrible" themepark games? Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously loving Skyrim. But I'm not seeing much resembling the holy grail of "sandbox" that people keep crying for. There was no one trying to hire the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood to tip the balance of the Empire/Stormcloak civil war. The Winterrun College didn't show up and volunteer training/nuke-staffs to help with killing Alduin the World-Eater. No matter how much crap I bought from or sold to a vendor, their cash reserves or appearance never changed. Not one stinking new quest on account of whoever I marry. No opportunity to create a new Dragonbits economy with the corpses of the hundreds of dragons I've slain. Even your chosen race barely rates more than the occasional, inconsequential dialogue tweak. So no, in response to the OP, I don't see Skyrim as evidence towards the viability of a sandbox game. It tells me that if you get rid of the mind-numbingly boring hotkey/tab combat system, severely reduce the gear/level grind, and leave out the annoying online twats and the accompanying pressure to perform/succeed/min-max... you get a pretty damn fun game that succeeds in a lot of areas. Being "sandbox", or even the illusion of it, has little to do it with the success. For that matter, Minecraft's popularity tells us little that Civilization and Simcity haven't already. A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: |
|
|
2/03/12 10:22:35 PM#34
Originally posted by lizardbones Why would you add a story? Minecraft is great because its just a world, a massive setting for us to play in. We don't need a story. Everything creates huge amounts of negativity on the internet, that's what the internet is for: Negativity, porn and lolcats. |
|
|
2/03/12 10:24:23 PM#35
Minecraft is more of an MMORPG than over a dozen games listed on this site. It has servers that support over 400+ people. http://minecraft-server-list.com/ If global agenda, league of legends, etc can be listed here I don't see why minecraft isn't. Why Not a Sandbox? Check it Archeage |
|
|
2/03/12 10:36:18 PM#36
Originally posted by Mehve Are you me? I don't think you could have expressed my thoughts any better. If someone were to move Skyrim into an MMO setting I think we'd really get to see the disaster that the game's mechanics present. It is not a shining light for this genre (sandbox type games in particular). Minecraft, I think, does somewhat represent people's acceptance of not being led around by the nose anymore. It's certainly the most popular and directionless game to come out in the last ten years. Some things can be learned from it, but not much more than what we've known since this genre kicked off. |
|
|
Rhoklaw
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/12/04
My Top 3 List: |
2/03/12 10:49:18 PM#37
If what your looking for is a promising Sandbox MMO, this is about as good as it's going to get for anything coming out in the near future. |
|
2/03/12 10:53:22 PM#38
Originally posted by warmaster670
|
|
|
2/03/12 10:54:50 PM#39
A lot of people probably haven't heard of Castle Story yet. While it probably won't be a true MMO, they do plan on having multiplayer. Definately something to look at for any sandbox fan. Check out the forums and make some suggestions. Hell, we may see a dream come true. ArcheAge also looks promising, though it does have some themepark elements. I'm confident we'll start seeing some good sandboxes soon.  |
|
|
2/03/12 11:01:56 PM#40
im gonna throw this back at the OP. What makes you think people only want Sandbox MMO, this whole stigma that is trying to push the genre one way or the other is dumb. we should expand BOTH horrizons and push BOTH genres farther. i've never been against one side or the other. i like theme park and i like sandbox. the only problem ive found coming from sandbox games is that if your not in the starting group on launch, your NEVER going to catch up to those who were.
only exception has been Face of Mankind where you start off equal to everyone having alot of money or the big guns didnt matter, you learned how to use your prefered weapons and it ended there.
but lets take the current frontrunner sandbox EVE. starting now i have no chance what so ever of catching anyone who has been playing 1year+ unless they quit until i catch up. Because i can. |
|
