Another one is releasing as well. It mainly has minecraft visuals though. Add a bit of zelda as well.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4s2jdV7_dA&feature=g-logo&context=G2f2e5cfFOAAAAAAAPAA

The OP misses the point entirely while trying to say sandbox mmos have a larger audience. The reason why sandbox mmos almost never works is because of the players. There have been only 2 successful sandbox mmos (IMHO) and those are EVE and SWG back in its hayday. Those 2 have sandbox features, but also rules limiting the amount of freedom one person can have.

There are tons of sandbox mmos if you open your eyes, MO, darkfall, eve, dawntide, and others. The reason why most of these games fail (outside of coding and quality) is because there are many more variables while balancing gameplay between freedom and rulesets. SOme place no rules and discourages players, others dont balance the rules so the playerbase circumvents it or prevents others from enjoying their game. 

The only sandbox (which i think eve online does splendidly) is balance all the above. Sure there might be a ship that may be over powered or the flavor of the month, but the playerbase is given chances to op out of said encounters. For example, in eve if say the dramial was overpowered, you could use your radar to scout your ships, cloaks, etc to avoid the contact if wanted. Miners dont want to get shot at while mining, they can stay in hi sec, or beef up their tank to withstand a suicide strike. They have numerous ways to counter this.

Most other sandboxes do not, if you get ganked say in MO while mining, you get ganked, period. There is no real evasion process. The variables just arent there. SciFi game like eve, where cloaking, radar use, etc work perfect in sandbox games....but how would you translate that to a realistic fantasy (yes i know its an oxymoron but deal with it :P )? Its a bit harder. 

If you make a sandbox game that is noob friendly, has a degree of freedom, and rulesets to add a multitude of ways with dealing with a scenario which is not gamechanging or gives a person an advantage, you would have something....but the variables are much harder to predict when you add more and more freedom. If you are even missing 1 of the above, it becomes discouraging all those who are say casual or play within a certain playstyle, and then you start losing customers.

Also skyrim would be a horrible example....imagine if you killed one of the quest giver npcs. 1 jackass could ruin the entire game or questline for the entire playerbase. There are always a few people like those mentioned above. I would predict all quest givers or vital npcs would be dead within a week. 

Hybrid mmos would be ideal....but than the point of the thread would be moot, as the op is obviously a die hard sandbox guy.

ANd dont get me wrong, my favorite games are eve and old swg, but i understand very well there is a limited market for sandboxes....you first off need a lot of patience :) But, i also love themeparks. I like games where the Devs have put in the effort and made a quality game, rather than sticking to the "omg themeparks suxorz". There are plenty of good games for people to enjoy.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

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.

 

2 things.

1- The Sandbox market is not as small or niche as you assume. If you add up all the people that play Sandbox MMOs now (EvE, UO, DF, MO, WURM, Xsyon, Dawntide, Minecraft, SWG:Emu) and all the people interested in a Sandbox MMO, but play Themeparks, you would easily get 1-2+ Million. No its not WoW numbers, but it isnt small or niche either.

2- Why do people (and Developers) always assume Sandbox must include FFA PvP?

If a Sandbox MMO came out with Consensual PvP (Duels/Guildwars) you dont think it would do well?

Originally posted by laokoko

The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want.  And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.

But take that to mmorpg.  How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved.  Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that). 

exactly, in a MMO you have to adjust player-level to content to reach the same goal (freedom, resuability) like skyrim reached with adjusting mob-level to the one and only player. and then you have dynamic scaling content which covers the fact that the same mob-encounter (event) is attacked by just 1 player or by dozens of players.

we will see how that works. but at least they try to change some fundamental design patterns of todays MMOs. this alone is interesting enough, that i will try this game for sure.

btw, there are a lot of other differences between Skyrim and a standard theme-park, regardless if single-player or MMO, e.g. a pretty open skill system. but it is correct, that Skyrim is more of a sandpark than sandbox. Skyrim aka Elder Scrolls 5 is also less sanboxish than Morrowind aka Elder Scrolls 3. but its much less of a theme-park like Dragon Age 2 or Gothic 4 with rigid rails and skillsystem.

Originally posted by PyrateLV

 

 

2- Why do people (and Developers) always assume Sandbox must include FFA PvP?

If a Sandbox MMO came out with Consensual PvP (Duels/Guildwars) you dont think it would do well?

i guess, EVE does it right. there is the huge Empire, where you can usually do your PVE-stuff without getting ganked, if you are not doing stupid things, like reacting to provcations or haulering goods worth billions without guards. however i can imagine a sandbox with huge safe-zones like the EVE Empire, where PvP is forbidden at all.

BUT, i am also convinced, that a good sandbox has to have huge free pvp-zones to enable territorial pvp, which is one of the most interesting tools. also a lot of PvE-players try PvP, if bored by missions. many PVE-Players just got a wrong imaginatipn, how good pvp could look like. if they find a guild assisting them, approachig pvp step by step, they will often enjoy it. if you have no huge safe biotop for PvE, you will not get enough recruits for your PvP guild. look at all these deserted pvp-ffa games like MO or DF. EVE made it right, trying to find a co-existance of pvp and pve in one world. there are other obstacles in EVE, but the approach to combine pve and pvp is fully correct, imho. 

I always found it funny when people try to find the reason that sandbox MMORPGs aren't more popular.  IMO, it's extremely obvious, and has very little to do with the "sandboxness" of current "unpopular" MMORPGs, and a lot to do with everything else about them.  Just to prove my point here, let's look at the current stock of sandbox offerings:

UO:  Still going, but it's old...like real old.  Also, it had TONS of problems at both the design and implementation level even back when it was popular.  It also was never really that polished.

Eve:  Hey some people like this one, but let's be honest, it's only going to appeal to a very small amount of people.  The gameplay in Eve is extremely dissimilar from most MMORPGs.  It's more about flying around in a spaceship and mining or whatever to make money.  And the combat feels like you're just watching your spaceship fight.  Also, to be successful at Eve you really have to be good at spreadsheets.  That fact alone, will turn a lot of people off.

SWG:  Dead now, but I never thought it was a very good game even when it was around.  I played the beta and got turned off by the empty worlds, extremely long travel times, and boring combat.  I just can't stand it when a guy with a gun stands straight upright and gets shot at like he's fighting in the 18th century or something.  It also got pretty poor reviews.

Darkfall:  An indie game with tons of problems that almost never even saw the light of day.  It's extremely grindy, hardcore by design, has a very clunky UI, and has a huge empty world without much in it.  TBH, I'm amazed it's still doing as well as it is.

Mortal Online:  Like Darkfall but much, much worse.

This list could go on...but you get the idea.

People don't like sandbox MMORPGs because the current offerings are either extremely niche or just plain bad.  It has nothing to do with the fact that they are sandboxes.

There was never a big "showdown" between a AAA sandbox and a AAA themepark that decided the fate of the industry and showed that people actually prefer themeparks.  In fact, if there was a big showdown it would have been between EQ2 and WoW, and they were both themeparks.

Sandbox gameplay does not equal FFA-PvP and full loot PvP.

The moment developers and gamers alike understand this very simple fact, the better off the industry will be.

Sandbox gameplay is about offering players choice and freedom. FFA-PvP and full loot PvP is no more player freedom than murdering and theft is considered freedom in reality. Rather, choice and freedom is about giving players the choice of how to develop there character and how to play the game. The freedom to set their own goals and go about playing the game their own way, whether it be through combat, crafting, exploring, or the more social aspects.

There is very much a market for sandbox MMOs, the problem is that most people can't seem to shake the perception that sandbox MMOs have to include PvP anarchy... rather this association needs to dissapear in order for sandbox MMOs to be successful.

Originally posted by UsulDaNeriak

Originally posted by laokoko

The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want.  And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.

But take that to mmorpg.  How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved.  Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that). 

exactly, in a MMO you have to adjust player-level to content to reach the same goal (freedom, resuability) like skyrim reached with adjusting mob-level to the one and only player. and then you have dynamic scaling content which covers the fact that the same mob-encounter (event) is attacked by just 1 player or by dozens of players.

we will see how that works. but at least they try to change some fundamental design patterns of todays MMOs. this alone is interesting enough, that i will try this game for sure.

...

Level scaling presents a different problem though... which is that it makes progression feel pointless. Why bother grinding to max things out when whatever you fight scales along with you? That was Oblivion's problem. Skyrim's scaling is more deviation of level scaling rather than an absolute one for one scaling. Meaning that certain areas are always meant to be a bit easier, some always meant to be a bit harder, but certain areas still have a hard cap of how easier or how hard they could be modified to, which preserved a sense meaning to leveling in the game.

The answer in regards to MMOs is much more simple than you think though...

Make the power curve associated to leveling more linear.

It worked great in Ultima Online. Honestly I've not seen an MMO that's even come close to as well balanced as UO was. You didn't have to be maxed out skills to participate in fighting 'end game' mobs, but you did have to have a decent skill level. But it still preserved because being higher skill meant you could take on harder mobs, but not being maxed out didn't preclude you from participating in a group against said mobs, and also being higher skill than something also didn't mean you could plow through a mob of things without worry.

Themepark MMOs have a bad habit of using extreme power to level scaling. WoW is a good example of this, where being merely 5 levels above a certain area or dungeon effectively means you can plow through it, even dungeons that were meant for five people at appropriate level.

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by UsulDaNeriak

Originally posted by laokoko

The only difference between skyrim and other themepark is you can choose to do any quest in any city you want.  And that's really achieved by monster adjusting to your level.

But take that to mmorpg.  How to you adjust monster level when several people is involved.  Of course you can adjust your level to monster instead of the other way around(i think gw2 have that). 

exactly, in a MMO you have to adjust player-level to content to reach the same goal (freedom, resuability) like skyrim reached with adjusting mob-level to the one and only player. and then you have dynamic scaling content which covers the fact that the same mob-encounter (event) is attacked by just 1 player or by dozens of players.

we will see how that works. but at least they try to change some fundamental design patterns of todays MMOs. this alone is interesting enough, that i will try this game for sure.

...

Level scaling presents a different problem though... which is that it makes progression feel pointless. 

in GW2 content scales just in a small range. so you must level up, in order to explore new content. however you may go with a high-level friend, which automatically scales you up for this group. the other way around, if a L80 player goes back to a L5 boss mob, he will scale down to something about L6-7. levels are indeed looking a bit meaningless. and after all, there is no endgame, everything can be used for endgame based on this scaling model. but thats fine for me, if it works correctly.

I am somewhat unsure why Guildwars bothered with leveling at all. I presume it was to give some indicator that a player was effective at all aspects of the game. Ie even if you started out max level you still may not be able to do much because you don't understand game systems. So at level 20 they think you are sufficiently educated to take off the training wheels.

In any case I think it would be interesting to see a game with guild wars style play and no levels or classes. Just get 200 points and go. Although I think having more points would be good in that case so that you can cross class in different ways.

For instance I may want an elementalist with both soul reaping and energy storage and fire magic. Or a necromancer with both spawning power and soul reaping with a mix of communing and death magic skills.

 Skyrim and Minecraft have proven that people do like open-world/sandbox MMO...

Yes, I wouldn't say Skyrim is exactly a sandbox, but it is an open-world game with many many possibilities and surprises.

I suspect quite a number of people asking for a sandbox are first and foremost asking for those things.

Am I the only one who finds it frightening and sad that some people actually say that sandbox is more suited to single-player games while mmorpgs are all about tightly controlled experiences?

Jeez... The whole point of online gaming is that you play with other people... who provide content for you to at least some degree, if onlly to /dance in quest hubs. Sandbox or player-generated content is THE thing that differentiates mmos from single-player games. How did the things get so screwed and topsy turvy in the past 10 years?

This is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Am I the only one who finds it frightening and sad that some people actually say that sandbox is more suited to single-player games while mmorpgs are all about tightly controlled experiences?

Jeez... The whole point of online gaming is that you play with other people... who provide content for you to at least some degree, if onlly to /dance in quest hubs. Sandbox or player-generated content is THE thing that differentiates mmos from single-player games. How did the things get so screwed and topsy turvy in the past 10 years?

This is just ridiculous.

 

God only knows my friend. We shall fix it however.

Niche games are niche?

Pearls of wisdom, thanks sparky.

Originally posted by Isasis

What Minecraft and Skyrim have done is prove people like and will play a sandbox MMO, the game doesn't have to be linear like what themeparks are. I find the story elements of themeparks to be completly irrelevant to how that game is designed. If you notice you speak to lots of NPCs out in the open and it locks you into a cutscene and no one can see what is happening in your cutscene unless they're grouped. It has no impact on the world and doesn't get in anyones way other than your character standing still with a speach bubble above your head. No one likes this.

I see no reason why you couldn't have a game in the format of Minecraft or Skyrim, but in MMO form. The only difference in design would be instead of a typical MMO being one linear line, you could go to any planet, solar system or area of a world you want at any time and do the content you want. This would mean that no area ever goes unplayed as people will always choose to do different content at different stages of their character progression. This would mean I could group with my friend if I've been playing for two years and he has only just started. It isn't even like you need to have quest stories because you, the player could easily create their own story, like what is done in a non linear game like what GTA or Skyrim has. 

The great thing I find about Minecraft and Skyrum, is everything is optional and you can do any quests you want or build anything you want, which could easily be done in a sandbox game. There is no reason for the game to be so linear what so ever because the story has no impact on the world. You'll constantly go into a phase and do content that would massively change the world and yet you run out and everything is the same. A lot of the time you've cleared out all the Mobs and that faction is sposed to be gone after the cutscene and you have to run back through them, killing them all again lol.

To me it just proves that the myth that themeparks are what people want is a lie.

Selective observation at its finest. One, Skyrim is not an MMO, you cannot draw the potential success or failure of an MMO based on the experiences you have for in a single-player game. That would be like me saying people love Mario, so of course everyone would love an MMO where you jump over pits and onto enemies. I'm sure there's someone who wants to chime in about now and say "I'd love that," but fight the urge to miss the point, please.

Two, the success of Minecraft isn't just based on the fact that it's a sandbox. There are a lot of sandbox games and nearly all of them are dead, dying or haven't come to be yet and are hoping for the best. Minecraft is unique in its atmosphere and gameplay mechanics, it has found a way to "own" the genre rather than simply plop people in a barren wasteland and tell them to make something out of it (*cough* Xyson *cough*). Just because Minecraft did it doesn't mean someone else will be able to mimic that success, several have already tried and failed miserably. 

You're going to need more than a single-player RPG and a niche MMO to prove "that themeparks are what people want is a lie."

I'm not sure why people still polarize on sandbox vs. themepark in every discussion. Of course sandbox games can be fun, it is the implementation that makes or breaks the game. Sandbox doesn't necessarily mean FFA PVP with full loot, anymore than it means that you have to be able to build your house with your bare hands to quality. It is a design umbrella, nothing more; a generalization of free-form vs. pre-destined.

Skyrim was a lot of fun, and has many sandbox qualities. There are some people who would sacrifice their combat abilities to specialize in crafting and enchanting, and they should be given that ability (and consequently be able to generate the best items in the game because of it).

The real "problem" with most sandbox games is the players. Any single person's experience is driven almost exclusively by how other people interact with them. For a person with a lot of friends/guildmates, this might be a very positive experience. For a loner trying to find their place, this could be the exact opposite.

Why is Skyrim considered a sandbox anyway? It still has developer created quests/content, only that you can do them in any order you wish and that they can have changes to the world.

So wouldn't that technically make GW2 a sandbox (non-linear, optional quest structure)? Something isn't quite right about that.

I'm pretty sure Elder Scrolls is a themepark.

Neither of those games are MMO's. Sure you can build with a few buddies in minecraft but theres no massively multiplayer option. Maybe 50 people on a server if you get lucky? Skyrim is an immersive single player sandbox game that really wouldn't work as a multiplayer online game. If you add too many people into the world in that type of game, it takes away severely from the story. Which was one of the biggest points of the game, was the great story, the great options to do what you want. How many possible dragonborn could be there, if there was more than you, I'm sure that you would end up in the same boat as most MMO's. "You are the last hero!" Along with everyone else here with you! People like to think that everything would work in an MMO situation but a majority of the ideas have been tried and proven not to work. If you added questing into mortal you pretty much have the same type of game as an elder scrolls game, just horribly bugged and unrefined. Now, do you think bethesda would be able to pull of some genre changing MMO right away? Hell no. Look at what Bioware did. They make AMAZING single player games. people wanted an MMO version of their games, and look at the hellstorm it caused. So many people complaining there is too much story or not enough variety. Maybe in the future when the servers wouldn't explode because of 10,000 people fighitng different mobs with crazy hit detection and the refined combat of the elder scrolls games, it might make an okay MMO. But even then it's a hero story, that is an immersive sandbox because YOU make it into one. With other people the game gets ruined, your immersion lost. No fun will come out of a game like that when you are questing to kill some giant dragon and all of a sudden some character named bluntsmoke420 comes and kills the dragon out of nowhere and kills you as well.