Originally posted by umcorian

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by barezz

Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP.  Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged.  The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP. 

It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best.  The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch".  Can all of these gams just be that terrible?  Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?

+1  Sandboxers love to blame everything except the possibility that a sandbox game could ever be popular in the first place.  The only formula that I could see possibly breaking the suckage barrier would be a sandpark game, but I'm sure the purists would whine about that as well.

 

Why would you even want a sandbox MMO where you can't attack other players? Not trying to be sarcastic, just understand. If your only interest in is PvE, don't theme park MMOs already do that so much better? 

The idea of a sandbox has always been a world that's player-made, player-driven. I think that's why UO lost its appeal for so many when they split the world into Trammel/Feluccia. It didn't really become a sandbox so much as a kittypool, where you fight monsters that are so easy that you could pretty much faceroll the hardest things in the game. 

Sandbox means sandbox

Themepark means themepark

And PVP means PVP the same way PVE means PVE.

Don´t mix up concepts. You don't need to attack any player to have a player-driven economy. You don't need pvp to enjoy a sandbox experience.

Building your castle in the middle of nowhere has way more to do with sandbox games than having to defend it from other players afterwards.

So yes, sandbox games that are PVE centric are possible. Sandbox does not mean PVP. Sandbox means sandbox.

Originally posted by gordiflu

Originally posted by umcorian

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by barezz

Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP.  Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged.  The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP. 

It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best.  The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch".  Can all of these gams just be that terrible?  Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?

+1  Sandboxers love to blame everything except the possibility that a sandbox game could ever be popular in the first place.  The only formula that I could see possibly breaking the suckage barrier would be a sandpark game, but I'm sure the purists would whine about that as well.

 

Why would you even want a sandbox MMO where you can't attack other players? Not trying to be sarcastic, just understand. If your only interest in is PvE, don't theme park MMOs already do that so much better? 

The idea of a sandbox has always been a world that's player-made, player-driven. I think that's why UO lost its appeal for so many when they split the world into Trammel/Feluccia. It didn't really become a sandbox so much as a kittypool, where you fight monsters that are so easy that you could pretty much faceroll the hardest things in the game. 

Sandbox means sandbox

Themepark means themepark

And PVP means PVP the same way PVE means PVE.

Don´t mix up concepts. You don't need to attack any player to have a player-driven economy. You don't need pvp to enjoy a sandbox experience.

Building your castle in the middle of nowhere has way more to do with sandbox games than having to defend it from other players afterwards.

So yes, sandbox games that are PVE centric are possible. Sandbox does not mean PVP. Sandbox means sandbox.

Agreed. You could have an open PVP game (world of tanks) that is not a sandbox.

Originally posted by banshe13

Martin need to get off his ass and get on the next book the winds of winter. He's not getting any younger and hes talking about 2 or 3 years till he starts the next book and talking about adding 1 more book.

 

He's 63 years old and at his pace the last 2 or 3 books wont be out for a good 10-15 years. dance with dragons was a OK book and a vary bad book for all the time it took him.

 

Amen. DWD had ben done for years and spent many years more in edits as I understand it.

This game might wind up being incredilbe, but would have done itself a huge favor by steering clear of this IP.

Fans of the books know that Game of Thrones is moreso a footnote or a setup for the landscape and players that the actual story takes place in and around. That being the state of their world in winter while a battle for light and dark ensues.

Lastly, no House Targaryen equals no Game of Thrones.

Originally posted by gordiflu

Originally posted by umcorian

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by barezz

Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP.  Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged.  The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP. 

It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best.  The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch".  Can all of these gams just be that terrible?  Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?

+1  Sandboxers love to blame everything except the possibility that a sandbox game could ever be popular in the first place.  The only formula that I could see possibly breaking the suckage barrier would be a sandpark game, but I'm sure the purists would whine about that as well.

 

Why would you even want a sandbox MMO where you can't attack other players? Not trying to be sarcastic, just understand. If your only interest in is PvE, don't theme park MMOs already do that so much better? 

The idea of a sandbox has always been a world that's player-made, player-driven. I think that's why UO lost its appeal for so many when they split the world into Trammel/Feluccia. It didn't really become a sandbox so much as a kittypool, where you fight monsters that are so easy that you could pretty much faceroll the hardest things in the game. 

Sandbox means sandbox

Themepark means themepark

And PVP means PVP the same way PVE means PVE.

Don´t mix up concepts. You don't need to attack any player to have a player-driven economy. You don't need pvp to enjoy a sandbox experience.

Building your castle in the middle of nowhere has way more to do with sandbox games than having to defend it from other players afterwards.

So yes, sandbox games that are PVE centric are possible. Sandbox does not mean PVP. Sandbox means sandbox.

First off, many of you confuse sandbox with open world pvp.  A sandbox game does not need open world pvp to be a sandbox game.  SWG is proof of that.

Secondly if you have open world pvp you better have significant consequences built into it to prevent it from being a gank fest.  Notice the very sparse populations of Darkfall and MO, none have consequences to any degree.  Anyone saying the game population can police it does not understand the genre at all, just does not work that way.

Thirdly, UO was enhanced by Trammel.  Very few left the game when it was added and many joined.  Personally thought that those that left missed out on a much better game.

Lastly, if they make this a f2p as I suspect, you can write this game off too, most of us won't touch a pay-to-win game.

"and players will have a lot to be excited about once more details are revealed" << yea, unless we learned from the last 20 mmo releases and their previews :P

never hype, hope. don't expect.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

First off, many of you confuse sandbox with open world pvp.  A sandbox game does not need open world pvp to be a sandbox game.  SWG is proof of that.

Secondly if you have open world pvp you better have significant consequences built into it to prevent it from being a gank fest.  Notice the very sparse populations of Darkfall and MO, none have consequences to any degree.

Thirdly, UO was enhanced by Trammel.  Very few left the game when it was added and many joined.  Personally thought that those that left missed out on a much better game.

Lastly, if they make this a f2p as I suspect, you can write this game off too, most of us won't touch a pay-to-win game.

Who? considering that F2P get most of the players these days.

Will it have politics?

I will just stick to Season 2 in April/May:D

Originally posted by BrokenSpoon

I will just stick to Season 2 in April/May:D

Originally posted by barezz

Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP.  Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged.  The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP. 

It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best.  The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch".  Can all of these gams just be that terrible?  Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?

There's nothing wrong with open world pvp. It's how it's presented that makes it good or bad. Being flagged at the moment you log on to the time you log off should be a choice or option not mandatory. The one thing that SWG pre-cu did right was to incorporate the Overt/Covert pvp system. It let you PVP in the open world the way you liked.

Uggh...My favorite series of books or all times just turned into a browser game, by a company reputed for P2W games...

I just feel like I found out Cristina Hendricks has a penis.

Ok on paper this sounds absolutely amazing (except the F2P part). However I am sceptic because I often heard all these promises during development, just to be cut later one.

So I will watch this game carefully and see what happens with it. Could be massive...

Originally posted by afropuff420

I am REALLY not a fan of browser based games. I have yet to see one that I could actually see myself playing for any real length of time. This saddens me, as I was truly hoping this would be something to look forward to. I hate to judge, because i know it's still early in the whole browser based thing.. but I just dont see this being epic. 

 

I agree! I cringed when I read "browser base"... we'll wait and see "browser based" does equal possible lunch time play.

Originally posted by barezz

Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP.  Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged.  The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP. 

It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best.  The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch".  Can all of these gams just be that terrible?  Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?

 

Wow man get out of my head!

Originally posted by Akais

Originally posted by banshe13

Martin need to get off his ass and get on the next book the winds of winter. He's not getting any younger and hes talking about 2 or 3 years till he starts the next book and talking about adding 1 more book.

 

He's 63 years old and at his pace the last 2 or 3 books wont be out for a good 10-15 years. dance with dragons was a OK book and a vary bad book for all the time it took him.

 

Amen. DWD had ben done for years and spent many years more in edits as I understand it.

This game might wind up being incredilbe, but would have done itself a huge favor by steering clear of this IP.

Fans of the books know that Game of Thrones is moreso a footnote or a setup for the landscape and players that the actual story takes place in and around. That being the state of their world in winter while a battle for light and dark ensues.

Lastly, no House Targaryen equals no Game of Thrones.

Indeed!  No House Targaryen, no GOT!

 

Originally posted by Fierytex

Originally posted by Akais

Originally posted by banshe13

Martin need to get off his ass and get on the next book the winds of winter. He's not getting any younger and hes talking about 2 or 3 years till he starts the next book and talking about adding 1 more book.

 

He's 63 years old and at his pace the last 2 or 3 books wont be out for a good 10-15 years. dance with dragons was a OK book and a vary bad book for all the time it took him.

 

Amen. DWD had ben done for years and spent many years more in edits as I understand it.

This game might wind up being incredilbe, but would have done itself a huge favor by steering clear of this IP.

Fans of the books know that Game of Thrones is moreso a footnote or a setup for the landscape and players that the actual story takes place in and around. That being the state of their world in winter while a battle for light and dark ensues.

Lastly, no House Targaryen equals no Game of Thrones.

Indeed!  No House Targaryen, no GOT!

 

 

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by gordiflu

Originally posted by umcorian

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by barezz

Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP.  Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged.  The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP. 

It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best.  The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch".  Can all of these gams just be that terrible?  Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?

+1  Sandboxers love to blame everything except the possibility that a sandbox game could ever be popular in the first place.  The only formula that I could see possibly breaking the suckage barrier would be a sandpark game, but I'm sure the purists would whine about that as well.

 

Why would you even want a sandbox MMO where you can't attack other players? Not trying to be sarcastic, just understand. If your only interest in is PvE, don't theme park MMOs already do that so much better? 

The idea of a sandbox has always been a world that's player-made, player-driven. I think that's why UO lost its appeal for so many when they split the world into Trammel/Feluccia. It didn't really become a sandbox so much as a kittypool, where you fight monsters that are so easy that you could pretty much faceroll the hardest things in the game. 

Sandbox means sandbox

Themepark means themepark

And PVP means PVP the same way PVE means PVE.

Don´t mix up concepts. You don't need to attack any player to have a player-driven economy. You don't need pvp to enjoy a sandbox experience.

Building your castle in the middle of nowhere has way more to do with sandbox games than having to defend it from other players afterwards.

So yes, sandbox games that are PVE centric are possible. Sandbox does not mean PVP. Sandbox means sandbox.

 

I agree but I think the sandbox needs to decide at the design stage process what it is going to be, I don't think the UO way of just splitting into 2 rule sets is good, do one or the other.

 

I do also think that a sandbox based on GoT has to have PvP, where's the satisfaction over stabbing an NPC in the back

Game of Thrones without open-world PvP doesn't make much sense IMHO. I mean GoT really is all about each and everyone fighting and backstabbing eachother. I don't see how this could be properly translated into PvE with instanced battlegrounds or some nonsense like that.