Sandbox fans are living in dreams because nothing worthy ever gets released. Arche Age save us.

Originally posted by Kuinn

Sandbox fans are living in dreams because nothing worthy ever gets released. Arche Age save us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCdbdsFgNGI

Originally posted by Luxthor

so... todays MMO-s are plain devolution. We just need little more time and intelligent game design team.

It's questionable how much of that devolution was due to wireframe models (additional dev time, limited ability to object-manipulate, limited to fixed animations, etc.)  But certain that some of it was.

But that's ok, it's a one-sided argument.  Ignores the (many) ways a MUD would be considered a devolution of a MMORPG.

23 minutes, scripted jogging speed, between two MUD towns, sans ambush.  About 35 minutes for the best unscripted map-walkers.

Originally posted by Icewhite

What makes you think it's just the sandbox fans, Cres?

 I don't necessarily think it's just sandbox fans, I just noticed that I never really see sandbox games pushing the envelope.

I know people hate on themeparks, but I feel like they have actually made a lot of forward momentun with different class and combat mechanics, quest mechanics, etc. etc.

But sandboxes...it seems like we're all just hearkening for the good ole days with player housing, and meaningful crafting etc...I just want to see the sandbox concept get pushed forward.

Sure i'm living in the past. compare older MMOGs to modern day and you almost crave them. not much really more I can say. But still they make good games, you just have to keep your eye outfor them and allow common sense to dictate what you want to play. I never thought I would be interested in GW2 but after the last BWE I was impressed a little. This might be a good year for sandbox MMOs as well ,you never know.

Originally posted by Creslin321

I don't necessarily think it's just sandbox fans, I just noticed that I never really see sandbox games pushing the envelope.

Discounting EVE?  You'll probably get an argument or two from those SWG fans too.

I don't know.  It's hard to establish and 'trends' in a non-market that's still waiting for AA.  We'll talk about it after AA arrives, mebbe.

Originally posted by drakaena
I also think technology is just now catching up to adding UO features in a 3D world.

 This is possible a valid point.  It may be the case that it took a decade for 3D tech to catch up to the things that good ol' sprites were capable of doing.

Even so though, I think that there are plenty of other ways to create an awesome free-form MMO experience besides the old sandbox stand-bys.  So IMO, devs shouldn't say:

 "We can't do what  UO did with 3D tech, so a sandbox isn't possible."

They should say:

"Okay, we've got this 3D tech, what can we do with it?"

See what I mean?  It's true that tech has limits, but you shouldn't let a limit become a brick wall.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Creslin321

I don't necessarily think it's just sandbox fans, I just noticed that I never really see sandbox games pushing the envelope.

Discounting EVE?  You'll probably get an argument or two from those SWG fans too.

I don't know.  It's hard to establish and 'trends' in a non-market that's still waiting for AA.  We'll talk about it after AA arrives, mebbe.

 Eve is definitely an exception, and it's definitely innovative...but I feel like it's a whole different kind of game.  It's a sandbox, for sure, but it's not really in the tradition of UO, DF, MO, etc...

SWG...I didn't play it beyond beta, did it innovate any new sandbox features?

Originally posted by Prenho

Originally posted by Kuinn

Sandbox fans are living in dreams because nothing worthy ever gets released. Arche Age save us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCdbdsFgNGI

I played this game already, its called Diablo 1.

Originally posted by Creslin321

See what I mean?  It's true that tech has limits, but you shouldn't let a limit become a brick wall.

Start with the limitations of the wireframe.

How many functions can you pack into that "hand" cursor?  Now build a UI that works ideally for it.  It may need a new controller, design it.

Originally posted by alexanys1982

Originally posted by Prenho

Originally posted by Kuinn

Sandbox fans are living in dreams because nothing worthy ever gets released. Arche Age save us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCdbdsFgNGI

I played this game already, its called Diablo 1.

Yes you've never played lineage 1, it died in west, but in east L1 is the best open world MMORPG, with almost 1 million subscribers nowadays. Eternal is the sequel to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4f25QJyy3o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6IjHruj2-I

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Creslin321

See what I mean?  It's true that tech has limits, but you shouldn't let a limit become a brick wall.

Start with the limitations of the wireframe.

How many functions can you pack into that "hand" cursor?  Now build a UI that works ideally for it.  It may need a new controller, design it.

 Context sensitive objects can turn one button click into thousands of commands ;).

Originally posted by Creslin321

 Context sensitive objects can turn one button click into thousands of commands ;).

Uh huh?  That's still not complex enough to handle the versatility of a text verb...let alone your own hand.  Stop bandaiding it and design the UI that does it right.

(Imagine how many circular context menus you need to cycle through for function #415.)

I dont see it as living the past. nothing wrong with knowing what you like and expressing what you want. that being said, it's impossible to know if what I want will make a good mmo in this day and age. I can appreciate that. If a game just didnt have housing but was still a sandbox at it's core, that would be fine.

The key though is as anet said and did with questing, someone has to do it 100%. You don't get rid of questing, but then still have questing. Can't remember where they said that, but ...

As for FFA-PVP .. I think that actually has a lot less to do with sandbox than anything else. While I think creating open world pvp is essential for the genre to break out of .. whatever the hell funk it is in .. I think any game that releases with only FFA PVP servers will be entirely too niche of a game.

No idea what the solution to that is.

The only thing I can say is a full FFA-PVP game needs some magical combinations of rewards and penalties .. which can probably never exist. Im no game designer though .. but I think if someone thought it was possible it would have been attempted by now.

Back when 500k subscribers was the pinnacle, it was easier. less competition probably had a lot to do with people learning to live in an FFA PVP world as well.

I love the idea of ffa pvp .. but in practice, I actually dont care for it.

My only thought on how to fix ffa pvp is to make pvp take longer, and offer more escape routes, at least in the initial phases of combat. For example, until you start really attacking (what defines really attacking? idk) you run as if out of combat .. or something. Hide skills comes to mind. Hide would differ from stealth in that you cannot attack from hide. Something like that.

As I said, WoW and its clones made people to be afraid of pvp when it involves risks, nobody in west wants to be killed by an enemy guild while they are trying to kill an open world boss and also to lose xp if they die, no one wants to spend more than 1 week leveling, and they want to level alone, rushing to level cap, while in a open world like Lineage 1 you can't do anything alone after level 60. There's no hope for a actual MMO in west anymore. Lineage Eternal will be a success in east like L1 is, but in west there will be few serves, for the small niche of hardcore players.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Creslin321

 Context sensitive objects can turn one button click into thousands of commands ;).

Uh huh?  That's still not complex enough to handle the versatility of a text verb...let alone your own hand.  Stop bandaiding it and design the UI that does it right.

 Wait so are you talking about trying to emulate the actions of an actual human hand?

Why would you do this?  It's not necessary.  You don't need to try to simulate the "real" way things happen in a game.  You only need give the player a way to do things that they want to do...you can ignore the gritty details.

For example, when I go to open a can of cat food, I don't think:

1.  Contract biceps brachii to move forearm up.

2.  Conduct circumductive movement on thumb to position it under can tab.

3.  Conduct adductive movement on thumb while creating pressuing by pushing on can with other finger to open can.

.

.

.

I just think..."open can" and I am on auto-pilot for the rest.  That's the point, you don't need to simulate how things really happen...you just have the player right click on the can, and then the character opens it.  You don't even have to do an really fancy animation for this.

---

Originally posted by Creslin321
SWG...I didn't play it beyond beta, did it innovate any new sandbox features?

---

Ranger: class specialized in higher yield resources for crafting classes

Bio Engineer: extract dna from creatures to create new ones, a crafting class that buffed other crafting classes

Entertainers: social class that danced, played instruments, changed appearance, and could heal fatigue and wounds that doctors could not.

Droid engineers: crafted items that supported not just in combat, but in entertainment, other crafting classes, and even merchants.

These types of classes added layers to the overarching theme of combat. You had highly specialized skills that channeled through multiple classes and could help people indirectly. Thats the key imho. You make a game where yes, combat is the driving force of the world. But you channel and layer your ways of approaching that combat to the point that you never had to pick up a weapon and could still contribute to the overall theme of the game.

Well sure, to some extent we are.  There some pretty good game mechanics back in the day that I enjoyed that have been largely tossed out instead of built upon and refined as I would have hoped for.

But it's true, we can't look entirely to the past and rebuild what was, that never works, some newer, fresh ideas have to be added to entice a greater portion of the gaming market so it can be profitable.

Not saying I have the answers, but I keep hoping some folks much smarter than me can come up with some new ideas.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by DrunkWolf

to me the games of the past are still light years ahead of the games we have now. the genre is going backwards. we are just now starting to see some hints of features that we had 10 years ago and companies act like its somthing new.

take Tera for example, they act like dodgeing skills and makeing combat skill based is somthing new. not even close, Asherons Call did it back in 1999 and did it far better than Tera could even dream of doing it in 2012.

thats just one small example of many hundreds that i can come up with. games from the past such as UO/AC were made by gamers for gamers to have fun in a WORLD not some instanced lobby with a dungeon finder because people are to lazy.

the closest experience i have gotten to those days is in DayZ. you start off the game dropped into the world with a flash light and some bandages and are expected to figure the rest out on your own. and when you die you start all over.

its a little more hardcore than any MMO i have played, but at least it doesnt hold your hand and walk you threw panzy land makeing sure you get everything you want spoon fed to you along the way. ( looking at you wow and all your clones )

That sums up my feelings pretty well. There's just something about being thrown into a world with nothing but a marj melon and survival knife that these games are lacking today, no sense of adventure or wonder. The term themepark has been taken far too literal by these companies as comparatively that's what they feel like as that's what they're creating, virtual disneylands.

The problem is that for every 1 of you there are 10 people who will go "what the heck am I supposed to do? This game is dumb, I'm out."  They will quit and not come back.  This is the dilemma for game designers and publishers.  If it's a AAA development they can't afford to take the chance that people will quit and therefore the type of game you are describing is generally made by the indie companies and made on the cheap because they don't need a huge playerbase to make their money back.

I think this is part of where the OP is going.  There needs to be innovation and compromise.  A game like UO launched now wouldn't be more than a niche game.  They need to encorporate some "hand-holding" if you will at the beginning and probably use some guides, it's really a matter of how much or how little they use.

Originally posted by Grimlock426

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by DrunkWolf

to me the games of the past are still light years ahead of the games we have now. the genre is going backwards. we are just now starting to see some hints of features that we had 10 years ago and companies act like its somthing new.

take Tera for example, they act like dodgeing skills and makeing combat skill based is somthing new. not even close, Asherons Call did it back in 1999 and did it far better than Tera could even dream of doing it in 2012.

thats just one small example of many hundreds that i can come up with. games from the past such as UO/AC were made by gamers for gamers to have fun in a WORLD not some instanced lobby with a dungeon finder because people are to lazy.

the closest experience i have gotten to those days is in DayZ. you start off the game dropped into the world with a flash light and some bandages and are expected to figure the rest out on your own. and when you die you start all over.

its a little more hardcore than any MMO i have played, but at least it doesnt hold your hand and walk you threw panzy land makeing sure you get everything you want spoon fed to you along the way. ( looking at you wow and all your clones )

That sums up my feelings pretty well. There's just something about being thrown into a world with nothing but a marj melon and survival knife that these games are lacking today, no sense of adventure or wonder. The term themepark has been taken far too literal by these companies as comparatively that's what they feel like as that's what they're creating, virtual disneylands.

The problem is that for every 1 of you there are 10 people who will go "what the heck am I supposed to do? This game is dumb, I'm out."  They will quit and not come back.  This is the dilemma for game designers and publishers.  If it's a AAA development they can't afford to take the chance that people will quit and therefore the type of game you are describing is generally made by the indie companies and made on the cheap because they don't need a huge playerbase to make their money back.

I think this is part of where the OP is going.  There needs to be innovation and compromise.  A game like UO launched now wouldn't be more than a niche game.  They need to encorporate some "hand-holding" if you will at the beginning and probably use some guides, it's really a matter of how much or how little they use.

Thats perfectly fine, sandbox gamers dont want to play with ultra casuals that quit in the 1st 30min anyway. It drags the community down, and in a sandbox the less dumb people the better....you know...full loot pvp and all.