Originally posted by Creslin321

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.

A good sandbox could be made! this is what i came up with after a little thinking!

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5164689#5164689

---

Originally posted by Creslin321

---

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.

---

 The OP agrees :).

Lack of accessibility was a hallmark "feature" of older sandbox games, and is sadly, a hallmark feature of just about every newer one.  There is nothing about an inaccessible game that makes it more sandboxy...it's quite possible to have a very accessible game that is free-form as well.

I agree that there needs to be "innovation and compromise" as you say.  We need fresh sandbox concepts that don't require players to either spend a month doing menial tasks, or read a book on the internet to understand.

---

The problem between 'hardcore' and 'casual' mmoers I blame on the developers and partly on expectations. What the developers have been doing is dumbing down the entire game so that people who have a limited time or experience with MMOs can play on the same level as people who can play a great deal and are experienced.

In my opinion this is the wrong approach. There is no reason a game cannot have content that someone playing only a few hours a week can participate in. To use SWG as an example, a small group or soloer could run some missions out of a large city. If they had some ranger skills the could harvest the mobs and sell the mats. Easily something you could do for an hour and if you had to leave right away it was safe to just log off. However, you could also go to one of the uncivilized planets and spend all night doing missions. It was much more difficult, getting to the mission way points was much harder, but the rewards were greater. In both instances you have casual gamers and hardcore gamers enjoying the same mechanic in the same game. And when that hardcore gamer gets online and no one wants to run those difficult missions, he can still do what the casuals are doing, and when the casuals have some free time to play longer they can experience something different.

This is kind of a mess but TL:DR "You can have different content in your game for people who have different amount of time/dedication they can give to the game and it benefits everyone."

Originally posted by Murashu

Originally posted by valkerus

Originally posted by Grimlock426

Originally posted by valkerus

YES. People voted with their wallets and they choose what we have today. Not being a troll just stating the absolute, undisputed truth. Nobody wants huge time sinks, nobody wants to deal with the asshats who have 23 hours a day to camp one mob for the vorpal sword.

That is not to say that some of the concepts couldn't work and work well. Player housing, deeper  crafting, open world (with instanced dungeons), sure.  Open world where you are a farmer, don't sell. Extreme open pvp, don't sell. 

I think alot of older players look at their first experiences with SWG, EQ, UO with rose colored glasses.

 

I agree with this for the most part. 

I'll go a step further with my view of the "older" gamers being that I am one of them.  Not only do the older gamers have rose colored glasses on for much of their recollection, but also at this point these older gamers are the ones who by and large don't have the time to devote to all the huge time sinks from games in the past.  Older gamers are the ones who now have full time jobs, kids, responsibilities, etc.  I have a theory that in many cases it's actually the older gamers who are pushing for the less grindy content and not so much the "kids" who have a lot of time.

Beleive me i think the same thing. I was one of those guys also. I camped the mobs, I ran the raids, i did that stuff. The problem is I had a ton of fun doing it AT THE TIME.  I dont look back at these things as something i would ever want to repeat.

Great insight though with older gamers pushing what they can no longer do. I think the same thing. I am a fan of play what you enjoy. I'll be honest, i enjoy SWOTOR and couldn't get past the third login to GW2. I don't hate, or judge those that like or dislike what i'm into. The point is there is so much more in this world to be upset about other than what one developer did or did not do in there video game.  This website is great for getting into the weeds of details on games and i read far more than i post because there are trully some people here with much more knowledge than i have of games or how games work. But the pure spite towards companies and posters that don't agree with eachother is just sad.

 

I don't think age has anything to do with liking or disliking most gaming features. I love games with full looting, open world PvP, non-instanced dungeons, territory control, player housing...you know most of the features missing from AAA MMOs other than EVE. If something were to happen in my life that made it so that I had less time to play, I wouldn't just stop liking those features and start liking games like WoW or Rift. Hell I'm retiring in January after 22 years in the Army, my son goes off to college at the end of the month and the last thing I want is another MMO that can be burned through in a month due to no player driven content.

 

I was deployed to Afghanistan the month before Vanguard launched and although I was working 16 hour days for 15 months and rarely had a decent internet connection, it was Vanguard I chose to play when I had the time. I probably could have gained more levels or experienced more content in a casual friendly game, but those casual friendly games just dont have the gameplay I enjoy.

I'll have to disagree with the age theory, at least in my case.  I played my first MMORPG when I was 44 years old and I never had enough time to camp a mob spawn for 12 hours (did it one time, sucked), but I don't begrudge the fact that the game offered such for players who did.

But I did have time to run open world dragon raids, which I did in both DAOC and WOW when it first launched.  I even enjoyed it more on a PVP server when the raid could be disrupted by another group, (or on some occasions it was my group doing the disrupting)

Point is, I'd prefer MMO's offer more fully functional virtual worlds, with all the travel associated with them, and not play like simple in and and out games like so many often do.

If DAOC 2 was offered today, I would play it, even if it contained many of the mechanics of its heyday, including the heavy focus on forced grouping and long downtimes between fights, that hasn't changed because of my age.

Even though I can rarely play more than a couple of hours a night, I'd rather they offer me a full range of game features and let me pick and chose what I enjoy, than to skinny them down into simplified experiences.

Case in point, WOW's 40 man raids.  I actually was a 40 man raider for over 6  months, but eventually had to give them up as they were too disruptive on my family life.  But Blizzard made a mistake in my opinion in doing away with them, regardless what their reasons were. 

Some portion of the player base enjoyed the effort they took to put together and the accomplishment it took to defeat them. (I recall many a 4-6 hour play session, 4-5 nights a week)

While it's true I am no longer able to do such content, they still should have continued to make it for those who did.

Not everything in a MMORPG needs to cater the the majority.

Originally posted by Mannish

Originally posted by Prenho

I prefer a good world pvp game with a true community where players actually play in groups, and make alliances to fight over castles-territory control-hunting grounds and open bosses  instead of these rush to level cap in 3 days questing and after sit in towns and wait for queues until the next instance, repeat it over and over to get better gear in order to make this same instance easier next time.

There were games like this years ago, the only problem was lack of player interest and support (Shadowbane for instance).  Another problem that granddaddy UO learned was too much player freedom lead to player griefing.  Remember UO in its first year?  People would build barrels in a way to bar movement and corral players into a killing zone. Houses planted next to roads so pk'rs could hide inside come out attack and run back in for safety. 

The one thing I have learned from years of sandbox games is that players just find ways to grief other players.  Not everyone, but enough to ruin the communities, and make them a chore to play.  Actions without consequence leads to mischief in online games.  I believe most people want to play a game to relax as well, not as a second job.  All the sandbox games I have played require huge time committments to be competitive and survive.  We would spend hours farming to improve guild structures, or guarding towns from other guilds, etc... All in good and well when you have nothing to do in the real world.

This is all based on my opinion and experiences over the past 20+ years of online gaming from MUDs and pre-internet bulletin boards, so don't get too butthurt ya'll.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Kyleran

Case in point, WOW's 40 man raids.  I actually was a 40 man raider for over 6  months, but eventually had to give them up as they were too disruptive on my family life.  But Blizzard made a mistake in my opinion in doing away with them, regardless what their reasons were. 

Some portion of the player base enjoyed the effort they took to put together and the accomplishment it took to defeat them. (I recall many a 4-6 hour play session, 4-5 nights a week)

While it's true I am no longer able to do such content, they still should have continued to make it for those who did.

Not everything in a MMORPG needs to cater the the majority.

4-6 hour play session, 4-5 nights a week

Did that with 40s, 25s and 10s, too.  Changing the size of the player-mob really had only a very minor effect, mostly a stylistic preference.  The biggest change was removal of classic entry barriers.

I hope that 'The Repopulation' is a go, it looks like everything I want in a MMORPG.

Give me some player content and themepark attractions and the game will keep me busy for months on out.

---

Originally posted by Magnetia
Minecraft? Archage? There's gotta be some merit there.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

Originally posted by Magnetia
Minecraft? Archage? There's gotta be some merit there.

---

I have found a lot to like in Minecraft, both in private servers playing with friends and on servers playing with a couple hundred people. It can have a lot of the sandbox features like a player made economy, ffa pvp, faction (guild) land ownership, and the ability to build towns from the ground up. You could even have world bosses (giants). What Minecraft doesn't do is make you wait for something. No twelve hour spawn camping or waiting through mini-games for crafting. While you're in the game, you're playing. The other thing Minecraft does is allow players to create truly safe areas. It may require a good bit of work depending on the server and the mods being run, but a player can create a truly safe place. These two things, no waiting and truly safe spaces are what Minecraft could contribute to the idea of sandbox mmorpg.

Not sure about ArcheAge. I'm not sure what it adds that's actually new besides graphics. Someone else would have to answer that. :-)

Originally posted by P4YB4CK

I hope that 'The Repopulation' is a go, it looks like everything I want in a MMORPG.

Give me some player content and themepark attractions and the game will keep me busy for months on out.

Pretty much guarantee their will be very little theme park as the devs have stated that the beginning tutorial area will be the only    area where so called theme park mechanics are employed,but if u want open ended player content look no further as Repop pretty much throws everything including the kitchen sink into the mix. 

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by P4YB4CK

I hope that 'The Repopulation' is a go, it looks like everything I want in a MMORPG.

Give me some player content and themepark attractions and the game will keep me busy for months on out.

Pretty much guarantee their will be very little theme park as the devs have stated that the beginning tutorial area will be the only    area where so called theme park mechanics are employed,but if u want open ended player content look no further as Repop pretty much throws everything including the kitchen sink into the mix. 

They listed so many features on their page, and i kind of doubt if they can actually implement all the features well. I highly doubt they can do every feature justice even if they have Blizz like budget, which they do not.

However, if they can do it, more power to them.

I believed I was; until I found DayZ. It's not an MMO; but it's what I wanted. A game where role-playing doesn't really matter, but outside communites can form. The reddit rescue squad and everything are perfect examples. This is why I love EvE so much.

I guess when I was playing SWG, maybe I felt the same way. 

Sandbox players want a game that has never existed while claiming they used to exist. The sandbox games they remember actually consisted of killing the same monster until they skilled up so they could kill the next monster. Strategic PvP consisted of them and 20 of their friends strategicly waiting on a road until somebody walked by so they could strategicly kill them before that player's dial-up modem could show anybody. No fun, no nothing; just watching your skill number slowly go up as you played so you could pretend anybody gave a damn about it.

A good sandbox game would provide direction in the world through the use of internal game mechanics and not idiots trolling message boards about which player was able to keep their bot going the longest before their parents picked up the phone and knocked out the connection.

Originally posted by Yaos

Sandbox players want a game that has never existed while claiming they used to exist. The sandbox games they remember actually consisted of killing the same monster until they skilled up so they could kill the next monster. Strategic PvP consisted of them and 20 of their friends strategicly waiting on a road until somebody walked by so they could strategicly kill them before that player's dial-up modem could show anybody. No fun, no nothing; just watching your skill number slowly go up as you played so you could pretend anybody gave a damn about it.

A good sandbox game would provide direction in the world through the use of internal game mechanics and not idiots trolling message boards about which player hit grand master first. Imagine if, as a guild, you had to take land from an enemy faction. Not just you and 50 people hammering away at NPCs until the enemy faction bar empties out, but an actuall war. You need to gain allies, attack supply lines, seige a keep. You have to bring in resources to build the engines of war. Even in Eve Online wars are just wars of attrition; either of in-game resources or boredom.

Trolololol

I didn't read the entire thread and I will do shortly, but I am gonna go ahead and tell you what I think about this particular topic.

Like the OP I loved the old sandbox feeling that was in games like UO, the whole community run everything, laws, land, you name it, people would do almost everything without the game telling them they should do it, or that they should go to X Y or Z dungeon.

But the more I think about it the more I realize that the sandbox systems that we had in the past, cannot be trusted in the hands of the new MMORPG generation, thinking about many people's concerns over open world PVP ( which I do love ), freeform construction ( which I also love ) and I can see the reasoning why they dont want it in their games, partially because it has never really been properly done apart from in very limited settings with very limited rules ( talking traditional MMORPG I know that Second Life does it, but its a different topic ), and most people because they haven't really experienced cannot understand that it will work.

The other reason is, the community has become much more "reckless" ( not sure if this is the right word tbh ), but MMORPGs since EQ have bred a community that really doesnt care about others, and in their defence they have no reason to, the game always told them it was about their experience and that their experience should be unique and special, and without a back to basics evolutionary ladder in MMORPGs all the way to full fledged sandbox features I think just making another UO will fail because people will completely misuse the system. For me this would be the equivalent of giving cavemen IPads and expect them to build a society with it, chances are they are just gonna wack eachother in the head with it.

Mind you, that I also dont believe that the evolutionary ladder is to simply work towards copying UO, I believe sandbox features ( whatever they mean, which they will mean different things for everyone ) are absolutely going to be based off old MMORPGS and MUDs that provided much more freedom and hell even the real world which they were originally based off, but it doesnt necessarily mean that everything will be strictly sandbox and that you can't just hop on do a quest and log off or whatever, these are pretty core features in any MMORPG and I doubt they will do away because sometimes you just want to login have someone tell you what to do and then logoff. 

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 )

^This....exactly.  I could not hqve said it better.  The genre IS going backwards.  TSW is a step in the proper direction, but even in that game there is quuite a bit if hand holding going on.

Originally posted by Hatefull

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 )

^This....exactly.  I could not hqve said it better.  The genre IS going backwards.  TSW is a step in the proper direction, but even in that game there is quuite a bit if hand holding going on.

Have to agree. For myself, I'm not "living in the past", I'm drawing from it.

Even so, if we never had that past, these are still the things I'd be looking for. When UO came out it was exactly the first effort for an MMORPG that I expected and wanted. A world. It made as much sense as a world that I expected for the first truly large scale offering.

I expected that MMORPGs would advance their worlds into greater things. Alas.....

I think with the BOOM of F2P here that companies are going to have to make engaging games so you stick around and buy stuff. This means they should concentrate on sandbox - esque games to keep you around for years, not months. Hopefully the days of the $60 cash grab is gone. It all depends on the cash shop set up though when it comes to these games.

People associate open - world PvP gankfests with sandbox games. I see no reason why you can't enforce Guild vs Guild full looting and when not warred with X or Y guild (or anyone for that matter if you enjoy PvE) then there is no chance to be looted. This could cut down on griefing a lot I think.

Only thing I'm slightly interested in MMO wise is The Repop and ArcheAge.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Kyleran

Case in point, WOW's 40 man raids.  I actually was a 40 man raider for over 6  months, but eventually had to give them up as they were too disruptive on my family life.  But Blizzard made a mistake in my opinion in doing away with them, regardless what their reasons were. 

Some portion of the player base enjoyed the effort they took to put together and the accomplishment it took to defeat them. (I recall many a 4-6 hour play session, 4-5 nights a week)

While it's true I am no longer able to do such content, they still should have continued to make it for those who did.

Not everything in a MMORPG needs to cater the the majority.

4-6 hour play session, 4-5 nights a week

Did that with 40s, 25s and 10s, too.  Changing the size of the player-mob really had only a very minor effect, mostly a stylistic preference.  The biggest change was removal of classic entry barriers.

Actually, the greatest effect it had was in shredding my raiding guild, which was organized and staffed around the 40 man model.

With BC we had to split into smaller raid groups and since there really was only one solid raid leader only one small group of players progressed routinely.  This lead to hard feelings and eventual disolution of the guild