Your suggestions sound very similar to EverQuest 2's World Events, which are generated at the players location if the player is on the right step of the quest, and can be triggered anywhere. So you might have some mobs appear and attack the player (or the players group) or you might have a portal to a dungeon spawn at the players location, or even a camp of nasties spawning next to the player.

These are all based on the timeline of the player (or one of the players in the group) and can appear on any land mass, or any area, even (in the case of the mobs attacking) in a capital city.

I'm sure WoW also uses this from time to time.

So, the process is in place, just hide the quest steps from the player so it feels more like a story, make the generated events bigger and more interesting, and add a storyline, and your done!

I keep reading about how good are sandbox games and how they should be the future of MMOs, but I see little evidence that people really like them. Except on forums and sites like this one.

Well, it seems that most people who play do not post on such sites and foums, as I don't see any sandbox game doing well in the market. What am I missing here?

Some interesting ideas, but In order to have a truly 'revolutionary' MMO, we will have to completely change our concept of progression, reward, and content.

The problem with MMOs atm (both Themeparks & Sandboxes alike), is that they are handcuffed by us (the players) in that we have come to expect inherently flawed systems in our MMOs. What's worse is that we have also gotten in the habit of bitches about these flawed systems as soon as we start to see the problems they create begin to manifest (hence the cycle of MMO gripes since the release of WoW).

Many players are looking for things from MMOs that are not physically possible with current technology. Furthermore, by the time that technology exists (if it ever does), there's nothing to say that we won't have changed our perspective to now view that new technology in the same way we view the current one. (jaded, unimpressed, and completely discounting any advantages the new tech even offers).

What I think MMOs need to do to take that next step (and some have started to, but haven't done enough), is to get rid of vertical progression entirely, or limit it to a tutorial zone. Many of the problems stem from such a system, and it's beyond tiring. Instead, tie character customization, skills, and rewards towards achievements in the world. This could even be taken further to tie territorial control to resource management, similar to what we've seen in games like Eve, Planetside, etc.

It is possible to have dynamic MMOs, but not if you're only understanding of what constitutes 'dynamic' involves technology that doesn't exist. It's impossible to have quests like we know them (from RPGs) manifest in MMOs in a way that is 100% unique, 100% of the time. Games are always going to be repetative in nature, and they always have been. Even when you look at single player RPGs, you will find that they have a lot of the same characteristics that MMOs do. The big difference is that single player RPGs have a long, involved, overarcing storylines that distract from the repetative tasks. This is something MMOs have tried to mimic (ie. SWTOR, TSW) and it just doesn't work that well.

We need to stop viewing MMOs as the latest gear treadmills, and start approaching them in a new way. Even though games like GW2 tried to do this, most of us are still incapable of approaching games without looking for that treadmill. Until we start seeing this, there isn't much MMO developers can do for us.

GW2 is megafun and I love it, but changed everything? lmao

GW2 is only one more good game nothing news on market

brw. STO had similar combat & gameplay concept

I have to agree. I like the fact that Guild Wars has headed away from so much instancing. But at the same time, what they think is game breaking - really isn't - as game breaking as they think.

Yes, they have dynamic events, but they talked it up as if it was something not yet touched upon. When in reality all they did was keep looping the same -event- over and over and over. It got boring, and it got boring quickly.

I had this idea that the events would more random, and what we did could affect the entire progression of the game. I did really like how they laid out the skill keys for my elementalist. That was very nice.

I liked many things about the game but there was so many restrictions on how your gear looked, and it just seemed like a mish-mash of free for alls - which was not so much a bad thing but - I can't explain it - I just felt as if would be fun to hit up now and then - but I did not feel totally connected to it.

But - I fully anticipate they will explore more options, and ideas and we will see the game evolve with input from the players.

I did not - NOT - like it, but I think I'll wait a bit more to return, and jump in when they do some updates/upgrades and changes.

The people btw were very nice, kind and I did love the energy. The community will undoubtedly become a winning part of GW2.

Aren't red5 and anet both seattle-based with ex-blizzard employees at them? 

Is that why we are getting all of this gw2 lovin?  Mark Kern is a smart guy, there is no way he writes such an over-the-top article without ulterior motives. 

GW2 did not change the face of MMORPGs, it sold the same as the other big MMORPG launch this year, and that one was P2P, and there is no evidence that GW2 has good retention rate. 

It did not innovate, it merely polished SOME things, while generally just making the game so easy that it would attempt to appeal to the masses and be a complete letdown to gamers that want those crazy hard challenges. 

MMORPGs are supposed to be about playing characters that you build up and develop some sorta connection with in a game world.  When you make the journey too easy, it is harder to build a bond. 

Anyone that got max level in eq1 before velious knows what I'm talking about. 

facebook and twitter is what is popular in this day and age though, and with the way mainstream consumers are, it's no wonder that we are getting flooded with these super-easy games that require little brain activity to play. 

Originally posted by Lethargic_Synapse
Everyone criticizes the modern MMO concept but nobody ever offers real, viable alternative solutions.  Such is life, I suppose.

Solutions?  The devloper's joib.  I think there have been more than enough ideas thrown around.   They just need to start thinking outside the box.

Any mmo that come's out without Dynamic Events is a step back.

In gw2 DE's are pretty well done, can be improved and i bet Anet are working on that for sure :)

In the meantime i realy hope other mmo studio's forget the pickup a quest at a hub go out and bring it back.
I woulnt ever play a quest hub based mmo again tbh :P

Isn't this the past, present and future of MMORPG's? but dev's are too scared to let go of the power and see where it takes them.

Thats what i tought too, thats there was gonna be Game masters doing events special things, i have noticed some towns that sometimes will be different, like for example the centaur will own that town and theres gonna be a war, and you can go some other time and the town will be owned by friendly npcs and you can be safe without any monsters in there or agro. And there was one cave in the human lands that sometimes would be open and sometimes will be closed full with rocks. But thats all i have seen for now.

The dynamic events :# a lot of them are bug, the npcs you have to escort sometimes are just standing they wont walk, that also happened to me in the story line where Trahearne becomes marshal, that cave, im stopped in that part.

Im kinda unconfortable that the game wasnt finish on release and also about the dungeons i do agree 100% with you about the trash mobs and the big chest full of whites and blues at the end, not full just 1 or 2 items. I kinda feel bad for Arena im 50/50.

Originally posted by Rockniss

I love the idea of an AI game director, say was that stolen from the hunger games? 

No. There's a reason Left 4 Dead 2 is shown up in the article. The Left 4 Dead games used a aystem they called the AI Director that scaled game challenge and events in response to how the players were faring.

 This concept greatly predates Hunger Games from within the game world itself. It is largely reference to a virtualization of human game masters so that there is not a need of constant human handling to ceatre a dynamic experience.

In a sense it's been a longtime holy grail of game design.

The other reason it's a thing worth mentioning is because of Gaia. Or what was previously being called Gaia in Firefall. :p

If you want to see where genre should evolve, go check EVE Online. It should be example for every MMO dev. Not another fantasy theme park with repetative grindfest called "dynamic events".