Originally posted by Onomas 
He isn't very open minded is he? Lol His way or we are all wrong.

Careful with that 'we'.

I see several hundred entitled inviduals demanding exacting specs, pretty much daily.

Occaisionally you can point out, to one or another of them, that what you {for any given you} want may not be what the industry can, should, or wants to make.

That causes some hostility, usually.  But it doesn't need to.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Yeah, he is putting words into my mouth. Let me be very clear about my position.

1) I like game certain ways (which i am not going to repeat), and I am not shy about it. D3 is the game i enjoyed most in the past few years.

2) I don't think *all* games should be made in the way i like. Very simply, i don't have the time to play so many games anyway. So what do i care if some are made not for me?

3) I do enjoy multiple game types (action combat focus, stealth ...) .. just not boring 20 min boat ride virtual worlds. Heck, how can anyone say i want games to be all the same when i enjoy D3, and WOT, and Dishonored, which are totally different types of games?

4) Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new and different gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMOs need a virtual world.

 

I think the point most people would make about 4 is those are not really MMOs. If they have a lobby and you create games of like 10 to 20 from the lobby, it's not an MMO. That's a COD style game. COD is definitely not an MMO.

MMOs have certain traits. None of the games you mentioned I would consider MMOs, and I also play WoT. I'm not saying those games shouldn't exist, but they also are not MMOs. Those games are in different catagories with different attributes than games like UO, EQ, EVE, SWTOR, WoW, etc.

MMO is just a label. Label changes its meaning all the time. Some may think that WOT, Gundam capsule fighter, D3, LOL are not MMOs .. but

a) they are listed, and discuss on this stie, and

b) MMO is a convenient label.

If you like, i can restate 4) as ...

.. Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new type of hybrid games with some MMO features and other gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMO like game need a virtual world.

Sorry but this is wrong. Would you call a dubstep song country? Why do you want to say your online games are MMOs? What's in it for you to call them that? Are they not good unless you think they're MMOs? I have cars on my feet. No they're not shoes. I've decided to relabel them as cars. You can quote the dictionary with your closed minded attitude of 'words have a meaning', but in the end they don't! Doll stove sandy snickers Africa silly! (I just said I can redefine words how I please)

All words have a specific definition, else nobody would be able to talk to each other. You can't change something just because you want your game to be in the sexy category. COD is not an MMO. D3 is not an MMO. MMO is MASSIVELY multiplayer online. It's built right in to the accronym for god's sake.

No more debate from me on the topic. I've already fell for the trolling.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

That is the problem. Most players can't create anything interesting.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?

The problem is, most people don't want to create anything, they play games to be entertained, not to have a second job.  If I buy a product, I don't expect to get a box with random parts that I have to figure out, I expect to have a fully-functioning product that I can actually use right away.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

That is the problem. Most players can't create anything interesting.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?

The problem is, most people don't want to create anything, they play games to be entertained, not to have a second job.  If I buy a product, I don't expect to get a box with random parts that I have to figure out, I expect to have a fully-functioning product that I can actually use right away.

Minecraft disagrees, good sir. Most sold downloadable game on XBOX in XBOX history. Most searches of any game on youtube by over triple. People love blank worlds, and they are constantly talking about how cool it would be to have more systems in minecraft, so they could build even cooler, more interactive stuff.

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

MMO is just a label. Label changes its meaning all the time. Some may think that WOT, Gundam capsule fighter, D3, LOL are not MMOs .. but

a) they are listed, and discuss on this stie, and

b) MMO is a convenient label.

If you like, i can restate 4) as ...

.. Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new type of hybrid games with some MMO features and other gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMO like game need a virtual world.

Sorry but this is wrong. Would you call a dubstep song country? Why do you want to say your online games are MMOs? What's in it for you to call them that? Are they not good unless you think they're MMOs? I have cars on my feet. No they're not shoes. I've decided to relabel them as cars. You can quote the dictionary with your closed minded attitude of 'words have a meaning', but in the end they don't! Doll stove sandy snickers Africa silly! (I just said I can redefine words how I please)

All words have a specific definition, else nobody would be able to talk to each other. You can't change something just because you want your game to be in the sexy category. COD is not an MMO. D3 is not an MMO. MMO is MASSIVELY multiplayer online. It's built right in to the accronym for god's sake.

No more debate from me on the topic. I've already fell for the trolling.

I don't. I did not coin the term MMO. The game industry did. I am just using the label for convenience. If the industry, gaming website, including this one, is calling WOW, DDO and other instanced, lobby heavy games MMOs, who am i to disagree?

Are you saying WOW is not a MMO because you can play it like a lobby game? A thousand website will disagree with you.

Language is base on common usage, not your whim.

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

That is the problem. Most players can't create anything interesting.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?

The problem is, most people don't want to create anything, they play games to be entertained, not to have a second job.  If I buy a product, I don't expect to get a box with random parts that I have to figure out, I expect to have a fully-functioning product that I can actually use right away.

Minecraft disagrees, good sir. Most sold downloadable game on XBOX in XBOX history. Most searches of any game on youtube by over triple. People love blank worlds, and they are constantly talking about how cool it would be to have more systems in minecraft, so they could build even cooler, more interactive stuff.

Sure .. some people want to make stuff. But most people? Don't tell me you think Minecraft players outweigh Halo, COD, WOW and so on.

Minecraft is currently behind Diablo 3 on the xfire chart, and it is the ONLY game that allows you to make stuff.

If creating stuff is so hot, Second Life would be a lot more successful. I am not saying no one wants to do it but a) i don't think MOST would want to .. and b) even if some want to create, they are not really putting in major effort, or make anything worthwhile.

My kids play minecraft for a while, and they just made some simple stuff like a house or two. I highly doubt they (or most minecraft players) are dedicated enough to make good content for others' to play.

Originally posted by Wizardry

I don't label them Sandbox or anything else,i label it a MMORPG as should be.We are trying to roleplay a character class and the game needs to create the living world.There are very complicated ways to create a realistic world liek adding mobile npc's with various changes,choices and an ECO system.

Instead most every dev sticks to what is EASY and cheap to design,a bunch of triggered quests that lead you in a linear direction.That is not RPG gaming, i really don't knwo what it is but it is not a mmorpg.

Once you attach a LINEAR pre planned route for gamers to follow,you remove the tag RPG.I am quite sure developers "GET IT" but they don't want to for sake of creating a cheaper ,easier game.

There are tons of other concepts that have been around awhile and we don't see them either,like destructive surfaces have been around since Red Faction [years ago].We have the WII showing us human interaction and Physx gives us the realistic physics.Very old games used mobile npcs and eco systems,but for some reasopn nobody wants to put out the effort.

So the ONLY question you need ask yourself is "Do i really want to support al lthese half ass efforts" just because i am bored and need a game toi play?Stop supporting them and changes will come about.Even if we need to have 90% of the developers fold up shop it helps the MMORPG's in the long run because only the good creative ones survive.

You started of good but by the second sentence it started going south really fast. With your definition, well over half of the RPGs wouldn't be RPGs.

I remember reading some time ago that the ecosystems you advertise really did not work as intended as they were exploited, broke under player influence or went unnoticed. Really hard to justify spending time and effort making such features when a mere fraction is there to appreciate it. Plenty of features sound good on paper, but are entirely something else in practice.

Also, as I understand it, physics is a very resource-intensive to the server, which already has to handle hundreds of players in the same area. And the resources needed grow exponentially. So far, elaborate physics have only been done with single player games or in games with a controlled amount of players in the same area. I'm all for having physics in an MMO but the first step is to have it in a game such as DDO or GW1 which are entirely instanced. And seeing as most of the people who bring up what "real MMORPGs" should be are purists, I don't think you would be happy with that either.

You are basically mad because the games and the technology they use has not met your expectations. Are you also mad because you don't have a hoverboard yet?

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon
 

Sorry but this is wrong. Would you call a dubstep song country? Why do you want to say your online games are MMOs? What's in it for you to call them that? Are they not good unless you think they're MMOs? I have cars on my feet. No they're not shoes. I've decided to relabel them as cars. You can quote the dictionary with your closed minded attitude of 'words have a meaning', but in the end they don't! Doll stove sandy snickers Africa silly! (I just said I can redefine words how I please)

All words have a specific definition, else nobody would be able to talk to each other. You can't change something just because you want your game to be in the sexy category. COD is not an MMO. D3 is not an MMO. MMO is MASSIVELY multiplayer online. It's built right in to the accronym for god's sake.

No more debate from me on the topic. I've already fell for the trolling.

You know Listerine, the mouth wash? It has been used as a detergent to clean floors and a disinfectant with the same exact formula. Still want to call it a mouth wash?

I imagine people who have issues with labels are the same people who make sure the pens in their breast pocket are in the correct order and exactly parallel.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Language is base on common usage, not your whim.

But just try to convince a pedant when the spelling of a word has changed to something not found in his dictionary.

(See: Donut)

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon
 

Sorry but this is wrong. Would you call a dubstep song country? Why do you want to say your online games are MMOs? What's in it for you to call them that? Are they not good unless you think they're MMOs? I have cars on my feet. No they're not shoes. I've decided to relabel them as cars. You can quote the dictionary with your closed minded attitude of 'words have a meaning', but in the end they don't! Doll stove sandy snickers Africa silly! (I just said I can redefine words how I please)

All words have a specific definition, else nobody would be able to talk to each other. You can't change something just because you want your game to be in the sexy category. COD is not an MMO. D3 is not an MMO. MMO is MASSIVELY multiplayer online. It's built right in to the accronym for god's sake.

No more debate from me on the topic. I've already fell for the trolling.

You know Listerine, the mouth wash? It has been used as a detergent to clean floors and a disinfectant with the same exact formula. Still want to call it a mouth wash?

I imagine people who have issues with labels are the same people who make sure the pens in their breast pocket are in the correct order and exactly parallel.

Wouldnt something which retained its name while changing its formula be a more apropriate example? :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Sure .. some people want to make stuff. But most people? Don't tell me you think Minecraft players outweigh Halo, COD, WOW and so on.

Minecraft is currently behind Diablo 3 on the xfire chart, and it is the ONLY game that allows you to make stuff.

If creating stuff is so hot, Second Life would be a lot more successful. I am not saying no one wants to do it but a) i don't think MOST would want to .. and b) even if some want to create, they are not really putting in major effort, or make anything worthwhile.

My kids play minecraft for a while, and they just made some simple stuff like a house or two. I highly doubt they (or most minecraft players) are dedicated enough to make good content for others' to play.

Most people dont care about online games, lets drop that idea altogether :)

And as for worthwile, look at flash/apple/android stores, what we are really interested in is the one (guy or gal) of 100 000 that does something worthwhile.

So i am not really saying that you are wrong, just that this is a tricky argument, i am quite sure MOST people did not care about the wheel back then :)

(Or we could always go back to singleplayer just with achievments from people all over the world popping up in the top left corner and call it a mmo revolution and progress :) )

Flame on!

:)

Some interesting comments but it too focused on 'what is a sandbox?' I feel.

I don't care what it is, but if 'sandbox MMO' is something that this community loves, how do we add something to that design without touching the 'sandbox' of it?

Adding a good story / char in a sandbox doesn't hurt the 'sandbox' of it.

Adding a good gameplay (maybe an interesting combat system like DMC) element doesn't hurt the 'sandbox'.

Actually, a better phrased question might have been, 'if you can improve Skyrim what would it be?'

Once again, mine would have been 'how about an NPC that I want to remember because it is a good char? I mean the only reason I remember Lydia at all is because once again, she is in my way!'

The baulk of the player base is migratory casuals, any MMO coming out now faces that. Sandbox or not after two months they will leave. Regardless of the industry starting to face up to this, regardless of how good the new sandbox is they will not stay after a couple of months.

This has lead to some soul searching in the gaming industry which as usual has led to the wrong answer. They cannot just make the games more sandbox and go back to having players with long term commitment. They let the genie of the casual player out of the bag, he is not going to just go back into his bag!

Originally posted by Scot

The baulk of the player base is migratory casuals, any MMO coming out now faces that. Sandbox or not after two months they will leave. Regardless of the industry starting to face up to this, regardless of how good the new sandbox is they will not stay after a couple of months.

This has lead to some soul searching in the gaming industry which as usual has led to the wrong answer. They cannot just make the games more sandbox and go back to having players with long term commitment. They let the genie of the casual player out of the bag, he is not going to just go back into his bag!

I don't see anything wrong with the casual migration to be perfectly honest.

Gamers experience more games and more MMOs will be played by lots of players.

There isn't an infinite amount of MMO players so as long as the game makers make smart business decision, both the player and the game makers win.

Originally posted by Scot

The baulk of the player base is migratory casuals, any MMO coming out now faces that. Sandbox or not after two months they will leave. Regardless of the industry starting to face up to this, regardless of how good the new sandbox is they will not stay after a couple of months.

This has lead to some soul searching in the gaming industry which as usual has led to the wrong answer. They cannot just make the games more sandbox and go back to having players with long term commitment. They let the genie of the casual player out of the bag, he is not going to just go back into his bag!

I admit migrating from game to game but I am far from casual. When I play games, I really get into it. The short while I spend in the game I often know more than some veterans. Back in 2005 when my guild won the European Championships in GW1, I had clocked about 800 hours playing that game. And I know some people had close to 3000 hours by that time. One of the finalist teams in the latest League of Legends World Championships had a player, who had played the game for just 2-4 months IIRC. It is not how many ours you've spent playing but how you've spent them.

Some players just play more "efficiently".

I was done with WAR in just 2 weeks. I had seen most Eve has to offer in just 6 months.

Originally posted by jpnz

Some interesting comments but it too focused on 'what is a sandbox?' I feel.

I don't care what it is, but if 'sandbox MMO' is something that this community loves, how do we add something to that design without touching the 'sandbox' of it?

Adding a good story / char in a sandbox doesn't hurt the 'sandbox' of it.

But in the very first post I explained not only that it does but how it does that. :/

Originally posted by Zekiah

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

Um, ever heard of Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies? They weren't blank but they had fanstastic systems such as housing and crafting.

I understand your aversion to sandbox games but sometimes it seems you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

His statement  was that it wasn't easy, not that it can't be done. Are you suggesting that there was nothing to SWG and UO, and that the developers just created a blank world in those games and then sat back and watched? If so, why are so many developers avoiding such an easily-accomplished solution?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by jpnz

Adding a good story / char in a sandbox doesn't hurt the 'sandbox' of it.

But in the very first post I explained not only that it does but how it does that. :/

 

Does it though?

EVE-Chronicles is something I read long before / after I un-subbed from EVE.

And some of those were really good. Not all were outstanding and it got really samey-twists stuff at the end but as media from a gaming scene, it was awesome.

Not saying I disagree as a really nice story don't give players much wiggle room but I think it can give something for players to play for / launch them.

Imagine if EVE guys finally make a good story in-game.

Or they finally let faction warfare actually influence their story.

FW when released was absolutely filled with people cause they thought it might matter.

When players realized it doesn't matter at all,  it just died and I think most are just milking it for ISK / IP. But if properly done, I think it can rival some of the 0.0 stories.

Lets face it, 0.0 stories are good, like how one person brought down BoB and went to Goons but they are too few.

And some are just boring, like the ROFL stomping of AAA in the south when it had the potential to become this epic firestorm this year. You had literally every 0.0 alliance except NC. (and BL I think? Or was it IRC?), 50k pilots all piling in...

And......... 'AAA undock please'. -_________-;

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Modulized content could allow for better mix of open-ended, creative gameplay while still offering story to follow. Maybe even allow players to DM or have contractable DMs to work with the players through the modules. Actually, that would probably bring MMOs back to their PnP roots and make for a far more interesting and engaging game in a story-driven sandbox environment.

Which makes me wonder if it could possibly pass.

We're loaded to the rafters with Old Guys. 

Demonstrably, what we wanted/liked doesn't seem to sell well with GenX and GenY and etc.

But we keep trying to force them into old molds.  The majority of species "gamer" grew up with an internet and smartphones and tablets--we didn't.  Bitching about the lost glories of bygone ages, PnP, MUDs, GEnie, Dial Up, Acoustic Modems(!)--they must think we're (mostly) insane.

Maybe the we should open a Game Design for the Real World forum--no one born before 1990 allowed to participate.

(counts on fingers1990..that's...22, yeah that works)

Consider a plot of gamer ages--I am way, way out the on the right-hand tip, two, three, maybe four stdevs above the mean.

I should be driving game design for the other 95%+ of the gamer pop?  I don't think so. That's just how far out in right field I am from "the average gamer".  See me dropping the fly balls? :waves:

22 year old? His ideas and his influence can only grow greater.

Originally posted by jpnz

 

So the question is, what's the next step? Or did we get on the right foot in the first place? The question isn't 'I like Sandbox and themepark lovers are console kiddies' in a smug tone.

Question is, how does a sandbox game appeal more towards the mainstream gamers? I'm not talking about LFG or instant teleport or raid-or-die, that's the sticky thread. I'm talking about more basic fundamental stuff.

 

I play games mostly because I want to be told a good story. That's my preference. Give me a game with awful game mechanics but a good story and I'll buy/play that.

It always interested me that 'sandbox MMOs' tend to have bad story/char or a story/char that is irrevelent to the players (I'm looking at you EVE-Online!). This is why 'Sandbox MMOs' don't appeal to me all that much. Has nothing to do with it being hard or forced grouping or w/e. 

I hope this thread starts the discussion of 'why do you play games?' and how that can be integrated into a 'sandbox MMO' without touching the 'sandbox' design.

 

     I have to ask tho, concerning the part I highlighted.. Original MMORPG's were not designed to tell you a story, but gave you the stage in which to write your own.. If I want to be  told a story, I'd read a book.. If I want to relive a story, I'd dig out the console game box and play it.. This is one thing I noticed is the hijacking of the original MMO genre.. I want a game that allows me to customize my own character due from my actions.. I refer back to EQ where my actions often effected my "faction" status..  I can't think of one mainstream game today that allows this.. Can a human be allied with the Ogres in WoW?  NO.. That was just one simple example of how this genre changed.. I want a world where I can choose for MYSELF who I'm friend or foe with.. 

    That is my preference