Originally posted by Kuppa
There is a big sandbox crowd here, no doubt.

I don't know about that, but there are a lot of people on MMORPG.com who are slaves to fads and have to be seen riding the most popular hype train.

Originally posted by ste2000

Well looking at the list of the most hyped MMOs in development the top 6 are Sandboxes.

Popular IPs like TES and Neverwinter can't even match the popularity of Earthrise(what?) and Darkfall, which are old games repackaged.

And the Top spot is taken by a Korean MMO which is not even released in its original country and which might take another 2 years to get to the NA/EU/OZ, how crazy is that?

Is it that the members of this site are actually Sandboxers at heart or maybe people are truly bored of Themeparks (TESO/Neverwinter to name few)?

 

Personally I would pay $15 a month to play the Korean Beta of Archeage.........and I am deadly serious

I don't think it has anything to do with the overused and overtired argument of themepark vs sandbox.

Pure and simple I think its just that quite a few gamers are getting sick and tired of waiting years for a new game only to find out that they will burn through the brunt of the content in a very short time and then be left with nothing else to do except a few repetitious activities. The games people are anticipating now seem to offer at least the promise of doing things differently.

Originally posted by xSh0x

 

That's not the bigger picture though.  We can fault any war's outcome in history for the error of man, but that doesn't mean war would achieve much more value without any error.  The idea of war is a weak concept.  Its a dead end theory.  Just like themeparks in MMOs, are a dead end.  The idea pool just doesn't fit well enough with the idea of a massive fantasy role playing game.

When the first AAA sandbox MMO releases globally, ArcheAge, people will get a taste for just how far sandbox inspired games could take the genre.  Well beyond the range of a themepark.  Developing features outside of simply combat, and character progression.  A sandbox can do that effectively.  Resource and asset economies, ecosystem progression, and freedom limited only by productivity.

People claim: it won't be popular with the "jump in for quick fun" types of gamers.  They would be correct, if the goal of sandboxes was simply character progression, like a themepark.  The sandbox inspired MMO will allow anyone to jump into any role they want, and progress the environment they play in at the same time.  There is no need to master all, which would take significant time and knowledge, a turn off for the "casuals," because the environment has no endgame or level cap.  It would be impossible, and miss the point of a massive online game.  The sandbox ecosystem makes your role productive in its own right, you can simply have fun at the start.  Ultimately, more roles and more methods of progression will make it more fun for people to come back and try something new.  Its the evolution of D&D.  The idea pool is completely untapped and underdeveloped.

I don't think we are in disagreement. for the record, I'm more interested in Sandboxes over themepark. but I can see that there are people who love themeparks. they don't want to live in a world and they don't want to rely upon their own machinations for their entertainment.

There is a reason why people go to themeparks. They want to ride "rides" as they are fun.

Same with thempark games. They want to log in and have a bit of fun by seeing where the "x"'s are, grouping for premade quests, and just enjoying "the rided".

More often than not I've been in a sandbox game (ryzom coming to mind) where I saw players in chat saying "can  someone help me, I dont' know what to do". then the pat answer "do what you want".

Well, they want to have fun. They want to ride rides.

If there are people who don't like themepark games because of how they are set up, it also stands to reason that there will be people who dont' like sandbox games because of how they are set up.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by xSh0x

 

That's not the bigger picture though.  We can fault any war's outcome in history for the error of man, but that doesn't mean war would achieve much more value without any error.  The idea of war is a weak concept.  Its a dead end theory.  Just like themeparks in MMOs, are a dead end.  The idea pool just doesn't fit well enough with the idea of a massive fantasy role playing game.

When the first AAA sandbox MMO releases globally, ArcheAge, people will get a taste for just how far sandbox inspired games could take the genre.  Well beyond the range of a themepark.  Developing features outside of simply combat, and character progression.  A sandbox can do that effectively.  Resource and asset economies, ecosystem progression, and freedom limited only by productivity.

People claim: it won't be popular with the "jump in for quick fun" types of gamers.  They would be correct, if the goal of sandboxes was simply character progression, like a themepark.  The sandbox inspired MMO will allow anyone to jump into any role they want, and progress the environment they play in at the same time.  There is no need to master all, which would take significant time and knowledge, a turn off for the "casuals," because the environment has no endgame or level cap.  It would be impossible, and miss the point of a massive online game.  The sandbox ecosystem makes your role productive in its own right, you can simply have fun at the start.  Ultimately, more roles and more methods of progression will make it more fun for people to come back and try something new.  Its the evolution of D&D.  The idea pool is completely untapped and underdeveloped.

I don't think we are in disagreement. for the record, I'm more interested in Sandboxes over themepark. but I can see that there are people who love themeparks. they don't want to live in a world and they don't want to rely upon their own machinations for their entertainment.

There is a reason why people go to themeparks. They want to ride "rides" as they are fun.

Same with thempark games. They want to log in and have a bit of fun by seeing where the "x"'s are, grouping for premade quests, and just enjoying "the rided".

More often than not I've been in a sandbox game (ryzom coming to mind) where I saw players in chat saying "can  someone help me, I dont' know what to do". then the pat answer "do what you want".

Well, they want to have fun. They want to ride rides.

If there are people who don't like themepark games because of how they are set up, it also stands to reason that there will be people who dont' like sandbox games because of how they are set up.

You make a good point, and I think it's correct all the way around.

One thing back in the early days with UO, and I'm sure you had this in Ryzom too, players would put on "events" to help players get accustomed to how to play. Maybe dungeon romps (which can be much like any Themepark quest), maybe trade fairs, tournaments, scavenger hunts, whatever. Lots of "roleplay" events too. Campfire story telling, chess tourneys, murder mysteries, mini wars, etc.

But I think a great Sandbox game has a lot of content to keep players busy, too.  Content may not be "paint by numbers" quests, but more or less the same kinds of action/play can be done in a Sandbox too. It most definitely should not be up to the players, the game should provide plenty.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by DavisFlight
Considering there have been just about no successful themepark MMOs in the last 8 years, I'd say it's neither all of a sudden, nor is it just this MMORPG.com community.

 Exactly. 

It's staring us right in the face.

Plane as day.

When most of the AAA themeparks released can't sustain themselves under a subscription model, then the genre is speaking very clearly.  They'll play crap when it's free, but not when you've got to pay monthly for it. 

And still people insist no one really wants to play a sandbox.  Just because devlopers keep trying and failing, obviously it's the players and not the games themselves. 

The conclusion that isn't supported, at this point, is that sandboxes will ultimately perform any differently.

Just another brand of Hype, yes?

We'll see how things work out, after this first wave is released and we all finish arguing over what is and is not a True Sandbox™.

"Sandboxes" have traditionally worked a lot better than themeparks. They're designed in their nature to retain players longer, because they form more connected communities and generate their own content. Not only that, but all the old MMOs that grew and became profitable over many years were all sandbox styled. Even EQ1 would be considered a sandbox these days. And the only two MMOs that had been consistantly growing in the past several years, is Darkfall and Eve, two sandboxes.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

"Sandboxes" have traditionally worked a lot better than themeparks. They're designed in their nature to retain players longer, because they form more connected communities and generate their own content. Not only that, but all the old MMOs that grew and became profitable over many years were all sandbox styled. Even EQ1 would be considered a sandbox these days. And the only two MMOs that had been consistantly growing in the past several years, is Darkfall and Eve, two sandboxes.

Yes that's my thought (I also think EQ is a Sandbox).

But I have to be honest, while Sandboxes have the ability to keep players playing for longer, they have a huge flaw.................they are too difficult to get into, therefore they are not able of attract huge numbers of players (CCP are working hard to correct this issue with EvE and it looks like they are succeeding)

That's why I think Archgeage is doing it right, it combines the accessibility of Themeparks (UI+Combat) with the depth and freedom of Sandboxes.

That's the way to go, and I think EQ3 will have lots in common with Archeage, I don't think SOE will make a pure Sandbox, but an hybrid which I think is the best solution.

Originally posted by ste2000

Originally posted by NorseGod
Maybe both? I think there is a shift coming....

That was my thought, confirmed by SoE move to make a Sandbox MMO.

If even SoE start to mention the word "Sandbox", maybe something is really changing.

I really hope that Zenimax do not go ahead with World of Tamriel and makes at least an hybrid, I would die inside if TESO will end up being another SWTOR with elves

If SOE starts to mention sandbox, say goodbye to sandbox. They will pervert it beyond recognition.

MMORPG.com members are primarily about slagging other people off (especially anyone with an interest in FFA pvp, whether the thread happens to be about it or not) and pretending to be some sort of internet version of Chomsky.

Any actual debate about games/game mechanics comes secondary to that.

Originally posted by ste2000

Originally posted by DavisFlight

"Sandboxes" have traditionally worked a lot better than themeparks. They're designed in their nature to retain players longer, because they form more connected communities and generate their own content. Not only that, but all the old MMOs that grew and became profitable over many years were all sandbox styled. Even EQ1 would be considered a sandbox these days. And the only two MMOs that had been consistantly growing in the past several years, is Darkfall and Eve, two sandboxes.

Yes that's my thought (I also think EQ is a Sandbox).

But I have to be honest, while Sandboxes have the ability to keep players playing for longer, they have a huge flaw.................they are too difficult to get into, therefore they are not able of attract huge numbers of players (CCP are working hard to correct this issue with EvE and it looks like they are succeeding)

That's why I think Archgeage is doing it right, it combines the accessibility of Themeparks (UI+Combat) with the depth and freedom of Sandboxes.

That's the way to go, and I think EQ3 will have lots in common with Archeage, I don't think SOE will make a pure Sandbox, but an hybrid which I think is the best solution.

From a business standpoint, it's better to steadily grow in the long term than boom out of the gate and then collapse, forcing layoffs and cuts.

Originally posted by xpowderx
I think most people like a mix of both. Star Wars Galaxies had that pre CU. You had the open world sandbox with a Rebel Theme Park and a Empire Theme Park. Was actually nice! Could still be in a sandbox game and have a them park when you tire of it. My personal belief is most players prefer a mix rather than just one or the other.

I definitely agree. Most people have to have some goals set for them to get them motivated to progress in the proper direction. It's like at work, you have to have some kind of direction with a project otherwise it either doesn't get done, gets done wrong, or the worker gets lucky and miraculously ends with the right result. I definitely like games with some direction to them, but with areas that I can explore further on my own for more goodies and special hidden quests/npcs/chests of shiny things.

Originally posted by Rossboss

Originally posted by xpowderx
I think most people like a mix of both. Star Wars Galaxies had that pre CU. You had the open world sandbox with a Rebel Theme Park and a Empire Theme Park. Was actually nice! Could still be in a sandbox game and have a them park when you tire of it. My personal belief is most players prefer a mix rather than just one or the other.

I definitely agree. Most people have to have some goals set for them to get them motivated to progress in the proper direction. It's like at work, you have to have some kind of direction with a project otherwise it either doesn't get done, gets done wrong, or the worker gets lucky and miraculously ends with the right result. I definitely like games with some direction to them, but with areas that I can explore further on my own for more goodies and special hidden quests/npcs/chests of shiny things.

I wish there was a like button for this.