I recently posted the thread/poll below asking people what aspect of an mmo people most enjoyed. 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/373395/page/1

The results so far and conversations within have helped affirm my own thoughts and brought me to this new thread

I dream of a world where games are more than roles we act out,  of a virtual world that asks nothing of us. In our everyday lives; 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all players are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Life is a perfect game, a game should likewise be a perfect life.

Such a world would hold us in its arms, but never so tightly as to strangle and deflate us.

You may state that such games already exist, but do they? A game in which you have the right to not bear arms, yet at the same time can take them up for what you hold dear. A world willing to let you find your own way, no matter what it may be.

Do you know what a self determining gaming genre without the strictest roles we have taken as fact would be called? I do not. 

Such a genre cannot exist while we sit on idle hands waiting for this age of programmed destiny to end. Let me hear you, let everyone hear you, your voices full of sorrow. The voices of those who have had a dream crushed by the cold indifference of money and it's influence on those who decide our fates.

Tell me now, what is our future and what is its name?

Huh?

Not sure I really know where you are going with this but I guess my answer is 'real life'. Of course that is if I could actually get to the core of your point through all that other crap.

Voted No, other...  Read the post, looked at the other thread...  and I still don't have a clue what the question is.

Care to be a bit less esoteric?

Originally posted by Scalpless
Uh, what? So you want a sandbox with lots of combat-free activities?

Originally posted by Maelwydd

Huh?

 

Not sure I really know where you are going with this but I guess my answer is 'real life'. Of course that is if I could actually get to the core of your point through all that other crap.

Originally posted by XAPGames

Voted No, other...  Read the post, looked at the other thread...  and I still don't have a clue what the question is.

 

Care to be a bit less esoteric?

 All your responses were fairly expected and I apologies for being as XAPGames stated , a little too esoteric. Describing something without a frame of reference, so that everyone understands, can however be difficult. This was my best initial attempt. To be extremely simplistic, not that it's a complicated idea, a game where your role is undecided. Until you as the player find your way through the virtual world before you and arrive at your chosen place. In games today we are always bound by some "understanding" whether it's being a fighter or building a city from a gods eye view. I simply propose the idea of a game with freedom to choose. The setting mechanics and other specifics can be decided on a personal basis. Rather than a sandbox with combat free activities, I mean a game where you don't require combat. A game where your existence isn't automatically centered around any single aspect and can be chosen at your leisure. At the same time of course what happens in the world would affect those that live in it. If you don't fight, you can run or have someone else fight for you. Not everyone can do everything by themselves, but i wouldnt stop them from trying either. Did this help at all or are you still unsure about what I mean?

The problem with this game and the difficulty of making it is the scope and the lack of focus of what the game would be "good" at.

What I am saying is games where combat is not a central role tend to have crappy combat, games where crafting and building is not central tend to have those systems be inferior.

To have a game that is so open to offer all these possibilities, all of them would have to be done at a highly focused level to be enticing, otherwise players would simply focus at whatever is done the best and with most polish and gravitate towards that.

I think the idea is awesome, but the difficulty of bringing this game to life with all systems working and being equally compelling is beyond what any Dev team would be willing to even attempt.

Don't get me wrong an indie studio might take a crack at something like this, but I bet you that combat, crafting, diplomacy, community, and all other in game systems would be very crappy in comparison to what well focused games offer.

Yes, sandbox MMOs seem to be the answer to most questions right now.

While a great many people still enjoy themeparks (well, at least one themepark) more and more players seem to be burnt out on them.

However sandboxes tend to be more than a bit rougher with much steeper learning curves and difficult to balance systems, in short they are still considered taking a risk in a niche market.

I myself look forward to the "age of sandboxes" and games like Pathfinder Online.

Originally posted by DMKano

The problem with this game and the difficulty of making it is the scope and the lack of focus of what the game would be "good" at.

What I am saying is games where combat is not a central role tend to have crappy combat, games where crafting and building is not central tend to have those systems be inferior.

To have a game that is so open to offer all these possibilities, all of them would have to be done at a highly focused level to be enticing, otherwise players would simply focus at whatever is done the best and with most polish and gravitate towards that.

I think the idea is awesome, but the difficulty of bringing this game to life with all systems working and being equally compelling is beyond what any Dev team would be willing to even attempt.

Don't get me wrong an indie studio might take a crack at something like this, but I bet you that combat, crafting, diplomacy, community, and all other in game systems would be very crappy in comparison to what well focused games offer.

Originally posted by MicMan

Yes, sandbox MMOs seem to be the answer to most questions right now.

While a great many people still enjoy themeparks (well, at least one themepark) more and more players seem to be burnt out on them.

However sandboxes tend to be more than a bit rougher with much steeper learning curves and difficult to balance systems, in short they are still considered taking a risk in a niche market.

I myself look forward to the "age of sandboxes" and games like Pathfinder Online.

Originally posted by asmkm22
Most of the people complaining about MMO's being too themepark or not sandbox enough, just need to go out and get a table top RPG started with some friends.

Originally posted by Greyface
If I read through all your highfalutin language correctly, I think the thing you described is called a "Sandbox MMO."  In the old days, we used to call them "MMOs" without any adjective.

The sandbox is a step in the right direction to be sure, however the primary interest is still non optional. I understand it would take quite a bit of work to keep balanced content over a variety rather than focus on a single choice and still have the required level of quality one would expect. A decade ago it was absolutely impossible, five years ago it was still impossible. I however after much research on the subject have come to the conclusion that now is the time to start trying.  Your also right that in the past people were more open, but now we have become too jaded to see what's right over the hill, so to speak. Sandbox came out of the need to redefine a slight change in the nature of gaming. I simply think that change is not yet enough, that we should re-examine the possibility of a more realistic gaming experience. All it takes is one well made game. One willing party to take a chance on whether they can pull off what some might call the holy grail of online gaming. Not that everyone enjoys such an emmersive experience of course. Everything I say is simply a question to others based on my own knowledge and experience on the matter.  To ask why is a wonderful thing afterall, is it not?

I also mean no disrespect to the makers of games but just because they couldn't pull off a more open game doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means that those before have made mistakes or even simply not wanted to. Whatever the reason my research on the matter suggests its highly possible starting with out current level of technology. As I mention from time to time, new things take vision, will and skill to bring about. Passion helps, money helps obtain, but without the will there is no way.

Also to tabletop guy, your right that without technical limitation it's easier to make more flexible gaming. The only problem lies in the limited number of other players. A world with 4 or even 20 people is still fairly empty. Npcs can only do so much and alot of noncombatant persuasions become empty without someone to use what you make or benefit from whatever it is you do. That is the  reason mmos are at the same time as being the hardest to implement free will into, are the most in need of it. Until we advance AI tehnology enough to fool us, humans are the best and only option. Not to mention some people lack the imagination to enjoy less visual mediums, nothing wrong with that, I lack the ability to do those stupid number puzzles on IQ tests, just how we are. 

If I missed anything feel free to mention it, I look forward to a constructive discussion. Also the poll question is afterall a question I'm  interested in the outcome.

I wonder what, for instance, Blizzard works on as a sequel to WoW.

I would bet it's not a themepark MMO.

Originally posted by Greyface
If I read through all your highfalutin language correctly, I think the thing you described is called a "Sandbox MMO."  In the old days, we used to call them "MMOs" without any adjective.

In the old days = when you did talk with nobody but people playing UO (or whatever) with you ?

Meridian 59, EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot and many other early MMOs are all NOT sandboxes.

Originally posted by MicMan

I wonder what, for instance, Blizzard works on as a sequel to WoW.

I would bet it's not a themepark MMO.

Well personally I Doubt they would stick with something everyone's doing since they already won that argument with wow. What do you think they would do??

Originally posted by Caliburn101
'Genre' is entirely the wrong word for what you are trying to describe...

Well what word should I use? What am I trying to describe? This is exactly the reason I asked if it was a new genre, because I lacked a more appropriate word which could be understood by others. I'm more than happy to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Originally posted by Loktofeit
MAME Online

Ok, I'm not sure at all what you mean. Would you please elaborate?

Originally posted by jimdandy26
Second Life already exists.

Well while second life is an absolutely wonderful existence and shares similarities with what I propose, it is not quite the same. Distinc differences exist which radically alter the experience. I propose a game world created by the developers like we use now. However I have nothing against people being blue to manipulate whatever they can. Your ability to manipulate the world would be decided by the worlds rules, whatever they may be. You would live in this world and play by its rules just like you do in your everyday lives. This allows for a kind of consistent fantasy. To me atleaat a game should be entertaining, providing you with some sort of challenge. Whether you chose to challenge a dragon or a horseshoe, or even play golf on an artificially created nebula with the heads of little green men is entirely up to you and the setting your inhabiting. Second life is not bound by such concrete laws of physics and has no actual challenges as far I have experienced. It's more of an collective imagining. A place to express your own alter egos and socialize with others. Which don't get me wrong is absolutely wonderful.

MMORPGs are just distilled versions of the good American life: you wander into the wilderness with nothing, where every bit of work you do is rewarded with additional power and wealth.  Amassing power and wealth is simply an application of the old bourgeois formula: it is there for everyone who puts forth the effort to earn it.

MMORPGs give those who do not experience the good American life a chance to experience what the good American life is like.  Because we don't all start at level 1 in reality, there's hardly any wilderness to wander into that hasn't already been claimed, and the vast majority of us are working harder and harder only to get poorer and poorer.

MMOs aren't a reflection of reality.  They are the manifestation of what reality ought to look like.  As Baudrillard would say, MMOs are a "hyperreality."

I believe that we wouldn't find MMOs so appealing if life resembled MMOs, if "life was a perfect game," as the OP says.  The fact that MMOs are already "perfect lives" is the reason we play them.  Because it is nice to know that we have a chance at some rare loot when we pwn bosses, when we work for bosses that can't be pwned, and don't drop any loot we can keep when we do pwn them.