Yes, I know there have been a lot of sandbox threads lately, but I've always wondered about this.  Everyone says that most people prefer linear mmos to sandbox mmos, but I really don't understand why, if this is true.

Why wouldn't you want player interaction that goes beyond grouping?  Why wouldn't you want a dynamic player economy and politics that make players relevant to each other, that allow even people of different levels to play together?  Why wouldn't you want the challenge of having to play people instead of just numbers?

Why wouldn't you want to allow players to make non-combat skills their focus? 

What's so terrible about features like player housing and cities, or avatar customization?

Why do you like being forced to stick to the level appropriate zones instead of being allowed to go where you want?

What's so great about being forced to choose your class from a menu instead of just training what you want in a skill based system?

What do linear mmorpgs have that's incompatible with features like these?

Just because a MMO labels themselves as a sandbox does not make it the end all of MMOs.

Like I said in an earlier post:

50% of all sandbox MMOs Ive played were great

50% of all sandbox MMOs Ive played were shitty.

It depends on how that MMO handles the sandbox experience

How many people are really interested in politics?  I don't think there are that many in truth.

A realstic economy is nice for some, but most people would prefer something simple like WoWs auction house I believe.  Traveling all over looking for people to buy from and getting all your items through real people who craft them is a bit boring for those who are doing the combat/hunting type of role in the game.

The freedom to do lots of different things in the game other then combat is OK with me, but it seems that combat has always been the most popular thing to do in MMOs even with games like Ultima Online and SWG where you could do other things.  Perhaps it's because most poeple are not hunters in the real world anymore and they like to experience that role.  Combat is also what is written about most in history because that is what most people seem interested in reading about for whatever reason. 

The different areas give you a feeling of progression even if it's a fake one.  You go to new areas with more powerful creatures and better loot.  You can also go back to old zones and whip the monsters but if you like which makes you feel the growth in strength of your character.

A lot of the time it's nice to know what you are when you enter the game.  If you start with a generic character and branch out from there you don't really have an identity.  If you start with a class you know what to expect and everyone else knows what to expect from you.  This makes it easy for developers to balance PvE combat around groups with a specific formation like Healer/Tank/DPS/CC.

My mates are bored of WOW which was their first mmorpg but I tried to egt them into mmorpgs before WOW and they wouldn't play them because of the monthly fee. However WOw broke that barrier for them and they're looking for a new mmorpg but they think everything is a peice of shit compared to WOW and wont try WAR because they don't want a WOW clone.

So really I just think previous good sandbox games were ahead of their time and they liked the complexity of EVE but hated the skill training because it was time based and they want to progress at their own pace and not always be behind veterans.

I wish SOE worked on the pre cu for these 3/4 years instead of ruining it because when I describe what the game was like to them they all love the idea of the player cities and the skill system and want complexity.

Now if someone released a great sandbox game with advertising that WAR has gotten then it will sell very well but the previous ones didn't because people just wernt prepared to pay a monthly fee.

---

Originally posted by Impacatus
Yes, I know there have been a lot of sandbox threads lately, but I've always wondered about this. Everyone says that most people prefer linear mmos to sandbox mmos, but I really don't understand why, if this is true.
Why wouldn't you want player interaction that goes beyond grouping? Why wouldn't you want a dynamic player economy and politics that make players relevant to each other, that allow even people of different levels to play together? Why wouldn't you want the challenge of having to play people instead of just numbers?
Why wouldn't you want to allow players to make non-combat skills their focus?
What's so terrible about features like player housing and cities, or avatar customization?
Why do you like being forced to stick to the level appropriate zones instead of being allowed to go where you want?
What's so great about being forced to choose your class from a menu instead of just training what you want in a skill based system?
What do linear mmorpgs have that's incompatible with features like these?

---

For me it is not a question of sandbox, I favourize the word "content". I like the levels etc in my RPgames as a kind of progress, "you become stronger through enough training and experience".

Content.
City of Heroes/Villains, level based: Finest character-customization, meaningful grouping with all kinds of level.
DAoC, level-based: housing, (boring+expensive) crafting, many places to hunt in your level, controlled+rewarding 3-factions-pvp
Vanguard, level-based: very good crafting, diplomacy-system, virtual world
Horizons (Istaria), level-based: even better housing, good crafting, AND able to play all classes with a single character (EVE with levels *grins*)
WoW, levelbased: very good controls like FPS
and so on

These things into a single MMO and you don´t need sandbox. You want to play another role? Begin another toon. You need to level it? Look at it as a kind of "Skilling" like in EVE.
Of course you can build a house in EVE. It just costs you like 40.000.000.000(.000...not sure now) ingame currency unless you farm it (and skill it).

How many times does this have to come up before people realize there is a good reason that sandboxes are rare?

Sandbox games require independent thinking and creativity.

Most gamers, as in most people in life, need their hands held.  Sandbox games typically throw you to the wolves and let you do whatever you want, most people are not built for that sort of thinking.

Simply put, many gamers have families, jobs/careers, and other real life intresets and don't have time to invest in sandbox style games. Instead of a game taking over most of our time we'd rather play something we can have fun on for an hour or two per day. You don't need to spend most of your free time on a game to forge lasting friendships with the people on said game, but many sandbox style games require a certain devotion to gain accomplishment. A devotion that some people can't give.

Originally posted by Impacatus

Yes, I know there have been a lot of sandbox threads lately, but I've always wondered about this.  Everyone says that most people prefer linear mmos to sandbox mmos, but I really don't understand why, if this is true.

Why wouldn't you want player interaction that goes beyond grouping?  Why wouldn't you want a dynamic player economy and politics that make players relevant to each other, that allow even people of different levels to play together?  Why wouldn't you want the challenge of having to play people instead of just numbers?

Why wouldn't you want to allow players to make non-combat skills their focus? 

What's so terrible about features like player housing and cities, or avatar customization?

Why do you like being forced to stick to the level appropriate zones instead of being allowed to go where you want?

What's so great about being forced to choose your class from a menu instead of just training what you want in a skill based system?

What do linear mmorpgs have that's incompatible with features like these?

Because sandbox games are much more complex. They need much more research and patience. They are like virutal world where you live outside of RL. Some peoples want just to spend hour or two when in front of the computer, others just want to get their next level/item - to achieve something for their char - to feel the reward for the time they have spend. Sandbox RPGs typically are much more involving than things I already have mentioned, they are much more massive/guild/society oriented - thats what most ppls do not like.

Ok, so where does this idea come from that sandbox games take more to play than linear games?

Time Investment?

Pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies was one of the most casual friendly games out there. It's the linear games that force you to grind and grind on the leveling treadmill until you're deemed worthy of the next area of content. It's them that segregate players by level, forcing you to keep up with your friends if you want to keep playing with them. Sandbox lets you advance at your own pace and ideally provides roles for all players regardless of level.

Creativity?

Sandbox games encourage, but don't require creativity. You'd do perfectly well just consuming the content of others. Don't know what to do when you enter the game? Join up with someone and let them tell you.

Knowledge and Research?

There may be more to learn, but you don't have to know it all at once. Every game has a learning curve, I'll bet the main reason linear games seem easier to most people is the gameplay is the same as other games they've played. Even so, you learn as you play.

Originally posted by Herodes

 

All your points (but of course the "skill-based") can be in level based games.

 

For me it is not a question of sandbox, I favourize the word "content". I like the levels etc in my RPgames as a kind of progress, "you become stronger through enough training and experience".

Content.
City of Heroes/Villains, level based: Finest character-customization, meaningful grouping with all kinds of level.
DAoC, level-based: housing, (boring+expensive) crafting, many places to hunt in your level, controlled+rewarding 3-factions-pvp
Vanguard, level-based: very good crafting, diplomacy-system, virtual world
Horizons (Istaria), level-based: even better housing, good crafting, AND able to play all classes with a single character (EVE with levels *grins*)
WoW, levelbased: very good controls like FPS
and so on

These things into a single MMO and you don´t need sandbox. You want to play another role? Begin another toon. You need to level it? Look at it as a kind of "Skilling" like in EVE.
Of course you can build a house in EVE. It just costs you like 40.000.000.000(.000...not sure now) ingame currency unless you farm it (and skill it).
 

See, that's the point I'm trying to make.  I understand that different people have different priorities, but there's no reason to want LESS out of a game.

For the record, I dislike level based not because I want to play more than one role, but because I want to make my own experience, not one packaged by the devs.  Class/level reduces players to "level 10 warrior", "level 15 mage", "level 20 cleric".  Once the devs start branding players like cattle, it becomes to easy to treat them as such.  You start getting content for levels and classes instead of for people.

I want to have some sort of direction.

Not held by the hand, but just a direction.

Originally posted by Impacatus

Yes, I know there have been a lot of sandbox threads lately, but I've always wondered about this.  Everyone says that most people prefer linear mmos to sandbox mmos, but I really don't understand why, if this is true.

Why wouldn't you want player interaction that goes beyond grouping?  Why wouldn't you want a dynamic player economy and politics that make players relevant to each other, that allow even people of different levels to play together?  Why wouldn't you want the challenge of having to play people instead of just numbers?

Why wouldn't you want to allow players to make non-combat skills their focus? 

What's so terrible about features like player housing and cities, or avatar customization?

Why do you like being forced to stick to the level appropriate zones instead of being allowed to go where you want?

What's so great about being forced to choose your class from a menu instead of just training what you want in a skill based system?

What do linear mmorpgs have that's incompatible with features like these?

1) Real politics is too much work. i want a game i can go in and play for 30min & quit. I have a real life,you know.

2) No problem about non-combat skills

3) It takes resources away from creating dungeons, quests & adventures zones. I would much rather have a new area to quest in than player housing which there is really nothing u can do with.

4) Unless u make all the zones the same difficulty, i don't see how u can avoid that .. whether it is skill-based or class based.

5) In a skilled based system, everyone will go for the most powerful, highest DPS skill build and everything will be cookie cutter (i.e. tank-mage in UO). I would much rather have the variety of classes.

6) Nope. But these are not good features. They have been tried and failed.

There is pretty much one reason why Developers stick with Classes. 1 reason and it is simple. When you talk to one at a conference they will be frank- they choose Classes because that's all they know

Many developers started out in Everquest- not Ultima Online. Others started out in Class based MUDs as well....

That is all they know. So the answer is simple- they employ Classes because they frankly can't envision anything else

This is why EA ruined Ultima Online with UO:R. They didn't know what they had. This is why Sony ruined SWG with NGE.

Now you have a whole new crop of devs getting influenced by World of Warcraft. sigh, guess what the next onslaught of games will clone.....

Some brave souls will fight against this Attack of the Clones but it will come from small studios that are looking to make their new original IPs to stand out. Look to these guys to take risks. It would be unfair to expect a publisher using an established IP to take any risks considering their Titan budgets

Personally I think any game is what you put into it.

For example I play a level based game, but to me it is  close to what has been described as a sandbox. I can craft, adventure, explore, we have housing. player run econonmy (I think most games have that in one form or another). Since I like to explore more than anything else, I can. For me it is fun to run the higher level zones, and not get killed. it is also fun to go to the lower level zones, and find things I missed the first time through.

People who say that a in a sandbox game you need to use your imagination, and I agree you do. but the same holds true to linear based games, especially the roleplayers. You still need to imagine your that race/class and what you do has a meaning. and I think for most people it does.

Since most sandboxes have some form of pvp and I do know it is fairly popular. I say that the majority of those playing mmo's would just rather play a pve game. Maybe a little pvp would be fun for most, but not quite what has been talked about in sandbox games.

As far as Skilled based, I have a problem with that as far as it pertains to fantasy based games.

I am a big fan of fantasy books, and I have never read a book where you could be all things except for paladins, and that is a class :). other than that every books hero was what they were either a warrior, rogue, mage, or a healer of some type. I personally don't think you should combine abilities via skills.

For Sci-fi I have no restrictions, I think it is very possible to have varied skills.

But as to why people may like linear games (You know the hand holding games) Is after a hard day at work/school etc. and the stress of everyday living, they just want to go play a game with others of like mind. They don't want to worry about politics in a game, or so much of a challenge where it feels like work.

But this is just my opinion.

The important thing to realize about the answers that have been given in this thread, and the MMORPG industry as a whole is that things have gotten really, really confusing.  We are actually several different customer bases asking for several different genres from the exact same developers.  In my opinion, the different customer bases fit into the following camps, with a minor amount of cross-camping:

1) Tourists:  These people are just looking for an interactive book to read.  They get really upset if things are overly difficult for them to progress and understand the "story."  They aren't necessarily interested in grouping that much, as that would require them to work around someone else's schedule and time frames.  They actually should be enjoying single player adventure games.

2) Metagamers.  Some call them powergamers.  These people use the role playing statistics to build "toons" that have high chances of success at whatever part of the game is deemed important, through loot acquisition and adjusting scores to fit the environment.  Parts of the game that are deemed important are usually either PvP, or "end game."  These players should actually be enjoying a good round of fantasy baseball or football.

3) Achievers.  I call them strategists.  These people want to see if they can beat whatever gets put in front of them as a challenge.  While this group actually fits in pretty decently with any kind of game genre, if these people aren't that interested in the last camp, they might as well be playing any other game.

4) Roleplayers.  These are the people for whom the MMORPG genre was invented.  They like imaginative, creative games that are not restricted by simple rules.  They need the massive player networking to create simulated social environments for their social experimentation and interactive storytelling.  Fantasy is usually their preferred style, as mystery, magic, heroic or villanous motives, and technological simplicity are some of the best tools for their style of play.

Many people will say that more than one of these playerbases can be appeased by the MMORPG genre.  I beg to differ.  While the same person can be both a strategist and a roleplayer, anyone who is not in the roleplaying camp is really playing an entirely different game requiring an entirely different development focus.  In my humble opinion, the most pressing issue for the MMORPG industry is for all of us to get together and unanimously come to the decision that the playerbases need to go their separate ways.

Originally posted by Impacatus

Yes, I know there have been a lot of sandbox threads lately, but I've always wondered about this.  Everyone says that most people prefer linear mmos to sandbox mmos, but I really don't understand why, if this is true.

Why wouldn't you want player interaction that goes beyond grouping?  Why wouldn't you want a dynamic player economy and politics that make players relevant to each other, that allow even people of different levels to play together?  Why wouldn't you want the challenge of having to play people instead of just numbers?

Some people don't want to have to rely on other players.   They want to get in and experience the content right away, not spend hours shopping for a new sword.  Many people don't like having to compete with other players, since not everybody has 15 hours a day to play MMOs, and not everybody likes dealing with vindictive 15 year olds.

Why wouldn't you want to allow players to make non-combat skills their focus? 

I have no idea what "non-combat skills" has to do with a game being a sandbox or not, so I won't bother answering this.

What's so terrible about features like player housing and cities, or avatar customization?

If SWG was any indication, player housing just ended up ruining the environments.  The entire planet of Tatooine looks like Baghdad on most servers.  Player housing is nice, but has nothing to do with the theme of the game.  Player cities, while they seem like a nice feature, ended up being almost entirely pointless in SWG, and dozens of non-player cities in the game were basically deserted.

Why do you like being forced to stick to the level appropriate zones instead of being allowed to go where you want?

Some people like to know where they should be as they progress.  I'm not a big fan of the concept, because progression then just becomes pointless.  But some people like to look at an area from the outside and say, damn, I can't go in there...but some day I will.

Oh, by the way, what's this have to do with a game being a sandbox or not?

What's so great about being forced to choose your class from a menu instead of just training what you want in a skill based system?

Games work better when characters have defined roles.  A lot of games with skill based systems just end up forcing people into one of 3 or 4 templates anyway.  I too prefer the flexibility, but a lot of people (i.e. the majority) like simplicity.

What do linear mmorpgs have that's incompatible with features like these?

"Linear" MMOs are story driven.  That is essentially the antithesis of being player-driven.  Any game can have aspects of both.  There's not such thing as a pure sandbox, nor is there such a thing as a purely linear MMO.

Originally posted by Raithe-Nor

The important thing to realize about the answers that have been given in this thread, and the MMORPG industry as a whole is that things have gotten really, really confusing.  We are actually several different customer bases asking for several different genres from the exact same developers.  In my opinion, the different customer bases fit into the following camps, with a minor amount of cross-camping:

1) Tourists:  These people are just looking for an interactive book to read.  They get really upset if things are overly difficult for them to progress and understand the "story."  They aren't necessarily interested in grouping that much, as that would require them to work around someone else's schedule and time frames.  They actually should be enjoying single player adventure games.

2) Metagamers.  Some call them powergamers.  These people use the role playing statistics to build "toons" that have high chances of success at whatever part of the game is deemed important, through loot acquisition and adjusting scores to fit the environment.  Parts of the game that are deemed important are usually either PvP, or "end game."  These players should actually be enjoying a good round of fantasy baseball or football.

3) Achievers.  I call them strategists.  These people want to see if they can beat whatever gets put in front of them as a challenge.  While this group actually fits in pretty decently with any kind of game genre, if these people aren't that interested in the last camp, they might as well be playing any other game.

4) Roleplayers.  These are the people for whom the MMORPG genre was invented.  They like imaginative, creative games that are not restricted by simple rules.  They need the massive player networking to create simulated social environments for their social experimentation and interactive storytelling.  Fantasy is usually their preferred style, as mystery, magic, heroic or villanous motives, and technological simplicity are some of the best tools for their style of play.

Many people will say that more than one of these playerbases can be appeased by the MMORPG genre.  I beg to differ.  While the same person can be both a strategist and a roleplayer, anyone who is not in the roleplaying camp is really playing an entirely different game requiring an entirely different development focus.  In my humble opinion, the most pressing issue for the MMORPG industry is for all of us to get together and unanimously come to the decision that the playerbases need to go their separate ways.

That is amazingly insightful, and I'm very inclined to agree.

Anyways, I'm hearing that skill based systems result in players trying to get the best template.  Well, in that case it's a good thing that all the players of linear mmorpgs are true roleplayers who never choose their race, class or equipment for metagame reasons.

I'm also hearing that the presence of player politics makes the game less casual friendly.  How?  How much of your time does the government demand in real life?  Probably a lot if you work for them.  Otherwise, you just need to stay out of their way and occasionally deal with some bureaucracy.  The nature of mmos would eliminate the need for bureaucracy, so how exactly would an in game government require any extra time?

Reading these posts is so interesting. Its almost as if some people are from amother planet. But of course its just different opinions.

Hmmm honestly im more of a roleplayer and also an achiever, but I also prefer adventuring I dont fully agree with you though and your missing other crowds in there. Many of us prefer a variety of elements in a mmorpg for it to last a long time in our daily lives.

Originally posted by Cochran1

Simply put, many gamers have families, jobs/careers, and other real life intresets and don't have time to invest in sandbox style games. Instead of a game taking over most of our time we'd rather play something we can have fun on for an hour or two per day. You don't need to spend most of your free time on a game to forge lasting friendships with the people on said game, but many sandbox style games require a certain devotion to gain accomplishment. A devotion that some people can't give.

I have to disagree with this as I find it a sad excuse. Trust me my rl is far to hectic to spend hours upon hours in a game I would like to play yet I really would love to see and play a sandbox MMORPG. And if people are not able to make fun even if they have like only a few hourse to play they should try other genre's of games where the don't need to spend that much time instead of trying to turn this genre into "just" online games.
 

Originally posted by rikilii

Originally posted by Impacatus

Yes, I know there have been a lot of sandbox threads lately, but I've always wondered about this.  Everyone says that most people prefer linear mmos to sandbox mmos, but I really don't understand why, if this is true.

Why wouldn't you want player interaction that goes beyond grouping?  Why wouldn't you want a dynamic player economy and politics that make players relevant to each other, that allow even people of different levels to play together?  Why wouldn't you want the challenge of having to play people instead of just numbers?

Some people don't want to have to rely on other players.   They want to get in and experience the content right away, not spend hours shopping for a new sword.  Many people don't like having to compete with other players, since not everybody has 15 hours a day to play MMOs, and not everybody likes dealing with vindictive 15 year olds.

Yet we have thousends of single multiplayer games that those type of people should play instead of turning this genre into just online games

Why wouldn't you want to allow players to make non-combat skills their focus? 

I have no idea what "non-combat skills" has to do with a game being a sandbox or not, so I won't bother answering this.

Because some people might have been with games for over 20/30 years and got abit tired of "just" combat, MMORPG's use to start at being totaly different from the norm of online games, due to the inpatient nature of today's generation gamers mmorpg's are turning into just online games.

What's so terrible about features like player housing and cities, or avatar customization?

If SWG was any indication, player housing just ended up ruining the environments.  The entire planet of Tatooine looks like Baghdad on most servers.  Player housing is nice, but has nothing to do with the theme of the game.  Player cities, while they seem like a nice feature, ended up being almost entirely pointless in SWG, and dozens of non-player cities in the game were basically deserted.

Also need to disagree on this as it wasn't the housing but the programming which made the game what it started to become back then.

Why do you like being forced to stick to the level appropriate zones instead of being allowed to go where you want?

Some people like to know where they should be as they progress.  I'm not a big fan of the concept, because progression then just becomes pointless.  But some people like to look at an area from the outside and say, damn, I can't go in there...but some day I will.

Oh, by the way, what's this have to do with a game being a sandbox or not?

Because we use the feel the need to explore, why should we explore these day's as everything is handed over to you?

What's so great about being forced to choose your class from a menu instead of just training what you want in a skill based system?

Games work better when characters have defined roles.  A lot of games with skill based systems just end up forcing people into one of 3 or 4 templates anyway.  I too prefer the flexibility, but a lot of people (i.e. the majority) like simplicity.

In my opinion these games work better for those cause they seem to catter to those who don't really want to think while playing but just follow the carrot to cap lvl.

What do linear mmorpgs have that's incompatible with features like these?

"Linear" MMOs are story driven.  That is essentially the antithesis of being player-driven.  Any game can have aspects of both.  There's not such thing as a pure sandbox, nor is there such a thing as a purely linear MMO.

Well everything that has a story tied to it is linear, but lately there seems no room to part from this where we use to have a linear storyline but you could progress thru it in numerous way's, now a day's thanks to the inpatient gamers we now have there are no numerous way's to progress, just  very limited ways.