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.

Interesting write-up and conclusions. I respectfully disagree with you on point 4 and the conclusion though.

Point 4:. MMORPGs are based on C-RPGs (Computer RPGs) which are based on two core elements of pen & paper RPGs; 1. character development, and 2. leaving the result of character actions to random functions (dice). Nowhere in MMORPGs or C-RPGs was role-playing a key factor. Some of the games add a hefty amount of storytelling, but that's not the same as role-playing. We'd be much better off killing that debate/misconception by just referring to these games as MMOGs, and skip the RP part of the name.

Conclusion: it seems to me that you're basically saying that people who play differently can't play together. I think MMOGs have proven that they can. From p&p D&D and Werewolf the Apocalypse to MUDs to UO, EQ and WoW, multi-player RPGs have appealed to many different people, for different reasons; storytelling, role-playing, character advancement, teamwork, competition, etc. Why should not MMOGs support and encourage all these? Because some of us can't accept that others play differently?

Once again, an interesting write-up, and I think it's important to break down the players into distinct groups (while remembering the huge grey area between them all) to try to understand the different motivations we have. However, as a role-player (p&p, LARP, MUDs, C-RPG, MMORPG) through 17 years I have no illusion that those of us who like to actually role-play our characters are in majority or in the right in any type of RPG except LARP. To say that the MMORPG genre was created for us is in my opinion missing the target.

My apologies if I misunderstood you on some parts. If so, I'll let it stand as a comment to those who have the opinion I thought you had. ;-)

Whoever says EvE economy is good got no clue. I mean if you look into the whole T2 prices (especially HAC's) and how to get the BPO's, it's just screwed up.

Originally posted by metalhead980

Currently the fans of this days mmorpg makes me sad.

They all want simple quick gameplay, they no longer want to invest time into a character and build friendships in game, spending five years in a game is unheard of in this day and age because of these people.

They all want to solo 99% of the time and never talk to anyone.

Once they find out a game requires grouping its deemed unworthy.

WoW has brought these people to us and it's killing the future of MMOs.

We will never again see a MMO like UO, SWg-pre cu, eve and now Ryzom.

Even a game that is new to a lot of people (ryzom) is getting a bad rep for requiring a group to fully explore.

The I have a real life crowd is really pathetic, you can play any mmo little by little if you have a RL.

I personally have a wife, full time job and four children and still get to play my 15-20+ hour a week MMO.

These instant gradification players need to GTFO! of my mmo.

 

OMFG! I'm the happiest man in the gawddamn galaxy!

Originally posted by Dreamagram

Point 4:. MMORPGs are based on C-RPGs (Computer RPGs) which are based on two core elements of pen & paper RPGs; 1. character development, and 2. leaving the result of character actions to random functions (dice). Nowhere in MMORPGs or C-RPGs was role-playing a key factor. Some of the games add a hefty amount of storytelling, but that's not the same as role-playing.

What CRPGs are you talking about?  Hack-and-slash?  That is a genre, but it has nothing to do with RPGs.  A RPG is a RPG whether you put a C in front of it or not.  You may have chosen to metagame most of your time playing, as did I when I was 15-17 years old playing Bard's Tale I, the Pool of Radiance, and their sequals.  I would actually even hack the character files to create the best stats and equipment for my characters that I could.

That is when I found out that it's a really boring way to play a roleplaying game.  And those games were about roleplaying, if you paid close attention.

I also used to play MUDs and MMOs in college.  This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Gate) was one of my favorites.  I actually ended up playing it for a while again about 15 years later when I found it had been re-established and was available via telnet for about $10/month.  It was just as much fun as I remembered it being while in college.  If you read the descripton in Wikipedia, you'll note that the game was heavily roleplaying-based and tried to hide numbers whenever it could.  I also never ran into any spoonfeeding linear quests while I was playing.  I wonder why...

Your impression of the genre is actually antiquated, it's just not antiquated enough.  The really old games were all about roleplaying.  It was the somewhat newer MMOs (which most people now consider ancient) that really corrupted the industry by catering to certain cliental that they shouldn't have.

Originally posted by -aLpHa-

Whoever says EvE economy is good got no clue. I mean if you look into the whole T2 prices (especially HAC's) and how to get the BPO's, it's just screwed up.

So the whole entire economy sucks because you want to complain about something being overpriced? It's risk vs reward. You want to fly something overpowered like a Titan/Dread/Carrier, etc fine but if you lose it will cost you a lot more then T1 ships. Encourages veterans to fly cheaper ships to keep warfare balanced out

If you cant see the benefits to that then just go play WoW where everyone always wears their best gear. Perhaps you were not there at launch so let me fill you in. Raiders stomped the living daylights out of pvpers in pvp. This is what happenes when there is no risk vs reward, veterans will stomp the crap out of you 24/7 because they will always bring their best equipment to every fight

Do you want everyone to fly a Titan in EVE? If not then quit complaining. Without the price hikes everyone will be able to fully insure their ships. I fly tech 2 ships all the time and pay the price jumps. Everyone deals with that just fin

It's a perfect balance. Veterans are discouraged from bringing their best equipment due to high risks. Newbies suffer virtually no penalty with fully insurable T1 ships. I don't read anyone at all complaining bout this on the boards

Also I saw overpriced items all the time in World of Warcraft auction house anyway. So even if this is an issue it is one shared across virtually any MMO where goods can be traded.

I think its a really bad sign when peoiple actually defend thier right to not wanting more features and freedom in MMOs.

Dont think i ever have heard that before. Most players talk about what more they want in a MMO, not that they have to much already! And thats especially bad right now, when we have almost feature free MMOs out there.

When i played Pre CU SWG, i had two jobs and a family. I used to play with a 16-19 year old dude from Denmark, and i think he played about 40 hours every week. I played about five. Still we could play togeather and had a lot of fun. Thats something thats would be impossible in a lesser MMOs. You can only do that in a sandbox game.

Originally posted by Raithe-Nor

Originally posted by Dreamagram

Point 4:. MMORPGs are based on C-RPGs (Computer RPGs) which are based on two core elements of pen & paper RPGs; 1. character development, and 2. leaving the result of character actions to random functions (dice). Nowhere in MMORPGs or C-RPGs was role-playing a key factor. Some of the games add a hefty amount of storytelling, but that's not the same as role-playing.

What CRPGs are you talking about?  Hack-and-slash?  That is a genre, but it has nothing to do with RPGs.  A RPG is a RPG whether you put a C in front of it or not.  You may have chosen to metagame most of your time playing, as did I when I was 15-17 years old playing Bard's Tale I, the Pool of Radiance, and their sequals.  I would actually even hack the character files to create the best stats and equipment for my characters that I could.

That is when I found out that it's a really boring way to play a roleplaying game.  And those games were about roleplaying, if you paid close attention.

I also used to play MUDs and MMOs in college.  This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Gate) was one of my favorites.  I actually ended up playing it for a while again about 15 years later when I found it had been re-established and was available via telnet for about $10/month.  It was just as much fun as I remembered it being while in college.  If you read the descripton in Wikipedia, you'll note that the game was heavily roleplaying-based and tried to hide numbers whenever it could.  I also never ran into any spoonfeeding linear quests while I was playing.  I wonder why...

Your impression of the genre is actually antiquated, it's just not antiquated enough.  The really old games were all about roleplaying.  It was the somewhat newer MMOs (which most people now consider ancient) that really corrupted the industry by catering to certain cliental that they shouldn't have.

I'm actually talking about the very games you mention. You had to remind me of all those hours I spent in Valingen Graveyard and Sokol Keep, didn't you? :-p Sounds like you meta-gamed them a lot more than I did though.

Where you say the really old games were all about role-playing, I say they are all - from p&p D&D to the upcoming WAR - games to be played as each person wishes to play them. That you choose to role-play in them doesn't make that their purpose or intent, nor does the "RP" in the genre name. The RPG stamp on computer games stems from the p&p game systems (in the vast majority of cases - there are always exceptions), not the role-playing part of the p&p games.

In any case, you or I have no right to say people of different mindsets shouldn't be playing the games (or playing others instead), nor that they're playing them wrong. Basically saying "this genre is ours - everybody else get the heck out" is simply not something I will agree to. I'll easily settle for disagreeing though, as I consider the idea of these and other forums to share opinions, not try to force one's own opinions on others (nor insult's others or their opinions, but hey, it's the internet).

I really do hope we'll get more niche games for those of us looking for that game which is exactly right (Dragon's Gate sounds interesting as a concept to turn into an MMOG, btw). That doesn't mean games shouldn't cater to multiple crowds, letting each play it as they please.

Originally posted by Wizardry

To the OP i have NEVER heard any thing about players wanting linear games,so right there not sure what you getting at.

I have. *awkward silence*

Look harder.  In this thread, for instance.

Number two,player driven economies NEVER work,they ALWAYS alienate new players down the road and ALWAYS become broken.The ONLY way a player driven economy can work is if you have zero RMT activity,witch i have yet to see happen.

Training what you want in a skill based system,is FAKE.It is not a skill system at all, it is just mathematics ,puting numbers into slots.In the end the chat gets spammed with all players asking what is the best build,and players all become the same.Another reason that system stinks is that your MMORPG title just got thrown out the window.There is no such thing as a class anymore,how would like to call every player i nthe game a HYBRID?I for one would like every player to be something different,not a chat full of spam asking "HOW SHOULD I MAKE MY PLAYER".If you have ever played FFXI,you would know that just because you have a class there is different ways to play it...example Dancer,Ninja,even redmage can play various roles.FFXI uses set classes but you can change your subclass anytime,and do have some realistic choices in weapons.

What a skill based system allows you to do is create your own class.  This is always good for roleplaying, but it's especially important in a game where there is more than one thing to do.

How would you work tradeskills into a class system?  Most games make them secondary and dependent on your combat level.  Everyone has to fight.  There's no other way to advance, no player choice. 

In UO I remember people would make templates for treasure hunters, bounty hunters, paladins, thieves of all sorts, and more.  Some of these were practical, some of them for roleplaying.  Either way, a certain skill set was required that didn't exactly align with what was pre-programmed.

No matter what system is in place i do NOT want to see wizard built players weilding cannons or large swords,it looks out of place and ruins the whole theme of a game.It would be like putting a HEMI into a VOLVO,who in there right mind would do that?.

What kind of fiction have you been reading where characters NEVER have unexpected skills or abilities?

Just take a well known example, Star Wars.  Han's profession is "smuggler", but he's also pretty decent with a blaster.  Is that really implicit when you hear someone is involved with the surreptitious transport of illegal goods?  He also knew how to hotwire "that thing" in RoTJ.  He showed some ability in survival on Hoth.  He was a good pilot as well.  You may say that these are all smuggler skills, but only because the smuggler we're most familiar with has them.

Luke grew up on a farm, gained force abilities, and learned to fly an X-Wing really well.  Is his "class" farmboy, jedi, or pilot?

Anakin can build droids and vehicles, race pods, pilot, and is a jedi.  He probably developed some leadership or command skills during the course of his lordship as well.

Back on the skill system again,i can guarantee you it gets real annoying fast,when you see CHAT spammed every 10 seconds by players asking where to put there skills numbers.I mean it takes almost zero thought,yet i still see it over and over in games.At least with set classes ,the noob chat spam is limited to "SO what class has the most damage",another pet peeve i have is seeing that in chat.

You're assuming the skills are all equivalent to each other, ie they're all for combat.  If each skill is used for something different, the "best" template will depend on what you want to do, and it should be pretty obvious based on that.

Also, I hardly consider new players asking for help with the game to be spam.

Second, the player base can't be trusted to control the economy and world. They will screw it up. A few who have far more time than the majority of the other players will control the market. Real skill isn't involved the primary currency is time. If you want a sand box economy go find one of those amazing stock market sim. Prove you're capable of handling a skill based economy, not one based upon time spent.

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but I have played an economic simulator based on real skill, www.miniconomy.nl, and I did fairly decent the two rounds I played.

Don't know why you think "handling" a different style of economy is a big deal.

Sandbox people are non/low achievers...they like the no-level aspect of "sandbox" MMOGs because it hides the fact that they are not very good at achieving things. In EVE Online all one has to do to gain skills is pay a monthly fee...the rest is done for you; your character gains skills whether you're AFK eating, sleeping, pooping, flunking Algabra, surfing porn, touching yourself, posting replies on MMORPG.com, etc., etc....

That's the way the Sandbox people like it...no challange! Sandbox people say that Level based games "hold your hand" but I say sandbox games "pick you up and carry you!".

I suppose it is a challenge to tolerate all that tedium while neglecting your real life and all other hobbies.  You're right, I'm not l33t enough to spend all day going *click* *click* *click*.  I can't seem to resist the temptation to go to school or work, or just out for some fresh air.  

You're right, I'd prefer something easier, like competing with the rest of the playerbase in the economy, or leading a large community towards some common goal like a thriving player city.  May not be as glamorous as clicking on mobs while watching a number slowly increment, but I'm just not cool enough for that.

Originally posted by Dreamagram

That doesn't mean games shouldn't cater to multiple crowds, letting each play it as they please.

You apparently haven't been witness to the tug-o-wars that are happening everywhere in these new-fangled MMOs (excluding, perhaps, the truly sandbox ones).  This is what happens:

1) The game launches fairly successfully, but there is a lot of criticism coming from all four camps.

2) The designers, who have their own biases, adjust something in the game to appease one of the camps.

3) A different camp sees the change as a direct assault on their style of play, and a large number of them quit, complaining loudly as they do it.  The ones who remain get even louder.

4) The cycle continues between 2 and 3 until either 1 camp essentially "wins" or the game shuts down from subscribers quiting.

5) If the winning camp isn't roleplayers, the other camps are not self-sustaining and the game dwindles into nothingness from low revenue and declining subscriber base.

I'm ok with developers making a multiplayer online game for the non-roleplaying camps.  It's actually been done many times before.  They just don't need to be called MMORPGs, or even MMOGs, and they are probably going to have problems with long term sustainability.

Originally posted by Reklaw

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.
 

LOL .. people do what they find FUN in entertainment. They don't need to justify anything for their choices. You want to be in virtual world != everyone else wants to.

Most people just want online games. And this is exactly what this genre is. Online GAMES. Any developer would lose sight of that would have only a niche market.

People want some easy hack-n-slash with games. They don't want any headaches. I heard that players in Eve Online Corps even have regular meetings. I bet 99.9% of the market won't want to go anywhere close to that.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

People want some easy hack-n-slash with games. They don't want any headaches. I heard that players in Eve Online Corps even have regular meetings. I bet 99.9% of the market won't want to go anywhere close to that.

I bet 95% of the games market is actually in Wii/XBox/PS3 sales.  I guess we should just shut down production of anything that isn't a console first person shooter...

*sigh*

I was in the first group of beta testers for the game Seed, which billed itself as the ultimate non-combat sandbox game. Instead of combat, we had to do repairs all day long (click, click, click, click), and all the political/ social aspects came to nothing. The game launched, now it's gone, and you've probably never even heard of it.

I would love to have more complex character development options in an MMO; I would love to see developers get more creative in every aspect of mmo design; and I enjoyed the economy in EVE more than I enjoyed the combat. But I only log in to Second Life, the only true sandbox game, about twice a year, when someone I knew from college or graduate school e-mails to tell me he's just discovered the game and I must check out his new dildo store.

A t the end of the day, I mostly just want to unwind when I play a game, and in an MMO that usually means killing things. Going to committe meetings and dealing with interpersonal politics. . . that's what I do at work.

Originally posted by Thunderous

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.

Not bad, but let it be added,  A player driven sandbox requires interaction,sucessful interaction requires a certain level of politeness, politeness requires maturity,paitence,and placing the other player before yourself.

---

Originally posted by PatchDay

---

Originally posted by -aLpHa-

Whoever says EvE economy is good got no clue. I mean if you look into the whole T2 prices (especially HAC's) and how to get the BPO's, it's just screwed up.

---

 
So the whole entire economy sucks because you want to complain about something being overpriced? It's risk vs reward. You want to fly something overpowered like a Titan/Dread/Carrier, etc fine but if you lose it will cost you a lot more then T1 ships. Encourages veterans to fly cheaper ships to keep warfare balanced out
If you cant see the benefits to that then just go play WoW where everyone always wears their best gear. Perhaps you were not there at launch so let me fill you in. Raiders stomped the living daylights out of pvpers in pvp. This is what happenes when there is no risk vs reward, veterans will stomp the crap out of you 24/7 because they will always bring their best equipment to every fight
 
Do you want everyone to fly a Titan in EVE? If not then quit complaining. Without the price hikes everyone will be able to fully insure their ships. I fly tech 2 ships all the time and pay the price jumps. Everyone deals with that just fin
It's a perfect balance. Veterans are discouraged from bringing their best equipment due to high risks. Newbies suffer virtually no penalty with fully insurable T1 ships. I don't read anyone at all complaining bout this on the boards
Also I saw overpriced items all the time in World of Warcraft auction house anyway. So even if this is an issue it is one shared across virtually any MMO where goods can be traded.

---

What kind of answer is this? Even if you can buy a Titan you still got a restriction with the skill system, even HAC's need months before you can fly them and don't even start if you don't have good weapon/shildskills. So your fear that new players can fly those ships, is total crap.

What i am talking about is how BPO's get shared to the community, with some kind of Lottery system and the owners of rare BPO's making deals with each other to keep the prices high.

---

Originally posted by daarco
I think its a really bad sign when peoiple actually defend thier right to not wanting more features and freedom in MMOs.
Dont think i ever have heard that before. Most players talk about what more they want in a MMO, not that they have to much already! And thats especially bad right now, when we have almost feature free MMOs out there.
When i played Pre CU SWG, i had two jobs and a family. I used to play with a 16-19 year old dude from Denmark, and i think he played about 40 hours every week. I played about five. Still we could play togeather and had a lot of fun. Thats something thats would be impossible in a lesser MMOs. You can only do that in a sandbox game.

---

I agree but I think we should frame the debate properly as most of the people arguing so vehemently for a sandbox universe are presenting it in a utopian light. In concept it is fine.

It seems to me that no matter what the game the majority of players gravitate to known templates. In other words the builds that actually succeed in the environment. The notion of freedom is there in sandbox characters but rarely tested. If you are constantly defeated by using a staff wielding warrior regardless of tactics it may be the fault of the game design but only the truly masochistic will continue down that path.

All games seem to have gaps such as this. Some out of the norm builds might succeed but then....are noticed and quickly copied. Now you have clones of your wonderful experiment. Sounds like a class to me.

Build strength/axe by swinging an axe over and over? Set him up in a forest, go to sleep, wake up to a maxed out character.

The appeal of a sandbox then becomes less about character concept than it does an open flavor as daarco mentions. Stealing, betrayal, new alliances on the fly, random occurrences that might never occur in a more structured environment. If you want to assault someone in a city you simply swing a club. There may be in-game repercussions or player created retaliation or vigilantes upholding 'justice' based on this action. A domino effect unrealized in most games.

The lure of a sandbox is the player's ability to inform the immediate universe by his actions. Creating/prompting change.

Discussing the merits between the skill based system and class based system doesn't approach the real differences in my opinion and detracts from the real desire of most open worlders.

I'm rambling again...

The thing with Darkfall is that Aventurine have added FFAPvP and Full Loot as a "glue feature" that holds the game togeather.

Sure you can make a "sword trining macro" out in a forest. Not sure if your sword skill goes up if you dont make any damage to anythig, Still, a macro wont mean anything if another character kills you character. You cant leave it alone in this world.

And that appeals to everyone. You will never be safe in Darkfall. You can be alot more safer sometimes. And that fuels all the players driven sandbox content. From the smallest shipwright to the strongerst worrior.

We can almost say that self preservation is what makes Darkfall work. And thats something we lack in many other MMOs.

the thing that scares me about a game completely controlled by the players is this, the players. take for instance economies in other mmo's that are pretty much run by the players. they go from ok to bad to worse. people cant even run the real world properly, and thats just the adults, now throw the youth in with equal power and your gonna have a bigger mess. people cant even agree on anything in the forums, now put all these people in the same game and watch what happens. if and when darkfall comes out i will probably play it. i will be the monk alone up in the hills watching the chaos that ensues below.

Originally posted by psychorob68

the thing that scares me about a game completely controlled by the players is this, the players. take for instance economies in other mmo's that are pretty much run by the players. they go from ok to bad to worse. people cant even run the real world properly, and thats just the adults, now throw the youth in with equal power and your gonna have a bigger mess. people cant even agree on anything in the forums, now put all these people in the same game and watch what happens. if and when darkfall comes out i will probably play it. i will be the monk alone up in the hills watching the chaos that ensues below.

 

But isnt that what makes it interesting? What id everyone got along just fine and lauged all te time in a MMO?

We need some chaos and conflict. And remember this: You are as important as anyone else in a sandbox MMO. Some tend to forget that, and let the idiotes run the show. Never let that happen.

This thread is long so I didn't read through the whole thing, but most of it.

It seems the common responses for not wanting a sandbox are:

1) I don't want to have to rely on other people.

2) I like to play solo.

3) I don't have time, I want to play for an hour and have fun.

4) I like guided content.

5) Only the hardcore players like sandbox, casuals don't.

Frankly, my best suggestion for all the people that think like this are, Play a single player game!

Why would you play an MMO if you don't want to interact with other people? Why play an MMO if you like playing solo? Why play an MMO if you only want to play for an hour and have fun? Why play an MMO if you like guided content? You can do all of this in single player games for a lot cheaper without having to worry about socializing with others or having others ruin your day.

Honestly these reasons just seem silly. I wouldn't go to a rock concert and tell them I don't like loud noises. Why would you play an MMO and tell us you like to play solo.

So true Abrahmm.

I agree Darrco.