Frankly a sandbox will never work because MMO gamers are not smart enough to manage an open ended content environment.

Supporting evidence, most serious gamer realize MMOing is about time spent, not skill. I think of all those debates in various MMOs with so called 'skilled' players when I tell them their 'skill' comes from their level and gear. Level and gear come with time. So skill in an MMO equates to time spent in the MMO.

This time spent equation is true in every MMO, I've ever played. Exception to this would be Guild Wars up until the first expansion. Planetside was also skill based, although not a true MMO.

Those wanting a sandbox, really are not wanting a sandbox. They are wanting an evolving, guided dungeon, like the AD&D of old with a skilled Dungeon Master.

You want a game where you can adventure and its different each time. You want to walk along a dark road one night and see nothing but the moon hanging in the sky. The next time you walk down this dark road, you want to get jumped by four goblins and have to fight for your life. You want to fight epic bosses who don't follow the same script each time. You want adventures to the bottom a a dungeon, no one else except your party has visited before.

This is the sandbox you want. Well unfortunately technology is a LONG LONG LONG way from creating functional virtual world with chance encounters and intelligent AI.   (I actually think this is proof of God)

Since technology can't create the world you want, you have to rely upon other players to create this virtual world. Well guess what, they can't.

What if we created virtual dungeon masters.   Say volunteers who ran this online MMO content and gave it intelligence.   These DM's could be trusted players who understand the game.     Guess what would happen, greed, favroritism, and dishonosty.   How long before these trusted DM's start giving out extra items or easier quests to their friends, alts, family? 

Therefore a true sandbox MMO is still many decades away (if ever).
 

I think people view the idea of a sandbox differently.  For instance pre-nge SWG was considered a sandbox, and i think the devs even stated that they are leaving the content of the game up to the players.  In the sense where they allowed us to effect the world with houses and player cities (we even were able to build shuttleports, respawn points, etc) and had a decent faction warfare system that allowed us to build bases etc.

I think of a sandbox as a game whose content is player driven.  I think EVE is a sandbox for that matter.  Just because if i want to make a fortune selling a specific item, i can do that.  If i want to own my own space station and declare my corportation in control of a solar system, i can etc.

Darkfall is a sandbox game that has its beta comming in the next few months with plans to release in 2008, and it has those same elements.  It isnt designed to have a boss fight differently, or have mobs attack you on the same road that was pieceful last night....but it does offer the chance for players to set up a trap on that road, or have a guild block the enterance to a dungeon while their friends clear it (meaning you would have to fight through them if you wanted to do something about it).  Guild cities where you can fight on its walls and mount weapons to it while defending other attacking players with mobile siege engines etc. 

I dont agree that we dont have any sandboxes comming out soon, as DF is not the only one.  But again it has to do with how you define a sandbox.

Originally posted by imbant

I think people view the idea of a sandbox differently.  For instance pre-nge SWG was considered a sandbox, and i think the devs even stated that they are leaving the content of the game up to the players.  In the sense where they allowed us to effect the world with houses and player cities (we even were able to build shuttleports, respawn points, etc) and had a decent faction warfare system that allowed us to build bases etc.

I think of a sandbox as a game whose content is player driven.  I think EVE is a sandbox for that matter.  Just because if i want to make a fortune selling a specific item, i can do that.  If i want to own my own space station and declare my corportation in control of a solar system, i can etc.

Darkfall is a sandbox game that has its beta comming in the next few months with plans to release in 2008, and it has those same elements.  It isnt designed to have a boss fight differently, or have mobs attack you on the same road that was pieceful last night....but it does offer the chance for players to set up a trap on that road, or have a guild block the enterance to a dungeon while their friends clear it (meaning you would have to fight through them if you wanted to do something about it).  Guild cities where you can fight on its walls and mount weapons to it while defending other attacking players with mobile siege engines etc. 

I dont agree that we dont have any sandboxes comming out soon, as DF is not the only one.  But again it has to do with how you define a sandbox.

I agree with nearly everything you say. EVE is for instance not what he's talking about since your skill is soley designed on how many time you/your clan spent on the game. And the underlined part isn't true as well. Some powerful Darkfall bosses are played not by the AI but by real players (GMs, DEVs).

And groups of mobs are meant to attack cities and roads if they feel secure enough to do so in numbers and equipment. Also, a "type" of mobs searches a different spawn area each time too many of it get killed.

Not only that but the mobs in Darkfall will grow in strength over time including spawning champions and creating structures.

If Darkfall isn't considered a sandbox game, I don't want to play games anymore.

Originally posted by tfox2k1 

Frankly a sandbox will never work because MMO gamers are not smart enough to manage an open ended content environment.

This is stereotyping.  A better way to phrase this would be to say that the mass market for MMO's prefers simplification.

Supporting evidence, most serious gamer realize MMOing is about time spent, not skill. I think of all those debates in various MMOs with so called 'skilled' players when I tell them their 'skill' comes from their level and gear. Level and gear come with time. So skill in an MMO equates to time spent in the MMO.

A simple way to say this would be of the Learning Curve.  Any investment by time provides for better education and skill.  But this is off topic, back to sandboxes...

Those wanting a sandbox, really are not wanting a sandbox. They are wanting an evolving, guided dungeon, like the AD&D of old with a skilled Dungeon Master.

Again this is stereotyping.  There is a difference between Sandbox and Regulated systems, and even hybrids.

You want a game where you can adventure and its different each time. You want to walk along a dark road one night and see nothing but the moon hanging in the sky. The next time you walk down this dark road, you want to get jumped by four goblins and have to fight for your life. You want to fight epic bosses who don't follow the same script each time. You want adventures to the bottom a a dungeon, no one else except your party has visited before.

This is the sandbox you want. Well unfortunately technology is a LONG LONG LONG way from creating functional virtual world with chance encounters and intelligent AI. (I actually think this is proof of God)

Actually the technology is available.  The reason for the lack of sandbox systems is due to business decisions.  Sandbox systems are not the big cash-cows as compared to regulated systems, or so that is the belief.  Sandbox systems also require more effort and resources to develop than do regulated systems, and thus have a lower return on investment.

Since technology can't create the world you want, you have to rely upon other players to create this virtual world. Well guess what, they can't.

Actually players can, Second Life is an example of this.

What if we created virtual dungeon masters. Say volunteers who ran this online MMO content and gave it intelligence. These DM's could be trusted players who understand the game. Guess what would happen, greed, favroritism, and dishonosty. How long before these trusted DM's start giving out extra items or easier quests to their friends, alts, family?

May want to try out Rysom with the Player Created Mission system.

Therefore a true sandbox MMO is still many decades away (if ever).

No, true sandboxes exist today.  Give Starquest Online a try.  I could name some others as well. 

Sandbox MMO's are and will be provided by Indies and not by large publishers.

I would also suggest a form of Neverwinter Nights wherein various worlds (with their own rulesets) might be connected through a central hub with a shared set of values.

Player and developer made adventures connected to a central seamless world for greater character/guild interaction. People may play in the world of their choosing with high or low magic, extreme or minimal item/loot but when connected to the 'living' world they are held to an adherence to the general ruleset. Perhaps even the viability of the various worlds is controlled through interaction in the main.

The developers could bring elements of any world into the main or bleed them in for effect.

I think a sandbox CAN work, but WON'T be offered, because the OP is right about one thing.

MOST MMO gamers can't handle a sandbox.  We saw this with early SWG, as players whined that no one was telling them what to do...there was no "content" served up to them on a platter, therefore they were totally lost.

Mind you, there were also players who relished the virtual world they'd been handed and jumped right in and started creating content on their own, with minimal tools.  We had some absoultely gripping RP on Ahazi, led by the legendary Riis bal-Tannis, who came into the game with a back story and deftly used that as a means of creating content for players who were willing to RP.  It was a vibrant, exciting time on Ahazi.

The catch is, those who love the sandbox and can deal with amusing themselves are in the minority.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of players, I dare say the majority, for sure now that the MMO market was expanded by WoW, who can't handle amusing themselves...they're consumers, creation is beyond them.  A sandbox needs creative players in it.

Because there's a limited audience for sandbox games, the industry trend, looking for the mass market (and the massive profit that they bring) is more WoW style directed content that doesn't tax the imaginations of many players too much, who want content delivered to them in as direct a fashion as possible.

So, we've got the WoW model out there, highly successful, and every venture capitialist sees WoW as the gold standard of MMOs.  Sandboxes, not so much.

That's like saying "well, it seems like everyone wants an SUV so we're not going to make trucks anymore."

There IS a market for sandbox games and games like Darfkall are going to prove it. There are thousands upon thousands of old UO and SWG fans just itching to get their hands on another one.

Darkfall is going to prove a lot of people wrong. Sure it might not do as well as WoW and the market for those types of games might be bigger but so what? If there's a market, exploit it.

I tried second life just for the heck of it and wow, I really really didn't get the point.

My longest lasting gate is Wurm Online, which I still get on a play occasionally. It's certainly not the most professional game out there, and still needs a lot of work, but it  is quite a nice sandbox.

Coming from an DnD point of view, yeah the game is weak in that sense, But here's hoping Darkfall will combine the both of these worlds. If they do pull it off, I think it's going to have a MAJOR impact on the multiplayer market; it will be evolutionary step in what game may ultimately be.

I always find the 'sandbox' to be a myth that no one can quantify properly. Basically people want content faster than developers can produce it. If we all united to buy and subscribe to one single game then the money would be there to offer the 'sandbox' but the free market economy actually stops this idea from becoming a reality.

I'd be happy if developers could properly finish one major title. I get bored of subscribing to different mmos just because I want a blast of crafting or I want some good dungeons for a bit.

You're definitely right about skill vs. time. People want something to show for their time and games where good skill reduces the time actually flop. However take a look at the two biggest titles:

WoW - Follow guide.

EVE - Literally time = skill points.

LOTRO & EQ2s subscription numbers really surprise me because they require minimal skill but offer few ways to optimise time - they are essentially a raw quest grind.

Guild wars uses a lot of skill but has about 7 days of content :P DDO, AOC & HgL tried but just became a quest to hold down buttons.

<pause>

I was just thinking about how RPers make their own content, why don't we just hire amateur actors to make up random quests? Especially if they're blonde, female and 20-something.

Originally posted by Zekiah

There IS a market for sandbox games and games like Darfkall are going to prove it. There are thousands upon thousands of old UO and SWG fans just itching to get their hands on another one.

Could you imagine the uproar from thousands of the newer generation of MMOers if you dropped them into Britannia (Pre-Ren of course)?

But you're right. ... there are a lot of us old UO'ers waiting for a game that can fill the void .

I love how if someone doesnt enjoy a sandbox, they are somehow less of a player. Some people have enough of a real life they dont need a second life in a non-permanent world. Who's really the sad one? Get over yourself.

Originally posted by protoroc

I love how if someone doesnt enjoy a sandbox, they are somehow less of a player. Some people have enough of a real life they dont need a second life in a non-permanent world. Who's really the sad one? Get over yourself.

I really like how you pointed out how bad the argument is, and then used it at the end of your post as your own argument.

Originally posted by Rebn77

Originally posted by Zekiah

There IS a market for sandbox games and games like Darfkall are going to prove it. There are thousands upon thousands of old UO and SWG fans just itching to get their hands on another one.

Could you imagine the uproar from thousands of the newer generation of MMOers if you dropped them into Britannia (Pre-Ren of course)?

But you're right. ... there are a lot of us old UO'ers waiting for a game that can fill the void .

Rofl, yeah that would be ugly.

The way I see it is, they can have their WoW/WAR/AoC and we can have Darkfall.

I actually will probably play some WAR but it won't hold my interest past a few months...that's assuming I'm not in Darkfall beta by then.

K, this is an idea that only came up as I was reading things, so it's by no means thought through, but I (think I) feel the pain of the OP in wanting a complicated game, but not having the community for it. If there was some way to have both kinds of worlds in one game, with easy transitions between the two. It may not work so well with a skill system, but a world in general, where in a certain bubble, everything is decided, finite and traditional. Leave the bubble and you enter a world of undefined maximums, few predefined quests, and lots to explore/manipulate.

Of course this is like saying I want my room cold and hot at the same time, but if the gaming community really puts thought behind it, I'm sure we can come up with something the developers will be glad to "borrow."

Why does a game have to pure sandbox or pure "guide the players along" type game? In theory, a developer could create a system in which content is easily added to a game by staff and players alike, while providing a pre-determined path for players not interested in directly affecting the game world and who just want to experience pre-made content and/or content made by other players. Would a game like this satisfy players?

sandbox games do work,

look at eve online

Originally posted by Foxman13

Why does a game have to pure sandbox or pure "guide the players along" type game? In theory, a developer could create a system in which content is easily added to a game by staff and players alike, while providing a pre-determined path for players not interested in directly affecting the game world and who just want to experience pre-made content and/or content made by other players. Would a game like this satisfy players?

 

When I think of sandbox and player-made content, I'm not thinking so much of players taking the role of developers and designing and scripting quests and so on.  Rather, I'd like to see a game where the world is sculpted by the player's actions within the game.

In order for this to work, there has to be a coherent "virtual community" for players to interact in vie economics, politics, etc.  The problem is, if players are interacting with the world, they're not interacting with each other.  The two models of game are fundamentally opposed.

An example is loot vs. crafting.  If loot is availible that serves the same purpose as crafted goods and does it better, no one will want to buy from the crafters.  The sandbox player economy and the linear loot table cannot coexist in the same sphere.

I think it is possible to make a game that has both types of content if the two don't overlap, but then what's the point?  Why not make two seperate games instead?

Let me recommend my newest love:

Saga Of Ryzom

Best sandbox out there, and guess what

ITS FREE ATM!! :D

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by Foxman13

Why does a game have to pure sandbox or pure "guide the players along" type game? In theory, a developer could create a system in which content is easily added to a game by staff and players alike, while providing a pre-determined path for players not interested in directly affecting the game world and who just want to experience pre-made content and/or content made by other players. Would a game like this satisfy players?

 

 

When I think of sandbox and player-made content, I'm not thinking so much of players taking the role of developers and designing and scripting quests and so on.  Rather, I'd like to see a game where the world is sculpted by the player's actions within the game.

In order for this to work, there has to be a coherent "virtual community" for players to interact in vie economics, politics, etc.  The problem is, if players are interacting with the world, they're not interacting with each other.  The two models of game are fundamentally opposed.

An example is loot vs. crafting.  If loot is availible that serves the same purpose as crafted goods and does it better, no one will want to buy from the crafters.  The sandbox player economy and the linear loot table cannot coexist in the same sphere.

I think it is possible to make a game that has both types of content if the two don't overlap, but then what's the point?  Why not make two seperate games instead?

Come on, be creative.

It isn't loot vs crafting, they can work together perfectly fine. Two thoughts of mine:

1) best items created by crafters who use looted recipes

2) best items are looted ones but they can be studdied any copied by crafters. Need valueable mats to create and break at some point (both, looted and crafted items should turn out to be exactly as good as the other one). They should also be very limited so for example there a different bosses who are dead for good when they're dead. So if you want to keep a certain item "alive", you have to recraft it due possible breaking.