Originally posted by someforumguy

Wtf did happen to this thread? The OP (or Arenanet for that matter) NEVER claimed that GW2 would be a sandbox. But ok, ill join the chaos.

There are no sandbox MMO's.

For anyone who claims that some MMO is a sandbox, I claim that said person fails to see the lineair progression and restrictions which makes that same MMO not a sandbox in somebody else's eyes. So, sandbox schmandbox.

but when I started UO and I only had ring mail I couldn't kill an orc.

Now that i've spent some time grinding my swordsmanship and I have some chain mail I took down that orc.

Later I have plate mail and capped swordsmanship, look I just killed a Demon!

This is very themepark... hmmm

Originally posted by someforumguy

Wtf did happen to this thread? The OP (or Arenanet for that matter) NEVER claimed that GW2 would be a sandbox. But ok, ill join the chaos.

There are no sandbox MMO's.

For anyone who claims that some MMO is a sandbox, I claim that said person fails to see the lineair progression and restrictions which makes that same MMO not a sandbox in somebody else's eyes. So, sandbox schmandbox.

EVE has the most sandbox elements in any game. I would almost go as far as call it a simulation. The main features of EVE are mostly sandbox, but it also have some themepark features like storyline missions etc.

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by ropenice

Originally posted by Teala

I think people need to realize that this game is a themepark game with a twist.    It is not the next coming of gaming Jesus...it is just another themepark.

If any game will shake up the genre it will be ArcheAge.   It is the only game in the future that will put this genre back on the path it should have been going since the time of UO.  

Except Archage will be a niche game and not appeal to the masses, which is what companies look for when thry invest money. It looks like a really cool game...I'm not bashing it...but for a game to really have an impact on the genre, it will need to get a lot of subs and make their company a lot of money. PvP or sandbox centric games have not proved to do so yet.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see about ArchaAge.

AA will probably be a mess. theyre trying to do way too many things, and the foundation seems weak. for example, combat system is WoW-esque, which in itself makes the game archaic in a sense; and server stability will be questionable at best. and finally, the game wont be coming to NA for 5-6 years. you saw how long the TERA conversion took.

Originally posted by spaceport

Originally posted by ropenice

Originally posted by Teala

I think people need to realize that this game is a themepark game with a twist.    It is not the next coming of gaming Jesus...it is just another themepark.

If any game will shake up the genre it will be ArcheAge.   It is the only game in the future that will put this genre back on the path it should have been going since the time of UO.  

Except Archage will be a niche game and not appeal to the masses, which is what companies look for when thry invest money. It looks like a really cool game...I'm not bashing it...but for a game to really have an impact on the genre, it will need to get a lot of subs and make their company a lot of money. PvP or sandbox centric games have not proved to do so yet.

 

You can still level up with quests.

 

However, it has 0 instancing, and the PVE is so tied to the PVP that it may be too "hardcore" for some players.

 

But isn't this what GW2 is doing? something different instead of trying to cash in with a generic wow clone only to merge servers 3 months later?

 

Both games are innovating in many ways, one more than the other.

 

Who cares if the soccer mom doesn't want a game with freedom to do anything you want? those people shouldn't even be playing MMOs in the first place, what they want is called single player RPGs, but it seems that they love to pay a monthly sub.... so... enjoy i guess.

You guys have to realise that throwing around a bunch of words you made up yourself, doesnt say anything about the game. Everyone and their mother made up their own definition of sandbox or themepark and as long as there is no consensus reached about the definition its utter bullshit.

The whole sandbox vs themepark drivel atm is retarded.

Originally posted by thexrated

Originally posted by someforumguy

Wtf did happen to this thread? The OP (or Arenanet for that matter) NEVER claimed that GW2 would be a sandbox. But ok, ill join the chaos.

There are no sandbox MMO's.

For anyone who claims that some MMO is a sandbox, I claim that said person fails to see the lineair progression and restrictions which makes that same MMO not a sandbox in somebody else's eyes. So, sandbox schmandbox.

EVE has the most sandbox elements in the game. The main features in fact, but it also have some themepark features

 

EVE is the only true successful sandbox right now. i love the game, but basic elements like on-demand pvp are missing, which can be extremely frustrating when you dont have 3-4 hours to sit at the computer.

@spaceport

I think many people are seeing sandbox elements in the way that the "questing" works.  Aside from your personal storyline which sets out a path, everything else is a matter of picking a direction and stumbling into things.  You aren't led through the game but are encouraged to wander and let the world happen to you.

Aside from that, I don't see a great deal of similarities.  However, that one comparison is a pretty substantial one because it has such a wide ranging impact on how you experience the game.

One might also argue that players are able to make an impact on other players because dynamic events, regardless of how they are resolved, affect everyone in the world.  Personally, I think that's pretty tenuous but strictly speaking, players are defining the content for other players.  That's certainly a sandbox element.

I think hybrid is still a pretty fair label to apply to the game.  I definitely wouldn't consider it a straight up themepark by any means, nor is it a sandbox.  It's something else.  I'm happy enough to leave it undefined to be honest, and I kind of wish others would too.

@OP

That was a well-written original post, though it featured 2 paltry examples.  Not only are those features relatively minor but they are also completely standard for the genre, not just WoW.  GW2 does not have an obligation to be unique and innovative with every single feature, just for the sake of being unique and innovative.  They have an obligation to make the best game possible according to the vision they have. 

Not only that, but neither of those examples even accurately supported your point.  The death penalty in WoW was notorious for being the most mild of its generation--and GW2's is looking to be even more mild.  Yet you appear to feel it's too extreme?  It doesn't matter how many times you have to pay.  It only matters how much you have to pay total.  As long as the total price isn't steep, it will be an utterly insignificant death penalty.  Concerning the rate at which mobs are killed in WoW, it hardly takes five people several minutes to bring one down.  Most mobs die within seconds when soloed.  Nor are your observations in GW2 apt.  In most videos I've seen, there are persistent assaults by hordes of enemies, each using different abilities. 

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by spaceport

Originally posted by ropenice

Originally posted by Teala

I think people need to realize that this game is a themepark game with a twist.    It is not the next coming of gaming Jesus...it is just another themepark.

If any game will shake up the genre it will be ArcheAge.   It is the only game in the future that will put this genre back on the path it should have been going since the time of UO.  

Except Archage will be a niche game and not appeal to the masses, which is what companies look for when thry invest money. It looks like a really cool game...I'm not bashing it...but for a game to really have an impact on the genre, it will need to get a lot of subs and make their company a lot of money. PvP or sandbox centric games have not proved to do so yet.

 

You can still level up with quests.

 

However, it has 0 instancing, and the PVE is so tied to the PVP that it may be too "hardcore" for some players.

 

But isn't this what GW2 is doing? something different instead of trying to cash in with a generic wow clone only to merge servers 3 months later?

 

Both games are innovating in many ways, one more than the other.

 

Who cares if the soccer mom doesn't want a game with freedom to do anything you want? those people shouldn't even be playing MMOs in the first place, what they want is called single player RPGs, but it seems that they love to pay a monthly sub.... so... enjoy i guess.

You guys have to realise that throwing around a bunch of words you made up yourself, doesnt say anything about the game. Everyone and their mother made up their own definition of sandbox or themepark and as long as there is consensus reached about the definition its utter bullshit.

The whole sandbox vs themepark drivel atm is retarded.

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by monarc333

I thought the "GW2 is WoW" complainers would take longer to show themselves. You want to see a WoW clone, check out what Bioware is doing. GW2 is about as far from WoW like as you can possibly get in this day and age. Not really sure the OP has even researched the game. Anyone with two eyes and a brain..oh wait, now I get it! >.>

Funny thing is that the OP has posted loads about GW2 (mainly about GW2 lore I think). I used to see him as GW2 fanboy and now in his disappointment he shows a lot of hyperbole and mentiones WoW and everyone is seeing him as troll lol.

 

The OP being a fanboy was a long, long time ago.

I think he's the only person to claim to have played the game and been utterly disappointed with it. Since then it is like Anet has personally insulted him and he is lashing out as if he were on a personal crusade to right a terrible wrong.

 Neither of those things make GW2 WoW 2.0.  Armor durability and I have no idea where he pulled the combat complaint from.

Stay on topic please. Do not personally attack other users.

Originally posted by Unlight

@spaceport

I think many people are seeing sandbox elements in the way that the "questing" works.  Aside from your personal storyline which sets out a path, everything else is a matter of picking a direction and stumbling into things.  You aren't led through the game but are encouraged to wander and let the world happen to you.

Aside from that, I don't see a great deal of similarities.  However, that one comparison is a pretty substantial one because it has such a wide ranging impact on how you experience the game.

One might also argue that players are able to make an impact on other players because dynamic events, regardless of how they are resolved, affect everyone in the world.  Personally, I think that's pretty tenuous but strictly speaking, players are defining the content for other players.  That's certainly a sandbox element.

I think hybrid is still a pretty fair label to apply to the game.  I definitely wouldn't consider it a straight up themepark by any means, nor is it a sandbox.  It's something else.  I'm happy enough to leave it undefined to be honest, and I kind of wish others would too.

Pretty much this ^

Originally posted by spaceport

 

Don't act butthurt because GW2 isn't a sandbox, UO is a sandbox, SWG was a sandbox, EvE is a sandbox, ArcheAge is a sandbox.

 

GW2 is a themepark with a lot of freedom in some ways, and less freedom in other ways (mists... the place i go "when i want to PVP" ugh)

 

Just because some people don't have a clue about what a sandbox means doesn't change a thing.

So linear progression = Themepark?

So I start off in leather, I die to a rat cus my sword skill is 10

I level my black smithing, its now 40, I have ring mail armor, and my swords skill is 40, I kill a rat, and a lizzard man! whoot!

Then I go home, craft myself some plate mail, and some awesome new hally, get my swords skill capped, now I'm killing demons.

UH O I SEE PROGRESSION IN MY SANDBOX!

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by someforumguy

Wtf did happen to this thread? The OP (or Arenanet for that matter) NEVER claimed that GW2 would be a sandbox. But ok, ill join the chaos.

There are no sandbox MMO's.

For anyone who claims that some MMO is a sandbox, I claim that said person fails to see the lineair progression and restrictions which makes that same MMO not a sandbox in somebody else's eyes. So, sandbox schmandbox.

but when I started UO and I only had ring mail I couldn't kill an orc.

Now that i've spent some time grinding my swordsmanship and I have some chain mail I took down that orc.

Later I have plate mail and capped swordsmanship, look I just killed a Demon!

This is very themepark... hmmm

Thats all games, themepark and sandbox

Originally posted by spaceport

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by spaceport

Originally posted by ropenice

Originally posted by Teala

I think people need to realize that this game is a themepark game with a twist.    It is not the next coming of gaming Jesus...it is just another themepark.

If any game will shake up the genre it will be ArcheAge.   It is the only game in the future that will put this genre back on the path it should have been going since the time of UO.  

Except Archage will be a niche game and not appeal to the masses, which is what companies look for when thry invest money. It looks like a really cool game...I'm not bashing it...but for a game to really have an impact on the genre, it will need to get a lot of subs and make their company a lot of money. PvP or sandbox centric games have not proved to do so yet.

 

You can still level up with quests.

 

However, it has 0 instancing, and the PVE is so tied to the PVP that it may be too "hardcore" for some players.

 

But isn't this what GW2 is doing? something different instead of trying to cash in with a generic wow clone only to merge servers 3 months later?

 

Both games are innovating in many ways, one more than the other.

 

Who cares if the soccer mom doesn't want a game with freedom to do anything you want? those people shouldn't even be playing MMOs in the first place, what they want is called single player RPGs, but it seems that they love to pay a monthly sub.... so... enjoy i guess.

You guys have to realise that throwing around a bunch of words you made up yourself, doesnt say anything about the game. Everyone and their mother made up their own definition of sandbox or themepark and as long as there is consensus reached about the definition its utter bullshit.

The whole sandbox vs themepark drivel atm is retarded.

 

Don't act butthurt because GW2 isn't a sandbox, UO is a sandbox, SWG was a sandbox, EvE is a sandbox, ArcheAge is a sandbox.

 

GW2 is a themepark.

 

Just because some people don't have a clue about what a sandbox means doesn't change a thing.

I guess my post was too difficult for you. If you read more carefully you would understand that I dont care either way if GW2 meets someone's personal sandbox definition criteria.

I never would have called GW2 a sandbox MMO anyway. The OP didnt either. So someone derailed this thread and its sandbox vs themepark all over again.

And about those games you mentioned, you see the same bloody sandbox vs themepark discussions (except maybe UO). Why, because there is never agreement about the definition of the word sandbox. This is what makes the whole discussion about whether a MMO is a sandbox FUCKING POINTLESS!

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Unlight

@spaceport

I think many people are seeing sandbox elements in the way that the "questing" works.  Aside from your personal storyline which sets out a path, everything else is a matter of picking a direction and stumbling into things.  You aren't led through the game but are encouraged to wander and let the world happen to you.

Aside from that, I don't see a great deal of similarities.  However, that one comparison is a pretty substantial one because it has such a wide ranging impact on how you experience the game.

One might also argue that players are able to make an impact on other players because dynamic events, regardless of how they are resolved, affect everyone in the world.  Personally, I think that's pretty tenuous but strictly speaking, players are defining the content for other players.  That's certainly a sandbox element.

I think hybrid is still a pretty fair label to apply to the game.  I definitely wouldn't consider it a straight up themepark by any means, nor is it a sandbox.  It's something else.  I'm happy enough to leave it undefined to be honest, and I kind of wish others would too.

Pretty much this ^

Um... do you have a clue what you are talking about? Are you the type that would literally compare a game like Modern Warfare 3 and say its an direct rip off of Doom?  I'm sorry but if you want to compare stuff at least have something that has remotely some relavence to what your comparing it too. Sure I can see you trying to say Rift is WoW 2.0 (even though that statement itself is total BS as well) but to compare something like GW2 your basically making it clear to you every MMO is identical. Not to mention all your points are just bland and really aren't anything that you could consider making a game "WoW" don't even go about doing that. 

Just take a step back, take a deep breath, and realize that comparing something so vaguely to something else doesn't work. Runes of Magic is perhaps the biggest thing you could call a WoW clone (which btw, to get that title takes an extreme amount of effort to copy the game in every day possible) could even be compared as its own entity. Really try and look at something beyond the mob mentality. "_____ is like WoW" and really look at it for its pros and cons. Take it apart and judge it as its own entity rather then trying desperately to compare it and link it to another game. You would be amazed at the vast collection of online games there are when you are not using stingy standerds at judging a game. Every game has faults and every game has its own design.

Death Penalty has been around since day 1. Way before WoW was spewing its putrid garbage unto the MMO genre. All MMO's are carbon copies of each other with a slight tweak here and there. WoW is EQ, simplied. The only thing WOW "invented" or made popular was the stupid idea of making pvp gear so people would stop crying about dying too fast.  This has ruined many games actually not helped. I doubt this game with be a wow clone but of course it will have similarities it is an MMOrpg after all.

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by ropenice

Originally posted by Teala

I think people need to realize that this game is a themepark game with a twist.    It is not the next coming of gaming Jesus...it is just another themepark.

If any game will shake up the genre it will be ArcheAge.   It is the only game in the future that will put this genre back on the path it should have been going since the time of UO.  

Except Archage will be a niche game and not appeal to the masses, which is what companies look for when thry invest money. It looks like a really cool game...I'm not bashing it...but for a game to really have an impact on the genre, it will need to get a lot of subs and make their company a lot of money. PvP or sandbox centric games have not proved to do so yet.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see about ArchaAge.

I think the PvP emphasis might be the main issue.  I think sandbox features are a lot more mainstream than people realize, but PvP/RPGs are not.  Wasn't long ago that even 9 out of 10 players never even PvPed in shooters, like UT2004, and I wonder about the current numbers for top-selling shooters like BF3 or MW3.  I wouldn't be surprised if a staggering percentage don't actually go online and PvP at all, considering these games don't even have much of a single-player side.. and its a lot easier in a shooter, where its just so much easier to jump in and out, anonymously and without commiting to anything.

So anyhow, yeah, not sure how well AA will really do, but I'm not sure how forced their PvP is, or if they're considering different ruleset servers or what.  In games like DAOC and Aion, I think the PvP was limited enough to help their popularity rather than hurt it.  Even in EVE, the PvP can be almost avoided completely, if that's how the player wants to play.  If AA is too much of an unfettered gankfest like some of these indie sandbox games though, it will cripple its potential to make much of a splash in the genre.

Originally posted by teakbois

Originally posted by Laughing-man

Originally posted by someforumguy

Wtf did happen to this thread? The OP (or Arenanet for that matter) NEVER claimed that GW2 would be a sandbox. But ok, ill join the chaos.

There are no sandbox MMO's.

For anyone who claims that some MMO is a sandbox, I claim that said person fails to see the lineair progression and restrictions which makes that same MMO not a sandbox in somebody else's eyes. So, sandbox schmandbox.

but when I started UO and I only had ring mail I couldn't kill an orc.

Now that i've spent some time grinding my swordsmanship and I have some chain mail I took down that orc.

Later I have plate mail and capped swordsmanship, look I just killed a Demon!

This is very themepark... hmmm

Thats all games, themepark and sandbox

that is my point

People are defining the game genre's wrong.

Its not about the type of progression, its about the TYPES of progression that makes a game.

For instance, TSW has no levels, only skill system.

VERY sandboxy you might say.

Oh wait, its a very linear progression style for their maps and instances and they have end game style raiding etc.

then we look at UO, look the areas are laid out to where hard mobs are together and easy mobs are together, much like Themeparks.  I'll go into the dungeon of Shame, oh look the monsters are clearly harder in here than outside.

This is also linear progression.