Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Wraithone

---

Originally posted by Stormreaver
I feel like this is akin to a parent telling a teenager, "if you're going to drink, please do it in my house under my supervision." I've never been a fan of using real money to buy/sell ingame items, but this may be the only way for Blizzard to make sure it happens in a safe, legitimate manner. What's the alternative?

---

 
Personally, I'd MUCH rather them drink at home (if they insist on it) and learn to deal with the effects, rather than out and about in the world as it were.  I'd much prefer they didn't, but life is about choices.  When you start dictating peoples choices, no matter the original intentions, it leads down the path to tyranny (which is how we ended up with the excessive nanny state we have). 
I can see why Blizzard is doing this for multiple reasons, and it makes sense, given the reality of human nature.  I'm still looking forward to D3. 

---

Having RMT that all players can participate in is not like telling your children to drink at home instead of outside. You can rephrase that as, "Something not allowed before, is now OK." You could just as easily say that having a Real Money Auction House in game is like allowing women to vote. Except it's not.

People keep trying to attach a moral argument or comparison to RMT in games, when there is none. It's not cheating if you aren't breaking the rules. It's not now, nor has it ever been illegal. It will not permanently scar you or your family and it will not cause a breakdown in the social makeup of society.

In regards to children and drinking, you do not allow your children to drink in the house. If they are going somewhere and you think there's going to be drinking, do not let them go. If they go somewhere and drink, you punish them. On top of all that, do not drink in your house yourself.

^^ This has nothing to do with Blizzard's real money auction house.

 

I was trying to draw a connection to Blizzard's feelings towards RMT and not argue on moral grounds (or over our differing styles of parenting). Blizzard doesn't approve of RMT in WoW, and they didn't approve of it in previous Diablo games. It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with Blizzard's attitude. However, they realize that RMT will happen regardless of how they feel about it. To go back to the drinking comparison: parents do not have the ability to stop all drinking everywhere. They simply cannot shut it down, so instead they create a safe space for it and maybe make a little cash in addition. 

I feel like this is akin to a parent telling a teenager, "if you're going to drink, please do it in my house under my supervision." I've never been a fan of using real money to buy/sell ingame items, but this may be the only way for Blizzard to make sure it happens in a safe, legitimate manner. What's the alternative?

Originally posted by Magnum2103

People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.

DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements.  You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world.  There is no "sandbox" element.  Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom.  Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable.  There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.

Do you see the irony inherent in that claim? Where is your definition of "sandbox" coming from, and why is it more credible than mine? How can you tell people that they "really need to learn what the term sandbox means" when your definition is just as subjective as theirs?

Put simply, we need to determine a communal understanding of "sandbox," or these discussions will continue forever.

I'm apt to argue that no game is purely a "sandbox" or a "themepark" because for starters, we can't even agree on what these terms mean. I think a more realistic approach is to determine gameplay elements we consider to be on the sandbox or themepark side of the genre. Like most classifications, this one isn't self-evident or, for all intents and purposes, real. It's more of a continuum upon which certain game systems fall.

Originally posted by Robokapp

Originally posted by Stormreaver

Originally posted by Robokapp

Originally posted by just1opinion

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

........

Why aren't MMO's a grand adventure? Is the goal really to feel like we are paying for the privelege of picking up some NPC's dry cleaning?

 

THIS ^^^^^.

I want the ADVENTURE back. That is all.  Pure and simple.  If that one thing was taken care of I could forgive a lot of other things being wrong, missing, tired, whatever, but the adventure.....must return to MMOs.  And I am not some idiot NPC's slave girl either. I have had way past enough of those kinds of quests.

 sadly...and I'm saying this without trolling...how can you have adventure with youtube and strategy guides everywhere? in order to stay on pace with the other adventurers, you cant afford not to follow the available tools or you're excluded. Sure you can have your adventure alone but...is that really mmorpg-esque?

Read: Single Server Games

 I've read it. now back to my question, how do you handle external information that's available?

In a single server game where the environment changes in an unpredictable fashion, this would ultimately not be a concern. Once an event is completed (or at least an event high enough in magnitude that somebody would want to put it on Youtube), the game world reacts and changes, and by then, a guide would do no good.

That's the problem with a) multi-realm games and b) static game environments. Take WoW for example. You want to complete the Onyxia quest chain? Easy, just go look it up. However, by my standards, once you discover and defeat Onyxia, she's gone for good. But what's to stop players on other realms from still going on Youtube and getting a quick-guide? Create a single server. Then it really is a one-time event. Bam. And yea, on a totally different note: even if you do have repeatable content, if it plays exactly the same way every time, something's wrong with your design.

@Jusomdude: In my original post I specify that having all players on a single "realm" is more important than having them all on a single "server." I could honestly care less about loading screens if it means I'm sharing a single world with every other player. Plus, if you use shards, you could feasibly supply more support for highly populated areas such as Orgrimmar. The purpose of having every player on the same realm is to make the world of game actually meaningful. By current standards, if you defeat a raid boss, it means absolutely nothing. It's been done before on another realm, maybe even on your own. Where is the prestige in that? That's why, when sh*t goes down in EVE, it goes down for everybody. It affects the game world permanently for every player.

Originally posted by Robokapp

Originally posted by just1opinion

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

........

Why aren't MMO's a grand adventure? Is the goal really to feel like we are paying for the privelege of picking up some NPC's dry cleaning?

 

THIS ^^^^^.

I want the ADVENTURE back. That is all.  Pure and simple.  If that one thing was taken care of I could forgive a lot of other things being wrong, missing, tired, whatever, but the adventure.....must return to MMOs.  And I am not some idiot NPC's slave girl either. I have had way past enough of those kinds of quests.

 sadly...and I'm saying this without trolling...how can you have adventure with youtube and strategy guides everywhere? in order to stay on pace with the other adventurers, you cant afford not to follow the available tools or you're excluded. Sure you can have your adventure alone but...is that really mmorpg-esque?

Read: Single Server Games

This is the most vague question you can ask, although you do make some interesting points. Simply sharing an online community with other people is now a regular occurence, but in my opinion, it was never the ultimate draw of MMOs. Rather, the ability to leave your mark on a virtual world is what makes MMOs completely unique, the ability to sign your name in a book and come back 3 years later to find the same book. In my opinion, this boils down to a few key features:

• Non-linear Environmental Interaction - The game world changes in unpredicted ways based on the actions of players. This is much more indepth than simply faction-controlled fortresses or predetermined, server-wide events. Consider this: if you walk along the same stretch of grass enough, you will eventually have a pathway. If you siege a castle (player-built or not) and destroy it, it's gone forever. The history of the game world is in the hands of the players.
• Non-linear Character Progression - In order for that history to be interesting, players must contribute in a number of ways. Combat is generally the go-to outlet in terms of entertainment, but an interesting world has infrastrcture  behind that combat: important crafting, player-run economy, exploration, etc.. In addition, this is simply a matter of players being able to experience the game however they want to.
• Single Server Play - This is the cherry on the cake, and in my opinion, the most under-appreciated feature of any MMO. I don't care about loading screens or "shards;" if an MMO doesn't exist as a single world, then the afformentioned features simply lose their value. If you pull some crazy sh*t in EVE, you are a big name. Not just on your realm, but to anybody on Earth who plays.

Being present for my guid's first Rag takedown and reaping the loot. 40man raids were just... better.

Originally posted by Kilmar

Blizzard for milking their players. Other companies are okay (even Smedly Online Entertainment *g*)

But with no EQ3 coming out and this Agency thing, Im actually not very interested in future SOE products (except EQ2 Addons *g*)

Yea, this I don't get at all. SOE is well known for taking over development of a game and then shitting on it. Blizzard is well known for releasing quality products. Please, explain to me what you mean by "milking their players" and why that deters you from other Blizzard games?

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by Stormreaver

Can somebody who is putting Blizzard on their list please explain that one to me? WoW was and is indeed the sellout of all sellouts; it steals systems from other games, it panders to the masses, it lacks depth, and it completely destroys lore, but it's still a well-polished, fun game. Even if you completely despise WoW, Blizzard was an RTS/Action RPG company before WoW, and the Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo games are probably (almost definitely) the best games in their respective genres.

I can see how Blizzard might be starting to go down a bad path (with WoW, BNet 2.0, etc.), but let's see where they are in a few years.

 

Well, I'm no rabid WoW hater, but some may argue that all the reasons in red is reason enough.

 

Haha I mean I can see where people would be disappointed in Blizzard for that, but it's not like they did something blatantly unethical (like hmm... CCP?). People don't have the balls to admit that, despite all its apparent flaws, WoW is a well made game. I don't even glance at themepark games anymore, but I know that WoW is good.

My point is, Blizzard has a great track record; I would buy another game from them in an instant. I don't think they should get a bad rep just because I don't like WoW.

Can somebody who is putting Blizzard on their list please explain that one to me? WoW was and is indeed the sellout of all sellouts; it steals systems from other games, it panders to the masses, it lacks depth, and it completely destroys lore, but it's still a well-polished, fun game. Even if you completely despise WoW, Blizzard was an RTS/Action RPG company before WoW, and the Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo games are probably (almost definitely) the best games in their respective genres.

I can see how Blizzard might be starting to go down a bad path (with WoW, BNet 2.0, etc.), but let's see where they are in a few years.

EVE is without a doubt a AAA game, but we will have to wait and see about CCP. There are plenty of devs that lose their mojo after an initial success.

Originally posted by Z3R01

UO isnt the same game. I consider it more of a Hybrid now.

Swg is a Hybrid also imo (thats going to get me flamed LOL!)

Wurm, Mabinogi and ToD are very small population wise and F2p. on this forum F2p games aren't even considered MMOs lol! I try not to wake the trolls. Once I start listing every freaking F2p these guys will BBQ me.

anyway since you seem to know so much about every freaking game thats labeled Sandbox care to make a list for us all?

Hell if im missing some that arent like second life (Player driven Ad campaign disguised as a game) let me know.

Also i went through the thread again real quick I didnt see any post naming games I didn't list from you. If you could quote it for me that would be great.

 

You're proving my point for me. If you get to determine what falls into the sandbox category and what doesn't, then the myths you're disproving have no standing. I can say "all sandbox games are in space" because EvE is the only game I consider to be a real sandbox game, but that doesn't make it true. Sandbox games are too hard to classify with "myths," so there's no point in trying. As you've shown, the only way to do it is to count out certain games that people can easily argue are part of the sandbox genre.

Why so hostile? I never said anything about knowing "every freaking game" (in fact I admitted that I did not know about every sandbox game on the market). I'm sorry if you're taking personal offence to my posts or something, but I'm merely pointing out your faulty reasoning.

I'm assuming the last part was not directed at me because I never said anything about naming games.

Originally posted by Z3R01

Seriously enough with the second life crap, Once it stops being a player run AD campaign i'll consider it a game.

Now for a list of sandbox games that arent like Secondlife? Eve,Ryzom,Wurm,ToD,Mabinogi and the hybrids? AO and Runescape. Did i miss any that weren't real cash scams like SL?

Hell I could add in about 5 sandbox games coming out before 2010 also, believe me I know whats out there.

Hell I've only been playing sandbox games since UO, I guess I know nothing

 

First of all, I'm not going to get in an argument with you about whether Second Life is a game or not. That would just lead to us arguing over the definition of a "game," and that's completely off topic. Point is, Second Life breaks those myths, whether it's a game or not.

Secondly, you originally said EvE, Ryzom, and Darkfall were the only sandbox games, except you seem to be systematically adding to the list. There are likely more sandbox games than you know about, and there are likely more sandbox games than I know about as well, which is exactly my point. It is close to impossible to classify all sandbox games with certain "myths," especially when you don't even list (or know about) all the games out there.

Finally, please stop with the martyrdom. I respect your opinions, but when you omit or neglect to find evidence, it hurts your argument.

Oh, and you've been playing sandbox games since UO? Funny how that didn't appear on the list...

Originally posted by Z3R01

In my post I listed three myths that apply to Every sandbox game...easily.

The forth i agreed with but then gave my tips to new players since both Ryzom and DF (the only two current sandbox mmos other then eve) are easier to play as a crafter/gatherer if you level combat skills to defend yourself. it was more of a "make the game easier for yourself" tip.

I knew by writing the fourth people would disagree, but I hoped people would understand what I meant.  they clearly didnt, they even are accusing me of actually taking shit about sandbox mmos lol.

Saying sandbox MMOs has a basic leveling system, have gated sections of a game world through mob difficulty and that there is a power gap between a new player and a vet is totally true, so there really isnt much else to say to be honest.

You say it doesn't apply to every game? but it does

 

It doesn't apply to every game. In fact, I'm fairly certain I gave you an example: Second Life. Second Life is a sandbox game where vets/noobs are no different in skill values and can travel to any of the same areas of the game world. I agree that the vast majority of games have differences between vets and noobs and that exploration is limited by character skill level, that's a given, but not all games do. Once again, please do not try to make a comprehensive feature list for sandbox games, there are very few game mechanics that apply to all of them.

Also, EvE, Ryzom, and Darkfall are not the only sandboxes out right now, so please do research before making claims that apply to "all sandbox" games. Sure, most of the claims you made do apply to EvE, Ryzom, and Darkfall, but that doesn't mean they apply to all sandbox games.

First of all, I think it's a little ridiculous to try and write some rules for all sandbox games. There are very few features that are constant for all sandbox, so there really is no point to try and put them all under the same label. That being said, I can think of some examples that prove the OP's myths wrong and also a few myths of my own to break.

Levels- Second Life. No levels. No skills. Straight "sandbox," if you will.

Exploration- No sandbox games that I know of limit content based on skill level. Sure, you're better off waiting until you have better skills, but if you really want to go see something then you're welcome to try. Most linear games actually limit certain content based on level. The "sandbox" style of gameplay allows players to choose for themselves instead of being forced to adhere to some nonsense game mechanic.

Veteran v. Noob - First of all, I don't think there are any people who try to make this argument. However, once again, Second Life proves this wrong as well.

Crafter - You're just wrong here. Plenty of people play straight crafters in games like EvE and Ryzom.

There are both good and bad myths about sandbox games that can be debunked by certain examples or just aren't true at all.

Myth: Sandbox games are more hardcore

First of all, define "hardcore." I know plenty of linear games that enforce strict death penalties.

Myth: Sandbox games are PvP based

No, sandbox does not determine the type of conflicts most players will engage in (Second Life as an axample yet again).

Myth: Sandbox games have no content

For some games this is definitely true, but many sandbox games have solid content from the developers and allow players to add to and axpand that content,

I don't play EvE, I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't even follow the war between BoB and Goonswarm (though I know it exists), but that fact that something like this can happen in EvE, changing the entire landscape of the game for all players, just strengthens my previous views about how amazing EvE is. God, I wish more MMOs had single servers.

I like the general system, although translucency isn't something I'm generally fond off. I'd prefer even more realistic stealth, although it remains to be seen if this would frustrate players. I imagine many people would find it very difficult to use correctly after having been spoonfed stealth classes that just turn invisibly at the drop of a hat.

My arguement, though, is that I actually have learned several stealth abilities in real life, and using them is really a lot easier than people make it out to be. Of course, argument from personal experience aside, there are rules about real world stealth that can easily be applied to a game:

1. If nobody's looking for you, nobody will find you. This is kind of vague, but basically, if you are in position that makes you hard to see in any way, people are obviously a lot less likely to find you if they don't know you're there, even if you're partially visible.
2. Patience is key. Slow movement and waiting is the only way to successfully scout. Of course people have all sorts of "fox walks" for quiet faster movement, but those are still easy to see. Slow moving mitigates noise and lowers the chance that you will be spotted.
3. Darkness is your friend. Many people underestimate what darkness does for a scout. It is generally the key to successful stealth.
4. Camo is underrated. Yes, camouflage in clothing, on skin, and with props can do wonders.

Of course these are all possible in a game, but the question is whether or not people would find these as fun. For example, real life stealth is just not very effective in open spaces, regardless of time of day, camo, etc.. In a game, this would be hard to handle. The translucent idea may be the right way to go for a balance of realism and fun.

Also, on the camera view thing you mentioned at the very end; that was actually my idea for settling the 1st/3rd person camera argument, although my system would be a little different. You could scroll out as far as the camera would allow you, but you wouldn't be able to see players, mobs, etc. behind you unless you were aware of their presence. For instance, in the heat of combat, you would be aware of an enemy behind you even if you couldn't see him directly.

I'm sure a system like this would be difficult to code, however, so I don't really see it happening soon.

Umm yea... it's a well known fact (or at least I thought it was) that Warcraft: Orcs and Humans was originally intended to be a Warhammer game. Games Workshop didn't think it was up to snuff, so they didn't give Blizzard the lisence. Blizzard then changed some names, made their own lore and poof... Warcraft. The similarities between Starcraft and 40k are obvious as well.

What does this matter? Warhammer/40k and Warcraft/Starcraft are both interesting universes and have both spawned very impressive games.

Originally posted by Apraxis

I could quote the OP to.. but this post is a good point to start with.

 

You are wrong.. Blizzard will not do a sandbox game.

Why you ask?

Because there is not one successful sandbox game out there, and Blizzards will not touch something, which isnt a 100% success.. they just polish up successful ideas and gamestyles.

Competition arguement?

Well it wasn a problem with Warcraft/Starcraft, it will not be a problem in the mmorpg market. Look, WoW is a old game.. and a lot of player maybe want after 10 years(because the new blizzard game will take some time) something new.. or at least something in new clothes(same analogie.. Warcraft 1 to 2 to 3)

But you say there was nothing other available at the RTS segment?

There was.. the concept behind Z(Bitmap Brothers)(no ressource gathering and more tactical approach) and Relic(DoW and Company of Heroes) took those idea and worked with it. Not so Blizzard with Starcraft.. again, because Z was not a huge financial success.

With other words, the new Blizzard game will be like the successful games in the mmorpg genres. What games are successful in the mmorpg genre? World of  Warcraft. So it will be another WoW in new clothes and a few improvements here and there.. and of course another theme. (they may also take some ideas from Guild Wars or other games as successful as Guild Wars or World of Warcraft)

And shall i say some more? It will be successful, and WoW will also do good that time.. because a lot of ppl have a lot of time invested there.. a lot of items and so on. But some will try the new one, like ppl which didnt like the fantasy setting so much or anything like that.. but basicly it will be WoW again.

At least my prediction, my 2 cent.

You're kind of arguing against your own point. First of all, I never mentioned RTS games, and I'm fully aware that RTS games existed before WC/SC just as isometric RPGs existed before Diablo and MMOs existed before WoW. Secondly, there are plenty of successful sandbox games, depending on your definitions of "successful" and "sandbox." If WoW is your definition of "success," then no MMOs except for WoW are successful. However, sandbox games like EvE and Runescape have 250k and 1M subscribers respectively, and I would consider both of those successful figures.

Thirdly, Blizzard has let people know that they are working on a new MMO. This isn't the same as announcing it or hyping it, but its existance means that it will likely be released in the next 4-5 years, not 10.

You say that Blizzard merely takes successful genres and polishes them. By your logic, the MMO genre was successful before Blizzard released WoW, but most games pre-WoW had max 500k subscribers. Now you're saying that games with 250k/1M (EvE/Runescape) are not successful?

Basically, you're contradicting yourself in so many ways that it's confusing me. At most points in Blizzard's history when they ventured into a new game genre, the genre in question was financially stable but not commercially successful. Games like Warcraft, Diablo, and World of Warcraft all exploded the RTS, isometric RPG, and themepark MMO genres respectively, so why would Blizzard not want to venture into sandbox territory? Games like EvE and Runescape have proved that it can be done, so if Blizzard follows their history, they should be able to make the sandbox genre blow up as well.