Just because facebook, I will not check this turd out.

When despite having a list of hundreds of games in front of you, nothing interests you.

Originally posted by gambe1

WoW is an anomaly in MMO genre. Just polished sandbox is not enough even if it is AAA. There is so much different variabilis when it comes to mmorpg's, and you can't predict how players will react to the game. Eve for example is polished AAA sandbox, and it does not have 5mio subscriptions.

I can predict that based on the fact that Im present on the 10+ biggest mmo communities and I read the topics and posts of people and Ive noticed the increasing interest in the sandbox genre and a decreasing interest in actual MMOs design.

Originally posted by Fibbin

Originally posted by Interesting

Borderlands ultimatelly fails because of the lack of character data hosted on developer's servers.

 

Basically, everybody cheats/edits/scripts/hacks, whatever. No point in keeping playing after main plot.

 

It also fails because people who download pirated versions could play online withou the need of a cd key.

Except selling 3 million copies is win. Borderlands is a game you play with friends. Not random people online even though you have that option, so hacking and cheats are irrelevant

They just got that because me and millions of people ignored it for the reasons mentioned.

Its not just one thing.

It doesnt help piracy, thats for sure.

I wonder when they will realize that.

Borderlands ultimatelly fails because of the lack of character data hosted on developer's servers.

Basically, everybody cheats/edits/scripts/hacks, whatever. No point in keeping playing after main plot.

It also fails because people who download pirated versions could play online withou the need of a cd key.

This game has the same problem Oblivion had on release.

The world/npcs scale based on you. And the NPCs progress not through their actions, but they are cheat spawned based on your numeric factors such as total equipment value + your money.

Not a single mod that removes that, unlike Oblivion Oscuros Mod.

Originally posted by odinsrath

it seems to me that this was a great franchise way back at MW2 but has sharply fell to the wow syndrome..what i mean is that COD is full of D-bags that brag about kdr and most dont even know how to play the game..ala wow where you have people that sit it citys / towns that brag about dps / gear scores ...and what also they have both in common are the wee lil kiddies or a regular everyday joe that have no completel  idea..COD has become a joke of a franchise but yet it still sells tons..like wow..and the online game play has become a joke..like when you get into a heated game and then BAM host leaves..or waiting in lobby and game about to begin..BAM host leaves...why dont they just have deditcated servers like metal of honor  with bigger maps and extended play or maybe time limits...it has become such a mess of a franchise it seems that sence its a console game that they keep pushing out crap games no matter how they play or who makes it..do you guys think COD can reinvent its self or do you think they will stand by and keep pumping out crap titles...tho it does have some cool things added to it **COD** i think it would be SOOO much better if they took or added the same type of elements as metal of honor...like servers / bigger maps and extended game play ..sorta like battlefield / bad company ?

Dude, they will host it and have dedicated servers when they can monetize it as a MMO and get subscriptions. Kottick said its one of his top priorities.

People like you complain about that, but will get ultimatelly owned when they offer what you want. FOR A PRICE.

Did they fixed the afk macroing for learning points yet? Are the russians still using running the show?

Originally posted by pragues

Originally posted by Interesting

Blizzard has nothing to do with that.

Its MAJORLY  Activision. Thomas and Bobby.

So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.

The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.

These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.

The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.

There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?

Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.

Whats the fuck is your problem?

Originally posted by pragues

Originally posted by Interesting

Ok.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252

Read this smart guys.

Bobby Kottick said it himself. The next blizzard MMO will go straight for the facebook/social networking/social gaming (farmville) steak.

I cant even credit it myself, as it was obvious.

 

"Oh, its so vague". ITS NOT VAGUE. JUST THINK.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqSipi_l35Y&feature=player_embedded

Thats where the money is. Shark smells the blood.

 

Stop the delusional "oh god Im all wet and horny its a sandbox". No. Its not sandbox. Its not good for gaming.

Yeah, but at the same time these dudes say that Farmville and Minecraft are so fantastic games ...

Stop the Blizzard hate will you.

I think I was right with my analysis: they will keep IN features of WOW that were succesful (confirmed by Morhaime IF you can read the original line) and ... they will add features that can not be addressed in WOW because of its basic design (confirmed by Morhaime in the same line ...).

The philosophy is clear: regroup players within BNet and try to make a social game where your RL friends can be invited/joined any time (not possible in single server based on line play).

The rest is pure speculation and the usual Blizzard warrior mentality.

Blizzard has nothing to do with that.

Its MAJORLY  Activision. Thomas and Bobby.

Ok.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252

Read this smart guys.

Bobby Kottick said it himself. The next blizzard MMO will go straight for the facebook/social networking/social gaming (farmville) steak.

I cant even credit it myself, as it was obvious.

"Oh, its so vague". ITS NOT VAGUE. JUST THINK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqSipi_l35Y&feature=player_embedded

Thats where the money is. Shark smells the blood.

Stop the delusional "oh god Im all wet and horny its a sandbox". No. Its not sandbox. Its not good for gaming.

Credit. Thats something you have to take by force.

I saw the videos, read the reviews.

This is not the sandbox we were waiting guys.

Gameplay is poopoo. Combat is poopoo.

How come you have to get down of your horse to fight? How come your horse gets experience by just staying nearby? How come your Horse Swims!?!? The meteor magically appearing from inside the cave and then disappearing out of nowhere... Guy hitting the mine nodes, instead of nude rock, not a single physics. Guy digging on some soil, lol, just bland animation, rather than actual physics. not a single change on the soil pile, not a single soil on the tool...

Trees, crops growing before the day/night cycle even changed. Cant it get even more watered down? What about the wood log magically appearing above the lumberjack bench?

Not one of the things they will change, or that can change. Just looking at the UI I already learned/abstracted enough about it to decided its fate.

How long untill people dont even consider it a sandbox....? Another imutable world.

Its clear the glass of water is half empty here.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Xasapis

You're not the minority Kyleraan, if you were those people playing WoW would have quit long ago or force Blizzard to upgrade their dated graphics engine.

I believe people like me who want the best posible looking world our computers can handle are the minority. Very few games push the boundaries of what's achievable with today's machines, most of the being single player games. I remember back in the days of EQ2 and SWG, no computer could handle the ultra settings. Nowadays, we not only demand that our current computers can play everything on ultra, but that they are lighning fast as well.

Scalability for most folks is an afterthought.

I see what you are saying, in fact, the excuse that too much money is spent on the more complicated graphics of today's games is actually false.  As evidenced by WOW,  players will accept graphics that should be fairly easy to emulate with today's technology leaving more money to add features and better gameplay.

Guess all the money is being spent on Ferrarri's and Gaming Conventions. 

Yeah, I agree, the argument that the graphics force us to leave out in depth features is weak.  They are being left out by intelligent (or perhaps not intelligent) design as they've been deemed as undesireable by the target subscriber audience. (no return on the investment)

I think that the product has to be evaluated by its fullness. Not by its individual contents, or individual value.

This means that a sandbox whose certain features were removed will lose more than the individual value of said features.

Sandbox is worth 100. Remove a feature that individually is worth 1. This doesnt make the sandbox worth 99, but make it worth 70, or so. The idea is that todays games removed all the features they thought were worth 1, and thats how we ended up with the current MMOs, wich have very low value.

Im not saying you are wrong. Im saying the people evaluating what is deemed as worth investing are wrong.

Latelly a lot of industry guys are reading this forum it seems... anyway...

They need to do the following.

1. Go back to the roots. Before Ultima Online, it was just a design document. Go back to pen and paper.

Just one example, think of GURPS settings, for example. If you read the G.U.R.P.S. main guidebook, in the part where you create your character. Thats the main thing they need to do now, read it... when they start reading how characters could be created, their mind will open based on all the things the players could do in pen and paper that their sandbox game needs to implement. Basically, combat was just 1% of the possible actions, skills/habilities/traits, etc.

If they are standing, they need to sit. They need to calm the fuck down and record the brainstorming section.

Now they know how to start and what they need to do. Are they willing to do so? If not, then go make a themepark wow clone.

If yes, then, next step.

The basic premise is that people are on the world. Many stuff is happening. People can interact with each other and the world. Their interactiosn cause effects.

If they want to dig a hole on the ground, have a mechanic for that, a specific gameplay for that. Not just a "click here to dig". But instead, let the player actually control the mouse and dig, fill whatever tool he is using with the soil, in and out. Thats how you make a game entertaining. So people can go on and make holes on the ground.

In a sandbox, the holes on the ground dont "respawn", soil doesnt magically get back in place after a server restart or after one day or 30 seconds. Once you have a hole on the ground, people will be able to fall on it. Animals might fall on it. People might use it to set a trap. People might use it to bury another player. If it rains, the hole gets filled with water and the soil gets all muddy. That kind of thing.

Thats is just digging on the soil action. Maybe it can be used for making some riverpassage, maybe it can be used to drive some water course to a plantation, maybe its used to prevent someone from reaching their castle walls, maybe it can be used to set stronger base palisades. Maybe its a hideout. Maybe you put some seeds in there, maybe you replant a tree.

Its the player choice if he wants to dig or not, when, where, for how long, for what reason, and the whole point of this is at players discretion. Some people passing by might help you dig your hole. Other people might get curious of why you are digging a hole and might start to socialize with you, maybe you put them on the hole and if nobody is looking you just keep on your daily activities.

All of this is accounted by the game, and all of these options can be thought out and used by the players. Nothing is contracted to "press this button for win".

You dig a hole in the ground, it takes you minutes. You start sweating, your work your muscles, you get all dirty. This game needs to be aware that if you start digging on the ground, that stuff should happen. You get dirty, sweat and bulked up.

People passing by will see that you have been digging a hole, because your avatar is graphically represented in its sweaty, bulked up state, while covered in mud from the soil he dug.

The above example, is of the pure sandbox form. When we talk about sandbox evolving. We are talking about changes in design decision the developers have to make to prevent said initial state from presenting unintended negative effects.

At first sight, you see the example above and think its the perfect game. "OMG! I can dig a hole!" Then the game goes live and you know... people love to dig holes, and some people start digging holes and have great fun with it.

But one day you get a problem... some people started making big holes on certain areas... they made a hole and drove all the water from a town to another town... so that first town now has no water anymore, their crops started dieing, prices increased, people got sick and weak....  Another day, some players decided to make a big hole around someone's house...  so when the owner of the house woke up, he saw his house was on a cliff, surrounded by a big hole. A group of players decided to rob a caravan filled with good that were going to fill that town whose water source was stolen... so they decided to dig a hole in the path where the caravan was supposed to go through, just after a down slope... at wich point they used the whole to ambush them all and steal everything...

It suddenly became clear the allowing players to dig holes could lead to many "unintended negative effects". What happened then? Well, instead of "working around it", and evolving it, while keeping the feature... developers chose the short/cheap route... lets just remove the "dig a hole" feature. No more dig a hole, if the players cant play decently, we will strip them from that toy.

Eventually, all hundreds of sandbox features were removed, even before it reached its golden age, even before the best ideas were even implemented. They just removed everything and kept the combat. Later on, they added "fetch me 5 rats tails", "kill 10 kobolds", "go to npc", "bring this letter to that npc" quests and eventually they all became considered a "MMORPG".

And after many years and a new generation of gamers, they didnt perceive that the removal of said features could be avoided if certain tweaks were made. This is a recurring argument that "sandbox" cant work out because "too much freedom blablabla"...

So, when I refer to evolving the sandbox genre, I talk about mending the original "dig a hole". You tweak it, you change it in a way that it prevents the ill effects, while keep the good effects.

How to do that in the above example? Basically, just make it more people need more time to dig, make it so certain terrains are harder to dig, make it so they need certain tools, make it so not everybody is a mastercraftsman digger able to dig everything at the same rate, make it so people get tired. 

After changing it, you keep the freedom, but you create a balanced system where the power generated from said freedom requires enough time and effort to pay for its effects. Players still affect the world and other players, but its not like they will do drastic things such as dig a whole around a house, or change the course of a river, or disrupt a path on woods... You see, people can still do it, but it would require a group effort, over a decent period of time, or they wouldnt achieve 100% efficiency in such short time...  The whole feature would be preserved, but it wouldnt be an unrealistically powerfull privilege that inherently detract from the game at its current state, but a well earned, balanced, coerent, progressive, feature...

This whole line of thought could be applied to patch all "sandbox" problems or arguments. I already got tired of solving all the problems with these solutions, just because I like the creative mental process involved, wich developers lack/disregard. At some point in time, they just went for a better graphic, with more shiny combat animations and that was it. The end of the genre was it was conceived. Hopefully now you get a better idea of what "evolve the sandbox" genre means. As I said, this is just a facet of the problem, this one is about freedom.

Another facet of the problem, is the common misconception of "lack of content", or "boring/bland/dull content". Basically because its just one animation and 1 button click for everything, instead of every feature having its own distinct complex/indepth gameplay. Its not about just adding something just to say you have it. Like "click this button to craft this item if you have the resource, wait x time, repeat, it will raise skill, so you can do it again, but make better stuff". It has to go beyond that. It has to have its own gameplay net.

In Ultima Online, people would collect seeds, plant seeds, grow them up, collect cotton, make threds, make lines, make cloth, make clothes, everything had its own skill, its own tools, objects.... That was just the first prototype of a system.  In reality, what was to be done is make a gameplay for each one of this steps, that goes beyond "clicking 1 button". Something like, mouse goes to seed bag, turns into a hand, move the mouse to seed bad, press button, move the mouse outside seed bag, bring the mouse to the plowed soil, shake the mouse and release it on the spot, walk around and repeat this... You see, now you have all these graphics and physics... There can be gameplay for everything. Someone crafts a weapon, he has to grab the item with the keyboard, hold it, move it around, and hammer it preciselly on the edges of the sword with the mouse by fast and strong up and down mouse movements, repeating it untill the actuall shape/form of the metal starts to sharpen up and take form, everything verifiable visually by the player, depending on his skills, the game would make it easier to spot certain broken spots, or some sparkling and brightness... the player would actually have to pay attention to where he is smithing...  Some players would take pride on how good they are that aiming the weak spots they need to smite to repair a sword, how fast, or with how much intensity, or for how long they do it... everything could be accounted by the game to ultimatelly make a job well done, skill numbers could still provide bonuses, but the player gameplay would have a 50% effectiveness to it. Thats what makes it rewarding, entertaining. Thats how you create addiction, thats how you make something feels valuable. Thats how a blacksmith gets famous, by how much "love" the player behind the character put on that weapon he made... Thats how you start getting a society going, by defining roles and making them deep, complex, with its own gameplay, its secrets, its learning curve.

Dude, developers stopped thinking, now they just copy each other. Its a shame. New players have no idea 99% of the time when I talk about what a true MMORPG is, or what a sandbox means... they all just think preconceived notions of boring repetitive lack of content empty space with other people ganking them for all their stuff. And then I try to tell them for the 100th time that those games are not true sandboxes and that those games were made wrong....

LOL

What they are doing have nothing to do with giving player freedom, procedurally generated, expansive, randomized content, originality, open endedness, ability to affect the world or other players, etc... It has nothing to do what "sandboxers want".

What the "social gaming" means, has everything to do with social networks, and viral media, like facebook, twiter, youtube, etc.

They want that "real ID thing", where they connect virtual life to real life. Thats the core design element they couldnt addapt to WOW.

To make money, they need that element, they want to secure that market of real ID, social network on your gaming.

They need that, thats the key for the future, they know that. Thats what he was thinking about when he mentioned about the "cant change because of design".

What it will do for us sandboxers? Lol... nothing. The gaming element of their "real id, community network thing", will be even more of a themepark, with more scripted paths, linearity, tiers, limited-strict choices, strict balancing, etc...  Basically, if they want to multiply their playerbase by many times, they have to water it down and get it every design element even more strict and tightly panoptically controlled.  More people, more human factor, more problems, thats is countered with (en)force design decisions, completelly the opposite of what people want, freedom.

What it will do for the genre? What genre? Our genre died, its been 5 years or so. "Mmorpgs are dead" have 5 years or so, sounds about right.  Anyway, basically, they are going after the facebook crowd, generically speaking. They want domination worldwide, they will offer everything facebook has plus gaming it lacks. Its an easy win for them. They will just go and rake up the money, because they know they stomp any farmville lookalike.

The current WOW crowd will dry and get older, evolve, see things for what they are, quit, or starve for what everybody is starving... wich is basically what the genre stood for 10 years ago. These people will just increase the target audience for that even more. Buts it wont be made by Blizzard.

The new "Blizzard" MMO? They are going for something much bigger, their next incremental step in evolution. They have the money, the structure, the expertise, the vision... everything is layed out for them. But its not what we, gamers already are looking for. Its not being made for US tm. Its been made for non gamers at all. 

They wont compete with WOW. They will be competing with social networks with their new modern day themepark based on real life, with real life people and real ids. A social life simulation never seen before. The potential for socialization will reach its climax through the next Blizzard MMO. People will hang out together despite being physically miles away from each other, think of voip, teamspeak/ventrillo/skype, but with in game avatars, graphics and stuff. Like social network in a GTA game.

You get at home, connect to "the game", and hook up with your friends in a life a like simulation of real world, met new people in game, etc... think 3d sim social network with gta real world + themepark watered down stuff to do. They will be a huge success people will go "how come I never thought of that before", but no, thats obvious, just stupid people dont saw it coming... everybody is tired of designing it for them, you have to not want to see, despite it being in front of your face.

Its like we are all living the World of Darkness setting, and you noticed something is wrong, but instead of keeping it to yourself you choose to tell people about it.

If I were I would start taking care when walking down the street, and start noticing black suvs on the other side of the street.

Be carefull.

The reason I didnt mentioned EVE, Fallen Earth, Darkfall, etc is because they dont fit my description of "polished AAA sandbox".

Those are nowhere near good enough, or close enough to what I originally talked about.