Originally posted by vboydjr

My only gripe with the review is he leaves out the part where they have said repeatedly that they do not want to make a game where you are grinding levels.  That is why you can rush to the max level but still have stuff to do.  I have never said the OP was wrong just had some questions about his 4-5 months and his level 30's since everyone I played with didn't get to 30 till they opened it up right before they closed the beta.

I'd consider that a big ++ they are not trying to grind everyone to death. Going to be interesting to see what people think of the game over the coming weeks

Hm, I was hoping to read some reviews and gather opinions. I see someone wrote one so thank you OP. And since i havent been following this MMO much at all I guess that makes me pretty unbiased.

I didnt beta this game but I did beta many other MMOs (most recent one was Champions). So I do consider a beta review pretty valid to an extent. Cause from previous experience, the only things that tends to change from beta->release is usually balance changes...

I'm thinking I'm going to wait a few weeks anyway before I make a decision to purchase. This way I can get a better sense of what people feel about it overall. I want to see if they start nerfing everyone to death (aka like Champions did), etc.

Oh btw, I am a fan of guild Wars style class based system I must say. If the game has to go that route then GW is the model to follow. It's just bloody perfect for an arena-style game that has short level cap, etc

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by PatchDay

 

 

I just don't buy explanations like this... When I look at consoles sandboxes dominate on a regular basis. GTA 4, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Burnout, Saints Row, Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Crackdown, etc the list goes on and on..... It's rare in my eyes to see a major sandbox fail. I fail to see all the risks involved and high production costs. I am pretty sure CCP was really small when they initially launched EVE. 

Imagine something like Little Big planet on an MMO scale. It would pretty much rake all the MMOs I see listed on this site. Just the number of maps released alone burry the pop caps for most common MMO. 

 

Edit- Anyone remember Two Worlds? Another console RPG. Was a little like Elder Scrolls Oblivion but they didnt have mob scaling and had some coop support. It was rough around the edges but even that game (which regularly got 7s and lower) still earned enough money to keep the devs going and they claim they have a sequel in work.

 MMO definition of sandbox on spg definition seem to be differnt.  With the exception of little big planet (which I've never heard of so can't comment) most of those games you are following a single story, cannot build anything or affect the land in any way, can't participate in politics, clan wars...

For an mmo sandbox (to most people I think anyway) you need to be able to do all these to some extent.  Therefore if those were an MMO I wouldn't call them sandbox.

Venge Sunsoar

In most of the game from my list you can own land. for instance in Fallout you can buy a house. Fable 2 I have a multiple stores, houses, wives, children, etc. Elder Scrolls, same deal. I would dare say the sandbox MMOs are still years behind sandbox RPGs actually. 

Never heard of Little Big Planet? It's got millions and millions of user created content. But yeah its a PS3 game and a big reason many purchased that system

Originally posted by crunchyblack

Im sorry if this has already come up, as i didnt feel like reading 3 pages of posts....

 

I love this topic and the OP......where are all the sandboxes?

 

Well There is:

Ryzom

Darkfall

Mortal Online

Fallen Earth

 

All are made by smaller companies (everyone hate SOE/Blizzard or any other mega gaming company remember)

 

All are in various phases of death, due to lack of support.  Not saying that they are or will be dead, just that they are all STRUGGLING.

 

 

This is a classic case of gamers wanting sooo bad for indie sandbox games, then, when they dont get the wow stability, or the instant gratification of theme park activities, they uninstall.

 

So what the larger companies, and other small companies see..... these games not doing well..... they see how they better get cracking on their mega theme park EQ style mmorpg, since those will make them and their investors a return, whereas sandboxes will not.

 

And rest assured, the half asses, as most would call it, releases of the above mentioned games, and various issues are due to the lack of investment.   See when they get desperate for money, and ivestors threaten to pull out or sue, their choice is to scrap the whole project and go under, or immediately release (or as soon as possible) in order to genereate revenue and continue work.

 

So all you folks out there claiming "if only they would make a sandbox" get ready for nothing of the sort if these current sandboxes, and the few that are in development, fail due to gamers saying they want sandboxes (i dont know is it the trendy thing now?) but voting with their wallets for the themepark.

 

All of the games i mentioned (aside from mortal online, have yet to play it, but have played all the others and subscribed at least a little) are VERY playable, and offer something diffrent from WOW type games....yet they struggle.

 

Put your money where your mouth is, its the ONLY thing a business cares about, if you dont tell them with money what you want, they will give you whatever you are willing to pay for.  And that is currently low risk cookie cutter wow style theme parks (which im not against by the way)

The only wat to change the trend is to do it yourself.

However we all know that the sandbox crowd is a very small nice crowd and most major developers are not going to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to make a blockbuster sandbox, that will most likely have under 90K subs...its not worth it to them....which is why you really only have indie sandboxes.  The indie companies are taking the risk, and are paying dearly for it right now.  You guys are the ones proving to the smart money that sandboxes dont work.

Remember how many shitty, barely running themepark mmorpgs people flocked to with their wallets before wow polished their game up?  Thats right, just about all of em.  Results: more development of what made money and better quality.

 Deal with what comes with the idie developers since its not been proven that sandboxes can generate enough revenue to support the investment needed for blockbuster sandbox mmorpgs.

 

So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all. 

You may ignore and continue your flame war over your various definitions of what a sandbox is.

Yeah thats true enough. Most of those sandboxes are in their death throes (no idea about Darkfall state). To be fair, I would say most would just rather stick with EVE though. It's the most highly polished sandbox MMO out there by a mile. Not sure about how Darkfall is right now. I had fun but found myself sticking with EVE.

CCP is really outstanding. They have expanded to takeover various game studios in various countries and have expanded the IP into books, etc.

And PVE lovers you can just stay in high sec space and not have to worry bout getting killed really. My PVE buddy been in high sec for years and enjoying himself and he even made an alt to come PVP once he realized how tighlty coupled pvp is with the economy.

Ok, enough dribbling from me for now!

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by crunchyblack

Ryzom

Darkfall

Mortal Online

Fallen Earth

 [ *snip* ]

So basically what im saying is, support the indie sandbox mmorpgs, or STFU about sandboxes.....that is all. 

Darkfall/Mortal Online: full PvP.  I have zero interest in PvP.  That rules them out immediately.

Fallen Earth: I have to admit I may have erred here - I had seen it was post-apocolyptic and had a rather loud trailer so just assumed right away that it too was PvP-heavy without researching any further.  Thank you for prodding me into a second look.

Ryzom: ok, this one might end up embarassing me a little.  I had honestly never heard of it.  Researching it a little, it does look interesting.  There are a few alarm bells (like saying that the best resources are available in PvP zones) that tell me that I probably wouldn't be happy there long-term, but on the other hand, the description of the dynamic ecology gives me geeky goosebumps so I may give it a try anyway.

I don't normally thank people rage against a forum, but in this case, you've given exactly the sort of feedback I needed to link threads of my wandering imagination with worlds I have not yet visited.  So ... thank you.

 

Checkout Link Realms as well then: http://www.linkrealms.com/

PVE focused. When I played awhile back I had a ton of fun. I recall the dungeons were open pvp so beware but I don't recall ever being ganked. You can seriously bypass the dungeons though and just focus on building your house, garden, and realm. I used to train all the time in the privacy of my house with my friends. Then I would teleport to town and kick it with friends.

probably said too much but that game is bloody cool. Support indie devs!!!

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by gorthox

I love how people say sandbox games are niche.

 

EvE is one of the top played MMOs in North America. UO and SWG were both top MMOs in their time (up there with EQ, AC, etc.).  If 300k is niche, how many MMOs besides WoW have non-niche numbers in NA?  I mean, if we discard WoW for a moment and look at AoC, WAR, TR, Vanguard, etc. - I would say the status quo is not what people want.

Well, there are other things that skew those numbers.

EvE, over time, has garnered those numbers. However, it is one of the few successful sandbox games and one of the few sci-fi games out there. It's game play is rather unique so over time it has gained a following. In some respects "the only game in town" sort of fits. Though one must be realistic with any game and realize that some people have several accounts so those numbers are actually a bit lower.

UO and SWG might have had a lot of players but at the time there weren't many mmo's and SWG was "Star Wars" which I'm sure drew in people. But of the people who tried the game out, how many stayed? Maybe most of the people who tried it stayed or maybe 1 million tried it over time and only a few hundred thousand stayed?

UO was out at a time where there just weren't a lot of mmo's. One of the few games in town so to speak.

At the time, mmo's were looked on as a bit of a freakshow thing. Heck, I remember seeing all sorts of bad press for EQ and how the people who played it would invest too much time or spend real money for online items, etc. Everything was new. So maybe there were few games and just not that many players interested but perhaps over all the games there were 700K or so players willing to play? Or perhaps less but they were willing to play the few games out there?

But if those games were released today would they really gather respectable numbers in relation to the development cost? can a game like that develop the needed players to justify the development costs?

And what are the margins that CCP works with to create EVE? Do they make less money overall because they just accept that? Don't know.

In the end, having x amount of subs has to be looked at in a variety of ways.

Sayhing a game has 300k subs is impressive but sayign a game has 300k subs, some of those alt accounts, when there aren't a lot of games and only about 300k players willing to play in a relatively new genre isn't all that impressive. I'm sure I can find 300k people who are into the freakiest things on the net but what they are interested in might still be considered a niche bit of entertaiment.

I just don't buy explanations like this... When I look at consoles sandboxes dominate on a regular basis. GTA 4, Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, Burnout, Saints Row, Little Big Planet, Demon's Souls, Crackdown, etc the list goes on and on..... It's rare in my eyes to see a major sandbox fail. I fail to see all the risks involved and high production costs. I am pretty sure CCP was really small when they initially launched EVE. 

Imagine something like Little Big planet on an MMO scale. It would pretty much rake all the MMOs I see listed on this site. Just the number of maps released alone burry the pop caps for most common MMO. 

Edit- Anyone remember Two Worlds? Another console RPG. Was a little like Elder Scrolls Oblivion but they didnt have mob scaling and had some coop support. It was rough around the edges but even that game (which regularly got 7s and lower) still earned enough money to keep the devs going and they claim they have a sequel in work.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by PatchDay

Originally posted by azzalan

Sandbox - Let's stop using this word, please.

What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?

If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.

 ...

True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition

 

"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"

 

Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc. Granted, all MMO at least have sub-quests and optional subplots. Still, a sandbox lover can feel themselves being hurled along in a strict linear fashion. So maybe thats up for argument and you might be right :D

How many sequences do you need for you to consider a game truly 'non-linear'?  WoW has at least three unique paths one could take to level to 60 for one faction alone with about 10+ permutations and variations.  It's only at endgame that we are forced into a single raiding path to continue playing.  So WoW is quite non-linear throughout its leveling process if the player is willing to vary their playstyle. 

When I last played WoW, if a veteran wanted to come to Barrens and Level they could not gain XP. This defies basic sandbox criteria.

For instance in EVE Online, a veteran can still come to a Level 1 mission and earn cash plus help guildmates. In a linear game like WoW, a veteran earns no xp and is firmly discouraged from going there.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

ITT: people think wikipedia is a reliable source of information.

It is for certain things. For instance, certain professionals rely on it for basic information about Quaternions, basic programming paradigms, software engineering patterns, and so forth. To discount it completely would be like ignoring a library

Originally posted by azzalan

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by azzalan

Originally posted by PatchDay

Originally posted by azzalan

Sandbox - Let's stop using this word, please.

What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?

If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.

 ...

True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition

 

"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"

 

Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc

The fact that this defition is on wikipedia don't help at all, if tons of people still disagree with it.

 Your whole focus is going to be on the use of the word sandbox? While we're at it let's not use any of these other words since some people have a different take on them when the majority clearly understand the terms:

 

MMO

AAA

Theme Park

RPG

Instanced

Game

The

While these words could also be discussed, everyone would have very similar definitions about them.

With sandbox the problem is that people can have completely different definitions about it.

I agree with SnarlingWolf. People do indeed debate the meaning of "MMO". Many do not consider guild wars to be an MMO for example. I personally dont consider GW or Champions or CoX or any other heavily instanced title to be an "MMO"

Do i think they should be delisted? No. But I do not think of any as an MMO

Originally posted by azzalan

Sandbox - Let's stop using this word, please.

What is the point of using a word while no one can agree on it's meaning?

If I ask 5 people here to define sandbox it will problably result in 5 different definitions.

 ...

True, but just point them to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay). Games like City of Heroes, FFXI, etc would never get past their basic definition either. Even Champions Online which comes closer to blurring the lines would clearly fail this definition

"A video game with nonlinear gameplay (sandbox style) presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Whereas a more linear game will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges, a less linear game will allow greater player freedom. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots"

Traditional Level based games clearly fail this basic definition since they force you to progress from point A to point B... When I played WoW, like every other nooblet I went from Barrens -> elf forests -> Winterspring -> Lava mountains etc. Granted, all MMO at least have sub-quests and optional subplots. Still, a sandbox lover can feel themselves being hurled along in a strict linear fashion. So maybe thats up for argument and you might be right :D

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by illorion

Are there any in development that i am just not aware off/ didnt get the memo. Or is everything in the near future themeparkin it up

 Thing is the sandbox MMOs don't shut down, which means not as many new ones pop up.

 

UO and AC are both still running after 11 years for example. Sandbox games just have a loyal group of players. Combine that with all the clueless companies who think the only way to make money is with a WoW clone and the result is new sandbox MMOs are few and far between.

Sandboxes are few and far between cause the vast majority of mmo gamers dont want them.

what do people mean by statements like this? If we can just exclude WoW for one minute- if you compare the population for EVE Online against other MMOs in it's category you will quickly see it's outperforming many like EQ2, CoX, Champions, Star trek (i could be wrong on star trek havent seen the numbers), etc. 

Anyone know the sub numbers (ball park) for star trek MMO? Surely EVE is stomping it too

Originally posted by Nekrataal

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

Originally posted by Emoqqboy

Short answer: Those that were actually released failed, failed, failed, failed, epic failed, failed, and then failed somemore, so less and less companies are willing to invest the budget required to risk trying to create a successful one.

*Cough*EvE*Cough*

 EVE is a piece of crap relying on RMT & forced multi account.

Thanks, but no thanks

Not sure who is telling you this misinformation but it is incorrect (like your other post). I played the game for many yrs with one account for instance.

And what 'RMT' are you refering to? Are you talking bout how the community can trade characters with each other on their site plus buy other services from each other? Doesn't affect the game negatively in anyway. It actually allows CCP to combat farmers.

Most folks idea of a sandbox:

1. Not forced to linearly follow a path from low level to Max (for example, in EVE veterans and newbies adventure and live together in the space their corp/alliance controls. There is not an area a newbie cannot enter. Both vets and noob enjoys each other company and provides mutual benefits)

2. Can own Land and change the world. Perhaps fight for terriority or just buy it

3. No LEvels (or rather, no enforced linear path to go from early Levels to end). You can have sandbox type of Levels like EVE (aka skillpoints / skill level). You can acquire skills in a non-linear manner

4. SHould be free to attack anyone. However, its ok to spawn cops to enforce justice (aka EVE Online in secure space)

Games like City of Heroes, Final Fantasy, and such all fall far short of these basic criteria.

Originally posted by Nekrataal

To me FFXI, & now to be FFXIV, are story driven PvE sandboxes. No, sandboxe doesn't have to be FFA PvP full loot you freaks!

Ok, maybe its not perfect, but its pretty close... here:

- You can do everything with one char.

- The game doesn't tell you what do & how do to it.

- Zones aren't sub divided by level range, you always have to be careful in your travel.

- More player interdependancy than most game out there.

- Meaningful housing. ( No its doesn't have to be a non instance clusterf**k)

- You can build your classe however you want it. ( with some restriction )

- I'm sure i'm forgetting some more aspect here...

- The only thing it is missing, is the ability to affect the world... Which FFXIV might have in one way or another, who knows.

Anyways, say what you will, FFA PvP full loot game ( what you call sandboxe ) are dead, no money is to be made on that type of game. I see it staying that way until real tough consequences are put in place to control criminal behavior, period.

<cough> EVE Online. Partial loot most of the time although I've been fully looted for my ships and rigs :(

And FFXI has never ever been a sandbox.

Originally posted by Cor4x

As far as I can see, sandboxes are pretty much doomed by design.

Every one I've ever seen has been a disaster because average players don't / won't understand art or design and generally ham, glam, or perv up everything they get their hands on. (Not all players, but in this case a very few bad apples can ruin the barrel for everyone.)

I mean, think about what happend with second life. Have you ever been there? I bet you won't last 5 minutes without seeing something NSFW. And, why don't you walk 5 feet more and see the pedobears attack? LOL

On the other side, do you remember UO from the old days? I used to hunt Orcs in a suburb because there were houses EVERYWHERE. I'd run through the city streets and try to find mobs.

It was silly.

Go look at all the "great" content created in CoX. LOL.

So, no big company wants to commit the resources needed to create a sandbox game. In this case they're probably right.

1. Second Life was never a game to begin with

2. City of Heroes was never ever ever a sandbox (I had about two max LVL characters so I know 4 sho)

Yeah I've always been highly skeptical of making an MMO in under 2 years. I suppose it's to be expected the initial scores will be pretty low. I would've thought since these reviews seem to be coming out a bit after release the scores would be higher. But guess they need more time.

I like the final paragraph/conclusion of this review. Sounds like he's still playing it....

Man for such a young game, it sure does suffer from a lot of drama.

Ok I see what it is now. I think the 1st image was pretty weak graphics wise (no fault of the OP it does match the site). But all the other images look up to par too me personally.