Originally posted by Lobotomist

I think that its high time for game companies that want to make MMOs to understand one simple thing about MMO player :

We dont want games - we want worlds.

 

We have millions of games - Halo , Super Mario , Starcraft , Monkey Island , Baldurs Gate ... to note few genre stars.

Now they want to take these games and add multiplayer aspect - and slap brand this MMORPG.

This my friends is the themepark world. And the direction its moving ( we are seeing mmofps , mmo platformer , mmo sport , even mmo adventure - beside more traditional mmorpg approach )

 

But this is not what we are here for ... not what we wanted...

When I played games before the era of internet , this was not what I dreamed of - Super Mario with oter people playing.

No.

What I dreamed was Ultima Online

This dream was shared in developer community that was young and not GREED oriented as today.

And than it stopped. Because its easier to just make a game and add multiplayer element.

And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.

This. That much is obvious - will not fly anymore.

 

We want worlds.

You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.

Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.

 

Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.

The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.

 

Will we ever see it ?

 

 

 

 

 

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by Lobotomist

I think that its high time for game companies that want to make MMOs to understand one simple thing about MMO player :

We dont want games - we want worlds.

 

We have millions of games - Halo , Super Mario , Starcraft , Monkey Island , Baldurs Gate ... to note few genre stars.

Now they want to take these games and add multiplayer aspect - and slap brand this MMORPG.

This my friends is the themepark world. And the direction its moving ( we are seeing mmofps , mmo platformer , mmo sport , even mmo adventure - beside more traditional mmorpg approach )

 

But this is not what we are here for ... not what we wanted...

When I played games before the era of internet , this was not what I dreamed of - Super Mario with oter people playing.

No.

What I dreamed was Ultima Online

This dream was shared in developer community that was young and not GREED oriented as today.

And than it stopped. Because its easier to just make a game and add multiplayer element.

And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.

This. That much is obvious - will not fly anymore.

 

We want worlds.

You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.

Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.

 

Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.

The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.

 

Will we ever see it ?

 

 

 

 

 

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

Indeed, however 90% of the majority of those player have never acualy tried a real MMORPG and dont know anything about them. I can ask in most game what was the first MMORPG and most of them will say World of Warcraft. If a company were to make a real MMORPG well you may see alot of that majorty acualy give the game a try and with anyluck they wont try and change the game to be a WoW clone and they will acualy enjoy it.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Banaghran

---

Originally posted by lizardbones Anyway, their peak users had to be at least a million. They had a million accounts as of the pre-order period just before launch. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108017-Rift-Tops-the-One-Million-Account-Mark. They could have had five people playing one month later, but they sold at least a million boxes before they went global.  

---

You can have an account even without paying for the game. This is the same argument back from the rift forums, if rift would EVER have a million live subs, do you think Trion would have kept it a SECRET, just so that a few guys could argue over it on teh internetz? :)

 

That was really my only problem with your post, even if i stupidly commented on the box price vs sub number thing.

You may carry on bashing purist sandboxes. I made my point sufficiently clear a few pages back when you argued with yourself :)

Flame on!

:)

---

Bah! Duped by verbiage! In any event, pick any two of the following games: Rift, SWToR, GW2, AoC, WarHammer, and you'll get a significantly bigger number of peak players than UO + SWG + Eve. The most popular games, judged by peak players are not sandboxes.

What is your point, exactly?

 

My point was that you and other are intentionally steering the discussion towards "purist sanboxes like eve" vs everything else, just to bash eve and uo on sub numbers and profit.

We had early wow, aion, lineage 2, runescape, aoc, all games which, despite their other shortcomings, sufficiently "sold" a big world, player interaction, economy and politics (in varied degrees, ofcourse).

But ofcourse it is easier to just say "No." as you did last time and repeat the "sandbox no profit" mantra (twice).

Flame on!

:)

 

---

Originally posted by Banaghran
My point was that you and other are intentionally steering the discussion towards "purist sanboxes like eve" vs everything else, just to bash eve and uo on sub numbers and profit.

We had early wow, aion, lineage 2, runescape, aoc, all games which, despite their other shortcomings, sufficiently "sold" a big world, player interaction, economy and politics (in varied degrees, ofcourse).

But ofcourse it is easier to just say "No." as you did last time and repeat the "sandbox no profit" mantra (twice).

Flame on!

:)

 

---

I'm not steering the conversation towards Eve, SWG and UO. I can't help it if people keep bringing those games up as proof of something. I could try not responding, but what would be the fun of that?

WoW has a big environment, but it's not a world of the type the OP is talking about. Even in the areas where dynamic content exists, the world is simply reflecting the part of the path the player is on. It's not a dynamic response to the player. It is certainly big, but it is static. AoC is the same way. The games present the player with a story, with a clear path with a beginning, middle and end. Rift has a far more responsive and dynamic 'world' than either WoW or AoC. It's a tiny environment, but it has more dynamic content. It's not a world though...the players are still following a story path.

The op is talking about interactive worlds that respond to player activities with more content. You will have to go a long ways to show that WoW, Aion and AoC sold some sort of interactive world. I have no idea about L2.

** edit **
People are bringing up sandbox games because they are a much better fit for the OP's goal of 'worlds', while theme parks are a much better fit for 'games'.

---

Originally posted by toddze
One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

---

What is a "true" MMORPG player? If most of the players are not "true" MMORPG players, why would any developer bother with creating games for "true" MMORPG players?

---

Originally posted by Onomas
EQNext

The repopulation

Archeage

Greed Monger

The Black Desert

Dark Fall 2/UW

Dragons Prophet (sounds like they are going sandbox style) Thats 2 games SOE are making snadboxes ;) Told you a change was coming :P

Age of Wushu (but think this is a hybrid, havent read much into it)

Embers of Caerus

Origins of Malu

Theres 10, need a few more? Some of these look damn good, and some have so called "themepark/hybrid" additions to them. But in general are sandbox games. Because honestly i think its stupid to call a sandbox a hybrid just because its got story, quests, and other stuff that normaly come with sandboxes lol.

 

---

I will probably wait until they release before I say anything about the games themselves. I've been burned a few times on the "this is the great sandbox hope" train. However, skipping ahead, why are developers starting to try more 'world' based games and mechanics? I can think of a couple reasons.

* They're out of ideas for theme park style games. They can come up with new IPs, but are at a loss for new content and mechanics in a theme park setting that isn't just a slight variation on existing games.

* Theme parks do not provide longevity and they now know they can't provide enough content to players in that setting. Adding player interaction via sandbox mechanics will add longevity to their games.

* Adding the sandbox content isn't going to cost them more money compared to adding a lot of theme park content. There is a cost justification.

I don't think content like what the OP has described will really make it in though. It's not a cost thing, players will just break whatever dynamic and interactive systems the developers put in there.

Originally posted by Onomas

 

If not popular then why are 9 of them coming out soon? Some are AAA as well. Fact is themeparks have become worse and had their day. Now things will progress in a different direction. Bet you half of those will do better than the last 50 themeparks, because since Rift......... none have been worthy. So 1 out of 100 themeparks amount to anything, and this is your arguement for why themeparks are better and shouldnt change? Because im confused. I want a real mmo, an epic game with a massive world. Most you guys attacking sandboxes want the opposite.

Because despite what you believe, companies try new things all the time. Some becomes popualr (like Dishonored), and some not so much (like the new Xcom remake).

In fact, you can't say these 9 games are popular until they are out, can you?

Originally posted by toddze

 

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

Why is this a "problem"? MMO should be adapting to players, not the other way around.

There is nothing sacred about "true MMOs" .. they are just a form of entertainment.

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by Lobotomist

I think that its high time for game companies that want to make MMOs to understand one simple thing about MMO player :

We dont want games - we want worlds.

 

We have millions of games - Halo , Super Mario , Starcraft , Monkey Island , Baldurs Gate ... to note few genre stars.

Now they want to take these games and add multiplayer aspect - and slap brand this MMORPG.

This my friends is the themepark world. And the direction its moving ( we are seeing mmofps , mmo platformer , mmo sport , even mmo adventure - beside more traditional mmorpg approach )

 

But this is not what we are here for ... not what we wanted...

When I played games before the era of internet , this was not what I dreamed of - Super Mario with oter people playing.

No.

What I dreamed was Ultima Online

This dream was shared in developer community that was young and not GREED oriented as today.

And than it stopped. Because its easier to just make a game and add multiplayer element.

And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.

This. That much is obvious - will not fly anymore.

 

We want worlds.

You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.

Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.

 

Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.

The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.

 

Will we ever see it ?

 

 

 

 

 

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

uh no, i know plenty of people who are mmo players who have never touched a single player rpg in their lives.

they started playing WoW because they liked the game world, the ideas behind WoW and playing a game you gain levels and items in.

what the heck makes a "true" mmo player? someone who agrees with the mantra you guys are repeating?

i've played UO, EQ1,daoc, and pretty much all the other mmos that came before WoW,  i see no difference between WoW and everquest, except that WoW makes you feel more like a hero and less like an extermantor of orcs.

what makes a world? seamlessness? scope of the world? zone size? non-combat things? deepness of tradeskills?

need for other players?

 

is it possible to articulate it? 

i start to wonder if they should change the name from mmorpg.com to grumpyoldmmoplayerretirementhome.com

too long though.

 

Originally posted by demongoat

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by Lobotomist

I think that its high time for game companies that want to make MMOs to understand one simple thing about MMO player :

We dont want games - we want worlds.

 

We have millions of games - Halo , Super Mario , Starcraft , Monkey Island , Baldurs Gate ... to note few genre stars.

Now they want to take these games and add multiplayer aspect - and slap brand this MMORPG.

This my friends is the themepark world. And the direction its moving ( we are seeing mmofps , mmo platformer , mmo sport , even mmo adventure - beside more traditional mmorpg approach )

 

But this is not what we are here for ... not what we wanted...

When I played games before the era of internet , this was not what I dreamed of - Super Mario with oter people playing.

No.

What I dreamed was Ultima Online

This dream was shared in developer community that was young and not GREED oriented as today.

And than it stopped. Because its easier to just make a game and add multiplayer element.

And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.

This. That much is obvious - will not fly anymore.

 

We want worlds.

You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.

Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.

 

Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.

The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.

 

Will we ever see it ?

 

 

 

 

 

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

uh no, i know plenty of people who are mmo players who have never touched a single player rpg in their lives.

they started playing WoW because they liked the game world, the ideas behind WoW and playing a game you gain levels and items in.

what the heck makes a "true" mmo player? someone who agrees with the mantra you guys are repeating?

i've played UO, EQ1,daoc, and pretty much all the other mmos that came before WoW,  i see no difference between WoW and everquest, except that WoW makes you feel more like a hero and less like an extermantor of orcs.

what makes a world? seamlessness? scope of the world? zone size? non-combat things? deepness of tradeskills?

need for other players?

 

is it possible to articulate it? 

i start to wonder if they should change the name from mmorpg.com to grumpyoldmmoplayerretirementhome.com

too long though.

 

This site is covering non-world online games like LOL, WOT, Diablo anyway. The genre needs to expand. There is no reason why good MMO features cannot go into other online games and vice versa.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by toddze

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

Why is this a "problem"? MMO should be adapting to players, not the other way around.

There is nothing sacred about "true MMOs" .. they are just a form of entertainment.

Enough already, we all understand that games are entertainment. You are not having an epiphany the 20 times a day you post this. lol.

Also, I am completely aware that you are struggling to understand why some of us hold this genre in a different light. A lot of us treat MMOs as more of a hobby than a mere game. They aren't "sacred", that's just being dramatic and silly. The concept of playing a game in a huge world with massive amounts of other players, that had so much to offer that people could potentially play for periods longer than a few weeks or months is what brought me here. Commitment to a good mmo does not mean that that's the only game that can be played. I have still remained a RTS/FPS gamer throughout my time with MMOs.

Singleplayer/multiplayer online games have all benefitted from borrowed MMO features and design. MMOs, on the hand, have had their foundation ripped out and are quickly losing any sense of what they were intended for. Now we have people literally gobbling them up like potato chips because they have zero lasting power. MMOs really got the shit end of the stick as these new disposable gamers started flooding the industry. 

You might be having a fiesta with this unfortunate abomination, but surely you can see why so many of us do not like where this genre is heading. Frankly, when we do get to the other side, I doubt many will be thrilled with the end result; yourself included.

Originally posted by Cecropia

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by toddze

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

Why is this a "problem"? MMO should be adapting to players, not the other way around.

There is nothing sacred about "true MMOs" .. they are just a form of entertainment.

Enough already, we all understand that games are entertainment. You are not having an epiphany the 20 times a day you post this. lol.

Also, I am completely aware that you are struggling to understand why some of us hold this genre in a different light. A lot of us treat MMOs as more of a hobby than a mere game. They aren't "sacred", that's just being dramatic and silly. The concept of playing a game in a huge world with massive amounts of other players, that had so much to offer that people could potentially play for periods longer than a few weeks or months is what brought me here. Commitment to a good mmo does not mean that that's the only game that can be played. I have still remained a RTS/FPS gamer throughout my time with MMOs.

Singleplayer/multiplayer online games have all benefitted from borrowed MMO features and design. MMOs, on the hand, have had their foundation ripped out and are quickly losing any sense of what they were intended for. Now we have people literally gobbling them up like potato chips because they have zero lasting power. MMOs really got the shit end of the stick as these new disposable gamers started flooding the industry. 

You might be having a fiesta with this unfortunate abomination, but surely you can see why so many of us do not like where this genre is heading. Frankly, when we do get to the other side, I doubt many will be thrilled with the end result; yourself included.

 It's not that we don't understand.  We do understand however we do not agree.  I don't agree that MMO's have had their foundation ripped out from under them. I do feel they are becoming more and more inclusive they are having more varied experiences.  I do feel that MMO's by and large have significantly been positively impacted by the inclusion of many things that are in spg.

Today even with a busier schedule, I feel I have far more value for my dollar, far more choice in what games to play and how to pay for them, and far more choice in how I choose to play the game than in days gone by.  I see this trend increasing. 

Other people don't like them, thats fine.  I by and large don't like many games either (be they spg, mmo, muliplayer, fps...) that hasn't really changed from basically my whole life.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Onomas

 

If not popular then why are 9 of them coming out soon? Some are AAA as well. Fact is themeparks have become worse and had their day. Now things will progress in a different direction. Bet you half of those will do better than the last 50 themeparks, because since Rift......... none have been worthy. So 1 out of 100 themeparks amount to anything, and this is your arguement for why themeparks are better and shouldnt change? Because im confused. I want a real mmo, an epic game with a massive world. Most you guys attacking sandboxes want the opposite.

Because despite what you believe, companies try new things all the time. Some becomes popualr (like Dishonored), and some not so much (like the new Xcom remake).

In fact, you can't say these 9 games are popular until they are out, can you?

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

Ok, you want a good example of a virtual world game that changes according to players influence and creates its own "themepark" naturally -

Here is Elite: Dangerous dev diary 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uKD1ap5hsI&feature=youtu.be

 Bigga, fat worlds!  Round like a pregnant women's belly.  Bursting with fruit.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Ok, you want a good example of a virtual world game that changes according to players influence and creates its own "themepark" naturally -

Here is Elite: Dangerous dev diary 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uKD1ap5hsI&feature=youtu.be

So... its a system similar to what GW2 uses plus a touch of WAR where completing missions will advance your side's influence?

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Ok, you want a good example of a virtual world game that changes according to players influence and creates its own "themepark" naturally -

Here is Elite: Dangerous dev diary 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uKD1ap5hsI&feature=youtu.be

So... its a system similar to what GW2 uses plus a touch of WAR where completing missions will advance your side's influence?

Yes and no

What you mention would be themepark simulation of the real thing. Premade events set to trigger if certan requirements are met. It looks like the real thing , but as all themepark its just a prop.

In example of virtual world changes are not prescripted events they are run by NPC AI.

For example if a certain faction (planet in above elite example) is suffering food shortage it will start importing food , perhaps try to invide other faction and steal their food. Other faction will maybe take advantage of their weaknes and attack , or blocade food import.

Anything can happen and its not pre-scripted at all (as in examples you mentioned)

And this time themepark players (the ones that enjoy quests and story) will really have what to talk about with their friends :)

I was very interested in the concept of putting a themepark in the same game as a sandbox. it is something we have talked about on here before. The idea that one lot of players goes one way, doing all the quests, running the raids and so on. While another group of players goes of and never does a quest, they pillage a village or build one, craft a set of armour and puts their name on it, dam a river and start a fisihing industry.

Hard to achieve, but the best of both worlds.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Yes and no

What you mention would be themepark simulation of the real thing. Premade events set to trigger if certan requirements are met. It looks like the real thing , but as all themepark its just a prop.

In example of virtual world changes are not prescripted events they are run by NPC AI.

For example if a certain faction (planet in above elite example) is suffering food shortage it will start importing food , perhaps try to invide other faction and steal their food. Other faction will maybe take advantage of their weaknes and attack , or blocade food import.

Anything can happen and its not pre-scripted at all (as in examples you mentioned)

And this time themepark players (the ones that enjoy quests and story) will really have what to talk about with their friends :)

You don't know whether they are scripted or not (likely to an extent, they are) and even if they weren't the end result is the same. Don't see what the fuzz is about. There's not much difference.

Originally posted by Scot

I was very interested in the concept of putting a themepark in the same game as a sandbox. it is something we have talked about on here before. The idea that one lot of players goes one way, doing all the quests, running the raids and so on. While another group of players goes of and never does a quest, they pillage a village or build one, craft a set of armour and puts their name on it, dam a river and start a fisihing industry.

Hard to achieve, but the best of both worlds.

again I'm in agreement with you..

     I have always wanted a game that is built like a spider web..  Imagine a game that has 6 starting races and cities.. Each race owning a section of land that allows each to reach max level without ever leaving their home faction.. So if you have a new zone per 10 levels, you would have 6 zones per race, making it 36 zones FOR themepark enthuist.. In addition I would have 6 zones that are basically "sandbox".. Anyone at any given time can go into these zones voluntarly and take part of the sandbox.. Therefore we end up 42 zones in all.. Each zone would have their own sub factions and perks as well, and players would not be limited to only doing their home faction.. Just like GW2 has done, players can cross race zones at anytime and enjoy ALL 42 zones..

     However, I do want to see leveling alot slower then it is now..  For someone to build up faction in all 42 zones takes more then just a few months.. I'm talking YEARS..  When a character starts their lifetime journey, I want them to be able to customize their biography based on their personal actions, not be some predetermines storyline themepark..  Example would be if I started an elf druid, while another players started a human druid..  By the time the both of us are max level, our choices on what zones we ventured in, and our actions will make us unique..

     Having 6 zones per stage of leveling, (if I did my math right) means the odds of meeting another character that chose the same path as you did is 1 of 46,656.... Sure eventually over the years, everyone will have faction in all 6 starting races and 36 sub factions.. BUT that will take years, and I do means more then 2.. I'm thinking 4 or 5 years for the hardcore players..  by then more zones would have been produces and you have more zones to play in..