Trending Games | Elder Scrolls Online | ArcheAge | WildStar | Star Wars: The Old Republic

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,857,241 Users Online:0
Games:742  Posts:6,242,664
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » Sandbox vs Themepark Discussion Thread

24 Pages First « 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 » Last Search
470 posts found
  Heinz130

Novice Member

Joined: 3/13/12
Posts: 227

War...war never change

5/09/12 4:31:33 PM#241
Archeage will be a sandbox with themepark dinamic,graphs and contents,plus the game will bring hes own new contents and features

After that, threads like this will lose theyr reason to exist

WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months

  DJTrue

Novice Member

Joined: 5/10/12
Posts: 11

5/10/12 10:37:04 AM#242

Ultimately I think the future of online gaming is going to be sandbox-style games, although you always need a certain amount of structure within them to provide the "rules" for living in that world.

Having as much freedom and flexibility as possible will keep users on there for longer than other models I think, and ultimately that's what the game companies want, so I think it will naturally move in that direction.

  Ausare

Novice Member

Joined: 3/23/11
Posts: 870

5/10/12 10:40:18 AM#243

Most likely a hybrid some where between the two will be the future.  Sandbox will always stay nitch so long as it does PvP the way it does.  The majority of players do not want unstructured PvP.

  DJTrue

Novice Member

Joined: 5/10/12
Posts: 11

5/10/12 10:45:03 AM#244

Those are fair points. I guess as artificial intelligence in gaming improves we may see some really interesting concepts for PvP gameplay that create some kind of hybrid model.

  wrightstuf

Novice Member

Joined: 8/12/09
Posts: 714

5/10/12 10:50:35 AM#245
Originally posted by DJTrue

Ultimately I think the future of online gaming is going to be sandbox-style games, although you always need a certain amount of structure within them to provide the "rules" for living in that world.

Having as much freedom and flexibility as possible will keep users on there for longer than other models I think, and ultimately that's what the game companies want, so I think it will naturally move in that direction.

the "rules" you speak of is the themepark element. for a fun MMO with lasting appeal, you need both sandbox and themepark elements. you just cant have a 100% sandbox type game and expect any kind of supportive player base.

SWTOR, imo, was a good example of a game that strayed too far towards themepark and it hurt them because of it. i think it started bleeding subs because people just got bored.

DAoC, imo was a good example of a good mix of both. structured questing as you leveled up, then the frontiers where you were free to roam and do whatever you want.

The trick is how to make both elements blend in and not seem like one or the other was just tacked on like pvp in a few past games.

  Thorbrand

Novice Member

Joined: 3/06/04
Posts: 1217

5/10/12 10:54:27 AM#246

Every MMO either Sandbox or Themepark is judge by the over all gameplay. They have to be good at every level in order to be a good game. Todays games are to focused on a few things being right and miss many of the other times that make the gameplay great.

I loved AC and EQ, two different games but great gameplay from every angle. Games today need to learn that MMOs are about total gameplay not some new combat system or skill tree, everything has to be good and immersive.

  TurkeyBurger

Apprentice Member

Joined: 10/06/10
Posts: 52

5/16/12 5:11:43 PM#247

The beauty of the sandbox is that the players make the themeparks. Everyone can build an original and unique themepark inside of the sandbox.

It is the difference between looking at pictures of people playing on the beach, and actually playing on the beach.

 

  cnething

Novice Member

Joined: 5/19/12
Posts: 7

5/19/12 12:42:48 AM#248

I really liked World of Warcraft when it first came out because leveling by quests was better than leveling by killing. I liked the direction of knowing what I should be doing where you didn't always have an idea in older games. After so many years of games cloning WoW though it seems like everyone is growing tired of this tactic though, I know I am. There's some good looking sandbox games on the horizon (Archage and The Repopulation are both exciting). Guild Wars 2 isn't a sandbox but it is a nice twist with less quest hub moves. I think the industry is ready for innovation.

  Irus

Novice Member

Joined: 1/11/11
Posts: 780

5/24/12 10:39:33 AM#249
Originally posted by wrightstuf

SWTOR, imo, was a good example of a game that strayed too far towards themepark and it hurt them because of it. i think it started bleeding subs because people just got bored.

Am I the only one whothinks SW:TOR (and other games) failed for a very simple reason: it simply wasn't a good game?

I do not understand the train of thinking that being in a certain subgenre kills a game. I am really not buying that. SW:TOR failed because it didn't do anything well. It wasn't fun. It wasn't well designed.

  Darthconnor

Novice Member

Joined: 5/03/09
Posts: 59

5/24/12 11:00:59 AM#250
Originally posted by Irus
Originally posted by wrightstuf

SWTOR, imo, was a good example of a game that strayed too far towards themepark and it hurt them because of it. i think it started bleeding subs because people just got bored.

Am I the only one whothinks SW:TOR (and other games) failed for a very simple reason: it simply wasn't a good game?

I do not understand the train of thinking that being in a certain subgenre kills a game. I am really not buying that. SW:TOR failed because it didn't do anything well. It wasn't fun. It wasn't well designed.

Swtor was decent and alot of the features were good its just another basic game that you hop from place to place and run through everything then move on. Kinda makes you wonder why they spend that much time on the early planets just to get 3 hours of play out of them before you take off. Its really is crazy the amount of time that spent on stupid features instead of being directed towards things that everyone wants and needs. If anything they should learn from this but I highly doubt Devolpers will. Themepark games have just about killed all my interest in MMO's. They always seem to be the same dang thing with minor tweaks to certain systems like crafting or resource gathering. Instead of them doing something unique they do the same old thing over and over. I did like certain features of SWtor like having your crew craft but I didnt like the fact that I couldn't and that they are all assigned things they are good at instead of allowing me to train them in what I need them to do.

Themepark games just seem to be heading in the same direction and reuseing the same features over and over with small little tweaks here and there. I want a Sandbox where I can once again play for endless hours without having to worry bout when the Devs are gonna release the new patch to try to keep me entertained. Though from the looks of it Ill be 90 before anyone wakes up and decides to go with a different train of thought on how to make a New mmo and not how to copy one.

  Heinz130

Novice Member

Joined: 3/13/12
Posts: 227

War...war never change

5/30/12 5:51:04 PM#251
Will there be a single reason to play thepark after archeage is released?

WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months

  Kameljon

Novice Member

Joined: 5/30/12
Posts: 2

5/31/12 2:16:09 PM#252

After having played sandbox, is there any way to return to a themepark?  I dont think so.

Cigarettes are a lot like hamsters, perfectly harmless until you put one in your mouth and light it on fire.

  Suraknar

Advanced Member

Joined: 12/26/07
Posts: 813

*Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*

5/31/12 4:39:13 PM#253

i typed this reply for this thread: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/352767/Are-sand-box-and-theme-parks-mutually-exclusive.html

But the Devs locked the thread in mean time (grrr)..

original question was, posted by learis1

"I've been reading in an attempt to understand the differences, pros and cons of theme park and sand box mmos.

 

My question is: Are they mutually exclusive?

 

Is it not possible to have a theme park mmo with such extensive resource/environment manipulation mechanics  that it could function as a sandbox? Likewise, couldn't a sandbox have optional yet engaging quests to follow if you'd like some direction and story to your exploration?

Or is there something I'm missing/oversimplifying about the two that prevents them from being combined into a hybrid? Personally, I think combining the two is a key to solving some of the cons that inhabit them seperately. It's a daunting task though."

 

I think Sandbox and Themepark designs are mutually exclusive, within consideration of the following definitions:

 

A Themepark to me is basically geared towards taking the player to a guided experience through a park filled with Rides and Focusses on the Character's mechanical Progression which also serves as a reward system for visiting the rides.

 

A Sandbox to me is basically geared towards taking the player to an unguided experience through a world filled with challenges and adventure opportunities and Focusses on the Character's Social Progression which constitutes also a reward depending on the level of interaction the player chooses to involve themselves in to, and within the context of their interest. (A crafter, a Merchant, a Combattant for Good, a Combattant for Evil, a Diplomat, a Story teller, a Shepherd etc.. all can be heroes within their own context and their achievements contributing to the Richness of the Society of the world)

 

in that sense, the two are mutually exclusive, because the goal and context are different, and sometimes opposed. In a themepark your actions do not contribute to the world and may not affect the experience of other players (in any positive or negative way). In a Sandbox your actions do contribute to the world and may affect the experience of other players (in positive or negative ways).

Elements and features such as Scripted Quests Scripted Storylines and a certain guided Direaction can exists in Both types, as well as extensive ressource/environment manipulation.

often however, a Themepark game will choose not to have such elements because they quickly fall in to the "uneeded" or "low Priority" list of things to accomplish and by launch dropped all together.

There would be no technical reason why WoW could not have some type of Housing, but the Devs chose to not implement such a thing because they felt it was not necessary within the context of the rides, or, it may have been seen as a counter intuitive endeavor. The aime in wow is to have the player travel from region to region as they Progress, having a House could have been seen as counter productive to that, since your "home" is considered to be your current Quest Hub part of your progression Hub.

So in a Themepark the Adventure hubs are provided by the Game, in a Sandbox the Adventure hubs are provided by the Players as these explore populate and settle in the world create Communities in it and customize and personalise the area of settlement.

So I think it is by now clear that while feature wise both could be seen as mutually inclusive, in reality both have very different core gameplay goals which are mutually exclusive.

Albeit, some of their elements and features can be used for both types, however, just because a game has FFA PvP with full loot this does not define that game as a Sandbox game, or Just because a Game offers Quests with a Direction and Pre-Scripted Story this does not define that game as Themepark.

In my observation and experience playing both types.

- Duke Suraknar -
Order of the Silver Star, OSS


ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard

  Vhaln

Novice Member

Joined: 7/07/05
Posts: 3167

6/01/12 6:31:29 AM#254

Instead of a sticky thread, I'm wondering if this topic should have its own forum...

 

Re:questioning whether sandboxes and themeparks are mutually exclusive, I was just thinking about how I'd love to see a themepark that has a sandbox endgame.  I bet it'd be a lot more popular than instance grinding for gear.

 

When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  jpnz

Elite Member

Joined: 6/29/06
Posts: 3563

6/01/12 6:34:48 AM#255
Originally posted by Vhaln

Instead of a sticky thread, I'm wondering if this topic should have its own forum...

 

Re:questioning whether sandboxes and themeparks are mutually exclusive, I was just thinking about how I'd love to see a themepark that has a sandbox endgame.  I bet it'd be a lot more popular than instance grinding for gear.

 

If you fundamentally change a game like that, I don't think the playerbase will like it.

It'll feel like the  time spent to get to 'endgame' was a waste of time.

I can kinda see it for niche games but I can't see a broad mainstream appeal.

Imagine if you are playing BF3 single player and all of a sudden it changed to MineCraft. Would it work?

Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  Vhaln

Novice Member

Joined: 7/07/05
Posts: 3167

6/01/12 6:43:22 AM#256
Originally posted by jpnz
Originally posted by Vhaln

Instead of a sticky thread, I'm wondering if this topic should have its own forum...

Re:questioning whether sandboxes and themeparks are mutually exclusive, I was just thinking about how I'd love to see a themepark that has a sandbox endgame.  I bet it'd be a lot more popular than instance grinding for gear.

If you fundamentally change a game like that, I don't think the playerbase will like it.

It'll feel like the  time spent to get to 'endgame' was a waste of time.

I can kinda see it for niche games but I can't see a broad mainstream appeal.

Imagine if you are playing BF3 single player and all of a sudden it changed to MineCraft. Would it work?

 

To me, raids and instance grinding feel like a similarly fundamental shift in gameplay, in most MMOs I've played, and I think that shift does alienate a lot of the playerbase, too.  I'm not talking about such an extreme sandbox as Minecraft though, more like what UO or SWG used to be. 

When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  exanimo

Novice Member

Joined: 11/02/04
Posts: 1314

6/01/12 12:55:43 PM#257


Originally posted by Vhaln

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Vhaln Instead of a sticky thread, I'm wondering if this topic should have its own forum... Re:questioning whether sandboxes and themeparks are mutually exclusive, I was just thinking about how I'd love to see a themepark that has a sandbox endgame.  I bet it'd be a lot more popular than instance grinding for gear.
If you fundamentally change a game like that, I don't think the playerbase will like it. It'll feel like the  time spent to get to 'endgame' was a waste of time. I can kinda see it for niche games but I can't see a broad mainstream appeal. Imagine if you are playing BF3 single player and all of a sudden it changed to MineCraft. Would it work?
 

To me, raids and instance grinding feel like a similarly fundamental shift in gameplay, in most MMOs I've played, and I think that shift does alienate a lot of the playerbase, too.  I'm not talking about such an extreme sandbox as Minecraft though, more like what UO or SWG used to be. 


its funny you mention bf3 , becose this fps online are becoming rpgs , you need to x to get weapon y and believe you can do more head shots with weapon z then the noob weapon you have when you start the game , this was when i stoped playing fps.

walking in the dust and dieing in one shot from a sniper in a 100 meters away with end game rifle ... forget it .

Join AOL - http://lightness.goodforum.net/

  Darkmoth

Novice Member

Joined: 5/14/12
Posts: 175

6/01/12 10:05:51 PM#258
Originally posted by Irus
Originally posted by wrightstuf

SWTOR, imo, was a good example of a game that strayed too far towards themepark and it hurt them because of it. i think it started bleeding subs because people just got bored.

Am I the only one whothinks SW:TOR (and other games) failed for a very simple reason: it simply wasn't a good game?

I do not understand the train of thinking that being in a certain subgenre kills a game. I am really not buying that. SW:TOR failed because it didn't do anything well. It wasn't fun. It wasn't well designed.

There were fun things about SWTOR. I thought the feeling of playing Empire was very well done, the constant feeling of suspicion, the random cruelties of the Sith, etc. Some of the storylines were amazing. Most of the people I know enjoyed the 1-50 ride, but the brick wall after 50 was a dealbreaker.

  krem4opld

Novice Member

Joined: 11/14/09
Posts: 12

6/22/12 11:58:08 AM#259

Gimme an example of a sandbox/themepark f2p

  Konfess

Elite Member

Joined: 10/10/07
Posts: 734

6/28/12 3:59:30 PM#260

While I was writing my reply to "Why do so many people think that Sandbox MMORPGs are all FFA PvP? They're not. ", the thread was locked so I am adding my reply here.  I also agree with the above poster that instead of a single sticky in a general forum, the SB vs TP should have its own sub forum.  Well that is enuff of that.

 

Getting back to the question of why do so many people associate Sandbox with FFA PvP?  Like a previous poster stated it is because of Ultima Online, and single player games like Grand Theft Auto.  You name a single player SB, and it will have some sort of game play that matches that of FFA PvP.

I suspect the reason developers support it in a SB game is the clean slate effect of the destruction.  Just as in a real SB the first child builds to his hearts content.  When the second child comes along, he may find all available space is used and occupied by the first child.  So what does this second child do?  He kicks over every thing that the first child built and starts a new, a form of PvP.

To the previous poster who wanted confirmation on SWG.  Yes, it used an NPC called a faction recruiter to activate the PvP flag on the PvE servers.  SOE took along time activating structural decay.  I know that homes had a maintenance cost.  But I don’t believe they implemented structure being removed from the world, and their contents being stored until years after launch.  Speeder Bike mounts didn’t have decay for some time, even though the game did have garages for their repair.

The point is Developers are afraid of implementing a system of world renewal where developers are the cause.  A system where other players loot your gear, or destroy your village is ok with developers.  It takes the responsibility off their shoulders.

Let me add to the original question, how would you handle a SB, without structural decay or PvP damage?  What would you do for the player, that comes into the game years later after all the good building spots are taken?

My first thought for a world without decay would be to rely on natural disasters.  Fire, flood, earthquake, and such on a timely cycle.  If the structures are not maintained, then the are destroyed by nature.  New players can move in and make claims then build.  But this could be a slow process.  The player base may grow to resent it, protest, or leave.

Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.

24 Pages First « 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 » Last Search