Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

Um, ever heard of Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies? They weren't blank but they had fanstastic systems such as housing and crafting.

I understand your aversion to sandbox games but sometimes it seems you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

That is the problem. Most players can't create anything interesting.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?

"And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?"

lol is this seriously your come back? Right back at you. You can never give an opinion on this board any longer unless you've developed an MMO.

"And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?"

The blank world IS the attraction. You get to build cities and dungeons etc. You get to actually have an impact on the world. Build a city. Fight to keep that city safe. Craft items. Have a shop in town. Create a mage tower for training. People love doing that stuff. Look at minecraft. Most searched game on youtube for a long, long time now. Last I checked it was getting 14 million searches per month whereas COD4 was getting about 3 million.

Best part is you don't have to spend a lot of time creating content. You can put all that extra time into creating bad-ass systems for people to build with.

Problem is people are getting less smart and their creativity is suffering. Studies (u can google) have proven this. When growing up we had to use our imagination, go outside and find things to do. Now days everything is hand fed to you, and sit at home on the consoles. There is a huge difference from then til now.

They dont want to create anything, just have it thrown in their laps. They dont want to walk to explore, they want the content to come to them. They dont want to craft an item or pay for it, they want to loot it. and you could go on from there. Why i have always said mmo's today feel like console rpgs of yesterday.

Originally posted by madazz
[mod edit]

 Um no.  I don't think he has ever said once that a game should be made a certain way, ever.

He has only ever stated what he likes and why he likes it.

He has consistently told people that believe a game should be made a certain way that they are wrong, a game does not have to be a certain way.

Therefore he is actually less selfish than people who people an MMO has only one definition and needs to stick to it for any kind of value. 

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz
[mod edit]

 Um no.  I don't think he has ever said once that a game should be made a certain way, ever.

He has only ever stated what he likes and why he likes it.

He has consistently told people that believe a game should be made a certain way that they are wrong, a game does not have to be a certain way.

Therefore he is actually less selfish than people who people an MMO has only one definition and needs to stick to it for any kind of value. 

[mod edit]

 I think I've read all his responses.

Typically it goes this way.  A poster will say a game should be like this and he says why?

A poster will say this game needs this and he says why?

He has never said a game or MMO should be of any particular design.  I don't feel he thinks games should be one way, in fact he has stated numerous times that they can and should be multiple ways however he has also stated the type of games he LIKES.  Never stated they SHOULD be that way.  Has consistently asked WHY they should be that way.

So yes.  He is less selfish because the doesn't feel that they should be just one way as you imply.  He consistently argues against people who say they should be one way.

Again the biggest question he always asks is "Why"  Why should they be made that way.  He often says most people won't enjoy it, but he consistenly goes against people stating a game should be a certain way. 

Anyone saying a game should be a certain way is selfish.  He argues against that therefore he is less selfish than those others.

 

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

That is the problem. Most players can't create anything interesting.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?

"And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?"

lol is this seriously your come back? Right back at you. You can never give an opinion on this board any longer unless you've developed an MMO.

"And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?"

The blank world IS the attraction. You get to build cities and dungeons etc. You get to actually have an impact on the world. Build a city. Fight to keep that city safe. Craft items. Have a shop in town. Create a mage tower for training. People love doing that stuff. Look at minecraft. Most searched game on youtube for a long, long time now. Last I checked it was getting 14 million searches per month whereas COD4 was getting about 3 million.

Best part is you don't have to spend a lot of time creating content. You can put all that extra time into creating bad-ass systems for people to build with.

Problem is people are getting less smart and their creativity is suffering. Studies (u can google) have proven this. When growing up we had to use our imagination, go outside and find things to do. Now days everything is hand fed to you, and sit at home on the consoles. There is a huge difference from then til now.

They dont want to create anything, just have it thrown in their laps. They dont want to walk to explore, they want the content to come to them. They dont want to craft an item or pay for it, they want to loot it. and you could go on from there. Why i have always said mmo's today feel like console rpgs of yesterday.

I agree people are getting seriously lazy with all the instant everything now days, but I still think the game could thrive. The real tricky part would be enabling people to do awesome stuff, but not have some super insane grind to get it to work. I think if you have some soft progression in the game for things it can work.

Take travel for example. When you first log in you'll have to walk. Eventually with enough gold or if your character can tame horses you use a horse. Then maybe when you master some travel spells (if you spend time studying magic) you can do some limited teleportation. Maybe at super end game, you could become a lich, and while you have some uber draw backs (would have to make up some) you would have some serious travel powers.

But I think it would be a lot of fun to have a game release an expansion pack that adds no content other than new systems for people to screw around with. Like the lich system would probably be something added in an xpac.

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz
[mod edit]

 Um no.  I don't think he has ever said once that a game should be made a certain way, ever.

He has only ever stated what he likes and why he likes it.

He has consistently told people that believe a game should be made a certain way that they are wrong, a game does not have to be a certain way.

Therefore he is actually less selfish than people who people an MMO has only one definition and needs to stick to it for any kind of value. 

[mod edit]

 I think I've read all his responses.

Typically it goes this way.  A poster will say a game should be like this and he says why?

A poster will say this game needs this and he says why?

He has never said a game or MMO should be of any particular design.  I don't feel he thinks games should be one way, in fact he has stated numerous times that they can and should be multiple ways however he has also stated the type of games he LIKES.  Never stated they SHOULD be that way.  Has consistently asked WHY they should be that way.

So yes.  He is less selfish because the doesn't feel that they should be just one way as you imply.  He consistently argues against people who say they should be one way.

Again the biggest question he always asks is "Why"  Why should they be made that way.  He often says most people won't enjoy it, but he consistenly goes against people stating a game should be a certain way. 

Anyone saying a game should be a certain way is selfish.  He argues against that therefore he is less selfish than those others.

 

Read his posts and come back.

 I regularly read these boards and thus his posts.

Actually I find you are arguing far more than he is stating that games should be a certain way.

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by nethervoid

Designing a sandbox is really quite easy. All you have to do is create a blank world and systems where players can create things in the world. Then sit back and watch.

It really is that easy.

That is the problem. Most players can't create anything interesting.

And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?

And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?

"And you sound like "creating a blank world and systems" is easy. Why don't you show us how it is done?"

lol is this seriously your come back? Right back at you. You can never give an opinion on this board any longer unless you've developed an MMO.

"And how do you attract anyone to "a blank world"?"

The blank world IS the attraction. You get to build cities and dungeons etc. You get to actually have an impact on the world. Build a city. Fight to keep that city safe. Craft items. Have a shop in town. Create a mage tower for training. People love doing that stuff. Look at minecraft. Most searched game on youtube for a long, long time now. Last I checked it was getting 14 million searches per month whereas COD4 was getting about 3 million.

Best part is you don't have to spend a lot of time creating content. You can put all that extra time into creating bad-ass systems for people to build with.

Problem is people are getting less smart and their creativity is suffering. Studies (u can google) have proven this. When growing up we had to use our imagination, go outside and find things to do. Now days everything is hand fed to you, and sit at home on the consoles. There is a huge difference from then til now.

They dont want to create anything, just have it thrown in their laps. They dont want to walk to explore, they want the content to come to them. They dont want to craft an item or pay for it, they want to loot it. and you could go on from there. Why i have always said mmo's today feel like console rpgs of yesterday.

Yeh .. because that is how many wants their entertainment. There is a reason why console RPG is what they are today. There is a reason why MMO are what they are today. You are stating the reason.

But why is this a "problem"? I enjoy movies. I don't see why i should be creative and make one. Professional devs, artists, writeres have much better imagination than us. We are better at our own jobs. That is the perfect example of division of labor. Let the pro make the games, and we should just play.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz
[mod edit]

 Um no.  I don't think he has ever said once that a game should be made a certain way, ever.

He has only ever stated what he likes and why he likes it.

He has consistently told people that believe a game should be made a certain way that they are wrong, a game does not have to be a certain way.

Therefore he is actually less selfish than people who people an MMO has only one definition and needs to stick to it for any kind of value. 

[mod edit]

 I think I've read all his responses.

Typically it goes this way.  A poster will say a game should be like this and he says why?

A poster will say this game needs this and he says why?

He has never said a game or MMO should be of any particular design.  I don't feel he thinks games should be one way, in fact he has stated numerous times that they can and should be multiple ways however he has also stated the type of games he LIKES.  Never stated they SHOULD be that way.  Has consistently asked WHY they should be that way.

So yes.  He is less selfish because the doesn't feel that they should be just one way as you imply.  He consistently argues against people who say they should be one way.

Again the biggest question he always asks is "Why"  Why should they be made that way.  He often says most people won't enjoy it, but he consistenly goes against people stating a game should be a certain way. 

Anyone saying a game should be a certain way is selfish.  He argues against that therefore he is less selfish than those others.

 

Read his posts and come back.

 I regularly read these boards and thus his posts.

Actually I find you are arguing far more than he is stating that games should be a certain way.

Yeah, he is putting words into my mouth. Let me be very clear about my position.

1) I like game certain ways (which i am not going to repeat), and I am not shy about it. D3 is the game i enjoyed most in the past few years.

2) I don't think *all* games should be made in the way i like. Very simply, i don't have the time to play so many games anyway. So what do i care if some are made not for me?

3) I do enjoy multiple game types (action combat focus, stealth ...) .. just not boring 20 min boat ride virtual worlds. Heck, how can anyone say i want games to be all the same when i enjoy D3, and WOT, and Dishonored, which are totally different types of games?

4) Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new and different gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMOs need a virtual world.

 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Yeah, he is putting words into my mouth. Let me be very clear about my position.

1) I like game certain ways (which i am not going to repeat), and I am not shy about it. D3 is the game i enjoyed most in the past few years.

2) I don't think *all* games should be made in the way i like. Very simply, i don't have the time to play so many games anyway. So what do i care if some are made not for me?

3) I do enjoy multiple game types (action combat focus, stealth ...) .. just not boring 20 min boat ride virtual worlds. Heck, how can anyone say i want games to be all the same when i enjoy D3, and WOT, and Dishonored, which are totally different types of games?

4) Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new and different gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMOs need a virtual world.

 

I think the point most people would make about 4 is those are not really MMOs. If they have a lobby and you create games of like 10 to 20 from the lobby, it's not an MMO. That's a COD style game. COD is definitely not an MMO.

MMOs have certain traits. None of the games you mentioned I would consider MMOs, and I also play WoT. I'm not saying those games shouldn't exist, but they also are not MMOs. Those games are in different catagories with different attributes than games like UO, EQ, EVE, SWTOR, WoW, etc.

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Yeah, he is putting words into my mouth. Let me be very clear about my position.

1) I like game certain ways (which i am not going to repeat), and I am not shy about it. D3 is the game i enjoyed most in the past few years.

2) I don't think *all* games should be made in the way i like. Very simply, i don't have the time to play so many games anyway. So what do i care if some are made not for me?

3) I do enjoy multiple game types (action combat focus, stealth ...) .. just not boring 20 min boat ride virtual worlds. Heck, how can anyone say i want games to be all the same when i enjoy D3, and WOT, and Dishonored, which are totally different types of games?

4) Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new and different gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMOs need a virtual world.

 

I think the point most people would make about 4 is those are not really MMOs. If they have a lobby and you create games of like 10 to 20 from the lobby, it's not an MMO. That's a COD style game. COD is definitely not an MMO.

MMOs have certain traits. None of the games you mentioned I would consider MMOs, and I also play WoT. I'm not saying those games shouldn't exist, but they also are not MMOs. Those games are in different catagories with different attributes than games like UO, EQ, EVE, SWTOR, WoW, etc.

I love how it's a thread about sandboxes for people who want to play them, and he comes in and states some of us are too narrow minded and that we should not dismiss lobby's and arenas. Problem is, Lobbys and Areans do not go with sandboxes! He wants a different game. Nothing wrong with that. But it goes against what this entire thread is about.

People can argue here all they want for the game they think should be made. Fact is there are people deciding the fate of millions of dollars and they get to make the actual decision because their company and livelihood depend on it.

The "facts" are in plain sight. Sandbox "ish" games are coming because the themepark well has run dry. There are many shades of gray though when you speak of MMO features and labels. Just be happy that companies are still willing to make new MMOs despite the dismal state of their sales as of late. Thank WoW as well, if it wasn't for thier large, steady numbers many companies may have packed up thier unknown project. I'm sure some have already.

Originally posted by nethervoid

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Yeah, he is putting words into my mouth. Let me be very clear about my position.

1) I like game certain ways (which i am not going to repeat), and I am not shy about it. D3 is the game i enjoyed most in the past few years.

2) I don't think *all* games should be made in the way i like. Very simply, i don't have the time to play so many games anyway. So what do i care if some are made not for me?

3) I do enjoy multiple game types (action combat focus, stealth ...) .. just not boring 20 min boat ride virtual worlds. Heck, how can anyone say i want games to be all the same when i enjoy D3, and WOT, and Dishonored, which are totally different types of games?

4) Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new and different gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMOs need a virtual world.

 

I think the point most people would make about 4 is those are not really MMOs. If they have a lobby and you create games of like 10 to 20 from the lobby, it's not an MMO. That's a COD style game. COD is definitely not an MMO.

MMOs have certain traits. None of the games you mentioned I would consider MMOs, and I also play WoT. I'm not saying those games shouldn't exist, but they also are not MMOs. Those games are in different catagories with different attributes than games like UO, EQ, EVE, SWTOR, WoW, etc.

MMO is just a label. Label changes its meaning all the time. Some may think that WOT, Gundam capsule fighter, D3, LOL are not MMOs .. but

a) they are listed, and discuss on this stie, and

b) MMO is a convenient label.

If you like, i can restate 4) as ...

.. Some of the virtual world MMOs fans are too narrow minded, and dismiss new type of hybrid games with some MMO features and other gameplay style like lobby and arenas. Not all MMO like game need a virtual world.

Originally posted by jpnz

 

One of the most frequent topic on this forum is the whole 'we love sandbox MMOs. Give us sandbox / MMO going in the wrong direction / OMG sandbox are teh winz!!'' which always results in someone (sometimes myself sometimes not) asking 'sandbox lovers are the minority when it comes to MMO and $$$ it generates. Sorry that you have less choice than themepark games'

The discussion usually dies at that point because that's a factual statement and you can't really debate against it. You can but it tends to be not that fruitful as you really need some proof to argue against a factual statement and there aren't any proof.

 

 

How would you even know, since there arent any big budget sandbox mmorpgs. However there are a ton of big budget themepark mmorpgs, and almost every one of those are not that succesfull. Just because WoW is helluva succesfull mmorpg and the reason why so many failed themepark games exist today does not mean that sandbox games cannot be succesfull.

 

What this situation calls for is people stop stupid debates between these two entirely different mindsets and game styles. And what the industry needs is a one single big budget well made sandbox game (where your character is not a little space ship) so we actually can even see if it appeals to anyone or not, which is impossible to say currently with these low budget crap looking half-games that does not even get marketed anywhere.

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz
[mod edit]

 Um no.  I don't think he has ever said once that a game should be made a certain way, ever.

He has only ever stated what he likes and why he likes it.

He has consistently told people that believe a game should be made a certain way that they are wrong, a game does not have to be a certain way.

Therefore he is actually less selfish than people who people an MMO has only one definition and needs to stick to it for any kind of value. 

[mod edit]

 I think I've read all his responses.

Typically it goes this way.  A poster will say a game should be like this and he says why?

A poster will say this game needs this and he says why?

He has never said a game or MMO should be of any particular design.  I don't feel he thinks games should be one way, in fact he has stated numerous times that they can and should be multiple ways however he has also stated the type of games he LIKES.  Never stated they SHOULD be that way.  Has consistently asked WHY they should be that way.

So yes.  He is less selfish because the doesn't feel that they should be just one way as you imply.  He consistently argues against people who say they should be one way.

Again the biggest question he always asks is "Why"  Why should they be made that way.  He often says most people won't enjoy it, but he consistenly goes against people stating a game should be a certain way. 

Anyone saying a game should be a certain way is selfish.  He argues against that therefore he is less selfish than those others.

 

Read his posts and come back.

 I regularly read these boards and thus his posts.

Actually I find you are arguing far more than he is stating that games should be a certain way.

[mod edit]

 I took your advice and when through about 3 years of both your post history.  I will retract my statement about you saying games should be made a certain way.  You didn't argue that they should be made a certain way within that timeframe.

However within that timeframe neither has Nari.  Again he has only stated what he likes, what he would and would not play  and whenever someone does a MMO's should be this he says no and argues that they should not be a specific design.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by madazz
[mod edit]

 Um no.  I don't think he has ever said once that a game should be made a certain way, ever.

He has only ever stated what he likes and why he likes it.

He has consistently told people that believe a game should be made a certain way that they are wrong, a game does not have to be a certain way.

Therefore he is actually less selfish than people who people an MMO has only one definition and needs to stick to it for any kind of value. 

[mod edit]

 I think I've read all his responses.

Typically it goes this way.  A poster will say a game should be like this and he says why?

A poster will say this game needs this and he says why?

He has never said a game or MMO should be of any particular design.  I don't feel he thinks games should be one way, in fact he has stated numerous times that they can and should be multiple ways however he has also stated the type of games he LIKES.  Never stated they SHOULD be that way.  Has consistently asked WHY they should be that way.

So yes.  He is less selfish because the doesn't feel that they should be just one way as you imply.  He consistently argues against people who say they should be one way.

Again the biggest question he always asks is "Why"  Why should they be made that way.  He often says most people won't enjoy it, but he consistenly goes against people stating a game should be a certain way. 

Anyone saying a game should be a certain way is selfish.  He argues against that therefore he is less selfish than those others.

 

Read his posts and come back.

 I regularly read these boards and thus his posts.

Actually I find you are arguing far more than he is stating that games should be a certain way.

[mod edit]

 I took your advice and when through about 3 years of both your post history.  I will retract my statement about you saying games should be made a certain way.  You didn't argue that they should be made a certain way within that timeframe.

However within that timeframe neither has Nari.  Again he has only stated what he likes, what he would and would not play  and whenever someone does a MMO's should be this he says no and argues that they should not be a specific design.

Though we disagree, you have a TON of my respect. Thank you. I will STFU and withdraw. This thread has got out of hand and much of it is due to me.

The number one way to make a successful sandbox game. Freedom to play the way you want and build your character the way you want! That is make the game to caters to everyone as far as gameplay goes. Make a world for everyone. It is possible and has been done before but todays games focus to much on one feature and take away the freedom of sandbox games.

Originally posted by Thorbrand
The number one way to make a successful sandbox game. Freedom to play the way you want and build your character the way you want! That is make the game to caters to everyone as far as gameplay goes. Make a world for everyone. It is possible and has been done before but todays games focus to much on one feature and take away the freedom of sandbox games.

Paradoxically, a virtual world game without cross server functionalities sometimes is detrimental to freedom.

Examples:

1) The way i want to play is to jump into a dungeon right now and hack some bosses. A virtual world game (without fast travel) requires me to walk  20 min before that can happen.

2) The way i want to play is to play with my friend who has a character on a different server. I cannot play with him unless there is some cross server fucntionalities.

If you true freedom, a sandbox may not be enough .. you also need additional group forming functionality like x-server and stuff like that.

 

I don't label them Sandbox or anything else,i label it a MMORPG as should be.We are trying to roleplay a character class and the game needs to create the living world.There are very complicated ways to create a realistic world liek adding mobile npc's with various changes,choices and an ECO system.

Instead most every dev sticks to what is EASY and cheap to design,a bunch of triggered quests that lead you in a linear direction.That is not RPG gaming, i really don't knwo what it is but it is not a mmorpg.

Once you attach a LINEAR pre planned route for gamers to follow,you remove the tag RPG.I am quite sure developers "GET IT" but they don't want to for sake of creating a cheaper ,easier game.

There are tons of other concepts that have been around awhile and we don't see them either,like destructive surfaces have been around since Red Faction [years ago].We have the WII showing us human interaction and Physx gives us the realistic physics.Very old games used mobile npcs and eco systems,but for some reasopn nobody wants to put out the effort.

So the ONLY question you need ask yourself is "Do i really want to support al lthese half ass efforts" just because i am bored and need a game toi play?Stop supporting them and changes will come about.Even if we need to have 90% of the developers fold up shop it helps the MMORPG's in the long run because only the good creative ones survive.

Originally posted by jpnz

 One of the most frequent topic on this forum is the whole 'we love sandbox MMOs. Give us sandbox / MMO going in the wrong direction / OMG sandbox are teh winz!!'' which always results in someone (sometimes myself sometimes not) asking 'sandbox lovers are the minority when it comes to MMO and $$$ it generates. Sorry that you have less choice than themepark games'

Tending to think themepark is more pick and go and instantly go and slay a dragon online, whereas sandbox, is more read the manual and see if you are doing simple actions right, if so, carry on learning how everything is supposed to work and don't run out of fuel in an isolated star system!

So by design, one is more mainstream and the other is more niche?

 Originally posted by jpnz

Question is, how does a sandbox game appeal more towards the mainstream gamers? I'm not talking about LFG or instant teleport or raid-or-die, that's the sticky thread. I'm talking about more basic fundamental stuff.

As above, I think the more gamification you make it the more it will be accessible to a mainstream sensibility?

Originally posted by jpnz

I play games mostly because I want to be told a good story. That's my preference. Give me a game with awful game mechanics but a good story and I'll buy/play that.

It always interested me that 'sandbox MMOs' tend to have bad story/char or a story/char that is irrevelent to the players (I'm looking at you EVE-Online!). This is why 'Sandbox MMOs' don't appeal to me all that much. Has nothing to do with it being hard or forced grouping or w/e. 

A single player game you have a single-story line of the hero. A mmo, this makes less sense, so different personal stories have been done in GW2 or SWTOR but they are limited to a player and companions aren't they? Compare this to EvE which has emergent story from territory control. Ie an actor in a story where events happen to the player compared to a story involving different populations that shape events of the story.

I think there may be 2 ways to add story to sandbox: 1. microscope type stories that are all over the place and more like hooks to fuel the player's imagination about things that inform about the virtual world or otherwise are as already commented modules from devs that perhaps are instanced areas tailored towards narrative story. 2. Deus Ex story that the devs somehow implement that potentially influences the emergent story of the sandbox rules.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Apraxis

Hmm.. first of all. The game designer were almost always in another age. And yeah, we have other passions, and think about a lot of things differently. But that a alone dont mean, that what we liked dont fit for them at the core.

Publishers used to design games around roleplaying, for the tiny niche of the general population that really enjoyed that.

Then, around 2004 plus or minus, the rest of the gaming market arrived...LOLRP was their most typical response.  Some of them only make responses in foreign languages--I claim no psychic powers about what they might want.  But clearly, for this much bigger market, a game designed around roleplaying will not do the job, regardless of how much I enjoyed it in the wayback...they (the vast majority) didn't do any PnP at all, nor do they want to.

It would be like asking my kid to put down his mp3 player and enjoy this vinyl record album.  I can talk him into listening, maybe, but I really can't alter what he enjoys.  And It isn't Peter Frampton (this album sold gobs when I was a teen--'you're insane old man' glance).

Gamers are still continuing to arrive.

We typically espouse not adaptation, not innovation, but a devolvement towards older models of games. We're a force actively seeking to hold back evolution.

(Don't be fooled by those threads decrying lack of innovation, when the same fellow writes another thread ten minutes later about how cool EQ or UO was, why can't we make games like that any more?)

Exactly the case.  Whereas many older gamers (of which I am one) used to play PnP games and initially came to MMOs as a means of moving from the PnP analog world to the digital world, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people who currently play MMOs did not come from that era and that more and more people are coming to MMOs who were never alive when PnP gaming was at it's height.  The fact is, had MMO developers only made games to appeal to former PnP gamers, the genre would have died a long, long time ago.  The only thing that has kept *ANY* MMOs around, much less the explosion of MMOs that we see today, is the fact that developers were willing to move away from the roots of the genre and adapt games for the mainstream audience.

Virtually nobody wants to play a game like UO or EQ today, even if they were updated with today's graphics.  People need to accept the reality that actually is rather than the fantasy world they wish was.