General Discussion

Thats a bit scewed as watching conflict is different then participating in it.  Besides PvE content is more like watching a movie then PvP conflict IMO.  People keep saying people will police themselves, but it seems to not happen generally.  Perhaps it does to an extent in EVE, but I don't play the game.  In Ultima Online it was pretty much chaos and people end up moving to Everquest/other games because of it.  Sadly people even try to greif you in a PVE game.  I was playing WoW on a PvE server and I've had a few times where players followed me around just to kill the NPCs for the quest I was doing so I couldn't get a quest or turn a quest in.  Pretty sad.

There is no difference between economic PvP, avatar PvP, or any other type of PvP.  It's all PvP.  People need to learn how to play multiplayer games from a detached, scientific perspective - games can be fun anytime you are learning something.

And if you think that someone won't get upset because you collapsed his virtual fortune instead of ganking his avatar from the rear, think again.

Originally posted by Meridion

Just wanted to state that sandbox style gameplay does not need free-looting, it does not need free PvP, it does not even need PvP at all.

Sandboxes can work without actually ever engaging in any form of combat. The problem is that most of the sandbox-fanatics are also hardcore competetive players, people that WANT to be able to kill, burn down, plunder and loot everything.

But looking at the concepts themselves, PvP is NOT necessary for a free sandbox game! Just wanted to let you know ^^

Meridion

Just so very true.

It is sad EVE Online. Only real sandbox , is so oriented towards war and killing.

Why there are no peacefull areas , peacefull professions?

Terraforming. Planetar turism. Producing lollypops for children on Terra Prime....

Anything that is not production of weapons!!!!

Originally posted by Impacatus

Originally posted by vinceh

Originally posted by Impacatus

I read your whole post, and all I got from it is you don't understand how games with those themes could work, and wouldn't want to play them.  Neither of these things invalidate what he said.

Oh hey look, a business game has even been done.

 

Are you playing that game?  How much the gaming community is playing that game?  Such a small number that it doesn't even matter?  Round 55 had about 1000 people?  I haven't heard of the game, and I'm pretty sure most of the people in these forums haven't heard of it either.  Obviously you missed when I said that obviously it would be nice to have a game with those themes, and I didn't say people haven't tried developing those kinds of games.  I'm not trying to say his views are invalid, I said they're irrelevant.  Maybe you can't understand reality?  I'm trying to communicate the truth of things, and you're saying I'm trying to attack his argument.  When in the beginning of the post I agreed with what he said. 

Yes it's a small game, but it's still a game.  For the record, I'm not playing it because I don't like the restart every round system.

Let's look at what you posted.

Sure, I think what you're saying makes SENSE. But is it really realistic? You're kind of going off into la-la land here.

I took this to mean you don't think games like that could be made.

You then go on to talk about the problems you see with these game types.  I won't quote it because it's too long.  You keep asking, "How would that be fun?"  I'm pretty sure this means you either don't understand how these games would work, and/or don't think you'd like them.  From this, I concluded you don't think those things are viable as genres for games.

Nope, that's not what I meant.  Maybe I should make it clear.  Yes, I WOULD understand how these games would work, but in order for it to portray the real concept of those themes he discussed, the game would need too much depth and complexity a game simple could not offer.  Maybe when I gave an example of how the game would work according to my perspective you didn't understand.  That is how I would see the game running if it were actually developed.  NOT because I do not know how it works, but because that's basically as much depth there can possibly be without either a ton of bugs/holes that can never be fixed, or some kind of total domination/overpowering players.  I absolutely agree with those genres for games, in fact, I await the day when a political MMORPG could be released. 

My point is, sure, a game where you put your leet business skills to the test would be great, or maybe even some sort of political game. But let's face it, there's only 2 possibilities. 1. The game is made to really reflect real life <- but this is impossible, because real life is too complicated to be simulated into a game. 2. The game is a dumbed down version of real-life, but then it'll suck because of the restrictions the game has put on the players in order for it to be playable.

This further indicates to me that you don't think that type of game would work.

That's why games set in the fantasy world where people killing monsters work - the concept is simple enough for devs to actually produce a playable and what some people might consider fun.

Compared to monster killing games, which work ok, according to you.

Actually, not according to me, but according to probably over 90% of the player base community that PLAY games that involve monster killing.  Apparently, you didn't catch my point here either.  I'm saying these games work BECAUSE they work on a level in which the devs can actually interpret into a game, a game with a system that works on rather simple mechanics and laws that are not easily broken.  Even then, we see these chart topping games with many major bugs/exploits. 

So really, I think the stuff you're saying is quite irrelavent.

Irrelevant to what?  This thread is titled, "Sandboxes don't need PvP, at all".  He made that post in argument to those who think they do.  Any evidence of the possibility of a sandbox without PvP is relevant.

Irrelevant in that, those types of games he discussed is purely in his imagination.  To actually go from thought -> real game, it would need to be dumbed down so much that it wouldn't really be "sandbox" anymore.  Look at AoC, look at how much they offered in their videos before launch.  Now look at how much they took out in order to make the game easier.  Complication = bugs/exploits = bad playability.  I'm not saying those games wouldn't be nice, but in the current state of the gaming industry (and probably valid for the near future), we don't have the tools to build a functional complex system that doesn't invovle horrible bugs/holes.  The science simulation would probably be the best example that could be well translated into a game, but like I said before, I don't see how that wouldn't involve some kind of killing/destruction, so that basically takes it out of the question since it would argue against his argument.

Sorry, sometimes the stuff I say might get a little harsh. But I just think even if a game based on business was developed, I wouldn't call it an MMO, even if it technically was, just like how I wouldn't call McDonalds food.

I can't think of how you expect that part to be taken, except as derogatory to the idea of business based mmos.  Your personal distaste of them does not make them less viable as a concept.

Anyways, that's how I took your post.  If I really misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

Really, this isn't about my personal taste.  Because if you were to actually hear my personal taste, I would be posting how much I would want different genre based games to be released.

The identical zeal you'd find in 'world of everclone' fans and the same delusions that every game must have this or that type that that developers have fallen into.

Originally posted by paulscott

The identical zeal you'd find in 'world of everclone' fans and the same delusions that every game must have this or that type that that developers have fallen into.

Which is pretty much the constaraints developers deal with on a daily basis and explains why we never seem to get anything new. Even Hello Kitty Online has bopping things over the head. How twisted is that?

People do all this talk about PvE Sandbox yet I dont see any of you lifting a finger to play A Tale in the Desert (which has no combat). There are many pve sandboxy games you can play right now.

Could it be those games suck? Nooooo, that couldn't be it right? Surely if you enjoyed the game, you'd be playing it instead of playing a game like EVE which is very pvp centric. Can't blame anyone put yourself for playing something you don't even enjoy

Truth is- most any game people complain about on these forums is out there in some format. If you want more games like what you want- then play the games that are near it.

I've seen in a recent article NCSoft wished Tabula Rasa hit EVE Online's subscription numbers. EVE players for sure showed devs we want more.

PVE wise you already have SEcond Life and A Tale in the Desert, Habbo Hotel, and many others. Why does it take a pvper like myself to show you guys there is already plenty of games that cater to what you want?

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Meridion

Just wanted to state that sandbox style gameplay does not need free-looting, it does not need free PvP, it does not even need PvP at all.

Sandboxes can work without actually ever engaging in any form of combat. The problem is that most of the sandbox-fanatics are also hardcore competetive players, people that WANT to be able to kill, burn down, plunder and loot everything.

But looking at the concepts themselves, PvP is NOT necessary for a free sandbox game! Just wanted to let you know ^^

Meridion

 

Just so very true.

 

It is sad EVE Online. Only real sandbox , is so oriented towards war and killing.

Why there are no peacefull areas , peacefull professions?

Terraforming. Planetar turism. Producing lollypops for children on Terra Prime....

Anything that is not production of weapons!!!!

No peaceful professions in EVE? Seriously? What are the bankers, researchers, and CEOs of Industrial corps doing? What about the miners; the traders? Salvagers?

You realize there are people that make careers out of refining?

All non-combat. That's the whole point to EVE, it can be near anything you want within the boundaries of the tech.

No, you cant start a tourist business or anything yet but who knows might be coming in the Ambulation expansion whereas there will be artists that tailor costumes and appearances (artistry)