Quote:
Originally Posted by Kergan
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
When I think of a fun sandbox, I think UO. But UO can never happen again, not in todays over-saturated kickstarter funded market. The beauty of UO is you had the innocent victims, the traders trying to sell their wares, the roleplayers, the harvesters...and they had no choice but to PVP. This opened up the possibility of playing as a true villain, and for people to play the hero.
The problem is nowadays anything with forced world PVP is going to be a niche game of people that only want to play the hero and villain. Remove the innocent victims the heroes claim to protect and the PKs want to gank and you end up with an arena style shoot 'em up game.
It's just a delicate balance that could only have happened when there were hardly any other choices - people were basically forced to play it if they wanted to participate in the genre.
|
I don't think I've ever considered this point exactly and it may be true. Somewhat.
I think you'd need a lure to bring in the innocents. Again the sandbox building style game. Look at EQ next and landmark. With arguably the best worldbuilder/minecraft style game out, EQ landmark is going to attract plenty of people who don't want to pvp.
Combine these two styles of game and you may be able to attract both players.
To Rick Flairs point, you do need progression and you could still have it easily with the ability to make expansive games that exists these days.