…but I don’t have any time. So those kids that have it get to beat me even if I could play better. =( Why is having time better than having skill in … a game? =)

(I don’t know why, but the comment shows badly in the preview, although I double-checked the html and it seems correct)

Suffice it to say that any persistent setting wherein the winner keeps racking up higher and higher scores is going to reveal a power law distribution of wins, which means that the average player will be below average, which means that they’ll usually have bad experiences, which means they’ll quit, which means that there’s a reason why the treadmill exists even though it sucks.

I’m dumb. I read the it the first time and I thought it was a brilliant summary going straight to the point while instead I often walk around endlessly only trying to get it. Then I read it a second time and I forgot the sense.

Why there’s a “reason why the treadmill exists” in that context?

I touched a few points about the reasons why levels do not suck here. But I suspect that what you say here is that they can be needed in order to give the player the artificial illusion of being good and improving at playing the game.

Also, rereading what I read after you link it I just noticed how I completely go off-track in the middle, losing focus on what actually mattered. I was planning to write a follow up after the discussion on Q23. A few basic points I isolated were:

“Exclusive choices”:

You cannot have detailed character customization if you want large battles.
You cannot have a satisfying and deep character progression if you want “skill” to matter.
You cannot have persistent, huge environments if you want the situation to remain accessible for everyone.

My thesis is that the online FPS have already available all the persistence and complexity they need. So I don’t see how the “MMO” part could contribute with something worthwhile.

By your definition, a sandbox could exist, and may even be able to exist in a licensed world. I guess my worry about sandboxes with licensed games comes from the ability of players to affect the integrity of the license, but if it’s a sandbox on a broad scale, it could work.

I didn’t intend to argue that sandboxes can’t exist. If I remember correctly, I said “it’s a world that probably can’t exist” after describing what a sandbox was. I will say that a “pure” sandbox MMOG probably can’t exist, at least by the definition I tend to use (basically, in a world in which players have far too much control than is sane).

I also mentioned that you can create at list partial sandboxes, although they’ll likely never be sandboxes in the purest form. There’s a sandbox aspect to a number of games already, and I’d really like to see them developed further.

I guess the question is, “how far?” How much do you define for players before letting them loose? How free do you let them roam? Do you let them create tangible assets for the world? I suppose our definitions of “sandbox” are different (mine is a seemingly stricter black & white definition).

For what it’s worth, I love freedom in MMOGs. Players hate being restricted, at least artificially. I have a post I’ve been mulling over for a while about artificial restrictions and how much they annoy me, but I’m not quite sure when I’ll get it finished up with the holidays here and me headed out of town.

Anyway, I do like sandboxes. I think they have amazing potential if we do one right, but I’m trying to find out what the right way to make one is. And to take a quick stab at you (pls dont keel me thx), I don’t think a sandbox should use a license, because it is too easy to destroy someone’s preconceptions with that sort of game.