Why must we have Sandbox MMORPGs and Themepark MMORPGs?

nickelpat

 It's a question that I've been asking myself. What's the point? Each game offers it's own set of features, and the decision if those constitute it as a sandbox or themepark is very subjective.

I ask because, we don't have types of FPS games. We have one, a shooter, with a first person camera perspective. There's no "Realistic FPS" and "Arcade FPS" that are roughly, and subjectively decided. Sure, some offer FEATURES that make them more arcadey, but they're not shoehorned into their own category. Why must we do it with MMORPGs?

EVE, it offers a skill based system, and player controlled... everything, along with some harsh death penalties.

Darkfall, offers a skill based system, FFA PvP, and a fast paced combat system. Along with this the PvP is full loot and there are player built cities.

World of Warcraft, offers structured, guided, quest chains and slower combat. It appeal to a wide group and has minimal graphics, meaning most computer can play it. It offers most staples of the genre in a solid package.

Lord of the Rings Online, also has very structured quest lines, although it also puts forth a story. It, again, offers many of the staples, although the PvP is quite different and the graphics are much better than World of Warcraft. It appeals to a smaller audience, albeit not a niche game.

Star Wars Galaxies, offers a screwed up experience that was much better years ago. Please, look at Swgemu.com first.

Why can't we just organize games that way? I find it better than:

EVE is a sandbox. Poster 2: No it's not! It has structured quests!--Poster 3: It IS a sandbox, quests don't make it NOT a sandbox.--Poster 4: The skill training is stupid--Poster 5: You're all gay n00bs.

Darkfall is a sandbox. Poster 2: No, it's not! There's no housing and you can only progress through combat!--Poster 3: Not true, I've progressed through crafting alone myself--Poster 4: And I've progressed through the economy alone.

These are just poor, poor examples. I think I get my point through though. Instead of debating the meaning of sandbox and themepark and arguing which game is which, why not just put their features forth as MMORPGs. Those features are what defines them as sandbox and themepark anyways, why must we wrap them into one word?

 

Thank You,

 

 - Eric

MIchael-333

An MMO Feature Index would be lovely if done right: a list of major features found in MMOs along with either yes/no, or some kind of quantified scale indicating the extent to which each feature is found in the game, or even the quality of implimentation. Such a system would also need to list and describe the 'unique' features of a game because many MMOs have at least one feature that is unique and/or rarely seen among the genre. Lastly, it would need to be something that was completed by a third-party critic organization rather than the game developers to prevent bias.  

I would love to get away from the sandbox/themepark dichotomy. The constructs are amorphous, undefined, and misunderstood. Furthermore, we as gamers don't seem able to agree with any all-encompassing definition of these terms, so trying to use them as a system of snapshot game-classification simply does not work. Also, I believe that if a feature index actually came into wide use, it would be a great way for developers to know where the genre has and has not been in terms of creativity and feature chemistry.

nickelpat

 Exactly! A Feature Index would be a great help, especially if we/they did invite developers. This way they could bring forth their MMO, as to not mix any. I would love to see a project like this.

metalhead980

Honestly just grouping them up in two categories like Open Ended and Linear would be much better.

People get the wrong idea with the term sandbox and themepark was a term made up by the sandbox guys to poke fun at the linear games like WoW.

It's easy

Open Ended = Open world where the player chooses his/her own path/progression (UO, EvE, Ryzom, DF, FE)

Linear = Quests lead player from zone to zone to an "endgame". (WoW, EQ2, Lotro, WAR, AoC, Aion)

Every other feature could be shared between the two.

 

nickelpat

Originally posted by metalhead980


Honestly just grouping them up in two categories like Open Ended and Linear would be much better.


People get the wrong idea with the term sandbox and themepark was a term made up by the sandbox guys to poke fun at the linear games like WoW.





It's easy


Open Ended = Open world where the player chooses his/her own path/progression (UO, EvE, Ryzom, DF, FE)


Linear = Quests lead player from zone to zone to an "endgame". (WoW, EQ2, Lotro, WAR, AoC, Aion)





Every other feature could be shared between the two.
 

It's a good idea, but then more issues come into view. Would Champions Online be open-ended? It has has open skill-based progression but, no doubt there's quite a guided, linear view.

metalhead980

Originally posted by nickelpat

Originally posted by metalhead980


Honestly just grouping them up in two categories like Open Ended and Linear would be much better.


People get the wrong idea with the term sandbox and themepark was a term made up by the sandbox guys to poke fun at the linear games like WoW.





It's easy


Open Ended = Open world where the player chooses his/her own path/progression (UO, EvE, Ryzom, DF, FE)


Linear = Quests lead player from zone to zone to an "endgame". (WoW, EQ2, Lotro, WAR, AoC, Aion)





Every other feature could be shared between the two.
 

It's a good idea, but then more issues come into view. Would Champions Online be open-ended? It has has open skill-based progression but, no doubt there's quite a guided, linear view.

 

I havent played CO myself but How is the progression system? Do you basically follow quests from zone to zone until you hit cap and then the game hits that "Endgame"? Or do you have access to 100% of the world right away and get to choose how and if you progress through it?

Death1942

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by nickelpat

Originally posted by metalhead980


Honestly just grouping them up in two categories like Open Ended and Linear would be much better.


People get the wrong idea with the term sandbox and themepark was a term made up by the sandbox guys to poke fun at the linear games like WoW.





It's easy


Open Ended = Open world where the player chooses his/her own path/progression (UO, EvE, Ryzom, DF, FE)


Linear = Quests lead player from zone to zone to an "endgame". (WoW, EQ2, Lotro, WAR, AoC, Aion)





Every other feature could be shared between the two.
 

It's a good idea, but then more issues come into view. Would Champions Online be open-ended? It has has open skill-based progression but, no doubt there's quite a guided, linear view.

 

I havent played CO myself but How is the progression system? Do you basically follow quests from zone to zone until you hit cap and then the game hits that "Endgame"? Or do you have access to 100% of the world right away and get to choose how and if you progress through it?

zone to zone.  Pretty sure you have full access to the whole world but i could be wrong.

Quirhid

Linear versus open-ended sounds just as bad. Come to think of it, any kind of binary system is horrible.

metalhead980

Originally posted by Death1942

Originally posted by metalhead980

Originally posted by nickelpat

Originally posted by metalhead980


Honestly just grouping them up in two categories like Open Ended and Linear would be much better.


People get the wrong idea with the term sandbox and themepark was a term made up by the sandbox guys to poke fun at the linear games like WoW.





It's easy


Open Ended = Open world where the player chooses his/her own path/progression (UO, EvE, Ryzom, DF, FE)


Linear = Quests lead player from zone to zone to an "endgame". (WoW, EQ2, Lotro, WAR, AoC, Aion)





Every other feature could be shared between the two.
 

It's a good idea, but then more issues come into view. Would Champions Online be open-ended? It has has open skill-based progression but, no doubt there's quite a guided, linear view.

 

I havent played CO myself but How is the progression system? Do you basically follow quests from zone to zone until you hit cap and then the game hits that "Endgame"? Or do you have access to 100% of the world right away and get to choose how and if you progress through it?

zone to zone.  Pretty sure you have full access to the whole world but i could be wrong.

If its zone to zone then the progression system is linear but since the character advancement system is skill based to sound cool you could call your game a Hybrid so you wont have to lump it with the WoW crowd.

metalhead980

Originally posted by Quirhid


Linear versus open-ended sounds just as bad. Come to think of it, any kind of binary system is horrible.

 

It's alot better than calling something a sandbox tbh.

When people refer to a sandbox they think of an empty game with only user created content and thats all. This gets confusing since sandbox games of today have quests, raids and even pvp areas.

When saying A game is Open Ended you look at two aspects of a game only Character and Game progression.

This avoids the "But the game isn't FFA pvp so its not a sandbox" or "this game has quests so it must be a themepark" problems we seem to be running into alot these days.

Axehilt

"I ask because, we don't have types of FPS games. We have one, a shooter, with a first person camera perspective. There's no "Realistic FPS" and "Arcade FPS" that are roughly, and subjectively decided."

This just isn't true.  At the very least you have a split between Tactical ("realistic" shooters with 1- or 2-shot kills) and Action FPSes.  RTSes are similarly subdivided.

If you talk a lot about FPSes or RTSes, you subdivide the types of games.   Just like MMORPGs and MMORPG.com discussions (It's extremely rare to see MMORPGs described as sandbox/themepark outside of MMORPG.com.)

They're vague labels though.  Genres are vague, and sub-genres are vague.  And in other genres you correctly see players not fixating on what is/isn't a game in "Genre X" or "Sub-genre Y".

Counterstrike isn't wholly a Tactical shooter, nor is it wholly an Action shooter.  Players don't bother discussing it in those terms because it doesn't really matter.  The sub-genres are just to speak vaguely on a subject like, "I prefer Action FPSes."   When someone says, "I like Action FPSes and I play Counterstrike" nobody gives them crap about CS having tactical shooter elements -- but in a MMORPG discussion you would see someone stand up and worry about that sort of thing.

In short:

Sub-genres will always exist, but MMORPG players need to give them exactly as much consideration as they deserve: not a whole lot.

Scot

“It's extremely rare to see MMORPGs described as sandbox/themepark outside of MMORPG.com.”

True but I have seen it used more often recently as PR types pick up on the fact that they can try to appeal to sandbox inclined players. This is done by hyping up some element of their game which is vaguely sandbox and trying to pass of the whole game as sandbox on this pretext.

Plasuma!!!

Originally posted by Axehilt


"I ask because, we don't have types of FPS games. We have one, a shooter, with a first person camera perspective. There's no "Realistic FPS" and "Arcade FPS" that are roughly, and subjectively decided."
This just isn't true.  At the very least you have a split between Tactical ("realistic" shooters with 1- or 2-shot kills) and Action FPSes.  RTSes are similarly subdivided.
If you talk a lot about FPSes or RTSes, you subdivide the types of games.   Just like MMORPGs and MMORPG.com discussions (It's extremely rare to see MMORPGs described as sandbox/themepark outside of MMORPG.com.)
They're vague labels though.  Genres are vague, and sub-genres are vague.  And in other genres you correctly see players not fixating on what is/isn't a game in "Genre X" or "Sub-genre Y".
Counterstrike isn't wholly a Tactical shooter, nor is it wholly an Action shooter.  Players don't bother discussing it in those terms because it doesn't really matter.  The sub-genres are just to speak vaguely on a subject like, "I prefer Action FPSes."   When someone says, "I like Action FPSes and I play Counterstrike" nobody gives them crap about CS having tactical shooter elements -- but in a MMORPG discussion you would see someone stand up and worry about that sort of thing.
In short:

Sub-genres will always exist, but MMORPG players need to give them exactly as much consideration as they deserve: not a whole lot.

 

QFT

decoy26517

I love themeparks! Waterworld was awesome! 

Toddv1

The problem you're having is trying to define a genre (or sub-genre, if you will) by it's features.  That would be a mistake.

The thing that makes a sandbox is it's open-endedness.  It's "endgame" isn't 100% about conquering whatever content the developers put there for you.  It's about doing what you want to do.

A themepark is mostly about raiding.  Sure you can craft and PvP, but you can do that at level 1.  The endgame that everyone's trying to conquer is the content that the developer is churning out.

These are pretty simple to understand.

And, just to clear it up, CO is a themepark.  Developer-generated content is the endgame, despite how they hype the nemeses as user-created.

SignusM

Originally posted by nickelpat


 It's a question that I've been asking myself. What's the point? Each game offers it's own set of features, and the decision if those constitute it as a sandbox or themepark is very subjective.
I ask because, we don't have types of FPS games. We have one, a shooter, with a first person camera perspective. There's no "Realistic FPS" and "Arcade FPS" that are roughly, and subjectively decided. Sure, some offer FEATURES that make them more arcadey, but they're not shoehorned into their own category. Why must we do it with MMORPGs?
EVE, it offers a skill based system, and player controlled... everything, along with some harsh death penalties.
Darkfall, offers a skill based system, FFA PvP, and a fast paced combat system. Along with this the PvP is full loot and there are player built cities.
World of Warcraft, offers structured, guided, quest chains and slower combat. It appeal to a wide group and has minimal graphics, meaning most computer can play it. It offers most staples of the genre in a solid package.
Lord of the Rings Online, also has very structured quest lines, although it also puts forth a story. It, again, offers many of the staples, although the PvP is quite different and the graphics are much better than World of Warcraft. It appeals to a smaller audience, albeit not a niche game.
Star Wars Galaxies, offers a screwed up experience that was much better years ago. Please, look at Swgemu.com first.
Why can't we just organize games that way? I find it better than:
EVE is a sandbox. Poster 2: No it's not! It has structured quests!--Poster 3: It IS a sandbox, quests don't make it NOT a sandbox.--Poster 4: The skill training is stupid--Poster 5: You're all gay n00bs.
Darkfall is a sandbox. Poster 2: No, it's not! There's no housing and you can only progress through combat!--Poster 3: Not true, I've progressed through crafting alone myself--Poster 4: And I've progressed through the economy alone.
These are just poor, poor examples. I think I get my point through though. Instead of debating the meaning of sandbox and themepark and arguing which game is which, why not just put their features forth as MMORPGs. Those features are what defines them as sandbox and themepark anyways, why must we wrap them into one word?
 
Thank You,
 
 - Eric

There are actually many types of FPS games, you have sandbox FPS games like Crysis and Far Cry, you have realistic shooters like Rainbox Six, you have puzzle based sci fi shooters like Half Life, and then just.. the WoW of shooters, Halo. 

 

 

It's because some people like specific types of games. There really isn't much debate over what a sandbox is and isn't with sensible people, it has a fairly concrete definition and the only people that disagree with it are the annoying nit pickers. Oh, Darkfall IS a sandbox, and it DOES have housing now, for the record  

fatenabu1

Hello,

  I thought I would add my two cents. I have played several MMOs from UO to EQ to FFXI to WoW to a countless number of F2P games. I do miss the days of UO and that type of a game.  The whole classification of games are just titles we use. Titles that only have meaning to those who give them. I have asked againa nd again for a sandbox MMO on here which starts the fights over which games are and which games aren't. The problem is people define "sandbox" and "themepark" differently and no game fits into a cookie cutter mold, even the countless number of WoW clones still aren't just like WoW.  We need to keep such things in mind when we use lables because no game is a sterotypical sandbox or themepark. 

 

Dustin

Knightcry

I find it amusing how people describe mmos as "themepark" or "sandbox" now.   Is this an evolution in the way we see games caused by the hardcore wow raiders?  Leet speak became geek speak.  Pwned became fail noobs fail.  Mmos became themeparks and sandboxes.  Silly rabbit trends are for kids.

 

LynxJSA

The advantage to such terms is it helps people gravitate towards gameplay they like.

If a player that likes being led through an experience, they're going to want a way to identify games that offer that. They could either look through long checklists and extensive charts of features or they can look for games that are  known to have many themepark elements as those will offer the steady stream of activities and progression they are looking for. . Likewise, a person looking to engage in community building or world building can avoid researching a massive spreadsheet of features by skipping straight to the list of games that are known to have predominately sandbox gameplay as those are most likely to have what they want.