There is one thing I don't get from this thread. Why must there be a "meaning" when one plays game ? Why must death has a meaning ? why must pvp has a meaning ? why must quest has meaning ? Is it so far just to have FUN ? yeah I know..killing x number of y mobs is not fun. Running here to there is not fun. I , however, get lots fun interact with others when I do those. For me, the gaming TOGETHRE experience is well enough. I don't really need any other "meaning" in my gaming...but that's just me.
I've never really understood this point of view, but I'll accept that it actually is personal opinion. For me, It's important that what I'm doing feels important to me, like I'm a part of something, or doing something for the greater good, or that my actions have an effect on the world. I feel this way because when a game is this way, everything you do just feels better, there's more motivation to keep playing the game. It just in general provides a better overall experience and leaves a greater sense of satisfaction when all is said and done.
Have you ever played a game where your actions felt meaningful?
I think a lot of people look for games like that, the issue is how they achieve it.
I have never been into the greater good or part of something type, but I like to know my actions have effects on the world, it does make the game more satisfying.
The only way for this to happen for me though is if the developers put it in the game, the world being the expression of an artist where I care about the goings on, or idealy it is, not saying developers don't make lame worlds. When playing games like Eve though, I could get involved in corporation battles and work the economy, but for one those are so mundane and two they are focused around players and players are kind of dumb and it lacks the depth of developer made worlds, so it is not really an environment I even want to influence.
As a side note sandbox games far too often lack the focus of "themeparks" that is themeparks better understand what the game is about, if it is fantasy make it adventurous, don't however get hung up on issues like economy and politics, that detracts from the purity of the experience when I have to be concerned about those issues. They also take up developement time that could be used to improve what I consider to be the core of the game, also the reason why I think SWG ended up just meh.
I like your posts, you disagree with me, but you're actually intelligent about it unlike a majority of the posters on this forum.
The only answer is that everyone is different and each of us have our own opinions. Sandbox games aren't for everyone, Themepark games aren't for no one, and no game will satisfy all flavors. These are facts; whether you accept them or not.
Just wondering, but are all these sandbox games really that sandboxy? Can you craft anything you want? Or are you stuck crafting certain things as certain professions, or maybe crafted some of the things that THE DEVS allowed you to craft?
Are you able to fight any way you like, or the way the DEVS allowed you to fight?
Are you able to go anywhere in the world, or are some parts offlimits?
Do you level up / better skills / better armor anyway you want, or do you do it just like anyone else playing the game?
Do you HAVE to fight to get items to craft? Do you have to craft to be able to fight effectively?
The current sandbox games, and the ones I know before, forced you into a themepark sandbox. Sure, it's a lot more sandbox than say, LotrO or GW, but current games have very little in what a real sandbox is.
I would put Second-Life the only real sandbox MMO, as you create your own items, houses, clothing, etc. Not, armor plate piece that the person next to you is crafting also.
I think the sand box debate is stupid... I mean you want your character to be able to learn any skill crap... because ya thats realistic, because so many plumbers, also take up tailoring, fashion modeling and race car driving. So of course my warrior should be able to cast fireballs.
The absurdity of attacking the realism of a game mechanic and then supporting it with ANY example involving fireballs is both humorous and astonishing.
Your plumber probably knows more than just plumbing, btw. Ask him next time he's over since you obviously can't do plumbing since that isn't your carved in stone vocation. WTF is going on in Kansas City, MMO that a 33-year old feels people are born into a profession and never learn anything outside it? I'm thinking maybe Red Dawn did happen, but just a bit further east.
Don't be such a tool... I said that as an example... it takes quite a bit of education and on the job work experience to be a good plumber, thus other things that would or could be a full time job would be dilluted. Sure yes the plumber may have many interests and hobbies but they are not equivilant to the level that he is a plumber. So thus a warrior skilled in the art of military combat to the point that he has become a hero may have picked up some first aid or possibly spent time as a black smith's apprentice, but highly unlikely he would have been able to master spell casting. In my personal damn opinion which I am entitled to. Very few people are capable of being a professional (or heroic) level in multiple disciplines or distinctive jobs.
well i think that mmos are really all about end game. when it comes to end game, sandbox is by far the best, because the community can build and change the environment. It makes for long lasting content as long as the community is into the environment. Thempark endgame is the same thing over and over again.
Just wondering, but are all these sandbox games really that sandboxy? Can you craft anything you want? Or are you stuck crafting certain things as certain professions, or maybe crafted some of the things that THE DEVS allowed you to craft? Are you able to fight any way you like, or the way the DEVS allowed you to fight? Are you able to go anywhere in the world, or are some parts offlimits? Do you level up / better skills / better armor anyway you want, or do you do it just like anyone else playing the game? Do you HAVE to fight to get items to craft? Do you have to craft to be able to fight effectively?
The current sandbox games, and the ones I know before, forced you into a themepark sandbox. Sure, it's a lot more sandbox than say, LotrO or GW, but current games have very little in what a real sandbox is.
I would put Second-Life the only real sandbox MMO, as you create your own items, houses, clothing, etc. Not, armor plate piece that the person next to you is crafting also.
Sandboxes don't have professions. Some of the stuff you've said doesn't even make sense by the way.
The moment a concept is coded, it is restricted by the limitations imposed on it by the programmer. Limitations define an object. Without such limitations, the object would be meaningless. So, its the degree of limitation that matters in how linear a game is, not whether there IS any limitation or not. I'm betting even Second Life has its limitations. So one cannot say that a sandbox game is one where you can do anything. Because in the end there will always be SOME limitations imposed on a coded concept, there is no escaping that.
To me a good MMO is one that gives a degree of choice to the players within a wide scope (and within practical limitations), but doing so in a way that can envelope the player in a quality experience. Perhaps in a way that can appeal to a large enough audience for it to be considered a success.
I think the sand box debate is stupid... I mean you want your character to be able to learn any skill crap... because ya thats realistic, because so many plumbers, also take up tailoring, fashion modeling and race car driving. So of course my warrior should be able to cast fireballs.
The absurdity of attacking the realism of a game mechanic and then supporting it with ANY example involving fireballs is both humorous and astonishing.
Your plumber probably knows more than just plumbing, btw. Ask him next time he's over since you obviously can't do plumbing since that isn't your carved in stone vocation. WTF is going on in Kansas City, MMO that a 33-year old feels people are born into a profession and never learn anything outside it? I'm thinking maybe Red Dawn did happen, but just a bit further east.
Don't be such a tool... I said that as an example... it takes quite a bit of education and on the job work experience to be a good plumber, thus other things that would or could be a full time job would be dilluted. Sure yes the plumber may have many interests and hobbies but they are not equivilant to the level that he is a plumber. So thus a warrior skilled in the art of military combat to the point that he has become a hero may have picked up some first aid or possibly spent time as a black smith's apprentice, but highly unlikely he would have been able to master spell casting. In my personal damn opinion which I am entitled to. Very few people are capable of being a professional (or heroic) level in multiple disciplines or distinctive jobs.
This argument reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by Robert Heinlein,
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
So on topic: could anyone give me the defintion of a sandbox? Because you'll see as many definitions as there are people speaking about it....
This thread, post #11 (the anchor links never work for me) I've tried to nail the definition as clearly as I know how.
But as I say in the post, it's a sub-genre. Genres are vague terms, sub-genres moreso. So inevitably any rules-mongering over what is/isn't a sandbox is quite useless and silly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The moment a concept is coded, it is restricted by the limitations imposed on it by the programmer. Limitations define an object. Without such limitations, the object would be meaningless. So, its the degree of limitation that matters in how linear a game is, not whether there IS any limitation or not. I'm betting even Second Life has its limitations. So one cannot say that a sandbox game is one where you can do anything. Because in the end there will always be SOME limitations imposed on a coded concept, there is no escaping that. To me a good MMO is one that gives a degree of choice to the players within a wide scope (and within practical limitations), but doing so in a way that can envelope the player in a quality experience. Perhaps in a way that can appeal to a large enough audience for it to be considered a success.
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
The moment a concept is coded, it is restricted by the limitations imposed on it by the programmer. Limitations define an object. Without such limitations, the object would be meaningless. So, its the degree of limitation that matters in how linear a game is, not whether there IS any limitation or not. I'm betting even Second Life has its limitations. So one cannot say that a sandbox game is one where you can do anything. Because in the end there will always be SOME limitations imposed on a coded concept, there is no escaping that. To me a good MMO is one that gives a degree of choice to the players within a wide scope (and within practical limitations), but doing so in a way that can envelope the player in a quality experience. Perhaps in a way that can appeal to a large enough audience for it to be considered a success.
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
Well as long as you concede that all sandbox games have many themepark elements (that is: limitations and constraints) then the discussion won't be sidetracked.
...but a lot of sandbox players have this extremist view that their sandbox is raw, 100% pure player freedom which simply isn't the case.
The non-semantics argument is simple: more players want a game than a sandbox. Themepark MMORPGs offer a higher quality game experience (this means they're better games, but for some they might not be more enjoyable activities.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the sand box debate is stupid... I mean you want your character to be able to learn any skill crap... because ya thats realistic, because so many plumbers, also take up tailoring, fashion modeling and race car driving. So of course my warrior should be able to cast fireballs.
The absurdity of attacking the realism of a game mechanic and then supporting it with ANY example involving fireballs is both humorous and astonishing.
Your plumber probably knows more than just plumbing, btw. Ask him next time he's over since you obviously can't do plumbing since that isn't your carved in stone vocation. WTF is going on in Kansas City, MMO that a 33-year old feels people are born into a profession and never learn anything outside it? I'm thinking maybe Red Dawn did happen, but just a bit further east.
Don't be such a tool... I said that as an example... it takes quite a bit of education and on the job work experience to be a good plumber, thus other things that would or could be a full time job would be dilluted. Sure yes the plumber may have many interests and hobbies but they are not equivilant to the level that he is a plumber. So thus a warrior skilled in the art of military combat to the point that he has become a hero may have picked up some first aid or possibly spent time as a black smith's apprentice, but highly unlikely he would have been able to master spell casting. In my personal damn opinion which I am entitled to. Very few people are capable of being a professional (or heroic) level in multiple disciplines or distinctive jobs.
This argument reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by Robert Heinlein,
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
The moment a concept is coded, it is restricted by the limitations imposed on it by the programmer. Limitations define an object. Without such limitations, the object would be meaningless. So, its the degree of limitation that matters in how linear a game is, not whether there IS any limitation or not. I'm betting even Second Life has its limitations. So one cannot say that a sandbox game is one where you can do anything. Because in the end there will always be SOME limitations imposed on a coded concept, there is no escaping that. To me a good MMO is one that gives a degree of choice to the players within a wide scope (and within practical limitations), but doing so in a way that can envelope the player in a quality experience. Perhaps in a way that can appeal to a large enough audience for it to be considered a success.
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
Well as long as you concede that all sandbox games have many themepark elements (that is: limitations and constraints) then the discussion won't be sidetracked.
...but a lot of sandbox players have this extremist view that their sandbox is raw, 100% pure player freedom which simply isn't the case.
The non-semantics argument is simple: more players want a game than a sandbox. Themepark MMORPGs offer a higher quality game experience (this means they're better games, but for some they might not be more enjoyable activities.)
I could argue the non-semantics argument in the opposite way. Some people want an actual game as opposed to a mildly interactive storybook.
Themepark has the benefit of the fact that things are planned, if that makes any sense. Developers can make assumptions that things can/will happen a certain way, and plan things around that. The reason why most games suck however is that almost none of them actually take full advantage of this fact, as its much easier to just crap out a raid and adjust the stats on some new gear and make the artists work overtime. The overall upside however is that even if the game is crap, it is usually at least somewhat entertaining as long as the production values don't suck.
The problem with sandbox is that it's very very hard to make a GOOD sandbox game. Too much direction, and it risks becoming a themepark. Too little, and the game becomes dull and lifeless. In all honesty, I don't think a proper sandbox can be done without some significant thought into how they can make the world dynamic in itself, not just in the sense of what players are doing to it. I know most will probably disagree, because they consider sandbox games to be sovereign territory for players that should never be touched upon by anyone else, but I believe intervention by the developers is almost necessary to keep as sandbox game interesting and fresh, otherwise players quickly reach the limits to their "freedom" and things become dull and forumlatic.
Side note: A sandbox that isn't dynamic enough is essentially a themepark game with all the interesting parts stripped out of it.
The moment a concept is coded, it is restricted by the limitations imposed on it by the programmer. Limitations define an object. Without such limitations, the object would be meaningless. So, its the degree of limitation that matters in how linear a game is, not whether there IS any limitation or not. I'm betting even Second Life has its limitations. So one cannot say that a sandbox game is one where you can do anything. Because in the end there will always be SOME limitations imposed on a coded concept, there is no escaping that. To me a good MMO is one that gives a degree of choice to the players within a wide scope (and within practical limitations), but doing so in a way that can envelope the player in a quality experience. Perhaps in a way that can appeal to a large enough audience for it to be considered a success.
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
Well as long as you concede that all sandbox games have many themepark elements (that is: limitations and constraints) then the discussion won't be sidetracked.
...but a lot of sandbox players have this extremist view that their sandbox is raw, 100% pure player freedom which simply isn't the case.
The non-semantics argument is simple: more players want a game than a sandbox. Themepark MMORPGs offer a higher quality game experience (this means they're better games, but for some they might not be more enjoyable activities.)
I could argue the non-semantics argument in the opposite way. Some people want an actual game as opposed to a mildly interactive storybook.
Clearly there's no sense in discussing the topic with you, if you're not going to be rational about it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Considering that the theme park forces you down a developer designed pathways whereas the sandbox allows you to do what you want. How could anyone possibly hate the idea of doing what they want? The sandbox provides far more alternatives and it also provides a much more meaningful sense of purpose. Consider PvP in a themepark game. You have instanced battlegrounds or you can kill other players. They don't drop anything when they die. The battlegrounds have you fighting for points or kill count. This is not meaningful. Consider a sandbox game. When you PvP in a sandbox game, you're fighting for loot, or maybe for honor. Consider someone killing the wrong person. Clans might go to war. Consider a clan that controls too many resources, again you have a war, you're fighting for something, something that is more meaningful than points, something that affects the game world. It's unfortunate though that sandbox games haven't yet allowed PvE content to change the world (aside from Asheron's Call).
Nope. Wrong characterization.
Theme park like WOW provides more CONTENT while providing choices. You do NOT have to follow the quest lines but you can if you want to.
Games like UO has LESS content and you do NOT have the choice to follow quest lines.
LOL .. "meaning" is NOT something you tell other people. BG is meaningful because it can get you to honor loot. If you haven't figured it out yet, very few people like full loot drop in PvP.
This talk about war & changing the game world is meaningless if the game is not fun. The number 1 priority of a developer is to make a game fun and DIABLO has shown that pure hack-n-slash can be fun if done right.
I think you need to play some MMORPGs other than WoW. You seem to mix up fun and having the pleasure center of your brain activated through rewards. From this moment forward you will be known as Pavlov's Doggy.
Pleasure IS FUN. And i have played enough MMOs. I started with UO Beta (actually Kingdom of Drakkar BEOFRE UO, but i don't expect new comers to know about that), and EQ.
I have played MMOs including WOW, DDO, Eve for 21 days, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa and a bunch of Asian F2P MMOs.
I've often wondered the same thing. But there just isn't enough good sandbox games. Darkfall attempted it, but I just can't get into that game. I miss old Ultima Online's sandbox feel, but I just don't see anything out there being as gritty. I liked the hard feel of the game, where it was difficult to come across items. Seems like they have too many items and drops anymore for just being able to run over to a person in town and clicking on them. Does that make any sense?
I choose whatever is good but the problem with sandbox games is there aren't any good ones and they always release buggy with no content. Like frigging put quests in them so I have something to do please! Like SWG when that launched I loved it to bits but everyone stood around in cities because there was no content.
LOL? Did you actually try UO at some point? I highly doubt that there ever will be a sandbox as good as UO was in the past (and still is on several freeshards).
Comments
I've never really understood this point of view, but I'll accept that it actually is personal opinion. For me, It's important that what I'm doing feels important to me, like I'm a part of something, or doing something for the greater good, or that my actions have an effect on the world. I feel this way because when a game is this way, everything you do just feels better, there's more motivation to keep playing the game. It just in general provides a better overall experience and leaves a greater sense of satisfaction when all is said and done.
Have you ever played a game where your actions felt meaningful?
I think a lot of people look for games like that, the issue is how they achieve it.
I have never been into the greater good or part of something type, but I like to know my actions have effects on the world, it does make the game more satisfying.
The only way for this to happen for me though is if the developers put it in the game, the world being the expression of an artist where I care about the goings on, or idealy it is, not saying developers don't make lame worlds. When playing games like Eve though, I could get involved in corporation battles and work the economy, but for one those are so mundane and two they are focused around players and players are kind of dumb and it lacks the depth of developer made worlds, so it is not really an environment I even want to influence.
As a side note sandbox games far too often lack the focus of "themeparks" that is themeparks better understand what the game is about, if it is fantasy make it adventurous, don't however get hung up on issues like economy and politics, that detracts from the purity of the experience when I have to be concerned about those issues. They also take up developement time that could be used to improve what I consider to be the core of the game, also the reason why I think SWG ended up just meh.
I like your posts, you disagree with me, but you're actually intelligent about it unlike a majority of the posters on this forum.
The only answer is that everyone is different and each of us have our own opinions. Sandbox games aren't for everyone, Themepark games aren't for no one, and no game will satisfy all flavors. These are facts; whether you accept them or not.
Just wondering, but are all these sandbox games really that sandboxy? Can you craft anything you want? Or are you stuck crafting certain things as certain professions, or maybe crafted some of the things that THE DEVS allowed you to craft?
Are you able to fight any way you like, or the way the DEVS allowed you to fight?
Are you able to go anywhere in the world, or are some parts offlimits?
Do you level up / better skills / better armor anyway you want, or do you do it just like anyone else playing the game?
Do you HAVE to fight to get items to craft? Do you have to craft to be able to fight effectively?
The current sandbox games, and the ones I know before, forced you into a themepark sandbox. Sure, it's a lot more sandbox than say, LotrO or GW, but current games have very little in what a real sandbox is.
I would put Second-Life the only real sandbox MMO, as you create your own items, houses, clothing, etc. Not, armor plate piece that the person next to you is crafting also.
The absurdity of attacking the realism of a game mechanic and then supporting it with ANY example involving fireballs is both humorous and astonishing.
Your plumber probably knows more than just plumbing, btw. Ask him next time he's over since you obviously can't do plumbing since that isn't your carved in stone vocation. WTF is going on in Kansas City, MMO that a 33-year old feels people are born into a profession and never learn anything outside it? I'm thinking maybe Red Dawn did happen, but just a bit further east.
Don't be such a tool... I said that as an example... it takes quite a bit of education and on the job work experience to be a good plumber, thus other things that would or could be a full time job would be dilluted. Sure yes the plumber may have many interests and hobbies but they are not equivilant to the level that he is a plumber. So thus a warrior skilled in the art of military combat to the point that he has become a hero may have picked up some first aid or possibly spent time as a black smith's apprentice, but highly unlikely he would have been able to master spell casting. In my personal damn opinion which I am entitled to. Very few people are capable of being a professional (or heroic) level in multiple disciplines or distinctive jobs.
Help support an artist and gamer who has lost his tools to create and play: http://www.gofundme.com/u63nzcgk
well i think that mmos are really all about end game. when it comes to end game, sandbox is by far the best, because the community can build and change the environment. It makes for long lasting content as long as the community is into the environment. Thempark endgame is the same thing over and over again.
Sandboxes don't have professions. Some of the stuff you've said doesn't even make sense by the way.
The moment a concept is coded, it is restricted by the limitations imposed on it by the programmer. Limitations define an object. Without such limitations, the object would be meaningless. So, its the degree of limitation that matters in how linear a game is, not whether there IS any limitation or not. I'm betting even Second Life has its limitations. So one cannot say that a sandbox game is one where you can do anything. Because in the end there will always be SOME limitations imposed on a coded concept, there is no escaping that.
To me a good MMO is one that gives a degree of choice to the players within a wide scope (and within practical limitations), but doing so in a way that can envelope the player in a quality experience. Perhaps in a way that can appeal to a large enough audience for it to be considered a success.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
You actually complain about WOW while playing games where the only people you meet are NPC potatoes ?
What is a NPC Potatoe? I don't think I've ever met an npc potatoe.
Easy, because they cant really handle the taste of coffee. Same reason they drink "lite" beer instead of real beer.
The absurdity of attacking the realism of a game mechanic and then supporting it with ANY example involving fireballs is both humorous and astonishing.
Your plumber probably knows more than just plumbing, btw. Ask him next time he's over since you obviously can't do plumbing since that isn't your carved in stone vocation. WTF is going on in Kansas City, MMO that a 33-year old feels people are born into a profession and never learn anything outside it? I'm thinking maybe Red Dawn did happen, but just a bit further east.
Don't be such a tool... I said that as an example... it takes quite a bit of education and on the job work experience to be a good plumber, thus other things that would or could be a full time job would be dilluted. Sure yes the plumber may have many interests and hobbies but they are not equivilant to the level that he is a plumber. So thus a warrior skilled in the art of military combat to the point that he has become a hero may have picked up some first aid or possibly spent time as a black smith's apprentice, but highly unlikely he would have been able to master spell casting. In my personal damn opinion which I am entitled to. Very few people are capable of being a professional (or heroic) level in multiple disciplines or distinctive jobs.
This argument reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by Robert Heinlein,
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
This thread, post #11 (the anchor links never work for me) I've tried to nail the definition as clearly as I know how.
But as I say in the post, it's a sub-genre. Genres are vague terms, sub-genres moreso. So inevitably any rules-mongering over what is/isn't a sandbox is quite useless and silly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
I absolutely hate these " themepark vs. sandbox " debates. All MMOs are sandboxes and offer some degree of free interaction in the world.
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
Well as long as you concede that all sandbox games have many themepark elements (that is: limitations and constraints) then the discussion won't be sidetracked.
...but a lot of sandbox players have this extremist view that their sandbox is raw, 100% pure player freedom which simply isn't the case.
The non-semantics argument is simple: more players want a game than a sandbox. Themepark MMORPGs offer a higher quality game experience (this means they're better games, but for some they might not be more enjoyable activities.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The absurdity of attacking the realism of a game mechanic and then supporting it with ANY example involving fireballs is both humorous and astonishing.
Your plumber probably knows more than just plumbing, btw. Ask him next time he's over since you obviously can't do plumbing since that isn't your carved in stone vocation. WTF is going on in Kansas City, MMO that a 33-year old feels people are born into a profession and never learn anything outside it? I'm thinking maybe Red Dawn did happen, but just a bit further east.
Don't be such a tool... I said that as an example... it takes quite a bit of education and on the job work experience to be a good plumber, thus other things that would or could be a full time job would be dilluted. Sure yes the plumber may have many interests and hobbies but they are not equivilant to the level that he is a plumber. So thus a warrior skilled in the art of military combat to the point that he has become a hero may have picked up some first aid or possibly spent time as a black smith's apprentice, but highly unlikely he would have been able to master spell casting. In my personal damn opinion which I am entitled to. Very few people are capable of being a professional (or heroic) level in multiple disciplines or distinctive jobs.
This argument reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by Robert Heinlein,
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
That's quite a nice quote there.
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
Well as long as you concede that all sandbox games have many themepark elements (that is: limitations and constraints) then the discussion won't be sidetracked.
...but a lot of sandbox players have this extremist view that their sandbox is raw, 100% pure player freedom which simply isn't the case.
The non-semantics argument is simple: more players want a game than a sandbox. Themepark MMORPGs offer a higher quality game experience (this means they're better games, but for some they might not be more enjoyable activities.)
I could argue the non-semantics argument in the opposite way. Some people want an actual game as opposed to a mildly interactive storybook.
Themepark has the benefit of the fact that things are planned, if that makes any sense. Developers can make assumptions that things can/will happen a certain way, and plan things around that. The reason why most games suck however is that almost none of them actually take full advantage of this fact, as its much easier to just crap out a raid and adjust the stats on some new gear and make the artists work overtime. The overall upside however is that even if the game is crap, it is usually at least somewhat entertaining as long as the production values don't suck.
The problem with sandbox is that it's very very hard to make a GOOD sandbox game. Too much direction, and it risks becoming a themepark. Too little, and the game becomes dull and lifeless. In all honesty, I don't think a proper sandbox can be done without some significant thought into how they can make the world dynamic in itself, not just in the sense of what players are doing to it. I know most will probably disagree, because they consider sandbox games to be sovereign territory for players that should never be touched upon by anyone else, but I believe intervention by the developers is almost necessary to keep as sandbox game interesting and fresh, otherwise players quickly reach the limits to their "freedom" and things become dull and forumlatic.
Side note: A sandbox that isn't dynamic enough is essentially a themepark game with all the interesting parts stripped out of it.
Bans a perma, but so are sigs in necro posts.
EAT ME MMORPG.com!
You and everyone else need to stop arguing semantics. It's pretty clear what we actually mean when we say you can do what you want.
Well as long as you concede that all sandbox games have many themepark elements (that is: limitations and constraints) then the discussion won't be sidetracked.
...but a lot of sandbox players have this extremist view that their sandbox is raw, 100% pure player freedom which simply isn't the case.
The non-semantics argument is simple: more players want a game than a sandbox. Themepark MMORPGs offer a higher quality game experience (this means they're better games, but for some they might not be more enjoyable activities.)
I could argue the non-semantics argument in the opposite way. Some people want an actual game as opposed to a mildly interactive storybook.
Clearly there's no sense in discussing the topic with you, if you're not going to be rational about it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Nope. Wrong characterization.
Theme park like WOW provides more CONTENT while providing choices. You do NOT have to follow the quest lines but you can if you want to.
Games like UO has LESS content and you do NOT have the choice to follow quest lines.
LOL .. "meaning" is NOT something you tell other people. BG is meaningful because it can get you to honor loot. If you haven't figured it out yet, very few people like full loot drop in PvP.
This talk about war & changing the game world is meaningless if the game is not fun. The number 1 priority of a developer is to make a game fun and DIABLO has shown that pure hack-n-slash can be fun if done right.
I think you need to play some MMORPGs other than WoW. You seem to mix up fun and having the pleasure center of your brain activated through rewards. From this moment forward you will be known as Pavlov's Doggy.
Pleasure IS FUN. And i have played enough MMOs. I started with UO Beta (actually Kingdom of Drakkar BEOFRE UO, but i don't expect new comers to know about that), and EQ.
I have played MMOs including WOW, DDO, Eve for 21 days, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa and a bunch of Asian F2P MMOs.
how could you possibly like pie more than brownies????!!!!
I fixed that for you
Sometimes you feel like a nut sometimes ya dont.
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
The thread should be titled "How can a topic this beaten to death go on for 11 pages?".
I've often wondered the same thing. But there just isn't enough good sandbox games. Darkfall attempted it, but I just can't get into that game. I miss old Ultima Online's sandbox feel, but I just don't see anything out there being as gritty. I liked the hard feel of the game, where it was difficult to come across items. Seems like they have too many items and drops anymore for just being able to run over to a person in town and clicking on them. Does that make any sense?
LOL? Did you actually try UO at some point? I highly doubt that there ever will be a sandbox as good as UO was in the past (and still is on several freeshards).