Originally posted by Aethaeryn Originally posted by Boredmad
Originally posted by Aethaeryn
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range. WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that. I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way. . Looks like you're entrenched in your opinions.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
.
Looks like you're entrenched in your opinions.
Never. But I played WoW since beta for years as well as UO from years so I do have a pretty good handle on why I think there is a major difference. Sandbox is used as a term to compare. Calling Wow a sandbox with some small differences would be like calling a plane and a car "both automobiles" one just happens to use a road and one uses the sky. Are people trying to restrict the term "sandbox" too much sure. . but it serves a purpose and does define differences in a game.
I would argue that you as well are entrenched in your opinion.
Seems like when people talk about the 'good old days' its looking back on exploits and clunky systems in a positive light.
I remember a few fun corpse runs in EQ1. Me and some new light hearted folks screwed up royal and we all had to get our corpses back. Was late so no one was around to help. Oh the things we tried to get it back. Most of which included exciting heart pounding suicide runs to get them jsut a little bit closer. We must have spent at least an hour laughing our asses off to each others futile attempts. Eventually we got them and logged off with a smile on our faces. And I hope the game mechanics that allowed it are NEVER put in MMO's AGAIN.
Why?
Because for every 'fun' version of this there was about a dozen maddening, yelling, punching the shit out of my desk moments with me wondering/shouting why the FUCK a video game that was supposed to be fun is even ALLOWED to piss me off over something so GOD DAMN trivial. I don't mind getting frustrated over actual encounters of PvP skirmish's, but a fucking corpse run? are you serious? I just want my stuff back so I continue playing the main part of the friggin game.
I submit that most of people wanting a 'sandbox' game, ignorant of the true meaning are masochistic beuracrats with no imagination. When they think of features all they can think of is mundane busy work, or mechanics that basically allow griefing and call it 'realism' or 'freedom'
A lot of these games are still out, why don't you go play them for a month or two before you talk about them with rose colored glasses.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
Seems like when people talk about the 'good old days' its looking back on exploits and clunky systems in a positive light.
I remember a few fun corpse runs in EQ1. Me and some new light hearted folks screwed up royal and we all had to get our corpses back. Was late so no one was around to help. Oh the things we tried to get it back. Most of which included exciting heart pounding suicide runs to get them jsut a little bit closer. We must have spent at least an hour laughing our asses off to each others futile attempts. Eventually we got them and logged off with a smile on our faces. And I hope the game mechanics that allowed it are NEVER put in MMO's AGAIN.
Why?
Because for every 'fun' version of this there was about a dozen maddening, yelling, punching the shit out of my desk moments with me wondering/shouting why the FUCK a video game that was supposed to be fun is even ALLOWED to piss me off over something so GOD DAMN trivial. I don't mind getting frustrated over actual encounters of PvP skirmish's, but a fucking corpse run? are you serious? I just want my stuff back so I continue playing the main part of the friggin game.
I submit that most of people wanting a 'sandbox' game, ignorant of the true meaning are masochistic beuracrats with no imagination. When they think of features all they can think of is mundane busy work, or mechanics that basically allow griefing and call it 'realism' or 'freedom'
A lot of these games are still out, why don't you go play them for a month or two before you talk about them with rose colored glasses.
EQ is not a sandbox to me. . to me the only ones have been/are UO, SWG pre NGE, Darkfall (to some extent), Mortal Online. I am sure I missed a few. . but this is based on my own idea of what a sandbox is.
To me it is a virtual world, where from day one I can head any direction I want and access content. I am not "directed" to go from one location to another and then another to access the "majority" of the content. Could those games be considered "grindy" absolutley. . but I like to explore a world. If I wander into somewhere dangerous. . which could be anywhere. . I don't know it is zone XYZ, then I can plan to come back. To me Sandbox = virtual world. At least in WoW you could travel around somewhat and explore (even though it was still in your zones for your level) WAR killed it for me the most. . small zones. . yo even go from one section to the next .
If you think that WoW can be a sandbox if you ignore the quests and just kill mobs. . wouldn't you like it more if the mobs were spread out in realistic way? You could go anywhere and he deeper you explored into a jungle / mountain etc the more dangerous it might be? sure, no sandbox turned out to be completely what it intended but that doesn't mean that others games are sandbox by default just because they have common elements.
Nowadays I prefer MMO's with a combination of sandbox style features and themepark features. Somewhere along the road my taste in MMORPG's has changed, because at first I used to think MMORPG's of as nongames. Only RTS games and FPS were 'real' gamergames. Then I started to like MMORPGS, but only twitchbased ones. Now I have broaden my taste and have fun in all sorts of MMO styles.
Im glad about that. Because it means Im not some old geezer who keeps hanging in the nostalgic past.
Im positive that a lot of disgruntled MMO vets, who look with rosecoloured glasses at their favourite oldschool MMO, wouldnt want to miss certain keyfeatures of modern MMO's. That if they had to play their old favourite, they would get bored with it faster then they expect. Not realising that they grew accustomed to certain gamemechanics of modern MMO's.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
lol, funny that you would say that I preffer that everything is instanced so it is my level when you mention fallout 3 and oblivion,. . both games that "scale" to your level, as being sandbox. . read the thread above. . I define what sandbox is to me. And again, you say in wow you can travel the world and do "whatever" please define "whatever". . what, as a level 5, can I do in a level 60 zone. If the game was intended as a sandbox it would not have zones that are based on levels. And I hate how Oblivion "scaled" to your level. . Fallout 3 did it much better although it is still not a perfect system. . but that is not possible in an MMO.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
lol, funny that you would say that I preffer that everything is instanced so it is my level when you mention fallout 3 and oblivion,. . both games that "scale" to your level, as being sandbox. . read the thread above. . I define what sandbox is to me. And again, you say in wow you can travel the world and do "whatever" please define "whatever". . what, as a level 5, can I do in a level 60 zone. If the game was intended as a sandbox it would not have zones that are based on levels. And I hate how Oblivion "scaled" to your level. . Fallout 3 did it much better although it is still not a perfect system. . but that is not possible in an MMO.
Both Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also single player sandbox games not massively multiplayer roleplaying games like WoW ext. If ever there was a Fallout MMO or Elder Scroll MMO the game worlds would be scaled for different levels in different locations. This doesn't remove them as sandbox games. What individuals on this thread and yourself are thinking of are sims not sandbox. A sandbox game isn't necesarily a sim and doesn't necesarily not have some sort of structure. WoW and every MMO I've ever played or heard of are sandbox in that they have open worlds in which to explore and do whatever. In WoW leveled zones exist, but at these zones you can do what you want. You can level by grinding, questing, ext. WoW is a sandbox your thinking of again a sim.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
lol, funny that you would say that I preffer that everything is instanced so it is my level when you mention fallout 3 and oblivion,. . both games that "scale" to your level, as being sandbox. . read the thread above. . I define what sandbox is to me. And again, you say in wow you can travel the world and do "whatever" please define "whatever". . what, as a level 5, can I do in a level 60 zone. If the game was intended as a sandbox it would not have zones that are based on levels. And I hate how Oblivion "scaled" to your level. . Fallout 3 did it much better although it is still not a perfect system. . but that is not possible in an MMO.
Both Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also single player sandbox games not massively multiplayer roleplaying games like WoW ext. If ever there was a Fallout MMO or Elder Scroll MMO the game worlds would be scaled for different levels in different locations. This doesn't remove them as sandbox games. What individuals on this thread and yourself are thinking of are sims not sandbox. A sandbox game isn't necesarily a sim and doesn't necesarily not have some sort of structure. WoW and every MMO I've ever played or heard of are sandbox in that they have open worlds in which to explore and do whatever. In WoW leveled zones exist, but at these zones you can do what you want. You can level by grinding, questing, ext. WoW is a sandbox your thinking of again a sim.
Okay I can accept that definition. . can you then tell me though what MMOs (having persisitant worlds) are not sandboxes? I am not saying you can't I am just curious as to how you would denine one.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
lol, funny that you would say that I preffer that everything is instanced so it is my level when you mention fallout 3 and oblivion,. . both games that "scale" to your level, as being sandbox. . read the thread above. . I define what sandbox is to me. And again, you say in wow you can travel the world and do "whatever" please define "whatever". . what, as a level 5, can I do in a level 60 zone. If the game was intended as a sandbox it would not have zones that are based on levels. And I hate how Oblivion "scaled" to your level. . Fallout 3 did it much better although it is still not a perfect system. . but that is not possible in an MMO.
Both Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also single player sandbox games not massively multiplayer roleplaying games like WoW ext. If ever there was a Fallout MMO or Elder Scroll MMO the game worlds would be scaled for different levels in different locations. This doesn't remove them as sandbox games. What individuals on this thread and yourself are thinking of are sims not sandbox. A sandbox game isn't necesarily a sim and doesn't necesarily not have some sort of structure. WoW and every MMO I've ever played or heard of are sandbox in that they have open worlds in which to explore and do whatever. In WoW leveled zones exist, but at these zones you can do what you want. You can level by grinding, questing, ext. WoW is a sandbox your thinking of again a sim.
Okay I can accept that definition. . can you then tell me though what MMOs (having persisitant worlds) are not sandboxes? I am not saying you can't I am just curious as to how you would denine one.
A sim always is a sandbox, but a sandbox isn't always a sim. A sim is a simulation often your given the engines capability and the gameplay mechanics and work from there without being told or guided in what to do. Popular sims are well games like The Sims other examples are flight sims ext. A sim is merely a game simulation with far more freedom and player created content.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
lol, funny that you would say that I preffer that everything is instanced so it is my level when you mention fallout 3 and oblivion,. . both games that "scale" to your level, as being sandbox. . read the thread above. . I define what sandbox is to me. And again, you say in wow you can travel the world and do "whatever" please define "whatever". . what, as a level 5, can I do in a level 60 zone. If the game was intended as a sandbox it would not have zones that are based on levels. And I hate how Oblivion "scaled" to your level. . Fallout 3 did it much better although it is still not a perfect system. . but that is not possible in an MMO.
Both Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also single player sandbox games not massively multiplayer roleplaying games like WoW ext. If ever there was a Fallout MMO or Elder Scroll MMO the game worlds would be scaled for different levels in different locations. This doesn't remove them as sandbox games. What individuals on this thread and yourself are thinking of are sims not sandbox. A sandbox game isn't necesarily a sim and doesn't necesarily not have some sort of structure. WoW and every MMO I've ever played or heard of are sandbox in that they have open worlds in which to explore and do whatever. In WoW leveled zones exist, but at these zones you can do what you want. You can level by grinding, questing, ext. WoW is a sandbox your thinking of again a sim.
Okay I can accept that definition. . can you then tell me though what MMOs (having persisitant worlds) are not sandboxes? I am not saying you can't I am just curious as to how you would denine one.
A sim always is a sandbox, but a sandbox isn't always a sim. A sim is a simulation often your given the engines capability and the gameplay mechanics and work from there without being told or guided in what to do. Popular sims are well games like The Sims other examples are flight sims ext. A sim is merely a game simulation with far more freedom and player created content.
Sure. . so tell me the name of an MMO with a persistant world that you do not consider an sandbox or sim. . tell me a thempark game.
Wow is not a sandbox. . or "guided themepark sandbox" I can't go wherever I want. If I dead of in direction B it is meant for level 70 and I am level 1. I would agro crap from far away and get one shot. Could I go there sure. . I just can't do anything. Even with 20 friends I could not kill a mob in a level 50 zone at level 2. I can't recieve quests and all of the items on the vendor are incredibly out of my price range.
WoW. . in no way. . is a sandbox. . just because I can walk my char. there (even though I can do absolutely nothing else that is indended for that "zone" doesn't make it a sandbox.
Remove silly opinions and look at the game based on what it gives not whether or not you like it. WoW has an open world at level one if I was silly enough I could travel to any part of the world. Players can do practically anything they want within this open world. It fits every single part of the definition of a sandbox game, which merely is an open world were players can do whatever they want. There is nothing more to a sandbox than that.
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
lol, funny that you would say that I preffer that everything is instanced so it is my level when you mention fallout 3 and oblivion,. . both games that "scale" to your level, as being sandbox. . read the thread above. . I define what sandbox is to me. And again, you say in wow you can travel the world and do "whatever" please define "whatever". . what, as a level 5, can I do in a level 60 zone. If the game was intended as a sandbox it would not have zones that are based on levels. And I hate how Oblivion "scaled" to your level. . Fallout 3 did it much better although it is still not a perfect system. . but that is not possible in an MMO.
Both Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also single player sandbox games not massively multiplayer roleplaying games like WoW ext. If ever there was a Fallout MMO or Elder Scroll MMO the game worlds would be scaled for different levels in different locations. This doesn't remove them as sandbox games. What individuals on this thread and yourself are thinking of are sims not sandbox. A sandbox game isn't necesarily a sim and doesn't necesarily not have some sort of structure. WoW and every MMO I've ever played or heard of are sandbox in that they have open worlds in which to explore and do whatever. In WoW leveled zones exist, but at these zones you can do what you want. You can level by grinding, questing, ext. WoW is a sandbox your thinking of again a sim.
Okay I can accept that definition. . can you then tell me though what MMOs (having persisitant worlds) are not sandboxes? I am not saying you can't I am just curious as to how you would denine one.
A sim always is a sandbox, but a sandbox isn't always a sim. A sim is a simulation often your given the engines capability and the gameplay mechanics and work from there without being told or guided in what to do. Popular sims are well games like The Sims other examples are flight sims ext. A sim is merely a game simulation with far more freedom and player created content.
Sure. . so tell me the name of an MMO with a persistant world that you do not consider an sandbox or sim. . tell me a thempark game.
Ok so I miss understood you. Mablestory maybe being as its more like levels and levels of old 2D content on top of each other. I would have to search more or less every MMO I've ever played or heard of is a sandbox. "Themepark" MMO is more a fan created concept focusing on the more casual guided experience of WoW and similar MMO's. "Themepark" MMO is merely a fan name for the casual MMO experience, which would now include Knights of the Old Rebublic.
It's so galling when people like things that you don't, isn't it? I mean, the nerve of those people.
There are sandbox games out there - play them.
Given the tone of your post, however, that doesn't appear to be your point/desire. Looks like you think your chosen gamestyle is the "right" one, and therefore should be "winning" (whatever the hell that would mean).
I've yet to see a game company that doesn't want to make money. If it looked like a AAA sandbox would make big money, some major studio somewhere would be on it.
Oh, and I agree with most of the posts above - most forums, especially those at MMORPG.com, are garbage.
I think that you missed the point of his post. He wasn't saying that theme parks were bad or wrong, in fact he even stipulated that they are a viable route for some developers to go. He was stating that the genre as a whole has been thrown down a very narrow tunnel by the success of games like WoW; So much so that every developer and his dog are now trying to copy it in search of the big bucks. The MMO industry needs diversity, it needs different game styles or it will just continue to stagnate and grow stale which has been happening over recent years. We need a return to the original values when the devs cared about what they were making because they themselves were driven by a desire to make it instead of a giant publishers desire to sell boxes without any concern for the quality of what they contain.
Ahhh another so called veteran thread where the OP looks back at the past through rose tinted glasses. From what I personally recall, it wasn't that rosey from my perspective.
All I used to hear was how SWG Pre-CU was a wonderful "sandbox" game. All I could see was a half finished product with very little developer activity at the time. If I wanted to partake in disjointed entertainment with all the cohesion properties of water, I'd sit in front of the telly and channel hop every 20 seconds or watch a depressive french Film Noir movie that lasts for 3 hours.
Then of course we hear a lot on these forums how so called "vets" point fingers at the likes of WoW for "dragging the industry down" etc, etc, blah, blah. From my perspective, the games before it may have been new in their background setting, but their gameplay was bland in places. Take Anarchy Online. The implants system is great. The random mission generator concept is nice and should be used in other games too. But the basic premise is to go out and grind. But, it can be forgiven for this because in 3 days time AO will be 9 years old. Happy Birthday to AO.
As for Eve Online? Well whilst it does indeed have a great crafting / economic synergy (just like SWG Pre-CU had), that's were the "fun" ends in that game for me. Of course, this is all from my own perspective. Other people like those games and thats fine, I'm not questioning they're choices.
So, if I have a choice between so called "Themepark" and "Sandbox" games, I'll go for the product that actually says "quality" to me: which is usually the themepark game. Why? Because unlike "sandbox" games, the themepark ones actually look and feel like the developers WANTED to make a quality game. I realise some people will disagree with me, but that's just how I feel. Again, I'm not questioning anyones choices in game preference.
Dungeons & Dragons premiered on September 17, 1983 on CBS and ran for two seasons. The main characters were real-world people who rode the new D&D roller coaster at the local theme park and somehow got transported by the Dungeon Master to a fantasy world. Each of the main characters had a personal magic item, and a vast majority of the show's plots revolved around the evil Venger trying (and failing) to get their items so that he could become all-powerful......
I just love when people draw the D&D card when it comes to computer games.... *sigh*
I play D&D since more than two decades now and I can tell you that it is as near to a theme park as it can be. D&D is pure entertainment and players want to be entertained as good as possible. As a DM you cut out all the boring stuff (and with 1e or even brown box D&D that was possible without a problem) and let the players have a good time at the table. I never saw players that had fun in playing out mining, gathering food, repairing items, etc, at the table, never ever. This stuff is handwaved in a matter of seconds at the table 99% of the time.
They want to do the big stuff like fighting the nasty monster in the dungeon or sneak through town to rescue the damsel in distress. All this Roleplaying mumbojumbo only got into the game at a later time. When D&D had its golden age in the late 70s and early 80's it was about "Get in - kill it - survive it - get the phat loot - get out - brag about it" and the harder it got the better it was.
You guys yelling and lamenting about "sandbox vs. theme park" either do not or do not want to understand the real difference between the two terms. Because essentially both terms belong to each other. You know what D&D is? A sandbox theme park...think about it.
And that is why real RPG gamers despised D&D back then and played real RPGs like GURPS, MERP, Ars Magica, Rifts...
No really, it is so funny that this Themepark vs Sandbox debate is actually older than MMOs (and internetz) themselves...
A D&D module would be a series of encounters your DM would lead you through aka "themepark". Any deviation from the scripted story wouldn't be covered by this pre-scripted storyline. The best you could hope for was some branching choices a-la choose your own adventure.
Lol, D&D modules even have boxed texts for the DM to read aloud to the players... Any real GM (game master as opposed to DM - a dungeon master) would rather choke on his vomit than read pre-written text somebody else wrote.. A matter of "professional pride" if you will. "What? You don't think I'm a GM enough to think of a damn room description on the fly??!? Gtfo my group right now!"
On the other hand GURPS, MERP (that's Middle Earth Role playing system) and some others had sourcebooks which would detail a certain region or setting, give you the characters, locations and their relationships and let the GM and the players freeform. In essence it was "sandbox".
I'm really saddened that this linear themepark paradigm is still the dominant one. When MMOs first appeared I was hopeful, just like the OP, that the days of freeform adventure are finally upon us because this type of play was very demanding on the GM, requiring quite a lot of wit and imagination. With the computerized GMs I thought - "well this is great! We have a fantasy world simulator right here! Awesome!" However EQ quickly put all my hopes to rest by returning to the dull D&D "module" paradigm.
Ahhh another so called veteran thread where the OP looks back at the past through rose tinted glasses. From what I personally recall, it wasn't that rosey from my perspective.
All I used to hear was how SWG Pre-CU was a wonderful "sandbox" game. All I could see was a half finished product with very little developer activity at the time. If I wanted to partake in disjointed entertainment with all the cohesion properties of water, I'd sit in front of the telly and channel hop every 20 seconds or watch a depressive french Film Noir movie that lasts for 3 hours.
Then of course we hear a lot on these forums how so called "vets" point fingers at the likes of WoW for "dragging the industry down" etc, etc, blah, blah. From my perspective, the games before it may have been new in their background setting, but their gameplay was bland in places. Take Anarchy Online. The implants system is great. The random mission generator concept is nice and should be used in other games too. But the basic premise is to go out and grind. But, it can be forgiven for this because in 3 days time AO will be 9 years old. Happy Birthday to AO.
As for Eve Online? Well whilst it does indeed have a great crafting / economic synergy (just like SWG Pre-CU had), that's were the "fun" ends in that game for me. Of course, this is all from my own perspective. Other people like those games and thats fine, I'm not questioning they're choices.
So, if I have a choice between so called "Themepark" and "Sandbox" games, I'll go for the product that actually says "quality" to me: which is usually the themepark game. Why? Because unlike "sandbox" games, the themepark ones actually look and feel like the developers WANTED to make a quality game. I realise some people will disagree with me, but that's just how I feel. Again, I'm not questioning anyones choices in game preference.
Another one i hear often. I played UO and I appreciate the sandbox elements of the game so surely I must be reviewing the past with rosey tinted glasses. I'm so sick of hearing that its not even funny anymore.
Because I want a game doesn't play on rails I must be in the past. Another example of the conditioning and herding that has gone on in this genre over the last few years. You've all been spoon fed level based games for so long now you can't even conceive of a modern game that, in spirit, plays more like a virtual world than a game. "You" seem to need the game to tell you what to do and to give you a sense of progression through the world. I never had teh concept of progression in UO.....not like you guys in Wow today. Progression was the amount of black pearl I had in stock.
There are lots of theme park games out there and the themeparkers are clearly the vast majority.....I guess the idea of a game where people can't control the 'destiny' of their character %100 is not appealing.
I for one don't need every character to have the same gear , having completed the same quest lines all arriving at the same point.
I used to mine in this area in Eve then the bad guys came and booted our alliance out......and you know what? There wasn't a dam thing I could have done about it (by myself) .....this point probably has people up in arms.
The current economy probably has as much if not more to do with it. The people that are working are working harder and longer than normal, so sitting down, killing a boss, and going to bed is very appealing. The people not working are not paying $15 a month, so the f2p market is thriving. The money right now is probably coming mostly from the kids of the hard working people. Kids are easily lured by instant gratification.
This is all baseless assumption as I've been up all night and probably wouldnt do much research anyway as I care less and less about all of this as the days pass .. so flame away.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
1) Theme Park games are more popular with the general public.
2) Theme Park games will make more money for developers.
3) Theme Park games are much easier to make.
4) Theme Park games are not going away.
However:
There is a market for Sandboxy games. (smaller, but much less tapped)
The market for Sandboxy games is largely occupied by older titles (EVE)
Most MMOs today fail to deliver the return on investment that the developing company expected. The business concept of "Take a run at Blizzard's WoW with some interesting IP and end up F2P or on single digit servers inside 18 months" is getting predictable and depressing.
Both game types require you to create solid systems.
Theme Park games also require you to fill said game with content.
To sum it up for you idiots out there -
Sandbox = systems
Theme Park = systems + content
Which sounds easier to make?
It's "make your own fun" versus "here are some fun things to do" and guess what? All those "fun things" a.k.a. the content has to be put into the game by the developers and extensively tested.
The ideal design, which I think is possible, is a Themepark within a sandbox.
There is a micro game, and it's set in a Macro game. The micro gamers dont' even have to know or pay any attention to the macro game.
What am I talking about? Take WoW, and put it inside a sandbox. The "sandbox" elements are new game mechanics that allow players, on an individual and on a group level, to make real changes to the game world. Control territory, construct buildings, cause cities to exist or be destroyed, open up new skills, races, destroy them, etc.
The player in the micro level, might not pay any attention to this macro game at all. That player could collect his gear, and grind his quests, and that's all.
The player interested in the "sandbox" could organize the micro players, so that the quests they do, the gear they collect, also affects the entire game world.
And ok, for the do do's that think "sandbox" = "skills" you can make it a skill system, but for God's sake, not the retarded "use it to improve it" macro it skill system like Darkfall.
A skill point system, like say Fallout, or KOTOR, would be much more fun, and make much more sense.
Both game types require you to create solid systems.
Theme Park games also require you to fill said game with content.
To sum it up for you idiots out there -
Sandbox = systems
Theme Park = systems + content
Which sounds easier to make?
It's "make your own fun" versus "here are some fun things to do" and guess what? All those "fun things" a.k.a. the content has to be put into the game by the developers and extensively tested.
Which is why there's nothing wrong with themeparks or sandboxes. They're different, but they can also work together.
I'm sure everyone here has played Oblivion, right? Great sandboxy RPG, lots of things to discovered and plenty of side quests. But you know what? Without the storylines driving me (the main storyline as well as guild advancement, the Arena, etc.), I don't think I would've been interested for more than a few hours. But the quest chains put me on rails! That's bad! No, not always.
This is kind of what Ihmotepp described above, though it sounds like his system would be more obviously and blatantly divided. Build the themeparks within the sandbox. Developers will produce better content than players most of the time, no matter the quality of the tools the players have, because they do it for a living. There's always a few player-made gems that come along if a game has a strong modding community, and that's great. But I didn't buy Oblivion for anything players created, I bought it for what Bethesda created. Without the main content, what could I do? Ride around, find some ruins, do some insignificant quests, download some mods to make myself look like the Lich King or some anime character... that's great, but nothing special.
Freedom is good, but direction is not always bad. Let players do what they want (within reason), but guide them as well. Don't force them. Have the rails there if people want to ride them. Old farts like the OP (I'm glad you admitted it, some others here say "I'm only 20-something, I'm not old!", but I refer to all the nostalgic sandbox lovers as old farts) seem to react rather violently toward these newer MMOs. While some of them (particularly the newest ones, like WAR) do take the genre in the wrong direction, the overall model is not bad. Especially since it can be combined with the sandbox - hybrid MMOs may very well be the future. There will have to be some compromise and kinks to work out, but I think someone, someday, will take the best of what each model has to offer and combine them.
And... yeah, OP... really. You don't need to flip out, pointing fingers and saying "YOUUUUUUUUUU THEMEPARKERS! GIT OFF MAH LAWN!" I play LotRO and EVE... so am I evil, too? I didn't read through 7 pages of things that are discussed here nearly every day, but if you received any "hostile" or "mean" responses, you shouldn't be surprised.
Both game types require you to create solid systems.
Theme Park games also require you to fill said game with content.
To sum it up for you idiots out there -
Sandbox = systems
Theme Park = systems + content
Which sounds easier to make?
It's "make your own fun" versus "here are some fun things to do" and guess what? All those "fun things" a.k.a. the content has to be put into the game by the developers and extensively tested.
I respectfully disagree, but reserve the right to descend into childish name calling later in the thread.
Systems that encourage sandbox play need to be much more robust in order to encourage players to behave in ways unintended by the developers without breaking the game. Theme Park systems are inherently designed to be played in a linear or narrow fashion and therefore decisions about non-standard or non-anticipated play are the very essence of simple.
Take a hypothetical new mmo with mutable landscapes as an exciting new feature. If a Theme Park zone is designed for the purpose of for players to level from 8-12 in a PvE environment (narrow and oh so very common), how easy is the decision of what to do when players figure out how to drop rocks on other players? Mindlessly simple:
Patch 1.1a Notes "Falling rocks in Zone A now cause zero damage to other players"
Patch 1.2a Notes "Only certain rocks in Zone A are now movable."
Now consider a more sandboxy game where the purpose of the zone isn't cut and dried and may involve a bit of PvE, a bit of PvP, some housing, some crafting etc. Now good game design may take pages of discussion to sort out. Does this break our PvP flagging system? Can it be fixed without interfering with potential rock-tossing PvP? Are there appropriate defenses to rock damage? Do the various factions and player types have equal access to rock tossing? Are there players/activities that we want to protect from rock-tossing PvP? What are some broad based rules we might want to implement on rock-tossing PvP? Can the new rock-moving mechanic be enhanced to offer player-made castles and weapons and defenses? Is the community interested and excited by rock tossing? How to react to flower gatherers that are upset that rocks are covering/killing plants in the zone?
Both game types require you to create solid systems.
Theme Park games also require you to fill said game with content.
To sum it up for you idiots out there -
Sandbox = systems
Theme Park = systems + content
Which sounds easier to make?
It's "make your own fun" versus "here are some fun things to do" and guess what? All those "fun things" a.k.a. the content has to be put into the game by the developers and extensively tested.
I respectfully disagree, but reserve the right to descend into childish name calling later in the thread.
Systems that encourage sandbox play need to be much more robust in order to encourage players to behave in ways unintended by the developers without breaking the game. Theme Park systems are inherently designed to be played in a linear or narrow fashion and therefore decisions about non-standard or non-anticipated play are the very essence of simple.
Take a hypothetical new mmo with mutable landscapes as an exciting new feature. If a Theme Park zone is designed for the purpose of for players to level from 8-12 in a PvE environment (narrow and oh so very common), how easy is the decision of what to do when players figure out how to drop rocks on other players? Mindlessly simple:
Patch 1.1a Notes "Falling rocks in Zone A now cause zero damage to other players"
Patch 1.2a Notes "Only certain rocks in Zone A are now movable."
Now consider a more sandboxy game where the purpose of the zone isn't cut and dried and may involve a bit of PvE, a bit of PvP, some housing, some crafting etc. Now good game design may take pages of discussion to sort out. Does this break our PvP flagging system? Can it be fixed without interfering with potential rock-tossing PvP? Are there appropriate defenses to rock damage? Do the various factions and player types have equal access to rock tossing? Are there players/activities that we want to protect from rock-tossing PvP? What are some broad based rules we might want to implement on rock-tossing PvP? Can the new rock-moving mechanic be enhanced to offer player-made castles and weapons and defenses? Is the community interested and excited by rock tossing? How to react to flower gatherers that are upset that rocks are covering/killing plants in the zone?
Really think developers consider all of those things? Lol.
"Let the players figure it out." That's why it's a sandbox - player freedom. They may have to step in to handle exploits and the like, but so do themepark developers. Every MMO company tweaks and fixes systems, themepark or sandbox. To imply that sandbox is more complex may be true in some cases, but not all of them.
I'd say the ones highlighted in red would be the only ones they'd really look at. Interferance with existing game mechanics or opportunities for new ones. Do you think themepark developers wouldn't think about appropriate defences, how much damage the rocks do, whether or not it should be allowed in that area, ect? Who is to say the sandbox developers wouldn't do the same thing: "Only certain rocks are now movable."?
And how to react to upset flower gatherers? That made me laugh hardest of all. "Let the players figure it out." Meaning flower gatherers, shut up and get out or rock-throwers, kill them all until they leave.
I suppose you could claim that sandbox developers focus more on practical issues, like some of the ones you hypothesized, and themepark developers focus on abstract issues (number crunching, whether or not a mechanic is working like it's supposed to, usage data for a certain area to see if it's popular or if it needs reworking), etc. Still, neither one is "easier" than the other.
Really think developers consider all of those things? Lol.
"Let the players figure it out." That's why it's a sandbox - player freedom. They may have to step in to handle exploits and the like, but so do themepark developers. Every MMO company tweaks and fixes systems, themepark or sandbox. To imply that sandbox is more complex may be true in some cases, but not all of them.
I'd say the ones highlighted in red would be the only ones they'd really look at. Interferance with existing game mechanics or opportunities for new ones. Do you think themepark developers wouldn't think about appropriate defences, how much damage the rocks do, whether or not it should be allowed in that area, ect? Who is to say the sandbox developers wouldn't do the same thing: "Only certain rocks are now movable."?
And how to react to upset flower gatherers? That made me laugh hardest of all. "Let the players figure it out." Meaning flower gatherers, shut up and get out or rock-throwers, kill them all until they leave.
I suppose you could claim that sandbox developers focus more on practical issues, like some of the ones you hypothesized, and themepark developers focus on abstract issues (number crunching, whether or not a mechanic is working like it's supposed to, usage data for a certain area to see if it's popular or if it needs reworking), etc. Still, neither one is "easier" than the other.
Glad you got a laugh at least :-)
I'll respond with the core point of your post on the last page: No game is all sandbox. Mechanics in the game must still be firmly guided by the developers in a ThemeParkesque manner.
That said, the narrower the focus of the game and the zone in my example, the more likely the response to unanticipated mechanics being as simple as I suggested; outlaw them.
State your objectives to include sandboxiness, and decisions suddenly get much tougher. Unanticipated mechanics and gameplay are the whole celebrated point, keeping them from breaking the game takes a firm but much finer touch to pull off successfully.
Originally posted by firefly2003 For the number of times that SOE has destroyed the game I loved, even after it was very clear it was not what the majority wanted, I feel that they should start making donations to us- Paradox (SWG)
. SWG was losing 10,000 subscribers a month to WoW. . Sony panicked and implemented the NGE. . You really should lay the blame at WoW's doorstep.
Comments
I assume at this point you are kidding. . and dind't read my post. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't want to do anything but walk around. . and I like WoW by the way.
.
Looks like you're entrenched in your opinions.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Never. But I played WoW since beta for years as well as UO from years so I do have a pretty good handle on why I think there is a major difference. Sandbox is used as a term to compare. Calling Wow a sandbox with some small differences would be like calling a plane and a car "both automobiles" one just happens to use a road and one uses the sky. Are people trying to restrict the term "sandbox" too much sure. . but it serves a purpose and does define differences in a game.
I would argue that you as well are entrenched in your opinion.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Seems like when people talk about the 'good old days' its looking back on exploits and clunky systems in a positive light.
I remember a few fun corpse runs in EQ1. Me and some new light hearted folks screwed up royal and we all had to get our corpses back. Was late so no one was around to help. Oh the things we tried to get it back. Most of which included exciting heart pounding suicide runs to get them jsut a little bit closer. We must have spent at least an hour laughing our asses off to each others futile attempts. Eventually we got them and logged off with a smile on our faces. And I hope the game mechanics that allowed it are NEVER put in MMO's AGAIN.
Why?
Because for every 'fun' version of this there was about a dozen maddening, yelling, punching the shit out of my desk moments with me wondering/shouting why the FUCK a video game that was supposed to be fun is even ALLOWED to piss me off over something so GOD DAMN trivial. I don't mind getting frustrated over actual encounters of PvP skirmish's, but a fucking corpse run? are you serious? I just want my stuff back so I continue playing the main part of the friggin game.
I submit that most of people wanting a 'sandbox' game, ignorant of the true meaning are masochistic beuracrats with no imagination. When they think of features all they can think of is mundane busy work, or mechanics that basically allow griefing and call it 'realism' or 'freedom'
A lot of these games are still out, why don't you go play them for a month or two before you talk about them with rose colored glasses.
I don't care for WoW played it for a while and haven't been back for years. Sandbox games are at their core merely games with open worlds were your allowed to do whatever. Console and pc examples include outside MMO's are Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Elder Scrolls Morrowind, ext. WoW's world is designed in parts for different levels, but this will exist in any MMORPG in some form or another. What would you prefer that everything be instanced so the whole game world is to your level? All MMO's I have ever heard of fit the definition of sandbox games. What many of the posters here are thinking of are sims different sort of beast than simple sandbox.
EQ is not a sandbox to me. . to me the only ones have been/are UO, SWG pre NGE, Darkfall (to some extent), Mortal Online. I am sure I missed a few. . but this is based on my own idea of what a sandbox is.
To me it is a virtual world, where from day one I can head any direction I want and access content. I am not "directed" to go from one location to another and then another to access the "majority" of the content. Could those games be considered "grindy" absolutley. . but I like to explore a world. If I wander into somewhere dangerous. . which could be anywhere. . I don't know it is zone XYZ, then I can plan to come back. To me Sandbox = virtual world. At least in WoW you could travel around somewhat and explore (even though it was still in your zones for your level) WAR killed it for me the most. . small zones. . yo even go from one section to the next .
If you think that WoW can be a sandbox if you ignore the quests and just kill mobs. . wouldn't you like it more if the mobs were spread out in realistic way? You could go anywhere and he deeper you explored into a jungle / mountain etc the more dangerous it might be? sure, no sandbox turned out to be completely what it intended but that doesn't mean that others games are sandbox by default just because they have common elements.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Nowadays I prefer MMO's with a combination of sandbox style features and themepark features. Somewhere along the road my taste in MMORPG's has changed, because at first I used to think MMORPG's of as nongames. Only RTS games and FPS were 'real' gamergames. Then I started to like MMORPGS, but only twitchbased ones. Now I have broaden my taste and have fun in all sorts of MMO styles.
Im glad about that. Because it means Im not some old geezer who keeps hanging in the nostalgic past.
Im positive that a lot of disgruntled MMO vets, who look with rosecoloured glasses at their favourite oldschool MMO, wouldnt want to miss certain keyfeatures of modern MMO's. That if they had to play their old favourite, they would get bored with it faster then they expect. Not realising that they grew accustomed to certain gamemechanics of modern MMO's.
lol, funny that you would say that I preffer that everything is instanced so it is my level when you mention fallout 3 and oblivion,. . both games that "scale" to your level, as being sandbox. . read the thread above. . I define what sandbox is to me. And again, you say in wow you can travel the world and do "whatever" please define "whatever". . what, as a level 5, can I do in a level 60 zone. If the game was intended as a sandbox it would not have zones that are based on levels. And I hate how Oblivion "scaled" to your level. . Fallout 3 did it much better although it is still not a perfect system. . but that is not possible in an MMO.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Both Fallout 3 and Oblivion are also single player sandbox games not massively multiplayer roleplaying games like WoW ext. If ever there was a Fallout MMO or Elder Scroll MMO the game worlds would be scaled for different levels in different locations. This doesn't remove them as sandbox games. What individuals on this thread and yourself are thinking of are sims not sandbox. A sandbox game isn't necesarily a sim and doesn't necesarily not have some sort of structure. WoW and every MMO I've ever played or heard of are sandbox in that they have open worlds in which to explore and do whatever. In WoW leveled zones exist, but at these zones you can do what you want. You can level by grinding, questing, ext. WoW is a sandbox your thinking of again a sim.
Okay I can accept that definition. . can you then tell me though what MMOs (having persisitant worlds) are not sandboxes? I am not saying you can't I am just curious as to how you would denine one.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
A sim always is a sandbox, but a sandbox isn't always a sim. A sim is a simulation often your given the engines capability and the gameplay mechanics and work from there without being told or guided in what to do. Popular sims are well games like The Sims other examples are flight sims ext. A sim is merely a game simulation with far more freedom and player created content.
Sure. . so tell me the name of an MMO with a persistant world that you do not consider an sandbox or sim. . tell me a thempark game.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Ok so I miss understood you. Mablestory maybe being as its more like levels and levels of old 2D content on top of each other. I would have to search more or less every MMO I've ever played or heard of is a sandbox. "Themepark" MMO is more a fan created concept focusing on the more casual guided experience of WoW and similar MMO's. "Themepark" MMO is merely a fan name for the casual MMO experience, which would now include Knights of the Old Rebublic.
I think that you missed the point of his post. He wasn't saying that theme parks were bad or wrong, in fact he even stipulated that they are a viable route for some developers to go. He was stating that the genre as a whole has been thrown down a very narrow tunnel by the success of games like WoW; So much so that every developer and his dog are now trying to copy it in search of the big bucks. The MMO industry needs diversity, it needs different game styles or it will just continue to stagnate and grow stale which has been happening over recent years. We need a return to the original values when the devs cared about what they were making because they themselves were driven by a desire to make it instead of a giant publishers desire to sell boxes without any concern for the quality of what they contain.
Ahhh another so called veteran thread where the OP looks back at the past through rose tinted glasses. From what I personally recall, it wasn't that rosey from my perspective.
All I used to hear was how SWG Pre-CU was a wonderful "sandbox" game. All I could see was a half finished product with very little developer activity at the time. If I wanted to partake in disjointed entertainment with all the cohesion properties of water, I'd sit in front of the telly and channel hop every 20 seconds or watch a depressive french Film Noir movie that lasts for 3 hours.
Then of course we hear a lot on these forums how so called "vets" point fingers at the likes of WoW for "dragging the industry down" etc, etc, blah, blah. From my perspective, the games before it may have been new in their background setting, but their gameplay was bland in places. Take Anarchy Online. The implants system is great. The random mission generator concept is nice and should be used in other games too. But the basic premise is to go out and grind. But, it can be forgiven for this because in 3 days time AO will be 9 years old. Happy Birthday to AO.
As for Eve Online? Well whilst it does indeed have a great crafting / economic synergy (just like SWG Pre-CU had), that's were the "fun" ends in that game for me. Of course, this is all from my own perspective. Other people like those games and thats fine, I'm not questioning they're choices.
So, if I have a choice between so called "Themepark" and "Sandbox" games, I'll go for the product that actually says "quality" to me: which is usually the themepark game. Why? Because unlike "sandbox" games, the themepark ones actually look and feel like the developers WANTED to make a quality game. I realise some people will disagree with me, but that's just how I feel. Again, I'm not questioning anyones choices in game preference.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
And that is why real RPG gamers despised D&D back then and played real RPGs like GURPS, MERP, Ars Magica, Rifts...
No really, it is so funny that this Themepark vs Sandbox debate is actually older than MMOs (and internetz) themselves...
A D&D module would be a series of encounters your DM would lead you through aka "themepark". Any deviation from the scripted story wouldn't be covered by this pre-scripted storyline. The best you could hope for was some branching choices a-la choose your own adventure.
Lol, D&D modules even have boxed texts for the DM to read aloud to the players... Any real GM (game master as opposed to DM - a dungeon master) would rather choke on his vomit than read pre-written text somebody else wrote.. A matter of "professional pride" if you will. "What? You don't think I'm a GM enough to think of a damn room description on the fly??!? Gtfo my group right now!"
On the other hand GURPS, MERP (that's Middle Earth Role playing system) and some others had sourcebooks which would detail a certain region or setting, give you the characters, locations and their relationships and let the GM and the players freeform. In essence it was "sandbox".
I'm really saddened that this linear themepark paradigm is still the dominant one. When MMOs first appeared I was hopeful, just like the OP, that the days of freeform adventure are finally upon us because this type of play was very demanding on the GM, requiring quite a lot of wit and imagination. With the computerized GMs I thought - "well this is great! We have a fantasy world simulator right here! Awesome!" However EQ quickly put all my hopes to rest by returning to the dull D&D "module" paradigm.
Sad.
Another one i hear often. I played UO and I appreciate the sandbox elements of the game so surely I must be reviewing the past with rosey tinted glasses. I'm so sick of hearing that its not even funny anymore.
Because I want a game doesn't play on rails I must be in the past. Another example of the conditioning and herding that has gone on in this genre over the last few years. You've all been spoon fed level based games for so long now you can't even conceive of a modern game that, in spirit, plays more like a virtual world than a game. "You" seem to need the game to tell you what to do and to give you a sense of progression through the world. I never had teh concept of progression in UO.....not like you guys in Wow today. Progression was the amount of black pearl I had in stock.
There are lots of theme park games out there and the themeparkers are clearly the vast majority.....I guess the idea of a game where people can't control the 'destiny' of their character %100 is not appealing.
I for one don't need every character to have the same gear , having completed the same quest lines all arriving at the same point.
I used to mine in this area in Eve then the bad guys came and booted our alliance out......and you know what? There wasn't a dam thing I could have done about it (by myself) .....this point probably has people up in arms.
The current economy probably has as much if not more to do with it. The people that are working are working harder and longer than normal, so sitting down, killing a boss, and going to bed is very appealing. The people not working are not paying $15 a month, so the f2p market is thriving. The money right now is probably coming mostly from the kids of the hard working people. Kids are easily lured by instant gratification.
This is all baseless assumption as I've been up all night and probably wouldnt do much research anyway as I care less and less about all of this as the days pass .. so flame away.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
I'll start by making some obvious points:
1) Theme Park games are more popular with the general public.
2) Theme Park games will make more money for developers.
3) Theme Park games are much easier to make.
4) Theme Park games are not going away.
However:
There is a market for Sandboxy games. (smaller, but much less tapped)
The market for Sandboxy games is largely occupied by older titles (EVE)
Most MMOs today fail to deliver the return on investment that the developing company expected. The business concept of "Take a run at Blizzard's WoW with some interesting IP and end up F2P or on single digit servers inside 18 months" is getting predictable and depressing.
Total fallacy.
Both game types require you to create solid systems.
Theme Park games also require you to fill said game with content.
To sum it up for you idiots out there -
Sandbox = systems
Theme Park = systems + content
Which sounds easier to make?
It's "make your own fun" versus "here are some fun things to do" and guess what? All those "fun things" a.k.a. the content has to be put into the game by the developers and extensively tested.
The ideal design, which I think is possible, is a Themepark within a sandbox.
There is a micro game, and it's set in a Macro game. The micro gamers dont' even have to know or pay any attention to the macro game.
What am I talking about? Take WoW, and put it inside a sandbox. The "sandbox" elements are new game mechanics that allow players, on an individual and on a group level, to make real changes to the game world. Control territory, construct buildings, cause cities to exist or be destroyed, open up new skills, races, destroy them, etc.
The player in the micro level, might not pay any attention to this macro game at all. That player could collect his gear, and grind his quests, and that's all.
The player interested in the "sandbox" could organize the micro players, so that the quests they do, the gear they collect, also affects the entire game world.
And ok, for the do do's that think "sandbox" = "skills" you can make it a skill system, but for God's sake, not the retarded "use it to improve it" macro it skill system like Darkfall.
A skill point system, like say Fallout, or KOTOR, would be much more fun, and make much more sense.
Which is why there's nothing wrong with themeparks or sandboxes. They're different, but they can also work together.
I'm sure everyone here has played Oblivion, right? Great sandboxy RPG, lots of things to discovered and plenty of side quests. But you know what? Without the storylines driving me (the main storyline as well as guild advancement, the Arena, etc.), I don't think I would've been interested for more than a few hours. But the quest chains put me on rails! That's bad! No, not always.
This is kind of what Ihmotepp described above, though it sounds like his system would be more obviously and blatantly divided. Build the themeparks within the sandbox. Developers will produce better content than players most of the time, no matter the quality of the tools the players have, because they do it for a living. There's always a few player-made gems that come along if a game has a strong modding community, and that's great. But I didn't buy Oblivion for anything players created, I bought it for what Bethesda created. Without the main content, what could I do? Ride around, find some ruins, do some insignificant quests, download some mods to make myself look like the Lich King or some anime character... that's great, but nothing special.
Freedom is good, but direction is not always bad. Let players do what they want (within reason), but guide them as well. Don't force them. Have the rails there if people want to ride them. Old farts like the OP (I'm glad you admitted it, some others here say "I'm only 20-something, I'm not old!", but I refer to all the nostalgic sandbox lovers as old farts) seem to react rather violently toward these newer MMOs. While some of them (particularly the newest ones, like WAR) do take the genre in the wrong direction, the overall model is not bad. Especially since it can be combined with the sandbox - hybrid MMOs may very well be the future. There will have to be some compromise and kinks to work out, but I think someone, someday, will take the best of what each model has to offer and combine them.
And... yeah, OP... really. You don't need to flip out, pointing fingers and saying "YOUUUUUUUUUU THEMEPARKERS! GIT OFF MAH LAWN!" I play LotRO and EVE... so am I evil, too? I didn't read through 7 pages of things that are discussed here nearly every day, but if you received any "hostile" or "mean" responses, you shouldn't be surprised.
I respectfully disagree, but reserve the right to descend into childish name calling later in the thread.
Systems that encourage sandbox play need to be much more robust in order to encourage players to behave in ways unintended by the developers without breaking the game. Theme Park systems are inherently designed to be played in a linear or narrow fashion and therefore decisions about non-standard or non-anticipated play are the very essence of simple.
Take a hypothetical new mmo with mutable landscapes as an exciting new feature. If a Theme Park zone is designed for the purpose of for players to level from 8-12 in a PvE environment (narrow and oh so very common), how easy is the decision of what to do when players figure out how to drop rocks on other players? Mindlessly simple:
Patch 1.1a Notes "Falling rocks in Zone A now cause zero damage to other players"
Patch 1.2a Notes "Only certain rocks in Zone A are now movable."
Now consider a more sandboxy game where the purpose of the zone isn't cut and dried and may involve a bit of PvE, a bit of PvP, some housing, some crafting etc. Now good game design may take pages of discussion to sort out. Does this break our PvP flagging system? Can it be fixed without interfering with potential rock-tossing PvP? Are there appropriate defenses to rock damage? Do the various factions and player types have equal access to rock tossing? Are there players/activities that we want to protect from rock-tossing PvP? What are some broad based rules we might want to implement on rock-tossing PvP? Can the new rock-moving mechanic be enhanced to offer player-made castles and weapons and defenses? Is the community interested and excited by rock tossing? How to react to flower gatherers that are upset that rocks are covering/killing plants in the zone?
Really think developers consider all of those things? Lol.
"Let the players figure it out." That's why it's a sandbox - player freedom. They may have to step in to handle exploits and the like, but so do themepark developers. Every MMO company tweaks and fixes systems, themepark or sandbox. To imply that sandbox is more complex may be true in some cases, but not all of them.
I'd say the ones highlighted in red would be the only ones they'd really look at. Interferance with existing game mechanics or opportunities for new ones. Do you think themepark developers wouldn't think about appropriate defences, how much damage the rocks do, whether or not it should be allowed in that area, ect? Who is to say the sandbox developers wouldn't do the same thing: "Only certain rocks are now movable."?
And how to react to upset flower gatherers? That made me laugh hardest of all. "Let the players figure it out." Meaning flower gatherers, shut up and get out or rock-throwers, kill them all until they leave.
I suppose you could claim that sandbox developers focus more on practical issues, like some of the ones you hypothesized, and themepark developers focus on abstract issues (number crunching, whether or not a mechanic is working like it's supposed to, usage data for a certain area to see if it's popular or if it needs reworking), etc. Still, neither one is "easier" than the other.
Glad you got a laugh at least :-)
I'll respond with the core point of your post on the last page: No game is all sandbox. Mechanics in the game must still be firmly guided by the developers in a ThemeParkesque manner.
That said, the narrower the focus of the game and the zone in my example, the more likely the response to unanticipated mechanics being as simple as I suggested; outlaw them.
State your objectives to include sandboxiness, and decisions suddenly get much tougher. Unanticipated mechanics and gameplay are the whole celebrated point, keeping them from breaking the game takes a firm but much finer touch to pull off successfully.
SWG was losing 10,000 subscribers a month to WoW.
.
Sony panicked and implemented the NGE.
.
You really should lay the blame at WoW's doorstep.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren