First off I just want to comment on the superb posts. The primary reason I love The Pub is due to the great, intelligent, and well thought out posts that you all contribute. Thank you.
Now, after reading them, it makes me wonder (setting aside the allure of easy programming and the chance for some quick and easy cashflow) why on earth would devs, also assuming they know the differences we know, even bother making a theme park game when sandboxes just seem so much more dynamic? Even from a development standpoint, they would be much more interesting and fun to create AND to play, as well.
Second Life is the pure definition of sandbox, but it's not an mmorpg, it's a virtual world.
People don't seem understand this.All MMO are sandboxes,A sandbox is just a game that has no levels(1-1,1-2,etc) and gives you the freedom to play throught in order you want.Not all mmo are good virtual worlds and that is what most people mistaken are talking about when they talk about sandboxes.
Ultima was a good virtual world,EQ was good virtual world,Star wars gaxalies was a good virtual world,WoW is not trying to be a great virtual world.The more control players have over the world the better the virtual world.When you hear most people here talk about Sandboxes they are talking about traits of great virtual worlds.
Second Life is the pure definition of sandbox, but it's not an mmorpg, it's a virtual world.
People don't seem understand this.All MMO are sandboxes,A sandbox is just a game that has no levels(1-1,1-2,etc) and gives you the freedom to play throught in order you want.Not all mmo are good virtual worlds and that is what most people mistaken are talking about when they talk about sandboxes.
Ultima was a good virtual world,EQ was good virtual world,Star wars gaxalies was a good virtual world,WoW is not trying to be a great virtual world.The more control players have over the world the better the virtual world.When you hear most people here talk about Sandboxes they are talking about traits of great virtual worlds.
I don't necessarily agree. True, most sandboxes had great virtual worlds...but I think this statement is more true:
"Older games had better virtual worlds than newer games" in general.
EQ had an amazing world for it's time and drew me in. It was an amazing game. It was not a sandbox. There was really 2 things to do: Level your character or Camp better loot.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
To me a sandbox game is a game where I am not guided by the hand on where I should and should not go. Where I do not have to worry about what quest someone is on when I go to form a group. Where I do not have to worry about messing up someone's faction because I killed mobs out of order for them.
It is a place where I can decide what goals are worthy and what goals aren't and I can take my character in that direction. It may or may not have classes, but if it does, those classes will be really generic and allow for alot of internal customization.
First off I just want to comment on the superb posts. The primary reason I love The Pub is due to the great, intelligent, and well thought out posts that you all contribute. Thank you.
Now, after reading them, it makes me wonder (setting aside the allure of easy programming and the chance for some quick and easy cashflow) why on earth would devs, also assuming they know the differences we know, even bother making a theme park game when sandboxes just seem so much more dynamic? Even from a development standpoint, they would be much more interesting and fun to create AND to play, as well.
Because by their very nature sandboxes are less 'guided' and are far less forgiving, the mechanics that drive them really are not for everyone.
Most developers will look at which mmos have the most subs and thus return the most money, and that is themeparks. Hence the reason AAA titles go the themepark route whilst only indie companies really go for sandboxes.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
... In a sandbox game, the devs create the game and that is it. They provide a very basic framework for the player to do things in. They create it and leave it alone except in the least intrusive ways.
thats how games have been in these old days. not all, not fully, but mostly.
and then people started to complain and devs started to listen and tried to avoid the "mistakes" of these sandboxes to make a better virtual world. and so the devs found the new holy cows:
Acessability, Refining, Balancing
suddenly millions of new people joined the MMO-crowd and also the investors have been very happy. just some idiots did not stop moaning about this new style. because with these new holy cows, the devs did harm, perhaps even sacrifice, some important things:
Immersion, Community, Challenge
honestly, there must be a better way than what we saw in the last 7 years.
Player A goes and loots some goods, then sells them to player B who crafts them and adds them to an auction house or his own vendor.
An example of sandbox play:
Player A goes and loots some goods, knowing that he may be attacked by player B so he hires player C to act as a bodygaurd. Player D then pays player E to haul those goods from player A so that he can craft them and sell them.
Actually both these are examples of sandbox gameplay, you simply added PvP to the second one. In fact if you take the 'craft and sell' ending and replace it with 'turn the item in to the NPC to complete the quest' they become thempark examples.
One of the big fallancies of the thempark vs sandbox debate is that PvP is considered a sandbox feature. In fact PvP is very much parallel to both designs. Too much PvP is in fact anti-sandbox since it limits player's choices and forces them down one path as envisioned by the devs.
Player A goes and loots some goods, then sells them to player B who crafts them and adds them to an auction house or his own vendor.
An example of sandbox play:
Player A goes and loots some goods, knowing that he may be attacked by player B so he hires player C to act as a bodygaurd. Player D then pays player E to haul those goods from player A so that he can craft them and sell them.
Actually both these are examples of sandbox gameplay, you simply added PvP to the second one. In fact if you take the 'craft and sell' ending and replace it with 'turn the item in to the NPC to complete the quest' they become thempark examples.
One of the big fallancies of the thempark vs sandbox debate is that PvP is considered a sandbox feature. In fact PvP is very much parallel to both designs. Too much PvP is in fact anti-sandbox since it limits player's choices and forces them down one path as envisioned by the devs.
Open pvp does not limit choices, it makes players think of workarounds to getting killed when carrying everything on them, hence the role created for haulers and bodyguards (as well as various other contracter). Whilst I will concede that a sandbox without open pvp is possible, the fact is that this limits the choices of the player and more importantly is reduces the ability for the players to interact within the community in general to the extent that they can in an open pvp system.
The mmo which currently has perhaps the greatest scope and funnily enough the most robust and active economy is EVE which has a fully open pvp system. That there are security ratings for zones adds an element of 'protection' but these act in the way of deterrents (sometimes) and not as specfic no pvp rule areas.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Player A goes and loots some goods, then sells them to player B who crafts them and adds them to an auction house or his own vendor.
An example of sandbox play:
Player A goes and loots some goods, knowing that he may be attacked by player B so he hires player C to act as a bodygaurd. Player D then pays player E to haul those goods from player A so that he can craft them and sell them.
Actually both these are examples of sandbox gameplay, you simply added PvP to the second one. In fact if you take the 'craft and sell' ending and replace it with 'turn the item in to the NPC to complete the quest' they become thempark examples.
One of the big fallancies of the thempark vs sandbox debate is that PvP is considered a sandbox feature. In fact PvP is very much parallel to both designs. Too much PvP is in fact anti-sandbox since it limits player's choices and forces them down one path as envisioned by the devs.
Open pvp does not limit choices, it makes players think of workarounds to getting killed when carrying everything on them, hence the role created for haulers and bodyguards (as well as various other contracter). Whilst I will concede that a sandbox without open pvp is possible, the fact is that this limits the choices of the player and more importantly is reduces the ability for the players to interact within the community in general to the extent that they can in an open pvp system.
The mmo which currently has perhaps the greatest scope and funnily enough the most robust and active economy is EVE which has a fully open pvp system. That there are security ratings for zones adds an element of 'protection' but these act in the way of deterrents (sometimes) and not as specfic no pvp rule areas.
EVE? Yes it works that way but I think youre forgetting the fact that the main markets are in safe space. Hence there are pvp areas (null and low sec) and safe areas (high sec)
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
EVE? Yes it works that way but I think youre forgetting the fact that the main markets are in safe space. Hence there are pvp areas (null and low sec) and safe areas (high sec)
Fair point, but they are not 'safe' they are 'safer'. Ganking can and does happen in areas like Jita, the point being that there is no limitation applied, only a deterrent.
For me a sandbox needs open pvp, whether it comes with npc enforcement like EVE or not, but then that is only my humble opinion and I certainly don't want to turn this thread into a specfic pvp discussion as there are plenty of others for that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
First off I just want to comment on the superb posts. The primary reason I love The Pub is due to the great, intelligent, and well thought out posts that you all contribute. Thank you.
Now, after reading them, it makes me wonder (setting aside the allure of easy programming and the chance for some quick and easy cashflow) why on earth would devs, also assuming they know the differences we know, even bother making a theme park game when sandboxes just seem so much more dynamic? Even from a development standpoint, they would be much more interesting and fun to create AND to play, as well.
I have to assume, from your question, that you are independently wealthy. For the benefit of you and others who do not have to worry about paying a mortgage or putting food on your family's table, I offer the following :
1. World of Warcraft (WoW) is held up as the poster child for all things themepark.
2. WoW currently has >10 million active subscribers.
3. Each subscriber is paying approximately $15 U.S. per month for that privelege.
4. 10 million subscribers X ~$15 = $150 million dollars per month X 12 months = ~$1.8 billion dollars per year. (that's just from subscriptions)
Now, looking at the above (and given that the consensus in this thread seems to be that themeparks appeal to a wider audience), why do you think a developer would want to develop a themepark vs a sandbox?
3. Each subscriber is paying approximately $15 U.S. per month for that privelege.
4. 10 million subscribers X ~$15 = $150 million dollars per month X 12 months = ~$1.8 billion dollars per year. (that's just from subscriptions)
Now, looking at the above (and given that the consensus in this thread seems to be that themeparks appeal to a wider audience), why do you think a developer would want to develop a themepark vs a sandbox?
Only about 4-5 million in NA, Europe are paying $15 a month. The other 7-8 million in Asia pay significantly less than $15. It's supposidly costs around the equivilant of 5 US cents an hour to play WoW in China, and Blizzard only gets about 20% of that money, the rest goes to the company who is licensing the game from Blizzard to run it in China. The last reported figure was that only 6% of Blizzard's revenue off WoW actually comes from China.
In other words, WoW isn't as "big" as Blizzard tries to make it out to be. That's not to say it still isn't big, but there is an intentional misrepresentation of numbers.
Player A goes and loots some goods, then sells them to player B who crafts them and adds them to an auction house or his own vendor.
An example of sandbox play:
Player A goes and loots some goods, knowing that he may be attacked by player B so he hires player C to act as a bodygaurd. Player D then pays player E to haul those goods from player A so that he can craft them and sell them.
Actually both these are examples of sandbox gameplay, you simply added PvP to the second one. In fact if you take the 'craft and sell' ending and replace it with 'turn the item in to the NPC to complete the quest' they become thempark examples.
One of the big fallancies of the thempark vs sandbox debate is that PvP is considered a sandbox feature. In fact PvP is very much parallel to both designs. Too much PvP is in fact anti-sandbox since it limits player's choices and forces them down one path as envisioned by the devs.
I disagree. Example 1) The problem is that the crafted item ultimately probably makes something that is worthless compared to epic loot that is designed in certain tiers for players of a certain pre-designated level to achieve. After a while, it will probably be obsolete until the next "guided" loot is obtained. ALso, the auction house itself is shown as a pre-defined system where you HAVE to sell your items a certain way through the system that was designed for that purpose. As opposed to "subjective" roles in example B where others are getting involved. They aren't a bodyguard class or a Hauling class....they are just using that as their own made up service that the developers did not create explicitly.
Of course, if you stretch the truth a bit, you can argue anything is sandbox/themepark...but people who have experiences the extremes of both from day 1 usually tend to have a good idea of where the whole concept came from.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
And mining is boring. I swear I think that's a game mechanic in every Sandbox game. Why can't you hire helpers or build mining robots or summon demons or something?
You could in swg (automated harvestors), and it was by far the best resource collection system I've ever played. It's also why I absolutely abhor wow's individual node harvesting system (although that is by no means unique to wow).
The great thing about SWG mining was that you really didn't mine, you explored. You'd travel all around the world scanning every now and then to find the most concentrated spots, get to those spots and place your harvestors, leave, and come back a few days later to reap the rewards.
It was a truly amazing system that actually made harvesting materials a lot of fun. It also got everyone involved, although you'd be able to use better harvestors as you built harvesting skill. But everyone else could setup some medium harvestors around their house, mine what was there, and then drop it into the economy to benefit the crafters.
It's a system that has yet to be matched by any mmo out there.
3. Each subscriber is paying approximately $15 U.S. per month for that privelege.
4. 10 million subscribers X ~$15 = $150 million dollars per month X 12 months = ~$1.8 billion dollars per year. (that's just from subscriptions)
Now, looking at the above (and given that the consensus in this thread seems to be that themeparks appeal to a wider audience), why do you think a developer would want to develop a themepark vs a sandbox?
Only about 4-5 million in NA, Europe are paying $15 a month. The other 7-8 million in Asia pay significantly less than $15. It's supposidly costs around the equivilant of 5 US cents an hour to play WoW in China, and Blizzard only gets about 20% of that money, the rest goes to the company who is licensing the game from Blizzard to run it in China. The last reported figure was that only 6% of Blizzard's revenue off WoW actually comes from China.
In other words, WoW isn't as "big" as Blizzard tries to make it out to be. That's not to say it still isn't big, but there is an intentional misrepresentation of numbers.
And mining is boring. I swear I think that's a game mechanic in every Sandbox game. Why can't you hire helpers or build mining robots or summon demons or something?
You could in swg (automated harvestors), and it was by far the best resource collection system I've ever played. It's also why I absolutely abhor wow's individual node harvesting system (although that is by no means unique to wow).
The great thing about SWG mining was that you really didn't mine, you explored. You'd travel all around the world scanning every now and then to find the most concentrated spots, get to those spots and place your harvestors, leave, and come back a few days later to reap the rewards.
It was a truly amazing system that actually made harvesting materials a lot of fun. It also got everyone involved, although you'd be able to use better harvestors as you built harvesting skill. But everyone else could setup some medium harvestors around their house, mine what was there, and then drop it into the economy to benefit the crafters.
It's a system that has yet to be matched by any mmo out there.
SW:ToR
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
3. Each subscriber is paying approximately $15 U.S. per month for that privelege.
4. 10 million subscribers X ~$15 = $150 million dollars per month X 12 months = ~$1.8 billion dollars per year. (that's just from subscriptions)
Now, looking at the above (and given that the consensus in this thread seems to be that themeparks appeal to a wider audience), why do you think a developer would want to develop a themepark vs a sandbox?
Only about 4-5 million in NA, Europe are paying $15 a month. The other 7-8 million in Asia pay significantly less than $15. It's supposidly costs around the equivilant of 5 US cents an hour to play WoW in China, and Blizzard only gets about 20% of that money, the rest goes to the company who is licensing the game from Blizzard to run it in China. The last reported figure was that only 6% of Blizzard's revenue off WoW actually comes from China.
In other words, WoW isn't as "big" as Blizzard tries to make it out to be. That's not to say it still isn't big, but there is an intentional misrepresentation of numbers.
^ hates WoW with a passion.
Yeah, I guess that must be why I played it for 5 years...
Or, maybe I don't hate WoW, and am just tired of people acting like it's infallable and that it's bigger and better than it really is.
it's funny to me that anytime anyone says something negative about WoW, or anything that's 'massively popular' they're instantly labeled as a 'hater' who just hates anything that's popular. God forbid if someone has an opinion that deviates from the masses.
3. Each subscriber is paying approximately $15 U.S. per month for that privelege.
4. 10 million subscribers X ~$15 = $150 million dollars per month X 12 months = ~$1.8 billion dollars per year. (that's just from subscriptions)
Now, looking at the above (and given that the consensus in this thread seems to be that themeparks appeal to a wider audience), why do you think a developer would want to develop a themepark vs a sandbox?
Only about 4-5 million in NA, Europe are paying $15 a month. The other 7-8 million in Asia pay significantly less than $15. It's supposidly costs around the equivilant of 5 US cents an hour to play WoW in China, and Blizzard only gets about 20% of that money, the rest goes to the company who is licensing the game from Blizzard to run it in China. The last reported figure was that only 6% of Blizzard's revenue off WoW actually comes from China.
In other words, WoW isn't as "big" as Blizzard tries to make it out to be. That's not to say it still isn't big, but there is an intentional misrepresentation of numbers.
^ hates WoW with a passion.
Yeah, I guess that must be why I played it for 5 years...
Or, maybe I don't hate WoW, and am just tired of people acting like it's infallable and that it's bigger and better than it really is.
it's funny to me that anytime anyone says something negative about WoW, or anything that's 'massively popular' they're instantly labeled as a 'hater' who just hates anything that's popular. God forbid if someone has an opinion that deviates from the masses.
Thanks for the laugh though
The figure is wrong (although i am pretty sure the 6% isn't mentioned from Blizz so citation needed, last i checked there is nothing in the financial statements about that one) but the point does stand.
The past 6 years, the market has spoken quite loudly that they want a themepark MMO.
They also want something polished, relatively bug-free and have lots of content. Whether this is fair on a new MMO is entirely irrelevant. That's what they want and that's what they'll pay for.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Sandboxes are about setting not linear story like so many themeparks nowadays.
I've always felt the best story is your own one, because its non linear, never ending and of course tailored to your likings. I still remember my "UO story, Everquest 1 and even my (short sad) Vanguard story". I did play the mega themepark but knew and loved the story long before it (WC 1 - 3 + FT) but nothing really comes to my mind despite the former challenging progession.
If anything the market is long long waiting for more well done sandboxes like EvE. If you ask me having 300k+ for years is way better than getting 1.000k at launch and constantely dropping to something like War..
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Sandbox - A sandbox is a game where the developers give players the tools to create their own objects, characters, surroundings, etc. with no limitations (other than the limitations within the game). Just like a sandbox, players are set free to create their own content, story, direction, entertainment, etc.
Theme Park - A theme park is a game where the developers create all the content, direction, characters, attractions, etc. for a player. Characters follow a defined progression starting from point A to point B. Everything is pre-planned, timed and pre-determined, etc.
To make this all easier to understand.
Think of an actual Sandbox. What can you do with it? Virtually anything you can imagine/want. You can play in the sand and make up whatever you want.
Now think of an actual Theme Park (i.e. Disneyland). What can you do with it? You can ride the rides and see the attractions.
Sandbox - A sandbox is a game where the developers give players the tools to create their own objects, characters, surroundings, etc. with no limitations (other than the limitations within the game). Just like a sandbox, players are set free to create their own content, story, direction, entertainment, etc.
Theme Park - A theme park is a game where the developers create all the content, direction, characters, attractions, etc. for a player. Characters follow a defined progression starting from point A to point B. Everything is pre-planned, timed and pre-determined, etc.
To make this all easier to understand.
Think of an actual Sandbox. What can you do with it? Virtually anything you can imagine/want. You can play in the sand and make up whatever you want.
Now think of an actual Theme Park (i.e. Disneyland). What can you do with it? You can ride the rides and see the attractions.
That pretty much explains it in a nutshell.
You do realize you can't do anything in a game it's not programmed to allow. You can only ride the rides and see the attractions in any game.
Yes, that is why I stated "within the game's limitations". Obviously in a Medieval setting sandbox, I may not be able to create a futuristic space ship. But I may be able to create a build a castle or city anywhere I please to do with whatever I want (set up taxes, rent out homes, start a bank to hold players gold, etc).
The thing that separates the two types, is that I am creating the content for players, rather than the developers.
Im still a firm believer that sand box v themepark is best desribed as setting v story and dynamic v persistent
Setting = a situation (not like jersey shore) , a story that leads up to the present that does not fill in the blanks. More or less an entire back story so that the political climate is set.
Story = what is happening now. Predefined by the developers, only allowing the pc to unlock the next section
dynamic = evolving due to pc interaction, not stagnant
persistent = continuing without change in function or structure
So what does this mean?
Themepark=story=persistent = everyone experiences the same content of which there are no changes unless made by the developers in the form of patches or content updates
Sandbox=setting=dynamic = every moment is defined by player interaction, or even lack of player interaction.
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
Im still a firm believer that sand box v themepark is best desribed as setting v story and dynamic v persistent
Setting = a situation (not like jersey shore) , a story that leads up to the present that does not fill in the blanks. More or less an entire back story so that the political climate is set.
Story = what is happening now. Predefined by the developers, only allowing the pc to unlock the next section
dynamic = evolving due to pc interaction, not stagnant
persistent = continuing without change in function or structure
So what does this mean?
Themepark=story=persistent = everyone experiences the same content of which there are no changes unless made by the developers in the form of patches or content updates
Sandbox=setting=dynamic = every moment is defined by player interaction, or even lack of player interaction.
Aye, I agree with you, lectrocuda.
Although you can build Keeps in AoC, it is all still pre-determined and pre-planned. There is no freedom to build a Keep (other than where the developers have told you where to build a Keep). So yeah, its not a sandbox - even though you can build Keeps. Yup.
And yes, I agree with you too that a Sandbox is dynamic and Theme Park is persistant. Seems like alot of players are all about "Persistant" worlds. I'd much rather have a "Dynamic" world. But...to each their own. Everyone has their owns tastes, which is a good thing.
The guy who invented the terms 'sandbox' and 'theme park' defined them this way: A theme park is where your character is literally on rails like a train, think of Mario Brothers or Donkey Kong, you can only move left or right. A sandbox is _any_ MMO, even in the most basic of MMOs you can move in X and Y and sometimes Z axis.
So old school video games like Pac Man are theme park. Runescape, EQ1, WoW etc are sandbox.
Sandbox - A sandbox is a game where the developers give players the tools to create their own objects, characters, surroundings, etc. with no limitations (other than the limitations within the game). Just like a sandbox, players are set free to create their own content, story, direction, entertainment, etc.
Theme Park - A theme park is a game where the developers create all the content, direction, characters, attractions, etc. for a player. Characters follow a defined progression starting from point A to point B. Everything is pre-planned, timed and pre-determined, etc.
To make this all easier to understand.
Think of an actual Sandbox. What can you do with it? Virtually anything you can imagine/want. You can play in the sand and make up whatever you want.
Now think of an actual Theme Park (i.e. Disneyland). What can you do with it? You can ride the rides and see the attractions.
That pretty much explains it in a nutshell.
You do realize you can't do anything in a game it's not programmed to allow. You can only ride the rides and see the attractions in any game.
Yes, that is why I stated "within the game's limitations". Obviously in a Medieval setting sandbox, I may not be able to create a futuristic space ship. But I may be able to create a build a castle or city anywhere I please to do with whatever I want (set up taxes, rent out homes, start a bank to hold players gold, etc).
The thing that separates the two types, is that I am creating the content for players, rather than the developers.
No you're playing out the content the developers designed. Everything you're doing is in the code. Unless you can alter the code itself you're not creating anything. The difference in your viewpoint not in anything about the game. You feel free doing the things you want to do and restricted when you can not.
The sandbox players aren't creating anything the developers didn't intend for them to create, but they are able to build more things than you can in a typical Themepark game. The things you build are more meaningful. WoW is the best example of a game where you build useful stuff because you just need something to do. Eve Online is probably the best example of a game where you build meaningful things because you need them. You're changing the source of the main "stuff" of the game from NPCs to the players in a sandbox. But it's not an absolute thing.
You can have a sandbox game with NPC factions that are the rulers and they hand out buliding permits, or you can have a sandbox game where the NPC factions are really of minor importance compared to the player guilds where if you build in the wrong spot, the guilds come and wreck your house. It does indeed depend on how the developers set the game up.
You could almost say the difference is that in a sandbox, you entertain yourself because you have to, or you get sand in your shorts. In a themepark you are entertained, as long as you follow the signs.
There are a lot of differences and some of them are subjective. Both require you to do something to be entertained. In the sandbox you're still following a path setup by the developers, even though there are no signs or lines to stand in. The biggest difference is probably preference...what do you prefer to do? Personally, I like both and I'd like to see a huge themepark filled with sand that didn't have boring combat.
The player interaction is markedly different though. PvP is inherent in a sandbox, even if it doesn't include combat. The environment may offer some challenge, but your biggest challenge will come from other players. It's kind of like a Real Time Strategy game, except you're one of the space marines and not the god in the machine directing all the armies. That's just a subjective impression though and doesn't give a concrete definition.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
First off I just want to comment on the superb posts. The primary reason I love The Pub is due to the great, intelligent, and well thought out posts that you all contribute. Thank you.
Now, after reading them, it makes me wonder (setting aside the allure of easy programming and the chance for some quick and easy cashflow) why on earth would devs, also assuming they know the differences we know, even bother making a theme park game when sandboxes just seem so much more dynamic? Even from a development standpoint, they would be much more interesting and fun to create AND to play, as well.
People don't seem understand this.All MMO are sandboxes,A sandbox is just a game that has no levels(1-1,1-2,etc) and gives you the freedom to play throught in order you want.Not all mmo are good virtual worlds and that is what most people mistaken are talking about when they talk about sandboxes.
Ultima was a good virtual world,EQ was good virtual world,Star wars gaxalies was a good virtual world,WoW is not trying to be a great virtual world.The more control players have over the world the better the virtual world.When you hear most people here talk about Sandboxes they are talking about traits of great virtual worlds.
I don't necessarily agree. True, most sandboxes had great virtual worlds...but I think this statement is more true:
"Older games had better virtual worlds than newer games" in general.
EQ had an amazing world for it's time and drew me in. It was an amazing game. It was not a sandbox. There was really 2 things to do: Level your character or Camp better loot.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
To me a sandbox game is a game where I am not guided by the hand on where I should and should not go. Where I do not have to worry about what quest someone is on when I go to form a group. Where I do not have to worry about messing up someone's faction because I killed mobs out of order for them.
It is a place where I can decide what goals are worthy and what goals aren't and I can take my character in that direction. It may or may not have classes, but if it does, those classes will be really generic and allow for alot of internal customization.
Because by their very nature sandboxes are less 'guided' and are far less forgiving, the mechanics that drive them really are not for everyone.
Most developers will look at which mmos have the most subs and thus return the most money, and that is themeparks. Hence the reason AAA titles go the themepark route whilst only indie companies really go for sandboxes.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
thats how games have been in these old days. not all, not fully, but mostly.
and then people started to complain and devs started to listen and tried to avoid the "mistakes" of these sandboxes to make a better virtual world. and so the devs found the new holy cows:
Acessability, Refining, Balancing
suddenly millions of new people joined the MMO-crowd and also the investors have been very happy. just some idiots did not stop moaning about this new style. because with these new holy cows, the devs did harm, perhaps even sacrifice, some important things:
Immersion, Community, Challenge
honestly, there must be a better way than what we saw in the last 7 years.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
Actually both these are examples of sandbox gameplay, you simply added PvP to the second one. In fact if you take the 'craft and sell' ending and replace it with 'turn the item in to the NPC to complete the quest' they become thempark examples.
One of the big fallancies of the thempark vs sandbox debate is that PvP is considered a sandbox feature. In fact PvP is very much parallel to both designs. Too much PvP is in fact anti-sandbox since it limits player's choices and forces them down one path as envisioned by the devs.
Open pvp does not limit choices, it makes players think of workarounds to getting killed when carrying everything on them, hence the role created for haulers and bodyguards (as well as various other contracter). Whilst I will concede that a sandbox without open pvp is possible, the fact is that this limits the choices of the player and more importantly is reduces the ability for the players to interact within the community in general to the extent that they can in an open pvp system.
The mmo which currently has perhaps the greatest scope and funnily enough the most robust and active economy is EVE which has a fully open pvp system. That there are security ratings for zones adds an element of 'protection' but these act in the way of deterrents (sometimes) and not as specfic no pvp rule areas.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
EVE? Yes it works that way but I think youre forgetting the fact that the main markets are in safe space. Hence there are pvp areas (null and low sec) and safe areas (high sec)
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Fair point, but they are not 'safe' they are 'safer'. Ganking can and does happen in areas like Jita, the point being that there is no limitation applied, only a deterrent.
For me a sandbox needs open pvp, whether it comes with npc enforcement like EVE or not, but then that is only my humble opinion and I certainly don't want to turn this thread into a specfic pvp discussion as there are plenty of others for that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I have to assume, from your question, that you are independently wealthy. For the benefit of you and others who do not have to worry about paying a mortgage or putting food on your family's table, I offer the following :
1. World of Warcraft (WoW) is held up as the poster child for all things themepark.
2. WoW currently has >10 million active subscribers.
3. Each subscriber is paying approximately $15 U.S. per month for that privelege.
4. 10 million subscribers X ~$15 = $150 million dollars per month X 12 months = ~$1.8 billion dollars per year. (that's just from subscriptions)
Now, looking at the above (and given that the consensus in this thread seems to be that themeparks appeal to a wider audience), why do you think a developer would want to develop a themepark vs a sandbox?
Only about 4-5 million in NA, Europe are paying $15 a month. The other 7-8 million in Asia pay significantly less than $15. It's supposidly costs around the equivilant of 5 US cents an hour to play WoW in China, and Blizzard only gets about 20% of that money, the rest goes to the company who is licensing the game from Blizzard to run it in China. The last reported figure was that only 6% of Blizzard's revenue off WoW actually comes from China.
In other words, WoW isn't as "big" as Blizzard tries to make it out to be. That's not to say it still isn't big, but there is an intentional misrepresentation of numbers.
I disagree. Example 1) The problem is that the crafted item ultimately probably makes something that is worthless compared to epic loot that is designed in certain tiers for players of a certain pre-designated level to achieve. After a while, it will probably be obsolete until the next "guided" loot is obtained. ALso, the auction house itself is shown as a pre-defined system where you HAVE to sell your items a certain way through the system that was designed for that purpose. As opposed to "subjective" roles in example B where others are getting involved. They aren't a bodyguard class or a Hauling class....they are just using that as their own made up service that the developers did not create explicitly.
Of course, if you stretch the truth a bit, you can argue anything is sandbox/themepark...but people who have experiences the extremes of both from day 1 usually tend to have a good idea of where the whole concept came from.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
You could in swg (automated harvestors), and it was by far the best resource collection system I've ever played. It's also why I absolutely abhor wow's individual node harvesting system (although that is by no means unique to wow).
The great thing about SWG mining was that you really didn't mine, you explored. You'd travel all around the world scanning every now and then to find the most concentrated spots, get to those spots and place your harvestors, leave, and come back a few days later to reap the rewards.
It was a truly amazing system that actually made harvesting materials a lot of fun. It also got everyone involved, although you'd be able to use better harvestors as you built harvesting skill. But everyone else could setup some medium harvestors around their house, mine what was there, and then drop it into the economy to benefit the crafters.
It's a system that has yet to be matched by any mmo out there.
^ hates WoW with a passion.
SW:ToR
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yeah, I guess that must be why I played it for 5 years...
Or, maybe I don't hate WoW, and am just tired of people acting like it's infallable and that it's bigger and better than it really is.
it's funny to me that anytime anyone says something negative about WoW, or anything that's 'massively popular' they're instantly labeled as a 'hater' who just hates anything that's popular. God forbid if someone has an opinion that deviates from the masses.
Thanks for the laugh though
The figure is wrong (although i am pretty sure the 6% isn't mentioned from Blizz so citation needed, last i checked there is nothing in the financial statements about that one) but the point does stand.
The past 6 years, the market has spoken quite loudly that they want a themepark MMO.
They also want something polished, relatively bug-free and have lots of content. Whether this is fair on a new MMO is entirely irrelevant. That's what they want and that's what they'll pay for.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Sandboxes are about setting not linear story like so many themeparks nowadays.
I've always felt the best story is your own one, because its non linear, never ending and of course tailored to your likings. I still remember my "UO story, Everquest 1 and even my (short sad) Vanguard story". I did play the mega themepark but knew and loved the story long before it (WC 1 - 3 + FT) but nothing really comes to my mind despite the former challenging progession.
If anything the market is long long waiting for more well done sandboxes like EvE. If you ask me having 300k+ for years is way better than getting 1.000k at launch and constantely dropping to something like War..
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Sandbox - A sandbox is a game where the developers give players the tools to create their own objects, characters, surroundings, etc. with no limitations (other than the limitations within the game). Just like a sandbox, players are set free to create their own content, story, direction, entertainment, etc.
Theme Park - A theme park is a game where the developers create all the content, direction, characters, attractions, etc. for a player. Characters follow a defined progression starting from point A to point B. Everything is pre-planned, timed and pre-determined, etc.
To make this all easier to understand.
Think of an actual Sandbox. What can you do with it? Virtually anything you can imagine/want. You can play in the sand and make up whatever you want.
Now think of an actual Theme Park (i.e. Disneyland). What can you do with it? You can ride the rides and see the attractions.
That pretty much explains it in a nutshell.
Yes, that is why I stated "within the game's limitations". Obviously in a Medieval setting sandbox, I may not be able to create a futuristic space ship. But I may be able to create a build a castle or city anywhere I please to do with whatever I want (set up taxes, rent out homes, start a bank to hold players gold, etc).
The thing that separates the two types, is that I am creating the content for players, rather than the developers.
AoC you can build keeps and it is not a sandbox
Im still a firm believer that sand box v themepark is best desribed as setting v story and dynamic v persistent
Setting = a situation (not like jersey shore) , a story that leads up to the present that does not fill in the blanks. More or less an entire back story so that the political climate is set.
Story = what is happening now. Predefined by the developers, only allowing the pc to unlock the next section
dynamic = evolving due to pc interaction, not stagnant
persistent = continuing without change in function or structure
So what does this mean?
Themepark=story=persistent = everyone experiences the same content of which there are no changes unless made by the developers in the form of patches or content updates
Sandbox=setting=dynamic = every moment is defined by player interaction, or even lack of player interaction.
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
Aye, I agree with you, lectrocuda.
Although you can build Keeps in AoC, it is all still pre-determined and pre-planned. There is no freedom to build a Keep (other than where the developers have told you where to build a Keep). So yeah, its not a sandbox - even though you can build Keeps. Yup.
And yes, I agree with you too that a Sandbox is dynamic and Theme Park is persistant. Seems like alot of players are all about "Persistant" worlds. I'd much rather have a "Dynamic" world. But...to each their own. Everyone has their owns tastes, which is a good thing.
Kudos!
The guy who invented the terms 'sandbox' and 'theme park' defined them this way: A theme park is where your character is literally on rails like a train, think of Mario Brothers or Donkey Kong, you can only move left or right. A sandbox is _any_ MMO, even in the most basic of MMOs you can move in X and Y and sometimes Z axis.
So old school video games like Pac Man are theme park. Runescape, EQ1, WoW etc are sandbox.
The sandbox players aren't creating anything the developers didn't intend for them to create, but they are able to build more things than you can in a typical Themepark game. The things you build are more meaningful. WoW is the best example of a game where you build useful stuff because you just need something to do. Eve Online is probably the best example of a game where you build meaningful things because you need them. You're changing the source of the main "stuff" of the game from NPCs to the players in a sandbox. But it's not an absolute thing.
You can have a sandbox game with NPC factions that are the rulers and they hand out buliding permits, or you can have a sandbox game where the NPC factions are really of minor importance compared to the player guilds where if you build in the wrong spot, the guilds come and wreck your house. It does indeed depend on how the developers set the game up.
You could almost say the difference is that in a sandbox, you entertain yourself because you have to, or you get sand in your shorts. In a themepark you are entertained, as long as you follow the signs.
There are a lot of differences and some of them are subjective. Both require you to do something to be entertained. In the sandbox you're still following a path setup by the developers, even though there are no signs or lines to stand in. The biggest difference is probably preference...what do you prefer to do? Personally, I like both and I'd like to see a huge themepark filled with sand that didn't have boring combat.
The player interaction is markedly different though. PvP is inherent in a sandbox, even if it doesn't include combat. The environment may offer some challenge, but your biggest challenge will come from other players. It's kind of like a Real Time Strategy game, except you're one of the space marines and not the god in the machine directing all the armies. That's just a subjective impression though and doesn't give a concrete definition.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.