What is there to do in Darkfall that makes it a sandbox game?
Just because you can explore the map and run around?
Just because it's FFA PvP?
I played darkfall for several months, and all there was to do is
1) Kill Monsters
2) Walk around an empty world, maybe wandering upon a treasure chest
3) PvP around the Monsters or PvP around Guild Cities
So PvE or PvP. And PvE was restricted to only a handful of races of enemy, who all acted the same way.
4) Craft
I enjoyed Darkfall... but calling it a sandbox, when WoW isn't??
WoW you can do all of the above just like Darkfall... except WoW has even more choices in each of the 4. You can do more than just PvP or Guild PvP. You have scores of battlegrounds to choose from. You have arena matches, world pvp, battlegrounds, etc. You have lots of different dungeons per level, which feels like more options than Darkfall.
But I admit, Darkfall does FEEL very sandboxy. But I'd argue that it is actually what people consider a sandbox.
That's why I created this thread.
Ok as useless and silly as 'game branding' (sandbox or not sandbox) conversations are I really got to say something here.
On day 2 of Darkfall I travelled nearly the entire length of the map and when I was done I still found mobs I could fight. Are you saying you can do that in wow?
I want to make clear, I dont care if you call it a sandbox or themepark what I do not like is being basically required to do quests just so I can explore. Can you play wow without questing? sure, is it realistic? no.
But again, can game X be called a sandbox if it doesnt have X amount of features is an endless debate that never ends until every single feature a person imagines is in the game. 'your right, because you can not create a snowblower darkfall is not a sandbox'....whatever.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
A themepark offers select few paths to reach a specific goal. Your limited in paths, but guaranteed the goal. Like a single player game. WoW mastered this concept and brought a huge chunk of the single player RPG world into MMOs. Easy to pick up, fast food kind of entertainment. And most importantly content focused.
A sandbox offers limitless paths to any possible goal. Your never limited, but never guaranteed to get what you want. You have a much more challenging and unforgiving game world. Player interaction focused.
Limitless? Be serious.
You can only do things the game is programmed to let you do. You can't fly in Darkfall and you can't walk in EVE (yet.) The goals may be self-driven, but they're really rather straightforward -- and many of those same goals are replicated in themeparks.
"I want to conquer this area" is possible in EVE but not WOW. (well, it vaguely is but the sense of ownership is really nowhere close)
"I want to be an amazing trader" is possible in both.
"I want to run a daily trivia contest" is possible in both.
If you want to be stronger or richer, then in either game you're going to have to jump through a linear series of hoops to become better (well actually in either game you have multiple options of becoming richer and in WOW you have 2-3 paths to become stronger whereas in EVE there's sort of just 1: pay money to CCP and wait.)
You're left with a sort of strange definition that sandboxes are about some vague combination of open PVP, territorial control, and to a lesser degree construction and skill-based progression (though tbh, I've always held that skill-based progression is largely separate from what makes sandboxes sandbox.)
Better to evangelize the strengths of those 4 specific features than to try to claim sandboxes let you do anything you want -- because they don't.
Ideally limitless. No such game exists because it would be financially unstable. But when you have a themepark that offers 5 paths to set of 2 goals, and a sandbox that offers 300 paths to 50 possible goals, you have an obvious categorical difference. Now the quality and nature of the paths and goals is what most people look at, and not the total possible paths.
To answer the OPs original question. I think you need 4 things to give a game a sandbox nature: A seamless massive world. Player created and enforced rules. Dynamic skill and gameplay systems. The capability to create much of the game world including the gear, buildings, cities, nations, etc.
I've been thinking lately... what's the difference?
There is no difference. Sandbox and themepark are not types of games, but a description that helps define how much latitude the developers give players. It is an adjective describing gameplay that people confuse as a genre.
There really isn't a universal ruler for defining gameplay as being sandbox or themepark.
There absoluttely is, but I cba to say it all again in the same thread lol.
If your interested in a view I guess you can read the thread. If not then i guess it's pointless to type anyhow.
but your wrong and there absolutely is.
I don't believe there is an absolute rule. There are comments people have posted saying this is the rule. But the fact is that devlopers, and industry leaders themselves argue over the terms. If they argue over them, and they are ones that make the terms then there isn't a absolute rule.
Venge
Would be cool if you could post links to some examples of these debates and conflicting defintions from industry leaders.
Who are they, and what do they say? What arguments have taken place? I am always interested in facts
Who says "industry leaders" are right?
People, don't get caught up in labels.. seriously. Meanings of things change over time, and with so many different opinions about video games, mmo's, etc., it's like nailing down a moving target with god-mode on. Fairly pointless.
Well, not me... it's them that got us into this ****hole we are in right now imo. I don't have much faith in their views to say the least, but I am always interested in seeing information when people tell 'the fact is...'
I've been thinking lately... what's the difference?
If you can't tell the difference, it's best not to worry about it.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
you can not create a snowblower darkfall is not a sandbox'....whatever.
Snowblower *chuckle*
They've done some amazing stuff in that game. I guess Tasos didn't think of snow removal yet.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
you can not create a snowblower darkfall is not a sandbox'....whatever.
Snowblower *chuckle*
They've done some amazing stuff in that game. I guess Tasos didn't think of snow removal yet.
Game is still busy with people who say 'I cant turn this sword into a snowblower this is no sandbox I rage quit but I will lurk on the forums for 6 months first, I might come back if they implement an aucition house because THAT is a game changer for me and without it I would rather play WoW'
Its hysterical but it is the community I am afraid
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Ideally limitless. No such game exists because it would be financially unstable. But when you have a themepark that offers 5 paths to set of 2 goals, and a sandbox that offers 300 paths to 50 possible goals, you have an obvious categorical difference. Now the quality and nature of the paths and goals is what most people look at, and not the total possible paths.
The problem is that people tend to undercount the number of paths and goals in the games they dislike and overcount in the games they like. Then you have the issue that what to one person looks like multiple goals with multiple paths to another person looks like a single goal with a single path or multiple goals with the same path.
eg most PvP games like very much like single-path games to me since while I can see a plethora of paths in most PvE game. I am sure that a dedicated PvPer would have an opposite opinion.
I've been thinking lately... what's the difference?
There is no difference. Sandbox and themepark are not types of games, but a description that helps define how much latitude the developers give players. It is an adjective describing gameplay that people confuse as a genre.
There really isn't a universal ruler for defining gameplay as being sandbox or themepark.
There absoluttely is, but I cba to say it all again in the same thread lol.
If your interested in a view I guess you can read the thread. If not then i guess it's pointless to type anyhow.
but your wrong and there absolutely is.
I don't believe there is an absolute rule. There are comments people have posted saying this is the rule. But the fact is that devlopers, and industry leaders themselves argue over the terms. If they argue over them, and they are ones that make the terms then there isn't a absolute rule.
Venge
Would be cool if you could post links to some examples of these debates and conflicting defintions from industry leaders.
Who are they, and what do they say? What arguments have taken place? I am always interested in facts
Who says "industry leaders" are right?
People, don't get caught up in labels.. seriously. Meanings of things change over time, and with so many different opinions about video games, mmo's, etc., it's like nailing down a moving target with god-mode on. Fairly pointless.
There are posts and links in these very forums regarding comments developers like Ralph, Koster and David Allen have made. And there there have been links to a number of articles, debates and discussions to things like the Sandbox Symposium. You can look it up, I don't need to, they are there if you want to educate yourself.
And I'm not saying that Industry leaders are right. What I am saying is that there is no absolute rule because there is no general consencus among anyone, the devs, the publishers, the gamers... no one.
The only thing we seem to agree on is that too be sandbox you need to have player choice, and the players need to affect the game world in some way, and thats about the only consencus I can see.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I've participated in too many threads to count on this very topic, so I'm going to take the easy way out this time around.
Sandbox ---> See EVE
Themepark ---> See WOW
There are varying degrees in between and around these two games that others fall into. (i.e. UO was more sandboxy and perhaps LotRO was more Themeparky)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
To me, a sandbox is a game that allows you to do a bit more than simply fight bigger and bigger monsters further and further away from town, but what exactly "a bit more" constitutes is up for debate. Even little things like being able to sit in chairs and having the ability to write player made books go a long way to making a game feel more like a sandbox. Additionally, the original EQ always felt, in some ways, like a sandbox because years after the game's release, there was such a wide breadth of content that you could choose between when leveling your character, especially if you played a solo oriented class.
Mainly though, when I think of a sandbox, I think of a game that allows me great freedom in developing my character how I want with avenues of primary advancement outside of combat and a game that allows me to, more or less, "live" within the game world, complete with my own home built within a larger city encompassing my guild or some other player association. Having said this, there are very few games that I consider to be a sandbox in the "truest" sense of the word, those of course being pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies, Ultima Online, and EVE. I do not include Ryzom because of a lack of real player housing or purpose outside of character advancement, Darkfall is not included because of a lack of purpose outside of PvP and a lack of character differentiation, and lastly I do not include Mortal Online, because to me, that game is a garbled mess that has a long time to go before it even remotely resembles a finished product. Of course, that opinion may change once they finally offer a free trial.
Ideally limitless. No such game exists because it would be financially unstable. But when you have a themepark that offers 5 paths to set of 2 goals, and a sandbox that offers 300 paths to 50 possible goals, you have an obvious categorical difference. Now the quality and nature of the paths and goals is what most people look at, and not the total possible paths.
The problem is that people tend to undercount the number of paths and goals in the games they dislike and overcount in the games they like. Then you have the issue that what to one person looks like multiple goals with multiple paths to another person looks like a single goal with a single path or multiple goals with the same path.
eg most PvP games like very much like single-path games to me since while I can see a plethora of paths in most PvE game. I am sure that a dedicated PvPer would have an opposite opinion.
There is no "PvP game" assessment when talking about a true sandbox. Most PvP games people associate with are not sandbox at all. WAR, WoW, AoC, and most F2Ps with PvP, people associate with just meaningless ganking. In a properly designed sandbox, the negatives found in most PvP themeparks would be very rare for a large multitude of reasons. Mostly because you aren't hindered by class, territory, or laws, there would be a sufficient amount of tools for you to use to continue on your path. DF and MO failed in these regards. SWG had potential. But I'll be honest, even UO was not properly balanced in this regard. You can't differentiate PvP and PvE for sandbox games because it fuses them so effectively you have a genre than is much more than just its parts. For instance, being a crafter in a sandbox while trying to build an economic empire would be a far more complete and rewarding PvE experience for those who earn it. Running raids three times a week and getting new armor from random drops is a very streamlined and boring interpretation of just how fun PvE can be in a dynamic game setting. Even labeling that as PvE is pathetic in and of itself.
There is no "PvP game" assessment when talking about a true sandbox. Most PvP games people associate with are not sandbox at all. WAR, WoW, AoC, and most F2Ps with PvP, people associate with just meaningless ganking. In a properly designed sandbox, the negatives found in most PvP themeparks would be very rare for a large multitude of reasons. Mostly because you aren't hindered by class, territory, or laws, there would be a sufficient amount of tools for you to use to continue on your path. DF and MO failed in these regards. SWG had potential. But I'll be honest, even UO was not properly balanced in this regard. You can't differentiate PvP and PvE for sandbox games because it fuses them so effectively you have a genre than is much more than just its parts. For instance, being a crafter in a sandbox while trying to build an economic empire would be a far more complete and rewarding PvE experience for those who earn it. Running raids three times a week and getting new armor from random drops is a very streamlined and boring interpretation of just how fun PvE can be in a dynamic game setting. Even labeling that as PvE is pathetic in and of itself.
I dont see any of that banter when it comes to what is or is not a sandbox. Its really far more simple then everyone is suggesting.
Basically if I have to quest to level up and if I have to level up in order to realistically leave the room I am born in then its not a sandbox. Thats pretty much it and that description alone describes a great deal of MMOs. PvP, PvE, ablity to make snowblowers out of rocks, etc really has far less to do with the subject then any of you are trying to make it out to be.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There are some features that are accepted as "Sandbox" and features that are accepted as "Themepark". These things exist because people accept them as true. At least on these forums they do. I don't know about the general population...I never really thought about it until I started reading these forums on a regular basis.
Sandbox Features * PvP (if it's in the game) is not factional. You can attack anyone, but generally not anyone you are allied with (your guild). * PvP comes with the prospect of losing your gear (whether it's a ship or it's armor). * Items (loot) are sourced from players creating them. Materials can come from mobs, but items do not, unless better items can be crafted by players. * Characters are generally classless. i.e. You do not pick a class at the start of the game to determine the future development of your character. * Player housing (if it exists) allows the player to build a house anywhere. * Guild Housing - see player housing. * Character progression is not through quests. Quests may not exist at all. They can be done, or they can be ignored.
Themepark * PvP (if it's in the game) is along the lines of NPC factions. You do not attack anyone in your faction, whether they are in your guild or not. * PvP does not come with the prospect of losing your gear, though the winner may receive something for winning a fight. * Items can be sourced from players, but most items or the better and best items are sourced from mobs or bosses. The players do not create them. * Characters are generally in classes. i.e. You pick a class at the start of the game that determines to a large extent the future development of your character. * Player housing, if it exists has its location determined by the game. * Guild Housing - see player housing. * Quests play a large role in player progression. The player will follow a quest or a series of quests to progress their character. Even if most quests can be ignored, some quests must be taken to fully flesh out your character.
Either/Or World Size: In Sandbox games, the worlds are generally considered to be bigger than in Themeparks, though the world size is not part of the definition of either.
I'm not sure what else there is. You can get into discussions on "freedom" or "player stories", etc. but those aren't really game mechanics. I'm sure there could be more, but a lot of it is a judgment call. More games are becoming hybrids of both. Quests are showing up in a something that is mostly a Sandbox game. Players are crafting items and becoming the primary source for some items in mostly Themepark games. A Themepark game may be "grindy" while a Sandbox game may not.
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we will never see a full on Sandbox game again from a AAA developer. We will see very few from smaller developers. If they release a game as a full on Sandbox, it will start to incorporate Themepark features like Questing for character progression.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well I haven't seen evidence that the mass majority wants themeparks, is there a census somewhere? It seems to be the same thing as Apple forcing the public to want what Apple wants them to want. I mean when you watch the news, TV talk shows, sports cast stations, etc. you see a MacBook Pro on the desk and the more it's seen the more people go "oooh I want one". The more themepark games there are the more it becomes a trend.
typos
EQ selling better than UO by a significant margin.
WOW selling better than EVE by a significant margin.
Non-sim (themeparks) games selling better than simulations (sandboxes) throughout the entire history of videogaming.
Any of this ringing a bell?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've been thinking lately... what's the difference?
There is no difference. Sandbox and themepark are not types of games, but a description that helps define how much latitude the developers give players. It is an adjective describing gameplay that people confuse as a genre.
There really isn't a universal ruler for defining gameplay as being sandbox or themepark.
There absoluttely is, but I cba to say it all again in the same thread lol.
If your interested in a view I guess you can read the thread. If not then i guess it's pointless to type anyhow.
but your wrong and there absolutely is.
I don't believe there is an absolute rule. There are comments people have posted saying this is the rule. But the fact is that devlopers, and industry leaders themselves argue over the terms. If they argue over them, and they are ones that make the terms then there isn't a absolute rule.
Venge
Would be cool if you could post links to some examples of these debates and conflicting defintions from industry leaders.
Who are they, and what do they say? What arguments have taken place? I am always interested in facts
Who says "industry leaders" are right?
People, don't get caught up in labels.. seriously. Meanings of things change over time, and with so many different opinions about video games, mmo's, etc., it's like nailing down a moving target with god-mode on. Fairly pointless.
There are posts and links in these very forums regarding comments developers like Ralph, Koster and David Allen have made. And there there have been links to a number of articles, debates and discussions to things like the Sandbox Symposium. You can look it up, I don't need to, they are there if you want to educate yourself.
Thats fine, but it's very simple forum ettiquette that if you statee facts on the internet in discussions that you back up your facts with links and whatever.
It helps people take your facts seriously, thats all.
The only thing we seem to agree on is that too be sandbox you need to have player choice, and the players need to affect the game world in some way, and thats about the only consencus I can see.
But... the ability to effect, shape, and define the world, and through it the players own experience and play path, is exactly the definition I have been stating for sandbox games.
So it seems there are actually accepted definitions, and they are the same ones that have been said already here (by non industry leaders no less)
Specs: In WOW you can freely respec *and* dual-spec. In DF or EVE you're stuck with a single character who cannot flexibly become something else without a lot of grinding or time.
Crafting: While focus on crafting is indisputably superior in EVE, WOW beats DF in terms of being able to commit to it fulltime. Granted in either WOW or DF the crafting isn't deep enough that you're gonna spend 100% of your time doing it (although players do in both, I'm sure.)
Quests: In WOW it's impossible to entirely avoid quests, but after level 15 it's possible to level completely in groups where quests are very rare.
Level Restrictions: Um, but EVE and DF have level restrictions. You can't pilot Ship W without Skill X, and you can't wear Armor Y without Strength Z. Certainly you'd get no argument from me that both of these games would benefit enormously from a Planetside-like progression and item system (they'd actually be PVP MMORPGs instead of...well, whatever they are now.)
Crafting ? Ok : I can only craft things for my space ship in EVE. In Wow I even make my own flying mounts...along with the boots (pun intended) my character is wearing.
You can play WOW as a fully fledged "free choice of playing" sandbox without even doing 1 quest ... (level by just picking flowers or mining and putting them in the economy and by that economy get all epic crafted or BOEquiped gear. Perfecftly possible these days - you don't even have to kill ONE mob to level to 85 and max out professions).
You can play EVE as a fully fledged themepark only doing the designated quests and mining runs.
It is ALL about getting better stats along with use of an economy and PvE - PvP.
So WHO decides: the player decides how he plays ...
The only thing that sperates these 2 games is that EVE is PvP centric with the risk of setting you back (but see the copied spaceship mechanic).
BTW/ it is ALL about gaming options. The more options in a game the more choices. So in fact the more themes the more choices.
Sandboxes were never made: games that LACKED features were made and considered sandboxes back then (and now - see Darkfall) because they lacked choices by inferior design and lazy development (no trade channel, no market mechanism, etc ...). Even EVE lacks some very fundamental and CORE MMO mechanics.... Who wants to be a spaceship ?
Specs: In WOW you can freely respec *and* dual-spec. In DF or EVE you're stuck with a single character who cannot flexibly become something else without a lot of grinding or time.
Crafting: While focus on crafting is indisputably superior in EVE, WOW beats DF in terms of being able to commit to it fulltime. Granted in either WOW or DF the crafting isn't deep enough that you're gonna spend 100% of your time doing it (although players do in both, I'm sure.)
Quests: In WOW it's impossible to entirely avoid quests, but after level 15 it's possible to level completely in groups where quests are very rare.
Level Restrictions: Um, but EVE and DF have level restrictions. You can't pilot Ship W without Skill X, and you can't wear Armor Y without Strength Z. Certainly you'd get no argument from me that both of these games would benefit enormously from a Planetside-like progression and item system (they'd actually be PVP MMORPGs instead of...well, whatever they are now.)
Crafting ? Ok : I can only craft things for my space ship in EVE. In Wow I even make my own flying mounts...along with the boots my character is wearing.
You can play WOW as a fully fledged "free choice of playing" sandbox without even doing 1 quest ... (level by just picking flowers or mining and putting them in the economy and by that economy get all epic crafted or BOEquiped gear. Perfecftly possible these days).
You can play EVE as a fully fledged themepark only doing the designated quests and mining runs.
It is ALL about getting better stats along with use of an economy and PvE - PvP.
So WHO decides: the player decides how he plays ...
The only thing that sperates these 2 games is that EVE is PvP centric with the risk of setting you back (but see the copied spaceship mechanic).
BTW/ it is ALL about gaming options. The more options in a game the more choices. So in fact the more themes the more choices.
Sandboxes were never made: games that LACKED features were made and considered sandboxes back then (and now - see Darkfall) because they lacked choices by inferior design and lazy development (no trade channel, no market mechanism, etc ...). Even EVE lacks some very fundamental and CORE MMO mechanics.... Who wants to be a spaceship ?
Lets look at UO. It did not lack features. The features were extremely abundant. Games like WoW went more quest heavy and cut back on features and options.
I'll give you an example for UO. I could go out one day with the same toon and hunt and skin animals, mine, ride a nightmare with a rune beetle in tow while casting necro spells to make farming fast and easy. I could take a WW out and hunt drakes and dragons. I could take out a Greater Dragon and hunt WW's. I could tame animals and turn them in to the Zoo for rewards, I could sale them to other players, I could release them near haven (The newbie town) if I felt mean as hell lol. After all of that I could then sit down in my HOUSE that I built and decorated with epic weapons and armors that adorned my walls, check out the rune library on my second floor which I of course marked each and every rune for and put into books and labeled, go to the 3rd floor which was my work station which had an anvil, forge, loom, etc. etc. etc. which were all functioning items used in various crafts.
Now whats fun about sitting down in my house is that I had a few game boards setup for when I had friends over so that we could play chess, backgamon, checkers or w/e while in game.
This is just a tiny sampling of my choices for a single day.
Sandboxes did not lack features, they lacked quests for those that wanted a guided tour through the game. They actually have a numerous amount of features which leads way to numerous amounts of choice, which of course overwhelms many.
In a sandbox like UO the focus is put on the world and how players can interact with it. Those are the features. I mean compare Taming in UO to taming in WoW. What choices does a hunter in WoW truly have?
In UO I could be a mage tamer, a warrior tamer, a ranger tamer, a necro tamer ,a paladin tamer, and the list goes on lol Bushido taming was even fun. But the options do not end there. Each pet is different. 1 Greater Dragon doesn't have the same potential as the next when they spawn they can spawn with random stats within a certain range. Then after you tame them you must bond them and then train them by using them in battle. They skill up the same way a player does. Of course it doesn't end there. I could use a pack of Frenzied Ostards which would be 5, a mount and 2 drakes, and so on. The combination of pets you could use is fairly large.
So while a themepark can give the illusion of choice, only a sandbox truly delivers choice.
Sandboxes don't lack features lol. They focus more on the features than a themepark. Those that don't or haven't played a sandbox a good bit though don't know these things and just assume that sandboxes are unfinished games since they do not have the abundance of quests that a themepark does.
Well I haven't seen evidence that the mass majority wants themeparks, is there a census somewhere? It seems to be the same thing as Apple forcing the public to want what Apple wants them to want. I mean when you watch the news, TV talk shows, sports cast stations, etc. you see a MacBook Pro on the desk and the more it's seen the more people go "oooh I want one". The more themepark games there are the more it becomes a trend.
typos
EQ selling better than UO by a significant margin.
WOW selling better than EVE by a significant margin.
Non-sim (themeparks) games selling better than simulations (sandboxes) throughout the entire history of videogaming.
Any of this ringing a bell?
1) Just because something else sells better doesn't mean it can't sell.
2) Just like Apple & the Macs--- just because it sells well doesn't mean the people who buy it aren't idiots, making very poor decisions on overpriced, inferior products which they were basically brainwashed to want.
"Play WoW.... our brainwashing advertising and hype command you!"
Now we command you developers...MAKE MORE CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Originally posted by Emergence Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by sookster54
Well I haven't seen evidence that the mass majority wants themeparks, is there a census somewhere? It seems to be the same thing as Apple forcing the public to want what Apple wants them to want. I mean when you watch the news, TV talk shows, sports cast stations, etc. you see a MacBook Pro on the desk and the more it's seen the more people go "oooh I want one". The more themepark games there are the more it becomes a trend.
typos
EQ selling better than UO by a significant margin. WOW selling better than EVE by a significant margin. Non-sim (themeparks) games selling better than simulations (sandboxes) throughout the entire history of videogaming. Any of this ringing a bell? 1) Just because something else sells better doesn't mean it can't sell. 2) Just like Apple & the Macs--- just because it sells well doesn't mean the people who buy it aren't idiots, making very poor decisions on overpriced, inferior products which they were basically brainwashed to want.
"Play WoW.... our brainwashing advertising and hype command you!" Now we command you developers...MAKE MORE CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you clone it... they will come. If you clone it... they will come. If you clone it... they will come. If you clone it... they will come. If you clone it... they will come. If you clone it... they will come. If you clone it... they will come.
That implies that people with superior intelligence make products that are superior in every way...except they don't sell better. Repeatedly*.
I would posit that in the case of MMORPG, the sandbox games simply are not superior. Most lack even the basic feature set of a Sandbox, much less a fully fleshed out MMORPG.
But the real thing (believe it or not, it's up to you) is there are simply fewer people who actually want a Sandbox. It sounds good on paper, but when you play it, it's BORING. With a capital BORING. Not to everyone. Not even to a lot of people.
There are very few people who are going to spend six months playing a video game before they "get it". Not when there are so many other choices out there that they can get in about 10 minutes. Even if a AAA producer made a decent Sandbox game, all other things being equal, it wouldn't attract nearly as many people as a decent Themepark game.
* Apple doesn't sell better than PC because it's more expensive for something that while it's a smoother, even better experience, doesn't actually offer many features beyond what the vast majority of people need. You don't need to spend an additional $400 to surf the internet.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well I haven't seen evidence that the mass majority wants themeparks,is there a census somewhere? It seems to be the same thing as Apple forcing the public to want what Apple wants them to want. I mean when you watch the news, TV talk shows, sports cast stations, etc. you see a MacBook Pro on the desk and the more it's seen the more people go "oooh I want one". The more themepark games there are the more it becomes a trend.
typos
EQ selling better than UO by a significant margin.
WOW selling better than EVE by a significant margin.
Non-sim (themeparks) games selling better than simulations (sandboxes) throughout the entire history of videogaming.
Any of this ringing a bell?
1) Just because something else sells better doesn't mean it can't sell.
2) Just like Apple & the Macs--- just because it sells well doesn't mean the people who buy it aren't idiots, making very poor decisions on overpriced, inferior products which they were basically brainwashed to want.
"Play WoW.... our brainwashing advertising and hype command you!"
Now we command you developers...MAKE MORE CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
Please read the highlighted bit to understand what I'm replying to.
In plenty of other threads I've said that niche games can, do, and will always exist. But we're not discussing the niche playerbase...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well I haven't seen evidence that the mass majority wants themeparks, is there a census somewhere? It seems to be the same thing as Apple forcing the public to want what Apple wants them to want. I mean when you watch the news, TV talk shows, sports cast stations, etc. you see a MacBook Pro on the desk and the more it's seen the more people go "oooh I want one". The more themepark games there are the more it becomes a trend.
typos
EQ selling better than UO by a significant margin.
WOW selling better than EVE by a significant margin.
Non-sim (themeparks) games selling better than simulations (sandboxes) throughout the entire history of videogaming.
Any of this ringing a bell?
1) Just because something else sells better doesn't mean it can't sell.
2) Just like Apple & the Macs--- just because it sells well doesn't mean the people who buy it aren't idiots, making very poor decisions on overpriced, inferior products which they were basically brainwashed to want.
"Play WoW.... our brainwashing advertising and hype command you!"
Now we command you developers...MAKE MORE CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
That implies that people with superior intelligence make products that are superior in every way...except they don't sell better. Repeatedly*.
I would posit that in the case of MMORPG, the sandbox games simply are not superior. Most lack even the basic feature set of a Sandbox, much less a fully fleshed out MMORPG.
But the real thing (believe it or not, it's up to you) is there are simply fewer people who actually want a Sandbox. It sounds good on paper, but when you play it, it's BORING. With a capital BORING. Not to everyone. Not even to a lot of people.
There are very few people who are going to spend six months playing a video game before they "get it". Not when there are so many other choices out there that they can get in about 10 minutes. Even if a AAA producer made a decent Sandbox game, all other things being equal, it wouldn't attract nearly as many people as a decent Themepark game.
* Apple doesn't sell better than PC because it's more expensive for something that while it's a smoother, even better experience, doesn't actually offer many features beyond what the vast majority of people need. You don't need to spend an additional $400 to surf the internet.
Actually .... sandbox games garner a very large number of players. It's sandbox MMO's that don't draw in the huge crowds (Though I still find it funny that UO has a larger number of subs than games like AoC, CO, War, etc. lol).
Grand Theft Auto
Fallout series
Red Dead Redemption
Oblivion
Sandbox games are very popular, for w/e reason though the current MMO scene is dominated by themepark players. Games like DCUO reaching out to console players though (if it becomes common practice) we could see some balance brought back between sandbox and themepark players.
The most popular off line games have been sandboxes so it's kind of unrealistic to say not many people find fun in a sandbox lol.
Would be cool if you could post links to some examples of these debates and conflicting defintions from industry leaders.
Who are they, and what do they say? What arguments have taken place? I am always interested in facts
Who says "industry leaders" are right?
People, don't get caught up in labels.. seriously. Meanings of things change over time, and with so many different opinions about video games, mmo's, etc., it's like nailing down a moving target with god-mode on. Fairly pointless.
There are posts and links in these very forums regarding comments developers like Ralph, Koster and David Allen have made. And there there have been links to a number of articles, debates and discussions to things like the Sandbox Symposium. You can look it up, I don't need to, they are there if you want to educate yourself.
Thats fine, but it's very simple forum ettiquette that if you statee facts on the internet in discussions that you back up your facts with links and whatever.
It helps people take your facts seriously, thats all.
The only thing we seem to agree on is that too be sandbox you need to have player choice, and the players need to affect the game world in some way, and thats about the only consencus I can see.
But... the ability to effect, shape, and define the world, and through it the players own experience and play path, is exactly the definition I have been stating for sandbox games.
So it seems there are actually accepted definitions, and they are the same ones that have been said already here (by non industry leaders no less)
We may agree that being able to affect the world is an aspect of sandbox. But we can't agree how what means in practice, or how much you need to affect the world to be called a sandbox. In Darkfall you can have guild cities and take over keeps. That affects the gameworld, and yet half the people in these forums don't consider Darkfall to be a sandbox. I do, for that very reason, among others.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Actually .... sandbox games garner a very large number of players. It's sandbox MMO's that don't draw in the huge crowds (Though I still find it funny that UO has a larger number of subs than games like AoC, CO, War, etc. lol).
Grand Theft Auto
Fallout series
Red Dead Redemption
Oblivion
Sandbox games are very popular, for w/e reason though the current MMO scene is dominated by themepark players. Games like DCUO reaching out to console players though (if it becomes common practice) we could see some balance brought back between sandbox and themepark players.
The most popular off line games have been sandboxes so it's kind of unrealistic to say not many people find fun in a sandbox lol.
The reason I always fail with this conversation is because in my mind Grand Theft Auto is a perfect example of what is NOT a sandbox.
Not only can you not explore 1/2 the map until you do a great deal of quests those quests by and large can only be done certian specific ways. Additionally, If you want to open up shops and other areas you have to complete quests as well.
That is EXACTLY nearly to the letter what a sandbox is NOT.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Ok as useless and silly as 'game branding' (sandbox or not sandbox) conversations are I really got to say something here.
On day 2 of Darkfall I travelled nearly the entire length of the map and when I was done I still found mobs I could fight. Are you saying you can do that in wow?
I want to make clear, I dont care if you call it a sandbox or themepark what I do not like is being basically required to do quests just so I can explore. Can you play wow without questing? sure, is it realistic? no.
But again, can game X be called a sandbox if it doesnt have X amount of features is an endless debate that never ends until every single feature a person imagines is in the game. 'your right, because you can not create a snowblower darkfall is not a sandbox'....whatever.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Ideally limitless. No such game exists because it would be financially unstable. But when you have a themepark that offers 5 paths to set of 2 goals, and a sandbox that offers 300 paths to 50 possible goals, you have an obvious categorical difference. Now the quality and nature of the paths and goals is what most people look at, and not the total possible paths.
To answer the OPs original question. I think you need 4 things to give a game a sandbox nature: A seamless massive world. Player created and enforced rules. Dynamic skill and gameplay systems. The capability to create much of the game world including the gear, buildings, cities, nations, etc.
Well, not me... it's them that got us into this ****hole we are in right now imo. I don't have much faith in their views to say the least, but I am always interested in seeing information when people tell 'the fact is...'
If you can't tell the difference, it's best not to worry about it.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Snowblower *chuckle*
They've done some amazing stuff in that game. I guess Tasos didn't think of snow removal yet.
Game is still busy with people who say 'I cant turn this sword into a snowblower this is no sandbox I rage quit but I will lurk on the forums for 6 months first, I might come back if they implement an aucition house because THAT is a game changer for me and without it I would rather play WoW'
Its hysterical but it is the community I am afraid
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The problem is that people tend to undercount the number of paths and goals in the games they dislike and overcount in the games they like. Then you have the issue that what to one person looks like multiple goals with multiple paths to another person looks like a single goal with a single path or multiple goals with the same path.
eg most PvP games like very much like single-path games to me since while I can see a plethora of paths in most PvE game. I am sure that a dedicated PvPer would have an opposite opinion.
There are posts and links in these very forums regarding comments developers like Ralph, Koster and David Allen have made. And there there have been links to a number of articles, debates and discussions to things like the Sandbox Symposium. You can look it up, I don't need to, they are there if you want to educate yourself.
And I'm not saying that Industry leaders are right. What I am saying is that there is no absolute rule because there is no general consencus among anyone, the devs, the publishers, the gamers... no one.
The only thing we seem to agree on is that too be sandbox you need to have player choice, and the players need to affect the game world in some way, and thats about the only consencus I can see.
Venge Sunsoar
I've participated in too many threads to count on this very topic, so I'm going to take the easy way out this time around.
Sandbox ---> See EVE
Themepark ---> See WOW
There are varying degrees in between and around these two games that others fall into. (i.e. UO was more sandboxy and perhaps LotRO was more Themeparky)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
To me, a sandbox is a game that allows you to do a bit more than simply fight bigger and bigger monsters further and further away from town, but what exactly "a bit more" constitutes is up for debate. Even little things like being able to sit in chairs and having the ability to write player made books go a long way to making a game feel more like a sandbox. Additionally, the original EQ always felt, in some ways, like a sandbox because years after the game's release, there was such a wide breadth of content that you could choose between when leveling your character, especially if you played a solo oriented class.
Mainly though, when I think of a sandbox, I think of a game that allows me great freedom in developing my character how I want with avenues of primary advancement outside of combat and a game that allows me to, more or less, "live" within the game world, complete with my own home built within a larger city encompassing my guild or some other player association. Having said this, there are very few games that I consider to be a sandbox in the "truest" sense of the word, those of course being pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies, Ultima Online, and EVE. I do not include Ryzom because of a lack of real player housing or purpose outside of character advancement, Darkfall is not included because of a lack of purpose outside of PvP and a lack of character differentiation, and lastly I do not include Mortal Online, because to me, that game is a garbled mess that has a long time to go before it even remotely resembles a finished product. Of course, that opinion may change once they finally offer a free trial.
SuperXero89 you pretty much summed up my thoughts on it.
Venge Sunsoar
There is no "PvP game" assessment when talking about a true sandbox. Most PvP games people associate with are not sandbox at all. WAR, WoW, AoC, and most F2Ps with PvP, people associate with just meaningless ganking. In a properly designed sandbox, the negatives found in most PvP themeparks would be very rare for a large multitude of reasons. Mostly because you aren't hindered by class, territory, or laws, there would be a sufficient amount of tools for you to use to continue on your path. DF and MO failed in these regards. SWG had potential. But I'll be honest, even UO was not properly balanced in this regard. You can't differentiate PvP and PvE for sandbox games because it fuses them so effectively you have a genre than is much more than just its parts. For instance, being a crafter in a sandbox while trying to build an economic empire would be a far more complete and rewarding PvE experience for those who earn it. Running raids three times a week and getting new armor from random drops is a very streamlined and boring interpretation of just how fun PvE can be in a dynamic game setting. Even labeling that as PvE is pathetic in and of itself.
I dont see any of that banter when it comes to what is or is not a sandbox. Its really far more simple then everyone is suggesting.
Basically if I have to quest to level up and if I have to level up in order to realistically leave the room I am born in then its not a sandbox. Thats pretty much it and that description alone describes a great deal of MMOs. PvP, PvE, ablity to make snowblowers out of rocks, etc really has far less to do with the subject then any of you are trying to make it out to be.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There are some features that are accepted as "Sandbox" and features that are accepted as "Themepark". These things exist because people accept them as true. At least on these forums they do. I don't know about the general population...I never really thought about it until I started reading these forums on a regular basis.
Sandbox Features
* PvP (if it's in the game) is not factional. You can attack anyone, but generally not anyone you are allied with (your guild).
* PvP comes with the prospect of losing your gear (whether it's a ship or it's armor).
* Items (loot) are sourced from players creating them. Materials can come from mobs, but items do not, unless better items can be crafted by players.
* Characters are generally classless. i.e. You do not pick a class at the start of the game to determine the future development of your character.
* Player housing (if it exists) allows the player to build a house anywhere.
* Guild Housing - see player housing.
* Character progression is not through quests. Quests may not exist at all. They can be done, or they can be ignored.
Themepark
* PvP (if it's in the game) is along the lines of NPC factions. You do not attack anyone in your faction, whether they are in your guild or not.
* PvP does not come with the prospect of losing your gear, though the winner may receive something for winning a fight.
* Items can be sourced from players, but most items or the better and best items are sourced from mobs or bosses. The players do not create them.
* Characters are generally in classes. i.e. You pick a class at the start of the game that determines to a large extent the future development of your character.
* Player housing, if it exists has its location determined by the game.
* Guild Housing - see player housing.
* Quests play a large role in player progression. The player will follow a quest or a series of quests to progress their character. Even if most quests can be ignored, some quests must be taken to fully flesh out your character.
Either/Or
World Size: In Sandbox games, the worlds are generally considered to be bigger than in Themeparks, though the world size is not part of the definition of either.
I'm not sure what else there is. You can get into discussions on "freedom" or "player stories", etc. but those aren't really game mechanics. I'm sure there could be more, but a lot of it is a judgment call. More games are becoming hybrids of both. Quests are showing up in a something that is mostly a Sandbox game. Players are crafting items and becoming the primary source for some items in mostly Themepark games. A Themepark game may be "grindy" while a Sandbox game may not.
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we will never see a full on Sandbox game again from a AAA developer. We will see very few from smaller developers. If they release a game as a full on Sandbox, it will start to incorporate Themepark features like Questing for character progression.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
EQ selling better than UO by a significant margin.
WOW selling better than EVE by a significant margin.
Non-sim (themeparks) games selling better than simulations (sandboxes) throughout the entire history of videogaming.
Any of this ringing a bell?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Crafting ? Ok : I can only craft things for my space ship in EVE. In Wow I even make my own flying mounts...along with the boots (pun intended) my character is wearing.
You can play WOW as a fully fledged "free choice of playing" sandbox without even doing 1 quest ... (level by just picking flowers or mining and putting them in the economy and by that economy get all epic crafted or BOEquiped gear. Perfecftly possible these days - you don't even have to kill ONE mob to level to 85 and max out professions).
You can play EVE as a fully fledged themepark only doing the designated quests and mining runs.
It is ALL about getting better stats along with use of an economy and PvE - PvP.
So WHO decides: the player decides how he plays ...
The only thing that sperates these 2 games is that EVE is PvP centric with the risk of setting you back (but see the copied spaceship mechanic).
BTW/ it is ALL about gaming options. The more options in a game the more choices. So in fact the more themes the more choices.
Sandboxes were never made: games that LACKED features were made and considered sandboxes back then (and now - see Darkfall) because they lacked choices by inferior design and lazy development (no trade channel, no market mechanism, etc ...). Even EVE lacks some very fundamental and CORE MMO mechanics.... Who wants to be a spaceship ?
Lets look at UO. It did not lack features. The features were extremely abundant. Games like WoW went more quest heavy and cut back on features and options.
I'll give you an example for UO. I could go out one day with the same toon and hunt and skin animals, mine, ride a nightmare with a rune beetle in tow while casting necro spells to make farming fast and easy. I could take a WW out and hunt drakes and dragons. I could take out a Greater Dragon and hunt WW's. I could tame animals and turn them in to the Zoo for rewards, I could sale them to other players, I could release them near haven (The newbie town) if I felt mean as hell lol. After all of that I could then sit down in my HOUSE that I built and decorated with epic weapons and armors that adorned my walls, check out the rune library on my second floor which I of course marked each and every rune for and put into books and labeled, go to the 3rd floor which was my work station which had an anvil, forge, loom, etc. etc. etc. which were all functioning items used in various crafts.
Now whats fun about sitting down in my house is that I had a few game boards setup for when I had friends over so that we could play chess, backgamon, checkers or w/e while in game.
This is just a tiny sampling of my choices for a single day.
Sandboxes did not lack features, they lacked quests for those that wanted a guided tour through the game. They actually have a numerous amount of features which leads way to numerous amounts of choice, which of course overwhelms many.
In a sandbox like UO the focus is put on the world and how players can interact with it. Those are the features. I mean compare Taming in UO to taming in WoW. What choices does a hunter in WoW truly have?
In UO I could be a mage tamer, a warrior tamer, a ranger tamer, a necro tamer ,a paladin tamer, and the list goes on lol Bushido taming was even fun. But the options do not end there. Each pet is different. 1 Greater Dragon doesn't have the same potential as the next when they spawn they can spawn with random stats within a certain range. Then after you tame them you must bond them and then train them by using them in battle. They skill up the same way a player does. Of course it doesn't end there. I could use a pack of Frenzied Ostards which would be 5, a mount and 2 drakes, and so on. The combination of pets you could use is fairly large.
So while a themepark can give the illusion of choice, only a sandbox truly delivers choice.
Sandboxes don't lack features lol. They focus more on the features than a themepark. Those that don't or haven't played a sandbox a good bit though don't know these things and just assume that sandboxes are unfinished games since they do not have the abundance of quests that a themepark does.
1) Just because something else sells better doesn't mean it can't sell.
2) Just like Apple & the Macs--- just because it sells well doesn't mean the people who buy it aren't idiots, making very poor decisions on overpriced, inferior products which they were basically brainwashed to want.
"Play WoW.... our brainwashing advertising and hype command you!"
Now we command you developers...MAKE MORE CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
WOW selling better than EVE by a significant margin.
Non-sim (themeparks) games selling better than simulations (sandboxes) throughout the entire history of videogaming.
Any of this ringing a bell?
1) Just because something else sells better doesn't mean it can't sell.
2) Just like Apple & the Macs--- just because it sells well doesn't mean the people who buy it aren't idiots, making very poor decisions on overpriced, inferior products which they were basically brainwashed to want.
"Play WoW.... our brainwashing advertising and hype command you!"
Now we command you developers...MAKE MORE CLONES!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
If you clone it... they will come.
That implies that people with superior intelligence make products that are superior in every way...except they don't sell better. Repeatedly*.
I would posit that in the case of MMORPG, the sandbox games simply are not superior. Most lack even the basic feature set of a Sandbox, much less a fully fleshed out MMORPG.
But the real thing (believe it or not, it's up to you) is there are simply fewer people who actually want a Sandbox. It sounds good on paper, but when you play it, it's BORING. With a capital BORING. Not to everyone. Not even to a lot of people.
There are very few people who are going to spend six months playing a video game before they "get it". Not when there are so many other choices out there that they can get in about 10 minutes. Even if a AAA producer made a decent Sandbox game, all other things being equal, it wouldn't attract nearly as many people as a decent Themepark game.
* Apple doesn't sell better than PC because it's more expensive for something that while it's a smoother, even better experience, doesn't actually offer many features beyond what the vast majority of people need. You don't need to spend an additional $400 to surf the internet.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Please read the highlighted bit to understand what I'm replying to.
In plenty of other threads I've said that niche games can, do, and will always exist. But we're not discussing the niche playerbase...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Actually .... sandbox games garner a very large number of players. It's sandbox MMO's that don't draw in the huge crowds (Though I still find it funny that UO has a larger number of subs than games like AoC, CO, War, etc. lol).
Grand Theft Auto
Fallout series
Red Dead Redemption
Oblivion
Sandbox games are very popular, for w/e reason though the current MMO scene is dominated by themepark players. Games like DCUO reaching out to console players though (if it becomes common practice) we could see some balance brought back between sandbox and themepark players.
The most popular off line games have been sandboxes so it's kind of unrealistic to say not many people find fun in a sandbox lol.
We may agree that being able to affect the world is an aspect of sandbox. But we can't agree how what means in practice, or how much you need to affect the world to be called a sandbox. In Darkfall you can have guild cities and take over keeps. That affects the gameworld, and yet half the people in these forums don't consider Darkfall to be a sandbox. I do, for that very reason, among others.
Venge
The reason I always fail with this conversation is because in my mind Grand Theft Auto is a perfect example of what is NOT a sandbox.
Not only can you not explore 1/2 the map until you do a great deal of quests those quests by and large can only be done certian specific ways. Additionally, If you want to open up shops and other areas you have to complete quests as well.
That is EXACTLY nearly to the letter what a sandbox is NOT.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me