Source or bullshit. The fact that not much information about exactly whether there is grind or not is out, I call your bullshit.
That is, unless you are in beta which I dont imagine to be very likely.
When some think its comming from korea its grindfest, while many western games also can be called grindfest i dont see why ARCHEAGE should be grindfest?
As long game is fun who cares if its grind or not.
From what I understand from interviews the head designer (or whatever the title is called) is trying to make it more for what westerners like. But I cant find the source for that. And I agree with you, most western games lately are grindfests, just a different kind. When I played rift I constantly found myself killing 10 of x and 8 of y for 15 of item z. Its griding with some slight direction. As long as I have fun in the game and my tasks are varied then the game (to me) wont be considered a grind.
What I'm looking at is closer to the middle. You don't necessarily have complete freedom, but at the same time, you have more than enough goals that you can chase an enough ways to get there that there is a decent feel of freedom. You also have the quests, and such that make up a theme park, but you re-tool them. Quests no longer serve as a road to point you down the story while hiding the grinding curve. Instead they are simply there for you to chase as you run across them. You won't do a chain of them, then get pointed down towards the next hub. Instead a hub might simply exist for you to stumble upon.
This isn't a middle, this is sandbox.
Its fairly heavy on the sandbox side. (My preferred mix) but its not really what many consider "sandbox". I like to think of it more as old school, before sandbox and themepark became these two oil and water type of games.
You go to FF11, and you had an incredible amount of freedom in the game. Yet at the same time you had this underlying story that wove through the game, quests in order to achieve pretty much everything, and alot of fun.
Original EQ2, had alot of exploration, stuff to find, etc. EQ1 was light on obvious quests, (I don't really mind the ! above people's heads, I think of it as the MMO equivalent of someone waving you down....)
Vanguard will probably go down as one of the absolute worst releases in MMO history. I played it at launch and it was buggy. It crashed alot. SOE actually deserves alot of credit for how VG is now. It was released way to early because, the developers literally ran out of money. SOE took it on and for the most part rescued it.
My vote still goes to Hellgate: London (or maybe AoC) for that one, but yah Vanguard was another rushed-to-release stinker at the time.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Well if he say less freedom i dont see why you call it a sandbox becouse for me a sandbox is total freedom whatever you wanne do.
When you guys ever get around to agreeing on what the term means (argue amongst yourselves), let us know.
Part of what make it such and argue-able topic. "Sandbox" has as many subjective definitions as "hardcore" does.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by robert4818 Its fairly heavy on the sandbox side.
There is no middle, there is no sides. The game is either a sandbox - non-linear, or 'themepark' - linear.
What you talk about are features but those do not determine the game as sandbox or 'themepark'.
You can have 2 games with same feature, yet one is a sandbox and the other 'themepark'. What counts is how albeit same features are implemented and how they interact with players and environment.
There is no middle, there is no sides. The game is either a sandbox - non-linear, or 'themepark' - linear.
What you talk about are features but those do not determine the game as sandbox or 'themepark'.
You can have 2 games with same feature, yet one is a sandbox and the other 'themepark'. What counts is how albeit same features are implemented and how they interact with players and environment.
You say that, but its funny to see that when people are playing what they consider Sandbox, any sort of feature that adds some level of structure to the game (quests, NPC ran systems, etc.) is often met with a "this is a sandbox, go back to wow" mentality. Sometimes even tutorials.
Originally posted by robert4818 You say that, but its funny to see that when people are playing what they consider Sandbox, any sort of feature that adds some level of structure to the game (quests, NPC ran systems, etc.) is often met with a "this is a sandbox, go back to wow" mentality. Sometimes even tutorials.
Just because people misuse a term does not mean they are right.
You say that, but its funny to see that when people are playing what they consider Sandbox, any sort of feature that adds some level of structure to the game (quests, NPC ran systems, etc.) is often met with a "this is a sandbox, go back to wow" mentality. Sometimes even tutorials.
Just because people misuse a term does not mean they are right.
I'm apt to argue that no game is purely a "sandbox" or a "themepark" because for starters, we can't even agree on what these terms mean. I think a more realistic approach is to determine gameplay elements we consider to be on the sandbox or themepark side of the genre. Like most classifications, this one isn't self-evident or, for all intents and purposes, real. It's more of a continuum upon which certain game systems fall.
Yeah not yet for NA or EU. It has publishers for continental China, Japan , Hongkong and I think Taiwan and Singapoure. Well and South Korea of course.
Creator of AA did sign deal with 2Kgames recently but that was concerning creating another team to do CivilizationMMO.
Well hopefully it will get nice publisher soon especially it is developed with western audience in mind as well. Well definately looks more "westernish" than most of your Asian mmorpg's.
People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.
DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements. You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world. There is no "sandbox" element. Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom. Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable. There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.
People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.
DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements. You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world. There is no "sandbox" element. Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom. Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable. There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.
I agree. Also, Open world PVP != Sandbox. Sandbox can have open world PvP, but just because a game has open world PVP doesn't automatically make it a sandbox.
I think only EVE online would be considered a sandbox game out of the current crop of MMOs, since a lot of the infrastructure and even game rules are player built.
Originally posted by robert4818That happens when you have a poorly defined term.
That is a part of the issue for sure but I would put more blame on lack of ability or even effort to construct formalized statement based on logical, reasoned structure.
People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.
DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements. You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world. There is no "sandbox" element. Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom. Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable. There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.
Do you see the irony inherent in that claim? Where is your definition of "sandbox" coming from, and why is it more credible than mine? How can you tell people that they "really need to learn what the term sandbox means" when your definition is just as subjective as theirs?
Put simply, we need to determine a communal understanding of "sandbox," or these discussions will continue forever.
People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.
DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements. You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world. There is no "sandbox" element. Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom. Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable. There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.
Do you see the irony inherent in that claim? Where is your definition of "sandbox" coming from, and why is it more credible than mine? How can you tell people that they "really need to learn what the term sandbox means" when your definition is just as subjective as theirs?
Put simply, we need to determine a communal understanding of "sandbox," or these discussions will continue forever.
To quote US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's lithmus test on what is pornography: "I know it when I see it" =P
I don't really have a good definition for Sandbox, but for me, it needs to at least have tools for players to create game rules and game content for other players.
People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.
DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements. You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world. There is no "sandbox" element. Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom. Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable. There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.
Do you see the irony inherent in that claim? Where is your definition of "sandbox" coming from, and why is it more credible than mine? How can you tell people that they "really need to learn what the term sandbox means" when your definition is just as subjective as theirs?
Put simply, we need to determine a communal understanding of "sandbox," or these discussions will continue forever.
To quote US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's lithmus test on what is pornography: "I know it when I see it" =P
I don't really have a good definition for Sandbox, but for me, it needs to at least have tools for players to create game rules and game content for other players.
I think the problem with identifying the terms is really the evolution of the MMO genre. 10 years ago, EQ was the very definition of theme park. These days, with the extreme linearity of WOW, and games that have followed it, has really shifted the definition of themepark. I would argue that these days, EQ is much more sandbox than theme park when compared to the current crop of MMOs.
People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.
DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements. You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world. There is no "sandbox" element. Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom. Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable. There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.
Do you see the irony inherent in that claim? Where is your definition of "sandbox" coming from, and why is it more credible than mine? How can you tell people that they "really need to learn what the term sandbox means" when your definition is just as subjective as theirs?
Put simply, we need to determine a communal understanding of "sandbox," or these discussions will continue forever.
The term "sandbox" didn't originate recently from these forums. It's been around for quite a while (themepark on the other hand, is a relatively new term that didn't crop up until maybe the last decade). I'm using the term as I learned it years ago.
You can't really warp the definitions of words unless you have enough people adapt to the new definition; however the very nature of calling sandbox non-linear is absurd, SINCE ALL MMOS ARE NON-LINEAR IS SOME WAYS! Also, as far as use of words, you also don't really understand what "irony" means either, apparently. Lately, I've seen a trend in the past year or so of people who have no idea what the term sandbox means and simply use the word to describe whatever MMO they favor, and thus warp it's original meaning.
If sandbox means non-linear, than all MMOs are sandboxes. World of Warcraft is a sandbox because you can level via different paths. Not only can you decide which zones you want to level in (especially in Vanilla WoW) you also have options in which you can level entirely on dungeons or even grinding (slower, but still an option). There really isn't anything linear about the experience, except for a raid progression path which is also changing (options for 10 man and 20 man raids and even branching paths in dungeons like Naxxramus which allow you to choose which bosses you want to do first).
Now you could agrue a game like Everquest is more non-linear than WoW, but in reality (and as someone who holds Everquest in high regard and played from beta to about 5 years in very "hardcore") it's not. Again, you have options in the game, but leveling paths are about the same as WoW. You have zones, and those zones have a level range of them, so at any given time you may be able to choose from X amount of zones to level in, but especially in the original EQ the number was fairly small, almost equal to WoW's areas. In EQ, you didn't even have the option of a questing path to level in. You want to think Everquest gave you more options simply because it didn't explicitally tell the player their options like WoW does (you had to discover everything yourself). That doesn't make it more non-linear.
That's the problem with sandbox. Nobody knows the clear definition of it and the more we use it without coming to an understanding of what the term means the more we warp the definition and the more obscure it becomes, yet we continue to use it frequently and at this point it's a meaningless term anyway. Not that it should matter whether something is sandbox or not in the first place. Just play games to have fun, people, forget the damn labels!
Originally posted by Magnum2103 however the very nature of calling sandbox non-linear is absurd, SINCE ALL MMOS ARE NON-LINEAR IS SOME WAYS!
Just because you can level up by two 'different' ways does not make it non-linear gameplay. It is still leveling - getting XP in order to gain levels. Path is still the same, only method is different.
You have to look at it from design perspective, the very core principles and goals of the game.
I agree with the one of the posters above that EVE Online is the only sandbox on the market currently, at least to my knowledge.
Comments
From what I understand from interviews the head designer (or whatever the title is called) is trying to make it more for what westerners like. But I cant find the source for that. And I agree with you, most western games lately are grindfests, just a different kind. When I played rift I constantly found myself killing 10 of x and 8 of y for 15 of item z. Its griding with some slight direction. As long as I have fun in the game and my tasks are varied then the game (to me) wont be considered a grind.
Its fairly heavy on the sandbox side. (My preferred mix) but its not really what many consider "sandbox". I like to think of it more as old school, before sandbox and themepark became these two oil and water type of games.
You go to FF11, and you had an incredible amount of freedom in the game. Yet at the same time you had this underlying story that wove through the game, quests in order to achieve pretty much everything, and alot of fun.
Original EQ2, had alot of exploration, stuff to find, etc. EQ1 was light on obvious quests, (I don't really mind the ! above people's heads, I think of it as the MMO equivalent of someone waving you down....)
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
My vote still goes to Hellgate: London (or maybe AoC) for that one, but yah Vanguard was another rushed-to-release stinker at the time.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
When you guys ever get around to agreeing on what the term means (argue amongst yourselves), let us know.
Part of what make it such and argue-able topic. "Sandbox" has as many subjective definitions as "hardcore" does.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
There is no middle, there is no sides. The game is either a sandbox - non-linear, or 'themepark' - linear.
What you talk about are features but those do not determine the game as sandbox or 'themepark'.
You can have 2 games with same feature, yet one is a sandbox and the other 'themepark'. What counts is how albeit same features are implemented and how they interact with players and environment.
You say that, but its funny to see that when people are playing what they consider Sandbox, any sort of feature that adds some level of structure to the game (quests, NPC ran systems, etc.) is often met with a "this is a sandbox, go back to wow" mentality. Sometimes even tutorials.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Just because people misuse a term does not mean they are right.
That happens when you have a poorly defined term.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I'm apt to argue that no game is purely a "sandbox" or a "themepark" because for starters, we can't even agree on what these terms mean. I think a more realistic approach is to determine gameplay elements we consider to be on the sandbox or themepark side of the genre. Like most classifications, this one isn't self-evident or, for all intents and purposes, real. It's more of a continuum upon which certain game systems fall.
OP, that definitely sounds like ArcheAge, but time will tell. It's the only MMO that appeals to me atm and it's a year off
ArcheAge looks so amazing, but I believe still has no publisher for NA.
Yeah not yet for NA or EU. It has publishers for continental China, Japan , Hongkong and I think Taiwan and Singapoure. Well and South Korea of course.
Creator of AA did sign deal with 2Kgames recently but that was concerning creating another team to do CivilizationMMO.
Well hopefully it will get nice publisher soon especially it is developed with western audience in mind as well. Well definately looks more "westernish" than most of your Asian mmorpg's.
People really need to learn what the term sandbox means.
DAOC, EQ, and FF11 would all be considered themepark with no sandbox elements. You can't directly alter the world with your actions, build in the world, and/or alter the rules of the world. There is no "sandbox" element. Free exploration and freedom is not sandbox gameplay, though sandbox gameplay inheritly means there will be more freedom. Nothing about the games were dynamic or changable. There are hybrids, like Archeage, but the 3 you mentioned aren't in the middle, they have zero sandbox elements.
I agree. Also, Open world PVP != Sandbox. Sandbox can have open world PvP, but just because a game has open world PVP doesn't automatically make it a sandbox.
I think only EVE online would be considered a sandbox game out of the current crop of MMOs, since a lot of the infrastructure and even game rules are player built.
That is a part of the issue for sure but I would put more blame on lack of ability or even effort to construct formalized statement based on logical, reasoned structure.
Do you see the irony inherent in that claim? Where is your definition of "sandbox" coming from, and why is it more credible than mine? How can you tell people that they "really need to learn what the term sandbox means" when your definition is just as subjective as theirs?
Put simply, we need to determine a communal understanding of "sandbox," or these discussions will continue forever.
To quote US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's lithmus test on what is pornography: "I know it when I see it" =P
I don't really have a good definition for Sandbox, but for me, it needs to at least have tools for players to create game rules and game content for other players.
I think the problem with identifying the terms is really the evolution of the MMO genre. 10 years ago, EQ was the very definition of theme park. These days, with the extreme linearity of WOW, and games that have followed it, has really shifted the definition of themepark. I would argue that these days, EQ is much more sandbox than theme park when compared to the current crop of MMOs.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
The term "sandbox" didn't originate recently from these forums. It's been around for quite a while (themepark on the other hand, is a relatively new term that didn't crop up until maybe the last decade). I'm using the term as I learned it years ago.
You can't really warp the definitions of words unless you have enough people adapt to the new definition; however the very nature of calling sandbox non-linear is absurd, SINCE ALL MMOS ARE NON-LINEAR IS SOME WAYS! Also, as far as use of words, you also don't really understand what "irony" means either, apparently. Lately, I've seen a trend in the past year or so of people who have no idea what the term sandbox means and simply use the word to describe whatever MMO they favor, and thus warp it's original meaning.
If sandbox means non-linear, than all MMOs are sandboxes. World of Warcraft is a sandbox because you can level via different paths. Not only can you decide which zones you want to level in (especially in Vanilla WoW) you also have options in which you can level entirely on dungeons or even grinding (slower, but still an option). There really isn't anything linear about the experience, except for a raid progression path which is also changing (options for 10 man and 20 man raids and even branching paths in dungeons like Naxxramus which allow you to choose which bosses you want to do first).
Now you could agrue a game like Everquest is more non-linear than WoW, but in reality (and as someone who holds Everquest in high regard and played from beta to about 5 years in very "hardcore") it's not. Again, you have options in the game, but leveling paths are about the same as WoW. You have zones, and those zones have a level range of them, so at any given time you may be able to choose from X amount of zones to level in, but especially in the original EQ the number was fairly small, almost equal to WoW's areas. In EQ, you didn't even have the option of a questing path to level in. You want to think Everquest gave you more options simply because it didn't explicitally tell the player their options like WoW does (you had to discover everything yourself). That doesn't make it more non-linear.
That's the problem with sandbox. Nobody knows the clear definition of it and the more we use it without coming to an understanding of what the term means the more we warp the definition and the more obscure it becomes, yet we continue to use it frequently and at this point it's a meaningless term anyway. Not that it should matter whether something is sandbox or not in the first place. Just play games to have fun, people, forget the damn labels!
Just because you can level up by two 'different' ways does not make it non-linear gameplay. It is still leveling - getting XP in order to gain levels. Path is still the same, only method is different.
You have to look at it from design perspective, the very core principles and goals of the game.
I agree with the one of the posters above that EVE Online is the only sandbox on the market currently, at least to my knowledge.