The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.
Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.
In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.
Skyrim is what you make of it. it can be a themepark or it can be a sandbox..the beauty of the elder scrolls games is that the choice is yours. I definitely wouldn't describe it as an outright themepark.
The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.
Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.
In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.
I wouldn't describe sandbox as a quintessential themepark, but not completely a sandbox. The ability to go where I want, create the character I want are definatly sandboxish features. And the ability to impact the world is definately sandbox and here is where it's iffy. I can't create my own building or become a yarl, but I can become a thane, and I do own property. So I would say more of a hybrid.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.
Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.
In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.
I wouldn't describe sandbox as a quintessential themepark, but not completely a sandbox. The ability to go where I want, create the character I want are definatly sandboxish features. And the ability to impact the world is definately sandbox and here is where it's iffy. I can't create my own building or become a yarl, but I can become a thane, and I do own property. So I would say more of a hybrid.
I can accept Skyrim as being close to a hybrid. All it needs is the ability to build and it would cross the line to sandbox.
I did. You stated, "Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances" and, "Sandboxes are Open World designs." and this is because, "They server structure upon which the game is built, nearly almostn always defines the type of game these developers will bring to you."
If that were completely true it would be impossible to create a Sandbox game with zones. However since there are sandbox games with zones your theory must be false.
Now you can stated that it may be harder but you can't state that a sandbox or themepark is what they are because of zones. That has been proven false.
Venge
edit - and Vanguard is an example of the other. A themepark game with an open world.
You keep reference your quote, NOT THE ACTUAL POST> which has & was edited before you even made your original post..!
Then, u ignorantly keep trying to argue a moot point. Ovr.. & ovr.
Secondly, what is your point? I've already said "almost always".. nothing I've said is difinitive.
So honestly.. grow up a tad. There are many people here who take the time to impart knowledge on situation that seem "off track" in terminology & function. Given 2012 being around the corner, and 128 core blade servers are getting cheaper.. you'll see every Major titale go back to open world designs.
Everquest Next (ie: EQ3) will feature an open world, as does PlanetSide2. ArcheAge (again) is another.
Lastly, if you believe that Vanguard was "themepark" then, I know for certain that you're pure derp!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
I did. You stated, "Themepark (no matter what styleization, story, or characters... are just zones & instances" and, "Sandboxes are Open World designs." and this is because, "They server structure upon which the game is built, nearly almostn always defines the type of game these developers will bring to you."
If that were completely true it would be impossible to create a Sandbox game with zones. However since there are sandbox games with zones your theory must be false.
Now you can stated that it may be harder but you can't state that a sandbox or themepark is what they are because of zones. That has been proven false.
Venge
edit - and Vanguard is an example of the other. A themepark game with an open world.
You keep reference your quote, NOT THE ACTUAL POST> which has & was edited before you even made your original post..!
Then, u ignorantly keep trying to argue a moot point. Ovr.. & ovr.
Secondly, what is your point? I've already said "almost always".. nothing I've said is difinitive.
So honestly.. grow up a tad. There are many people here who take the time to impart knowledge on situation that seem "off track" in terminology & function. Given 2012 being around the corner, and 128 core blade servers are getting cheaper.. you'll see every Major titale go back to open world designs.
Everquest Next (ie: EQ3) will feature an open world, as does PlanetSide2. ArcheAge (again) is another.
Lastly, if you believe that Vanguard was "themepark" then, I know for certain that you're pure derp!
The point is zones have nothing to do with sandbox or themepark, never have, never will and trying to say that zones make a game one or the other is complete garbage.
The rest of your post about toolkits I don't really care about, nor do I have anything to say about that.
And Vangaurd is a quest hub, linear driven themepark through and though. No doubt about that.
Venge
and lastly your telling me to grow up, then using "derp' references is more than a little uncalled for and entirely hypocritial. Pot meet kettle.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The Sims is a sandbox. Minecraft is a sandbox. Skyrim is absolutely not a sandbox. It's exactly the opposite of one, a quintessential themepark, and a dang good one at that. It isn't "instanced" so much as divided up into one overworld leading to a variety of zoned areas to conserve processor and memory use. This has nothing to with whether it's a sandbox or not, it's just intelligent game design.
Right now the best sandboxes simply cannot compete with the best themeparks. I do not think there is some inherent flaw in sandboxes- their downfall often comes from two unintended consequences of such an ambition game design. First, the sheer technical logistics of such a massive modifiable environment required to serve thousands of players is incredibly expensive to develop and maintain. Without this kind of resources, bugs and bad client reliability is inevitable. Second, griefers and crafters are eternally at war in any sandbox style MMO, and careful balance mechanics are necessary to appease them both. Most sandbox titles fail at one or both of those areas.
In the future, when petabyte servers are practical and affordable and we get internet connections here like found in Korea, we may see indie devs making amazing sandbox titles that boom in popularity like Minecraft. For the time being, technology and the market make it infeasible except for a few Asian developers.
Nah, Skryim IS a sandbox.
I think you are trying to assert that because one can't do anything and everything they come with then it's not a sandbox.
With that reasoning, a sandbox isn't a sandbox. There's only so much one can do with a sandbox and its tradtional tools. I suppose you can make the argument that one can add those in. so one couldn't make an oil painting in a sandbox but then one could include those tools and have at it. By that reasoning, with the toolset, one can do the same in an elderscrolls game.
Sims is a sandbox but I can't do anything and everything I want in a SIMS game. i can only follow the tools and parameters that the designers have included. If I remember correctly, I can't take over "SIMS" world and install my own dictatorship and send them to work in my sugar mines.
The whole sandbox vs themepark game play argument stems from whether or not a game allows one the freedom to explore his/her ideas within the set parameters of a game.
So, I just installed "Hunted: The Demon's forge" and it's a linear game. I knew this, and it's not a prerequisite for a game to be a "sandbox" for me to enjoy it" but the game goes in a linear fashion from one set piece to another. Whereas in an elderscrolls game or similar game I can pretty much do what I want within the context of the game world.. Oh, I can't build things but that's not really within the scope fo the game. Just like me setting up a military dictatorship in the sims isn't within the scope of that game.
In "The Hunted" if I dont' want to go forward and experience each set piece then there's little else for me to do other than to watch the screen. In an Elderscrolls (or similiar) game one can follow any number of ideas that may close off content to you but you can let your imagination run wild and use the included "bits" to make your own good time. So in "The Hunted" I can't make my own creepy serial killer house but of course someone actually did this in Skyrim.
There are always going to be rules and parameters for a sandbox. A sandbox is about your box of sand, some toys and then let your imagination run amok. But it still doesn't allow you to do anything and everything you want. It's only a box of sand. And maybe some of those platic starfish things...
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't think the issue is that they don't work. UO is still running after 12 years and was very popular in its heyday. Eve is very popular. They are not WoW numbers popular, but then again nothing other than WoW has anything resembling WoW numbers. So we could easily ask "why do all themepark games except WoW work?" I personally think that is a rather silly question but it is the same as the topic question. It also depends on what you mean by "work" in this case? Do you mean why have all the sandbox games released in the last 5-7 years suck? That has nothing to do with the sandbox idea itself but rather is a problem associated with those making the games and the resources available to them. If Bioware were to make a sandbox as their next game it would "work" just fine I am sure. It probably wouldn't be as popular as a themepark because I simply don't think there are as many fans of sandbox games, though if a big name popular company with alot of goodwill to build on, like Bioware, then I could be proven wrong on that. But they are all chasing the same carrot, somewhat like us themepark players chasing the gear carrot, instead todays developers are chasing the dollar carrot.
PvP. And this is a HUGE one for people on both sides of the fence. Its really a simple fix. Its called diffrent server types. FFA PvP and a PvE server where you have to pray to some god, which enables full PvP. Full looting everything if you are on a FFA server or flag for PvP. Why full looting? Its a sandbox thats why. If you want to kill people there are consiquences (spelling I know). One is you die you loose your stuff. As far as houses go they couldnt go so far as to allow houses to be burnt down like you can in Skyrim. But on the FFA PvP servers they could allow people to pick locks ect and steal peoples belongings. Again I'm looking at that from a sandbox point of view. On a PvE server if you wherent smart enough to store your house key and its on your body guess what. That player can raid your house if they want. Or the dev could add a way to code it so if you are pvp flagged so is your house thus allowing other pvp players to lockpick your door and steal your stuff. This is not perfect by any means but it allows for PvP to be in the spirit of sandboxes and not force it on thoes that dont want the PvP experience that a sandbox SHOULD offer.
That's exactly what keeps me away from so many sandbox games.
I don't think the issue is that they don't work. UO is still running after 12 years and was very popular in its heyday. Eve is very popular. They are not WoW numbers popular, but then again nothing other than WoW has anything resembling WoW numbers. So we could easily ask "why do all themepark games except WoW work?" I personally think that is a rather silly question but it is the same as the topic question. It also depends on what you mean by "work" in this case? Do you mean why have all the sandbox games released in the last 5-7 years suck? That has nothing to do with the sandbox idea itself but rather is a problem associated with those making the games and the resources available to them. If Bioware were to make a sandbox as their next game it would "work" just fine I am sure. It probably wouldn't be as popular as a themepark because I simply don't think there are as many fans of sandbox games, though if a big name popular company with alot of goodwill to build on, like Bioware, then I could be proven wrong on that. But they are all chasing the same carrot, somewhat like us themepark players chasing the gear carrot, instead todays developers are chasing the dollar carrot.
I can easily make a case of why both EvE and UO was/is popular which has nothing to do with them being sandboxes.
EvE is a successful space MMO which doesn't hang on trees. The fact it's a sandbox helps its popularity but doesn't define its popularity. If a solid polished fantasy sandbox game is released tomorrow it wouldn't touch EvEs popularity or steal players from it for the simple fact it takes place in space and a few other factors. If a solid polished themepark space shooter MMO with freeroam + exploration was released tomorrow, I bet it would indeed touch EvEs numbers. Of course my two examples are pure speculation but that's what I believe.
UO is still going strong today the same reason why EQ is going strong today and why WoW will be going strong 10 years from now. UO was the first MMO for quite a few people who decided to stick with it or return because of nostalgia. It had next to no competition when it was released attracting quite a following, being one of two MMOs, the other being Meridian59. That's not even to mention the Ultima series also had quite a following that followed over to UO. Sandbox wasn't even a term that existed back then.
There are always going to be rules and parameters for a sandbox. A sandbox is about your box of sand, some toys and then let your imagination run amok. But it still doesn't allow you to do anything and everything you want. It's only a box of sand. And maybe some of those platic starfish things...
But where's the "sand" in skyrim?
Yes, you can choose where to go and which quests to accept - but that's all there is. There is no way to "shape" the world. Thus, Skyrim isn't a sandbox in my book, just like Fallen Earth isn't a sandbox.
There are always going to be rules and parameters for a sandbox. A sandbox is about your box of sand, some toys and then let your imagination run amok. But it still doesn't allow you to do anything and everything you want. It's only a box of sand. And maybe some of those platic starfish things...
But where's the "sand" in skyrim?
Yes, you can choose where to go and which quests to accept - but that's all there is. There is no way to "shape" the world. Thus, Skyrim isn't a sandbox in my book, just like Fallen Earth isn't a sandbox.
This is where a common definition would help. In Skyrim and FE you can do as many sandboxy things as in Ryzom and yet Ryzom is considered a sandbox. Interesting isn't it.
Personally I don't consider Ryzom a sandbox it is far far too limiting with no way to impact the world at all.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
That's exactly what keeps me away from so many sandbox games.
Why does sandbox have to mean I lose my stuff?
It doesn't necessary "have" to, it's just that the crowd of people that typically like sandbox games, like myself, love the fear of losing your items or taking someone elses.
It's all about risk vs. reward, which is very, very rarely seen in themepark games.
I can't comment for why the sandbox genre as a whole fails in MMO's... but personally I can say why I personally don't like sandbox MMO's. It's because I personally don't want an open, unstructured world where I can literally do anything. I like structure. I like to be told a story. I like to be part of that story, and make my own decisions as part of the story, but I still need something that guides me along the way.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I prefer structure to my games/stories, that's all. Anytime I've tried a true sandbox in the past, it's been "too much work" for me. I don't have much time to play, so I want to spend that time playing, not dreaming up my own adventure or wandering aimlessly looking for adventure.
PvP. And this is a HUGE one for people on both sides of the fence. Its really a simple fix. Its called diffrent server types. FFA PvP and a PvE server where you have to pray to some god, which enables full PvP. Full looting everything if you are on a FFA server or flag for PvP. Why full looting? Its a sandbox thats why. If you want to kill people there are consiquences (spelling I know). One is you die you loose your stuff. As far as houses go they couldnt go so far as to allow houses to be burnt down like you can in Skyrim. But on the FFA PvP servers they could allow people to pick locks ect and steal peoples belongings. Again I'm looking at that from a sandbox point of view. On a PvE server if you wherent smart enough to store your house key and its on your body guess what. That player can raid your house if they want. Or the dev could add a way to code it so if you are pvp flagged so is your house thus allowing other pvp players to lockpick your door and steal your stuff. This is not perfect by any means but it allows for PvP to be in the spirit of sandboxes and not force it on thoes that dont want the PvP experience that a sandbox SHOULD offer.
That's exactly what keeps me away from so many sandbox games.
Why does sandbox have to mean I lose my stuff?
To me a sandbox mmo gives me the tools to create, be it a house, a shop or a castle. It lets me make my own personal mark on the world. just because a game has FFA bpvp doesnt make it a sandbox game. Swg pre-cu is the best example of a sandbox. you could be a doctor, a politician, a city mayor, a dancer, a jedi, an entertainer, a bounty hunter that can actually do bounties. an architect, bio engineer. The game had lots of combat and non combat classes and activities. The choice was yours.
I can't comment for why the sandbox genre as a whole fails in MMO's... but personally I can say why I personally don't like sandbox MMO's. It's because I personally don't want an open, unstructured world where I can literally do anything. I like structure. I like to be told a story. I like to be part of that story, and make my own decisions as part of the story, but I still need something that guides me along the way.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I prefer structure to my games/stories, that's all. Anytime I've tried a true sandbox in the past, it's been "too much work" for me. I don't have much time to play, so I want to spend that time playing, not dreaming up my own adventure or wandering aimlessly looking for adventure.
Isn't that what 90% of single player games do though?
If you have a zone.. then you are restricted. You are restricted from 360 degree content, which means that you are then funneled through content. Thus, a park... with rides to bemuse you along the contricted path they have set out for you. (ie Warhammer, egro Themepark).
Not all zones games are developed with pure linear progression, some use the zones to provide wide unfettered multi-directional content, but in the end, due to resources... they have to hide their "cheese".
You know very little of which you speak.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
There are always going to be rules and parameters for a sandbox. A sandbox is about your box of sand, some toys and then let your imagination run amok. But it still doesn't allow you to do anything and everything you want. It's only a box of sand. And maybe some of those platic starfish things...
But where's the "sand" in skyrim?
Yes, you can choose where to go and which quests to accept - but that's all there is. There is no way to "shape" the world. Thus, Skyrim isn't a sandbox in my book, just like Fallen Earth isn't a sandbox.
Incorrect.
PC version of Skyrim wil be receiving the support of official mod tools (like the previous bethesda titles) and supports the capacity to alter and extend the content of the title in most every aspect. They expose the entire content archive of the game to modding and people can and have done total conversions of the previous titles Oblivion and Morrowind.
Like for example in Oblivion players actually modded and added the entire continent of Morrowind into Oblivion. The land, flora, fauna, quests, all of it.
Even without the official mod tools people have all ready started building new content for Skyrim, including changing the terrain, modifying or adding houses, etc.
Skyrim is very much a sandbox in the true sense of the term.
But that's not the main reason why I'd say it works for people.
Why Skyrim works where many don't is because Bethesda built a world. Things feel like they get done around you, NPCs both friendly and enemy have activities and lifecycles and you can influence them to one degree or another, monster creatures have routines that interact with other creatures in the environment. When you go fihing you're actually looking for fish physically swimming in the water, or collecting butterfly wings for ingredients you're actually trying to catch butterflies.
And the grind. Yes people find many ways to grind skills in Skyrim and others. But you don't have to in SKyrim. Your enemies generally scale to skill and more so it's dependent on the type of enemy it is in the first place. You can run into wolves any time,but a wolf remains a wolf. You can run into togers, but they will remain tigers, bandits don't suddenly all become badasses, but you will other kinds that will challenge you. Point being that you don't have to inherently grind for many things in this game, because the progression of character and challenge are designed to flow naturally with you as you explore the world.
In other words, it provides a free flowing experience that lets players just go out and explore the variety set before them.
They get to play in a world, not just a box.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by Kasmos Originally posted by FrodoFraginsThat's exactly what keeps me away from so many sandbox games. Why does sandbox have to mean I lose my stuff?
It doesn't necessary "have" to, it's just that the crowd of people that typically like sandbox games, like myself, love the fear of losing your items or taking someone elses. It's all about risk vs. reward, which is very, very rarely seen in themepark games.
It's more of an economical thing. In Theme Park games, new content makes existing items less valuable, prompting players to get resources and new items from the new content. In Sandbox games, the degradation or loss of existing items prompts players to get resources to repair existing items or create new items. The degradation or loss doesn't have to be other players, it can be due to PvE content. It's more about keeping players playing (and paying).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I can't comment for why the sandbox genre as a whole fails in MMO's... but personally I can say why I personally don't like sandbox MMO's. It's because I personally don't want an open, unstructured world where I can literally do anything. I like structure. I like to be told a story. I like to be part of that story, and make my own decisions as part of the story, but I still need something that guides me along the way.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I prefer structure to my games/stories, that's all. Anytime I've tried a true sandbox in the past, it's been "too much work" for me. I don't have much time to play, so I want to spend that time playing, not dreaming up my own adventure or wandering aimlessly looking for adventure.
Isn't that what 90% of single player games do though?
Perhaps - honestly, I'm not sure. I don't play many single-player RPG's. I prefer themepark MMO's.
I can't comment for why the sandbox genre as a whole fails in MMO's... but personally I can say why I personally don't like sandbox MMO's. It's because I personally don't want an open, unstructured world where I can literally do anything. I like structure. I like to be told a story. I like to be part of that story, and make my own decisions as part of the story, but I still need something that guides me along the way.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I prefer structure to my games/stories, that's all. Anytime I've tried a true sandbox in the past, it's been "too much work" for me. I don't have much time to play, so I want to spend that time playing, not dreaming up my own adventure or wandering aimlessly looking for adventure.
Isn't that what 90% of single player games do though?
Perhaps - honestly, I'm not sure. I don't play many single-player RPG's. I prefer themepark MMO's.
There is no reason why a sandbox can not have structure and a deep story line.
I can't comment for why the sandbox genre as a whole fails in MMO's... but personally I can say why I personally don't like sandbox MMO's. It's because I personally don't want an open, unstructured world where I can literally do anything. I like structure. I like to be told a story. I like to be part of that story, and make my own decisions as part of the story, but I still need something that guides me along the way.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I prefer structure to my games/stories, that's all. Anytime I've tried a true sandbox in the past, it's been "too much work" for me. I don't have much time to play, so I want to spend that time playing, not dreaming up my own adventure or wandering aimlessly looking for adventure.
Isn't that what 90% of single player games do though?
Perhaps - honestly, I'm not sure. I don't play many single-player RPG's. I prefer themepark MMO's.
There is no reason why a sandbox can not have structure and a deep story line.
And yet... they don't... at least not the MMO sandboxes that I've tried.
I can't comment for why the sandbox genre as a whole fails in MMO's... but personally I can say why I personally don't like sandbox MMO's. It's because I personally don't want an open, unstructured world where I can literally do anything. I like structure. I like to be told a story. I like to be part of that story, and make my own decisions as part of the story, but I still need something that guides me along the way.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I prefer structure to my games/stories, that's all. Anytime I've tried a true sandbox in the past, it's been "too much work" for me. I don't have much time to play, so I want to spend that time playing, not dreaming up my own adventure or wandering aimlessly looking for adventure.
Isn't that what 90% of single player games do though?
Perhaps - honestly, I'm not sure. I don't play many single-player RPG's. I prefer themepark MMO's.
There is no reason why a sandbox can not have structure and a deep story line.
And yet... they don't... at least not the MMO sandboxes that I've tried.
I'd say that's because the indie devs that make them focus everything on FFA full loot pvp and don't spend any time on putting in any pve content.
I think the biggest problem with sandbox attempts so far is the FFA PVP as well.
One of the core attractions of a sandbox IMO, is the ability to do as you wish when you want, weather it be crafting, exploring, building, socializing, even questing or raiding.
Sandbox is just not having a predefined path to play through versus themepark plays through a certain character path and progression.
IMO, the more that someone tries to define "sandbox" into something else the further from 'sandbox' the definition gets.
With MO and DF the emphasis was on FFA PVP which made it so that your choices were very restricted and not much fun. I played both of these and the results were pretty crappy with basically a few top notch pvp guilds running everyone else off of the servers. Not fun for those not in those groups and not good for server population.
I'm not sure where the whole "Sandbox = FFA PVP" came from but its given sandbox a bad rap to many folks. Its just as much nonsense as "Sandbox = no zones" (all MMOs have zones... some use seemless zoning) or "Sandbox = No levels"
Eve had it right with FFA PVP in certain areas so that PvP became a choice. I love PvP but not while I have a crafting window up. Eve allows PVP to be a 'choice' which is sandbox.
IMO, Whatever AAA developer that finally makes a proper sandbox will do very well with it.
I'll be keeping my eyes on Archeage. I hope it stays true to what its goals are and the devs are able to pull it off.
Comments
Skyrim is what you make of it. it can be a themepark or it can be a sandbox..the beauty of the elder scrolls games is that the choice is yours. I definitely wouldn't describe it as an outright themepark.
I wouldn't describe sandbox as a quintessential themepark, but not completely a sandbox. The ability to go where I want, create the character I want are definatly sandboxish features. And the ability to impact the world is definately sandbox and here is where it's iffy. I can't create my own building or become a yarl, but I can become a thane, and I do own property. So I would say more of a hybrid.
I can accept Skyrim as being close to a hybrid. All it needs is the ability to build and it would cross the line to sandbox.
My theme song.
You keep reference your quote, NOT THE ACTUAL POST> which has & was edited before you even made your original post..!
Then, u ignorantly keep trying to argue a moot point. Ovr.. & ovr.
Secondly, what is your point? I've already said "almost always".. nothing I've said is difinitive.
So honestly.. grow up a tad. There are many people here who take the time to impart knowledge on situation that seem "off track" in terminology & function. Given 2012 being around the corner, and 128 core blade servers are getting cheaper.. you'll see every Major titale go back to open world designs.
Everquest Next (ie: EQ3) will feature an open world, as does PlanetSide2. ArcheAge (again) is another.
Lastly, if you believe that Vanguard was "themepark" then, I know for certain that you're pure derp!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
I refuse to play any game with FFA PVP. And I certainly wouldn't play one that causes me to lose gear if I die.
The point is zones have nothing to do with sandbox or themepark, never have, never will and trying to say that zones make a game one or the other is complete garbage.
The rest of your post about toolkits I don't really care about, nor do I have anything to say about that.
And Vangaurd is a quest hub, linear driven themepark through and though. No doubt about that.
Venge
and lastly your telling me to grow up, then using "derp' references is more than a little uncalled for and entirely hypocritial. Pot meet kettle.
Nah, Skryim IS a sandbox.
I think you are trying to assert that because one can't do anything and everything they come with then it's not a sandbox.
With that reasoning, a sandbox isn't a sandbox. There's only so much one can do with a sandbox and its tradtional tools. I suppose you can make the argument that one can add those in. so one couldn't make an oil painting in a sandbox but then one could include those tools and have at it. By that reasoning, with the toolset, one can do the same in an elderscrolls game.
Sims is a sandbox but I can't do anything and everything I want in a SIMS game. i can only follow the tools and parameters that the designers have included. If I remember correctly, I can't take over "SIMS" world and install my own dictatorship and send them to work in my sugar mines.
The whole sandbox vs themepark game play argument stems from whether or not a game allows one the freedom to explore his/her ideas within the set parameters of a game.
So, I just installed "Hunted: The Demon's forge" and it's a linear game. I knew this, and it's not a prerequisite for a game to be a "sandbox" for me to enjoy it" but the game goes in a linear fashion from one set piece to another. Whereas in an elderscrolls game or similar game I can pretty much do what I want within the context of the game world.. Oh, I can't build things but that's not really within the scope fo the game. Just like me setting up a military dictatorship in the sims isn't within the scope of that game.
In "The Hunted" if I dont' want to go forward and experience each set piece then there's little else for me to do other than to watch the screen. In an Elderscrolls (or similiar) game one can follow any number of ideas that may close off content to you but you can let your imagination run wild and use the included "bits" to make your own good time. So in "The Hunted" I can't make my own creepy serial killer house but of course someone actually did this in Skyrim.
There are always going to be rules and parameters for a sandbox. A sandbox is about your box of sand, some toys and then let your imagination run amok. But it still doesn't allow you to do anything and everything you want. It's only a box of sand. And maybe some of those platic starfish things...
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
i can put pot on an old womans head, that makes skyrim a sandbox
I don't think the issue is that they don't work. UO is still running after 12 years and was very popular in its heyday. Eve is very popular. They are not WoW numbers popular, but then again nothing other than WoW has anything resembling WoW numbers. So we could easily ask "why do all themepark games except WoW work?" I personally think that is a rather silly question but it is the same as the topic question. It also depends on what you mean by "work" in this case? Do you mean why have all the sandbox games released in the last 5-7 years suck? That has nothing to do with the sandbox idea itself but rather is a problem associated with those making the games and the resources available to them. If Bioware were to make a sandbox as their next game it would "work" just fine I am sure. It probably wouldn't be as popular as a themepark because I simply don't think there are as many fans of sandbox games, though if a big name popular company with alot of goodwill to build on, like Bioware, then I could be proven wrong on that. But they are all chasing the same carrot, somewhat like us themepark players chasing the gear carrot, instead todays developers are chasing the dollar carrot.
That's exactly what keeps me away from so many sandbox games.
Why does sandbox have to mean I lose my stuff?
I can easily make a case of why both EvE and UO was/is popular which has nothing to do with them being sandboxes.
EvE is a successful space MMO which doesn't hang on trees. The fact it's a sandbox helps its popularity but doesn't define its popularity. If a solid polished fantasy sandbox game is released tomorrow it wouldn't touch EvEs popularity or steal players from it for the simple fact it takes place in space and a few other factors. If a solid polished themepark space shooter MMO with freeroam + exploration was released tomorrow, I bet it would indeed touch EvEs numbers. Of course my two examples are pure speculation but that's what I believe.
UO is still going strong today the same reason why EQ is going strong today and why WoW will be going strong 10 years from now. UO was the first MMO for quite a few people who decided to stick with it or return because of nostalgia. It had next to no competition when it was released attracting quite a following, being one of two MMOs, the other being Meridian59. That's not even to mention the Ultima series also had quite a following that followed over to UO. Sandbox wasn't even a term that existed back then.
But where's the "sand" in skyrim?
Yes, you can choose where to go and which quests to accept - but that's all there is. There is no way to "shape" the world. Thus, Skyrim isn't a sandbox in my book, just like Fallen Earth isn't a sandbox.
Hype train -> Reality
This is where a common definition would help. In Skyrim and FE you can do as many sandboxy things as in Ryzom and yet Ryzom is considered a sandbox. Interesting isn't it.
Personally I don't consider Ryzom a sandbox it is far far too limiting with no way to impact the world at all.
Venge
It doesn't necessary "have" to, it's just that the crowd of people that typically like sandbox games, like myself, love the fear of losing your items or taking someone elses.
It's all about risk vs. reward, which is very, very rarely seen in themepark games.
I can't comment for why the sandbox genre as a whole fails in MMO's... but personally I can say why I personally don't like sandbox MMO's. It's because I personally don't want an open, unstructured world where I can literally do anything. I like structure. I like to be told a story. I like to be part of that story, and make my own decisions as part of the story, but I still need something that guides me along the way.
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. I prefer structure to my games/stories, that's all. Anytime I've tried a true sandbox in the past, it's been "too much work" for me. I don't have much time to play, so I want to spend that time playing, not dreaming up my own adventure or wandering aimlessly looking for adventure.
To me a sandbox mmo gives me the tools to create, be it a house, a shop or a castle. It lets me make my own personal mark on the world. just because a game has FFA bpvp doesnt make it a sandbox game. Swg pre-cu is the best example of a sandbox. you could be a doctor, a politician, a city mayor, a dancer, a jedi, an entertainer, a bounty hunter that can actually do bounties. an architect, bio engineer. The game had lots of combat and non combat classes and activities. The choice was yours.
Isn't that what 90% of single player games do though?
If you have a zone.. then you are restricted. You are restricted from 360 degree content, which means that you are then funneled through content. Thus, a park... with rides to bemuse you along the contricted path they have set out for you. (ie Warhammer, egro Themepark).
Not all zones games are developed with pure linear progression, some use the zones to provide wide unfettered multi-directional content, but in the end, due to resources... they have to hide their "cheese".
You know very little of which you speak.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
Incorrect.
PC version of Skyrim wil be receiving the support of official mod tools (like the previous bethesda titles) and supports the capacity to alter and extend the content of the title in most every aspect. They expose the entire content archive of the game to modding and people can and have done total conversions of the previous titles Oblivion and Morrowind.
Like for example in Oblivion players actually modded and added the entire continent of Morrowind into Oblivion. The land, flora, fauna, quests, all of it.
Even without the official mod tools people have all ready started building new content for Skyrim, including changing the terrain, modifying or adding houses, etc.
Skyrim is very much a sandbox in the true sense of the term.
But that's not the main reason why I'd say it works for people.
Why Skyrim works where many don't is because Bethesda built a world. Things feel like they get done around you, NPCs both friendly and enemy have activities and lifecycles and you can influence them to one degree or another, monster creatures have routines that interact with other creatures in the environment. When you go fihing you're actually looking for fish physically swimming in the water, or collecting butterfly wings for ingredients you're actually trying to catch butterflies.
And the grind. Yes people find many ways to grind skills in Skyrim and others. But you don't have to in SKyrim. Your enemies generally scale to skill and more so it's dependent on the type of enemy it is in the first place. You can run into wolves any time,but a wolf remains a wolf. You can run into togers, but they will remain tigers, bandits don't suddenly all become badasses, but you will other kinds that will challenge you. Point being that you don't have to inherently grind for many things in this game, because the progression of character and challenge are designed to flow naturally with you as you explore the world.
In other words, it provides a free flowing experience that lets players just go out and explore the variety set before them.
They get to play in a world, not just a box.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's all about risk vs. reward, which is very, very rarely seen in themepark games.
It's more of an economical thing. In Theme Park games, new content makes existing items less valuable, prompting players to get resources and new items from the new content. In Sandbox games, the degradation or loss of existing items prompts players to get resources to repair existing items or create new items. The degradation or loss doesn't have to be other players, it can be due to PvE content. It's more about keeping players playing (and paying).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Perhaps - honestly, I'm not sure. I don't play many single-player RPG's. I prefer themepark MMO's.
There is no reason why a sandbox can not have structure and a deep story line.
My theme song.
And yet... they don't... at least not the MMO sandboxes that I've tried.
I'd say that's because the indie devs that make them focus everything on FFA full loot pvp and don't spend any time on putting in any pve content.
My theme song.
I think the biggest problem with sandbox attempts so far is the FFA PVP as well.
One of the core attractions of a sandbox IMO, is the ability to do as you wish when you want, weather it be crafting, exploring, building, socializing, even questing or raiding.
Sandbox is just not having a predefined path to play through versus themepark plays through a certain character path and progression.
IMO, the more that someone tries to define "sandbox" into something else the further from 'sandbox' the definition gets.
With MO and DF the emphasis was on FFA PVP which made it so that your choices were very restricted and not much fun. I played both of these and the results were pretty crappy with basically a few top notch pvp guilds running everyone else off of the servers. Not fun for those not in those groups and not good for server population.
I'm not sure where the whole "Sandbox = FFA PVP" came from but its given sandbox a bad rap to many folks. Its just as much nonsense as "Sandbox = no zones" (all MMOs have zones... some use seemless zoning) or "Sandbox = No levels"
Eve had it right with FFA PVP in certain areas so that PvP became a choice. I love PvP but not while I have a crafting window up. Eve allows PVP to be a 'choice' which is sandbox.
IMO, Whatever AAA developer that finally makes a proper sandbox will do very well with it.
I'll be keeping my eyes on Archeage. I hope it stays true to what its goals are and the devs are able to pull it off.
Palazious <The Vindicators> Darkfall
Palazious r40, rr45 SW War
Palazious 50 Pirate PoTBS
Palazious 35 Sorcerer Vanguard
Palazious 75 wizard EQ
Paladori 50 Champion LOTRO
Poppa Reaver bugged at rank15