the word "sandbox" is synonymous with freedom, the more a game lets you do what ever you want the more sandboxy it is. sadly the more freedom you give people the more they tend to used it to inflict suffering onto others (greefing).
Skyrim only works because there is no one trying to gank you at every possible corner. put in a few thousand people and give them freedom and a good portion of them will do nothing all day but try to ruin some one else's day. it's just human nature. and it's uggly head will show up more then ever in sandboxes exactly because of all the freedom the game allows.
Eve is one of the few sandboxes that has managed to strike a very good balance between complete freedom ( 0.0 space) and a safe and controlled environment ( 1.0 space) separated only by you own choice. the important part is taht YOU choose whether you want to engage in 0.0 space or not, it cannot be forced appon you. it is why it's been so succesful. every other sandbox has either made it too easy to greef or not enough freedom.
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.
Well, I haven't gotten to the last quests yet. Not sure how much "shaping" one can do. But that has always been a downfall to the elderscrolls games. There's a lot you can do but you can only go so far with each thing.
The sand is the content. Right now, my roommate is installing Skyrim. He hasnt' played a video game in years but loved morrowind and oblivion.
He will pretty much not touch most of the quests except for the things he finds on the road. No interest. He loves exploring and funny enough making money. Looking at what items cost what and weigh what and whether they are worth picking up and selling.
His game play experience will be completely different from mine as though I love to explore I really love doing the main quests. and pick up enough things to keep "some" money in my coffers.
And there are other people who collect cheese and roll them down mountains.
yet, in "The Hunted" the other game I just installed, I wouldn't be able to have any choice. The point of the game is about the particualr experience laid out before me.
It's the thrust of game play that makes a sandbox "game" and a theme park game.
Can one really change the world in "The Sims"? A girlfriend of mine loved the Sims but after all the hours of me sitting with her I couldn't really say that she changed anything.
Oh she built her house and spent most of her time trying to become a superstar or some such thing.
Yet if I had the Sims I probably wouldn't become a superstar/actor but would concentrate on, well, I'm not sure what I'd concnetrate on as the game never really drew me in.
Are the total war games sandbox games? Maybe on a certain level but I've never considred them as such.
My point being, you can change the shape of he political face of the world but I'm not sure they are sandbox games. Stil, I would entertain a good argument for them being sandbox games as one can dominate in several different ways.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Real question is: What is the minium feautures/content you want in your sandbox MMO?
Crazy question I know because a sandbox is supposed tohave a huge amount of options. But no investor wants to spend that much into a game what looks like a bad gamble.
Lowering costs...Can you start with a 2d game and build on it until you can do 3d? No, you are better off starting with 3d. There are number of things that can work in 2d but not 3d. Way to much reworking it. Besides you would have to make a second game just to keep the community happy. No I'mgoingtoradicallychangeyourgameok?
Start with a great framework which you can add an enormous about of features and content to later(hopefully without borking it to dead). Here we go...the indy devs start to look for a license to buy because, damn, that sounds like a lot of work. This one of those things that I have no idea how much it would cost or the time needed to get it going. The cost to buy or lease a license and the amount of time for the dev minions to master the use of the engine. Or the cost and time for your team to construct something marginally as robust.
Minimum PvE content. That really hurts to think about as a player. Alright, EvE did repeatable missions...could do that. Let you players go on murder sprees in the NPC fields, enjoy. Please?
I'd prefer something more like dynamically generated missions where the players are creating the content for themselves. How? I...um still working on that.
How do you make a sandbox cost effect? Or are they inherently cost destructive?
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.
Yeah, and can be kind of hard to do any of that, when you have to worry about getting ganked all the time. Could even be said that FFA PvP is anti-sandbox, when you look at the effect it has on how people end up playing the game.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Originally posted by asdar Think of a world where everyone that wanted to could form up their own quests. Sounds great, but what would happen is that players would immediately make quests for friends to do for in-game gold.
Make the quest reward be computed based on objectives (or selected from a list of rewards in an appropriate value category based on the quest's objectives). For example kill 10 level 1 kobolds gives a reward worth max 10 copper. Kill a level 70 elite dragon gives a reward worth 100 gold. Courier to destination 10' away gives 5 copper. Courier to destination 5 zones away gives 15 gold.
Originally posted by asdar I like housing, let's let players build houses where they want. Players intentionally block doors to other players houses.
Give each building a no-build area around it so the nearest one can't be closer than 5' away. Limit building to specific areas so players can't plop down a house to block a dungeon entrance.
Originally posted by asdar I like designs, and designing armor. Players start making x-rated designs and running around in game with them.
Allow players to create looks by compositing premade pieces in various styles and combinding them with premade armors rather than free-for-all upload textures or shapes. Could even have a a staffer who receives new texture/model submissions from players and checks them out for quality / content before approving the best one for inclusion in next month's patch for addition to the premade pieces library. Sure, that takes an employee but vetting premade content takes a lot less of that person's time than creating from scratch.
Originally posted by asdar It's gotten so that you can't give the players sand or they'll ruin the very thing they want. You can't have a sandbox game when there's so many cats running around wanting to do their business in any sandbox that's available.
A sandbox doesn't mean no limits. A sandbox means a game where you have the freedom to play your way within a set of reasonably lax boundaries. If those boundaries allow you to create it is perfectly ok if there are certain restrictions on what or where you can create. If those boundaries allow you to kill players it is ok for there to be restrictions on who, where or when you can do that.
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.
There are many types of Sandbox designs.. FPS FFA is just one of them. And yes.. many newer people tend to associate sandbox with FFA PvP.
Secondly, to you it may seem that all MMORPG have "zones".. but you have to understand the technological difference between loading in all the content from a different blade server, (while your character moves about the game world) -VS- loading assets @ node line but not the game world, just the dynamic content that is currently in the area. (ie VG)
There server structure and type clearly defines what the Developers can & cannot do with the mechanics within their game. That is why the early pre-planning stages set the tone for the whole development project.
When designing a MMORPG, the developers YEARS BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS... need to know what type of server structure they are going to use. Because that alone determines and defines what will be allowed in game. It also lets the investors know if the MMORPG being planned is going to cost $600,000 to make, or $40 million.
The server structure & Hardware the game runs on, determines if the game is Sandbox, or themepark. Streaming and 64bit OS will allow for some immersive style MMO in the near future, zones (per se') will get even more difficult to define.
Note: you don't have to zone... to hit an artifical zone wall. (it has 2 meanings)
Many poeople simply do not undersatand WHY themepark MMOS exist (the technological limitation) and WHY they continue to be developed. Most of these people don't understand any of this, because they don't understand the progeny of how technology and MMO grew up together.
Today's Themeparks use cheap servers, because using Zones & instances can easily cut the over-all start up cost by 80%, or more. (Thousands -vs- Millions)
Lastly, as we moved through technology, many leading Developers will come up with some unique things with their server structure (RIft, for example). There will always be games that think outside the box and try to deliver Sandbox content within a zoned world. Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence.
"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 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.
There are many types of Sandbox designs.. FPS FFA is just one of them. And yes.. many newer people tend to associate sandbox with FFA PvP.
Secondly, to you it may seem that all MMORPG have "zones".. but you have to understand the technological difference between loading in all the content from a different blade server, (while your character moves about the game world) -VS- loading assets @ node line but not the game world, just the dynamic content that is currently in the area. (ie VG)
There server structure and type clearly defines what the Developers can & cannot do with the mechanics within their game. That is why the early pre-planning stages set the tone for the whole development project.
When designing a MMORPG, the developers YEARS BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS... need to know what type of server structure they are going to use. Because that alone determines and defines what will be allowed in game. It also lets the investors know if the MMORPG being planned is going to cost $600,000 to make, or $40 million.
The server structure & Hardware the game runs on, determines if the game is Sandbox, or themepark. Streaming and 64bit OS will allow for some immersive style MMO in the near future, zones (per se') will get even more difficult to define.
Note: you don't have to zone... to hit an artifical zone wall. (it has 2 meanings)
Many poeople simply do not undersatand WHY themepark MMOS exist (the technological limitation) and WHY they continue to be developed. Most of these people don't understand any of this, because they don't understand the progeny of how technology and MMO grew up together.
Today's Themeparks use cheap servers, because using Zones & instances can easily cut the over-all start up cost by 80%, or more. (Thousands -vs- Millions)
Lastly, as we moved through technology, many leading Developers will come up with some unique things with their server structure (RIft, for example). There will always be games that think outside the box and try to deliver Sandbox content within a zoned world. Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence.
Very interesting, and I'll take your word for it on the technical side. But not on the definition side. You are putting your own definition of a themepark and sandbox and the individual does not get to do that. Words are defined by the collective, and while there unfortunately is no one overall definition for sandbox and themepark there are some points that a majority agree on.
Yes the server architecture and hardware does limit the features. However as has been shown over and over again through countless threads, a feature list does not make a sandbox - else wow would be a sandbox as it has many features (not all but many) that a sandbox has.
Fact 1- there are games that the majority consider to be sandbox that have zones. Your particular definition of sandbox is moot. Because these games exist, we can definatively say that the presence or absence of a zone line is not the defining or even a major feature of sandbox or themepark. You can say that it may be harder but you can't say it can't be done, it has been done.
"Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence." This is just your own subjective definition of sandbox - nothing more.
Fact 2 = Vanguard may have handled there zone lines different, however they are still zones. There is an invisible line that you cross where the game pauses (sometimes for minutes at a time) and loads up the resources of the world. Yes you can see the resources on either side of the zone but they are merely a backdrop, you can't interact with them. They call them chunk lines but there were implemented for the same reason as the old zone lines, and work the same way as the old zone lines (meaning the game still pauses to load up the resources), ergo they are zones.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
First thing people need to figure out before discussing sandboxes is probably what sandbox games are in the first place.
Sandboxes are simulations that work according to certain rules. The player himself has to build the world, which is changed by the actions of the players. The game itself is dynamic.
Themeparks are preconfigured games that tell specific and static stories. The player just experiences the content of the game, but cannot change it. The game itself is static.
Questions like if the game is skillbased or if the game is linear are completely secondary. Yeah, sandboxes cannot be linear, obviously; but themeparks arent required to be linear, either, and both sandboxes as well as themeparks might be classbased or skillbased, there is absolutely no hard link between these concepts and how you design the character progression.
This a great description, get right to the heart of the matter. However, I think in order to make a sandbox a) fun and b) profitable c) playable ......it would certainly have to borrow some base structures from themeparks. IMO
Having just watched a handfull of vids on Archeage I can say with 100% certainty it will be sandbox. I couldn't determine if it will be 100% FFA but I really hope not. Nothing is FFA. I can't stroll up to your house and build a shed on your front lawn, it shouldn't be any different in an MMO world. I buy a deed for a plot in game, I have room to build a house, grow a garden plant some trees whatever. Pay my taxes, it's "my land" and my taxes give me protection under the law that say so. They showed a rapid view of a house that was abandoned as it fell in to disrepair so I think you might see weather impact the need to fix the roof or mend a fence and so on meaning you wont have the issues of SWG where you could just plunk your house down anywhere and pay up maintenance for a year.
They suggest in the videos that pretty much everything will be crafted and alot of the sandbox people will like that. From houses to cities to boats to everything. They mentioned I think servers will be PvE and PvP so I doubt griefers will be able to drag the game down like alot of other player manipulated worlds. They haven't mentioned a pay method yet, that can make it or break it. Graphics were scenery m'eh and avatar - 'groan' but those can be advanced upon when the core of the game is good. Typical example, cleavage. In this game? They shouldn't have it because what they have now is worse than none. It looks like someone overproofed bread and the loaves over lapped. Facial is 2003 and body is 2D but again, they can improve those aspects of the game.
If Archeage meets it's expactations from within, it will be the big little sandbox that worked.
The solution is ... get CCP to make a sandbox MMO like Eve Online but have it in another type of setting.
Then you'll have a MMO that will work.
The game mechanics are perfect. At the end real time skills being learned is one of the best ways to have a game that's great for both hardcore and casual. Sure the wait sucks but if you and other players agree that you both liek FFA PvP then t hats g reat people say that not everyone l ikes... but then wh y do I hear so many peopel crave for it.
Right now it 's up to Eve Online, Darkfall Online, and Mortal Online...
Eve Online - Stay the way you are but evenutally expand on having humanoids land on planets and do their thing in planets using yoru avatar... (this will take YEARS)
Darkfall Online - Dude... seriouslly release 2.0 and try to make the skills a little bit different in terms of not having every sincgle character use the same w eapons and spells.
Mortal Online - Fix your tutorial system and get a higher population somehow.
I think the demand for Sandbox will eventually be heard. I see a lot of people begging for it and I think one day someoen will listen and our dreams will come true...
In my eyes though I think Sandbox games are only really truly working for Single Player games (with the exception of Ultima Online)
Because the vocal minority screaming about features that most gamers no longer want for example ffa pvp, full loot, nothing but slow travel (which is completely stupid since the grand daddy of sandboxes UO had recall runes) to name a few.
Because developers have rose colored glasses when they are remembering their young in these games. UO can't be recreated because the core (the community) is not the same. MMO are no longer roleplay games the are competative roleplay games.
Slow travel gives scope to a world, I for one want slow travel,with certain public transport back. Summon stones and queues have been enormously damaging to virtual world immersion.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Slow travel gives scope to a world, I for one want slow travel,with certain public transport back. Summon stones and queues have been enormously damaging to virtual world immersion.
I am all for slowing down progression and stopping to smell the roses, but running past the roses just to get to the game I am trying to play has no value added. Slow travel is nothing more then a time sink and if slow travel is your big plan to slow down progression you have some serious issues.
I have never been big on exploring so running around just to run around does nothing for me.
[...]Sandboxes are simulations that work according to certain rules. The player himself has to build the world, which is changed by the actions of the players. The game itself is dynamic.
Themeparks are preconfigured games that tell specific and static stories. The player just experiences the content of the game, but cannot change it. The game itself is static.[...]
This a great description, get right to the heart of the matter. However, I think in order to make a sandbox a) fun and b) profitable c) playable ......it would certainly have to borrow some base structures from themeparks. IMO
I disagree that the player has to build the world. In this respect it's sufficient for the player to be able to affect a semi-permanent change upon the world as shared with other players.
For example an MMO where you can build modular fortresses on any empty space you please which endure until destroyed / decayed / conquered definetely qualifies as a sandbox in this respect. But so would one where you can only build pre-made castles (ie. UO), or one where you can only build on specific plots of land. In fact even one where you capture pre-built castles can qualify this feature as a sandbox IF there is more to this feature than an on/off control switch. Say you could capture only this premade fixed keeps, but assign NPC guard routes, build / improve / place defensive equipment your own way (oil vats, etc). Or maybe you have to allocate a budget across what types of NPC untis you keep on staff, how much to spend on repairs, etc. (Think along the lines of a single-player resource management game)
As far as the game as a whole being a sandbox I think this comes down to how the sum of all its features falls in the sandbox/themepark spectrum.
WoW
EVE
Quests / Missions
Strongly theme-park
level/race/faction/reputation-locked
linear sequence of quests with almost no branching
multiple quest `rails` available but only if you choose a different zone to play in
no consequences that affect the world in which other players live (consequences are either brief 5-30 sec changes to the world that revert immediately, or phases only you see)
quests cannot be created by players
Mildly theme-park
missions are reputation locked only
mission chains are linear; individual missions offer to choice of outcome
no quest rails, but missions are drawn from a pre-set static mission pool with no relation to past results or choices
no consequences which affect the world
cannot be created by players
Progression
Strongly theme-park
No stats / skillpoints to assign ever
No multi-classing
Talent trees do not offer any choice for meaningful customization within your chosen role
Levels can only be gained while actively participating in two preset advancement channels (questing or instanced team PvP). (Other paths like grinding, resource-gathering and exploration give XP but are not viable as a reasonable advancement path)
Sandbox
Skills can be trained and combined with very few limits
Can always change your role by aiming your training in a new direction
You can combine roles, change direction, specialize, train in a different than you planned to when you started a character
Skills advance even when the player is not participating in a typical advancement channel (ie. while crafting, trading, resource-gathering, socializing)
Player-owned Structures
Strongly theme-park
No player owned structures
The few capturable locations cannot be customized / upgraded / managed
No player housing (even instanced) and thus no customization
Sandbox
Players can build POSs
POSs can be managed in terms of access, resource consumption, etc
POSs can be customized through choice of size, faction, modules installed
System sovereignity
Customs offices w/ adjustable tax
Planetary bases which while almost 'instanced' in their separation from effect on other players do allow you to make choices as to layout / facilities / production that directly affect the results you get out of it
Resource harvesting
Strongly theme-park
Static nodes that are hard-locked to skill level (in turn locked to character level)
Resources are highly specific to their level (ex. Copper Ore is not used in any max-level items)
Yelds and gathering times are static with no input from chosen skills or equipment
Sandbox
A mix of static and dynamic node locations with a very broad spectrum of accessibility (You could technically mine anything with an hour of training, but you will be very inefficient at it - and possibly very unsafe in the areas where it's found)
Resources have a very broad usefulness lifespan (ex. Tritanium is used everywhere from a simple piece of T1 ammo, to top-of-the-line capital ships)
Yeld and gathering times are highly controllable by the player through choice of skills, equipment and node type
Crafting
Strongly theme-park
Pre-set recipes with preset results (or a random result)
Recipes AND product are only useful/available at specific levels
Material consumption / trade station location / final product are not under the player's control
Player cannot customize the final product in any way
Mildly Sandbox
Pre-set recipes with preset results
Recipes and products are usable across a broad range of skill levels
Player can affect material consumption and can build own crafting facilities
Player cannot customize the final product in any way
Equipment
Theme-park
Equipment is locked to armor type, level, class (weapon types), reputation (some)
Equipment appearance can be customized (as of 4.3) but only from pre-set choices
Equipment stats can be customized but such customization is so mandatory and specific that it doesn't reperesent player freedom of choice
Equipment stats are not affected by player skills (small number of heirlooms aside)
Equipment falls into very linear upgrade paths with very little decision-making or tradeoffs
On the fence
Equipment is not generally locked to anything but skills. Upsized / downsized / atypical modules can be equipped if the player is willing to make the appropriate tradeoffs
Equipment appearance cannot be customized
Equipment effects can be customized through choice of charge, ship, other modules, rigs
Equipment stats are actively affected by player's skills
Equipment choice (even at the same skill level) can vary greatly depending on one's playstyle, tradeoffs in cost / power / cpu / range
PvP
Theme-park
Instanced with very specific artificial goals
Pre-set team sizes and levels
Rigidly defined times and locations for world PvP
Level and equipment are far more important than skill
Win/loss does not carry any meaningful world-affecting consequences
Sandbox
Non-instanced with no preset goals
Players determine the size and composition of their fleets
Can happen anytime and anywhere
Character age and equipment are less important
Win/loss results in real equipment / structure / territory loss
A sandbox mmo to me in a game that is a single sharded (everyone shares the same living space as opposed to hundreds of different servers like WoW) world with the main aspect is Player vs Player but on an extremely large scale. Where nations of players band together to fight other nations for territory, resources, respect, reputation. Where the economy is entirely player driven. Where everything is player made or constructed/built (similar to Minecraft). Where nothing is "safe" forever (nations rise and fall, things decay when not maintained). Where you can terraform but not compeletly destroy the world by doing so and terraformed land would slowly return to normal over a long period if there was no real activity going on around it.
There would also be lots of PvE elements like farming, mining, fishing, hunting, extremely(!) large tradeskill/crafting system.
Nations could build massive castles, bridge over rivers, build roads to increase travel speeds all of which would decay and eventually collapase and become nothing again if there was no activety on or around them.
You could hire NPC's to man your castle walls, or defend your settlements, patrol your roads, or defend your resources (farms) equip them with armor, weapons, bows, etc. They could even go hunting with you and you can bring them to help siege/raid an enemy (think lighting their crops on fire to cause food shortages from crops). Player made siege weapons. Higher masons etc to keep your structers from decaying.
The world would be huge and constantly exanding to give room for new nations. Huge oceans with islands that you can explore for. Massive ships.
I can go on and on. It would take a lot of money and time to develope a game like this, which is why it hasn't really been done.
So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game. I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers. Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides) And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this. Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas. Take Skyrim for example. The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level. You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something. If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same. Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.
Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.
Talint
One of the main reasons for the lack of success of "sand box" type games, is that the Dev's and players insist on equating "sand box" with FFA gankfest. Thats a rather limited demographic in the modern western markets. As long as there are Goonie types, any game that panders to them is going to seriously niche itself.
Another reason is that "sand box" tends to lend itself to small Dev teams, with limited funding. Thats a nasty cycle that feeds back on itself.
Slow travel gives scope to a world, I for one want slow travel,with certain public transport back. Summon stones and queues have been enormously damaging to virtual world immersion.
Slow travel is great for adding scope to a world, but it's something that has to be accounted for in the overall design of the game.
If your game has frequent / unavoidable deaths then slow travel from respawn point is BAD. If your game allows you to generally minimize deaths through skill and good choices or provides good getaway mechanisms then slow travel from respawn can be GOOD.
If your game has critical resources only available in few / far away spots then slow travel is BAD. For example a far-away AH / trainer / vendor / bank that the player must visit often will make slow-travel tedious. If players can 'live' in an area of the world for days at a time then slow travel is GOOD as it enhances the feeling of size of the world.
If your game has a progression that leads you to moving through multiple zones in a single session of play then slow travel is BAD. If progression naturally lets you roam an area for several days then slow travel can be GOOD.
If your players have to travel to an instance for a quick 30 min group slow travel is BAD. If dungeons and groups are meant to last for hours, supporting the idea of replacements for any leavers then slow travel can be GOOD.
Also, slow travel should either have limited fast travel alternatives OR afk-slow-travel alternatives. For example EVE travel is slow but we have a (slower) auto-pilot (with the added risk of ganks). In UO travel was slow but skills and reagents could provide teleportation (further at risk through rune theft); mounts could speed movemenet but could also easily die resulting in a gold loss and a slow walk to the vendor. In EQ travel was slow but items / spells could speed it up and limited teleportation locations could speed up travel with the help of certain classes.
So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game. I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers. Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides) And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this. Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas. Take Skyrim for example. The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level. You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something. If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same. Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.
Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.
Talint
I'm starting to think sandboxes are failing because players and developers on the sandbox bandwagon equate sandbox to hardcore.
If you had a good sandbox game with the the benefits and ease of use of a popular themepark game you would have a winner. But for some reason ease of use and sandbox never goes hand in hand with game devs.
Comments
the word "sandbox" is synonymous with freedom, the more a game lets you do what ever you want the more sandboxy it is. sadly the more freedom you give people the more they tend to used it to inflict suffering onto others (greefing).
Skyrim only works because there is no one trying to gank you at every possible corner. put in a few thousand people and give them freedom and a good portion of them will do nothing all day but try to ruin some one else's day. it's just human nature. and it's uggly head will show up more then ever in sandboxes exactly because of all the freedom the game allows.
Eve is one of the few sandboxes that has managed to strike a very good balance between complete freedom ( 0.0 space) and a safe and controlled environment ( 1.0 space) separated only by you own choice. the important part is taht YOU choose whether you want to engage in 0.0 space or not, it cannot be forced appon you. it is why it's been so succesful. every other sandbox has either made it too easy to greef or not enough freedom.
Well, I haven't gotten to the last quests yet. Not sure how much "shaping" one can do. But that has always been a downfall to the elderscrolls games. There's a lot you can do but you can only go so far with each thing.
The sand is the content. Right now, my roommate is installing Skyrim. He hasnt' played a video game in years but loved morrowind and oblivion.
He will pretty much not touch most of the quests except for the things he finds on the road. No interest. He loves exploring and funny enough making money. Looking at what items cost what and weigh what and whether they are worth picking up and selling.
His game play experience will be completely different from mine as though I love to explore I really love doing the main quests. and pick up enough things to keep "some" money in my coffers.
And there are other people who collect cheese and roll them down mountains.
yet, in "The Hunted" the other game I just installed, I wouldn't be able to have any choice. The point of the game is about the particualr experience laid out before me.
It's the thrust of game play that makes a sandbox "game" and a theme park game.
Can one really change the world in "The Sims"? A girlfriend of mine loved the Sims but after all the hours of me sitting with her I couldn't really say that she changed anything.
Oh she built her house and spent most of her time trying to become a superstar or some such thing.
Yet if I had the Sims I probably wouldn't become a superstar/actor but would concentrate on, well, I'm not sure what I'd concnetrate on as the game never really drew me in.
Are the total war games sandbox games? Maybe on a certain level but I've never considred them as such.
My point being, you can change the shape of he political face of the world but I'm not sure they are sandbox games. Stil, I would entertain a good argument for them being sandbox games as one can dominate in several different ways.
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
Real question is: What is the minium feautures/content you want in your sandbox MMO?
Crazy question I know because a sandbox is supposed to have a huge amount of options. But no investor wants to spend that much into a game what looks like a bad gamble.
Lowering costs...Can you start with a 2d game and build on it until you can do 3d? No, you are better off starting with 3d. There are number of things that can work in 2d but not 3d. Way to much reworking it. Besides you would have to make a second game just to keep the community happy. No I'mgoingtoradicallychangeyourgameok?
Start with a great framework which you can add an enormous about of features and content to later(hopefully without borking it to dead). Here we go...the indy devs start to look for a license to buy because, damn, that sounds like a lot of work. This one of those things that I have no idea how much it would cost or the time needed to get it going. The cost to buy or lease a license and the amount of time for the dev minions to master the use of the engine. Or the cost and time for your team to construct something marginally as robust.
Minimum PvE content. That really hurts to think about as a player. Alright, EvE did repeatable missions...could do that. Let you players go on murder sprees in the NPC fields, enjoy. Please?
I'd prefer something more like dynamically generated missions where the players are creating the content for themselves. How? I...um still working on that.
How do you make a sandbox cost effect? Or are they inherently cost destructive?
Because too many think sandbox = ganking, and then develop their game to allow this.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Give each building a no-build area around it so the nearest one can't be closer than 5' away. Limit building to specific areas so players can't plop down a house to block a dungeon entrance. Allow players to create looks by compositing premade pieces in various styles and combinding them with premade armors rather than free-for-all upload textures or shapes. Could even have a a staffer who receives new texture/model submissions from players and checks them out for quality / content before approving the best one for inclusion in next month's patch for addition to the premade pieces library. Sure, that takes an employee but vetting premade content takes a lot less of that person's time than creating from scratch. A sandbox doesn't mean no limits. A sandbox means a game where you have the freedom to play your way within a set of reasonably lax boundaries. If those boundaries allow you to create it is perfectly ok if there are certain restrictions on what or where you can create. If those boundaries allow you to kill players it is ok for there to be restrictions on who, where or when you can do that.
There are many types of Sandbox designs.. FPS FFA is just one of them. And yes.. many newer people tend to associate sandbox with FFA PvP.
Secondly, to you it may seem that all MMORPG have "zones".. but you have to understand the technological difference between loading in all the content from a different blade server, (while your character moves about the game world) -VS- loading assets @ node line but not the game world, just the dynamic content that is currently in the area. (ie VG)
There server structure and type clearly defines what the Developers can & cannot do with the mechanics within their game. That is why the early pre-planning stages set the tone for the whole development project.
When designing a MMORPG, the developers YEARS BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS... need to know what type of server structure they are going to use. Because that alone determines and defines what will be allowed in game. It also lets the investors know if the MMORPG being planned is going to cost $600,000 to make, or $40 million.
The server structure & Hardware the game runs on, determines if the game is Sandbox, or themepark. Streaming and 64bit OS will allow for some immersive style MMO in the near future, zones (per se') will get even more difficult to define.
Note: you don't have to zone... to hit an artifical zone wall. (it has 2 meanings)
Many poeople simply do not undersatand WHY themepark MMOS exist (the technological limitation) and WHY they continue to be developed. Most of these people don't understand any of this, because they don't understand the progeny of how technology and MMO grew up together.
Today's Themeparks use cheap servers, because using Zones & instances can easily cut the over-all start up cost by 80%, or more. (Thousands -vs- Millions)
Lastly, as we moved through technology, many leading Developers will come up with some unique things with their server structure (RIft, for example). There will always be games that think outside the box and try to deliver Sandbox content within a zoned world. Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence.
"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
Very interesting, and I'll take your word for it on the technical side. But not on the definition side. You are putting your own definition of a themepark and sandbox and the individual does not get to do that. Words are defined by the collective, and while there unfortunately is no one overall definition for sandbox and themepark there are some points that a majority agree on.
Yes the server architecture and hardware does limit the features. However as has been shown over and over again through countless threads, a feature list does not make a sandbox - else wow would be a sandbox as it has many features (not all but many) that a sandbox has.
Fact 1- there are games that the majority consider to be sandbox that have zones. Your particular definition of sandbox is moot. Because these games exist, we can definatively say that the presence or absence of a zone line is not the defining or even a major feature of sandbox or themepark. You can say that it may be harder but you can't say it can't be done, it has been done.
"Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence." This is just your own subjective definition of sandbox - nothing more.
Fact 2 = Vanguard may have handled there zone lines different, however they are still zones. There is an invisible line that you cross where the game pauses (sometimes for minutes at a time) and loads up the resources of the world. Yes you can see the resources on either side of the zone but they are merely a backdrop, you can't interact with them. They call them chunk lines but there were implemented for the same reason as the old zone lines, and work the same way as the old zone lines (meaning the game still pauses to load up the resources), ergo they are zones.
Venge
This a great description, get right to the heart of the matter. However, I think in order to make a sandbox a) fun and b) profitable c) playable ......it would certainly have to borrow some base structures from themeparks. IMO
Having just watched a handfull of vids on Archeage I can say with 100% certainty it will be sandbox. I couldn't determine if it will be 100% FFA but I really hope not. Nothing is FFA. I can't stroll up to your house and build a shed on your front lawn, it shouldn't be any different in an MMO world. I buy a deed for a plot in game, I have room to build a house, grow a garden plant some trees whatever. Pay my taxes, it's "my land" and my taxes give me protection under the law that say so. They showed a rapid view of a house that was abandoned as it fell in to disrepair so I think you might see weather impact the need to fix the roof or mend a fence and so on meaning you wont have the issues of SWG where you could just plunk your house down anywhere and pay up maintenance for a year.
They suggest in the videos that pretty much everything will be crafted and alot of the sandbox people will like that. From houses to cities to boats to everything. They mentioned I think servers will be PvE and PvP so I doubt griefers will be able to drag the game down like alot of other player manipulated worlds. They haven't mentioned a pay method yet, that can make it or break it. Graphics were scenery m'eh and avatar - 'groan' but those can be advanced upon when the core of the game is good. Typical example, cleavage. In this game? They shouldn't have it because what they have now is worse than none. It looks like someone overproofed bread and the loaves over lapped. Facial is 2003 and body is 2D but again, they can improve those aspects of the game.
If Archeage meets it's expactations from within, it will be the big little sandbox that worked.
The solution is ... get CCP to make a sandbox MMO like Eve Online but have it in another type of setting.
Then you'll have a MMO that will work.
The game mechanics are perfect. At the end real time skills being learned is one of the best ways to have a game that's great for both hardcore and casual. Sure the wait sucks but if you and other players agree that you both liek FFA PvP then t hats g reat people say that not everyone l ikes... but then wh y do I hear so many peopel crave for it.
Right now it 's up to Eve Online, Darkfall Online, and Mortal Online...
Eve Online - Stay the way you are but evenutally expand on having humanoids land on planets and do their thing in planets using yoru avatar... (this will take YEARS)
Darkfall Online - Dude... seriouslly release 2.0 and try to make the skills a little bit different in terms of not having every sincgle character use the same w eapons and spells.
Mortal Online - Fix your tutorial system and get a higher population somehow.
I think the demand for Sandbox will eventually be heard. I see a lot of people begging for it and I think one day someoen will listen and our dreams will come true...
In my eyes though I think Sandbox games are only really truly working for Single Player games (with the exception of Ultima Online)
Because the vocal minority screaming about features that most gamers no longer want for example ffa pvp, full loot, nothing but slow travel (which is completely stupid since the grand daddy of sandboxes UO had recall runes) to name a few.
Because developers have rose colored glasses when they are remembering their young in these games. UO can't be recreated because the core (the community) is not the same. MMO are no longer roleplay games the are competative roleplay games.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I am all for slowing down progression and stopping to smell the roses, but running past the roses just to get to the game I am trying to play has no value added. Slow travel is nothing more then a time sink and if slow travel is your big plan to slow down progression you have some serious issues.
I have never been big on exploring so running around just to run around does nothing for me.
I disagree that the player has to build the world. In this respect it's sufficient for the player to be able to affect a semi-permanent change upon the world as shared with other players.
For example an MMO where you can build modular fortresses on any empty space you please which endure until destroyed / decayed / conquered definetely qualifies as a sandbox in this respect. But so would one where you can only build pre-made castles (ie. UO), or one where you can only build on specific plots of land. In fact even one where you capture pre-built castles can qualify this feature as a sandbox IF there is more to this feature than an on/off control switch. Say you could capture only this premade fixed keeps, but assign NPC guard routes, build / improve / place defensive equipment your own way (oil vats, etc). Or maybe you have to allocate a budget across what types of NPC untis you keep on staff, how much to spend on repairs, etc. (Think along the lines of a single-player resource management game)
As far as the game as a whole being a sandbox I think this comes down to how the sum of all its features falls in the sandbox/themepark spectrum.
WoW
EVE
Quests / Missions
Strongly theme-park
level/race/faction/reputation-locked
linear sequence of quests with almost no branching
multiple quest `rails` available but only if you choose a different zone to play in
no consequences that affect the world in which other players live (consequences are either brief 5-30 sec changes to the world that revert immediately, or phases only you see)
quests cannot be created by players
Mildly theme-park
missions are reputation locked only
mission chains are linear; individual missions offer to choice of outcome
no quest rails, but missions are drawn from a pre-set static mission pool with no relation to past results or choices
no consequences which affect the world
cannot be created by players
Progression
Strongly theme-park
No stats / skillpoints to assign ever
No multi-classing
Talent trees do not offer any choice for meaningful customization within your chosen role
Levels can only be gained while actively participating in two preset advancement channels (questing or instanced team PvP). (Other paths like grinding, resource-gathering and exploration give XP but are not viable as a reasonable advancement path)
Sandbox
Skills can be trained and combined with very few limits
Can always change your role by aiming your training in a new direction
You can combine roles, change direction, specialize, train in a different than you planned to when you started a character
Skills advance even when the player is not participating in a typical advancement channel (ie. while crafting, trading, resource-gathering, socializing)
Player-owned Structures
Strongly theme-park
No player owned structures
The few capturable locations cannot be customized / upgraded / managed
No player housing (even instanced) and thus no customization
Sandbox
Players can build POSs
POSs can be managed in terms of access, resource consumption, etc
POSs can be customized through choice of size, faction, modules installed
System sovereignity
Customs offices w/ adjustable tax
Planetary bases which while almost 'instanced' in their separation from effect on other players do allow you to make choices as to layout / facilities / production that directly affect the results you get out of it
Resource harvesting
Strongly theme-park
Static nodes that are hard-locked to skill level (in turn locked to character level)
Resources are highly specific to their level (ex. Copper Ore is not used in any max-level items)
Yelds and gathering times are static with no input from chosen skills or equipment
Sandbox
A mix of static and dynamic node locations with a very broad spectrum of accessibility (You could technically mine anything with an hour of training, but you will be very inefficient at it - and possibly very unsafe in the areas where it's found)
Resources have a very broad usefulness lifespan (ex. Tritanium is used everywhere from a simple piece of T1 ammo, to top-of-the-line capital ships)
Yeld and gathering times are highly controllable by the player through choice of skills, equipment and node type
Crafting
Strongly theme-park
Pre-set recipes with preset results (or a random result)
Recipes AND product are only useful/available at specific levels
Material consumption / trade station location / final product are not under the player's control
Player cannot customize the final product in any way
Mildly Sandbox
Pre-set recipes with preset results
Recipes and products are usable across a broad range of skill levels
Player can affect material consumption and can build own crafting facilities
Player cannot customize the final product in any way
Equipment
Theme-park
Equipment is locked to armor type, level, class (weapon types), reputation (some)
Equipment appearance can be customized (as of 4.3) but only from pre-set choices
Equipment stats can be customized but such customization is so mandatory and specific that it doesn't reperesent player freedom of choice
Equipment stats are not affected by player skills (small number of heirlooms aside)
Equipment falls into very linear upgrade paths with very little decision-making or tradeoffs
On the fence
Equipment is not generally locked to anything but skills. Upsized / downsized / atypical modules can be equipped if the player is willing to make the appropriate tradeoffs
Equipment appearance cannot be customized
Equipment effects can be customized through choice of charge, ship, other modules, rigs
Equipment stats are actively affected by player's skills
Equipment choice (even at the same skill level) can vary greatly depending on one's playstyle, tradeoffs in cost / power / cpu / range
PvP
Theme-park
Instanced with very specific artificial goals
Pre-set team sizes and levels
Rigidly defined times and locations for world PvP
Level and equipment are far more important than skill
Win/loss does not carry any meaningful world-affecting consequences
Sandbox
Non-instanced with no preset goals
Players determine the size and composition of their fleets
Can happen anytime and anywhere
Character age and equipment are less important
Win/loss results in real equipment / structure / territory loss
Overall
Theme-park
Sandbox
A sandbox mmo to me in a game that is a single sharded (everyone shares the same living space as opposed to hundreds of different servers like WoW) world with the main aspect is Player vs Player but on an extremely large scale. Where nations of players band together to fight other nations for territory, resources, respect, reputation. Where the economy is entirely player driven. Where everything is player made or constructed/built (similar to Minecraft). Where nothing is "safe" forever (nations rise and fall, things decay when not maintained). Where you can terraform but not compeletly destroy the world by doing so and terraformed land would slowly return to normal over a long period if there was no real activity going on around it.
There would also be lots of PvE elements like farming, mining, fishing, hunting, extremely(!) large tradeskill/crafting system.
Nations could build massive castles, bridge over rivers, build roads to increase travel speeds all of which would decay and eventually collapase and become nothing again if there was no activety on or around them.
You could hire NPC's to man your castle walls, or defend your settlements, patrol your roads, or defend your resources (farms) equip them with armor, weapons, bows, etc. They could even go hunting with you and you can bring them to help siege/raid an enemy (think lighting their crops on fire to cause food shortages from crops). Player made siege weapons. Higher masons etc to keep your structers from decaying.
The world would be huge and constantly exanding to give room for new nations. Huge oceans with islands that you can explore for. Massive ships.
I can go on and on. It would take a lot of money and time to develope a game like this, which is why it hasn't really been done.
One of the main reasons for the lack of success of "sand box" type games, is that the Dev's and players insist on equating "sand box" with FFA gankfest. Thats a rather limited demographic in the modern western markets. As long as there are Goonie types, any game that panders to them is going to seriously niche itself.
Another reason is that "sand box" tends to lend itself to small Dev teams, with limited funding. Thats a nasty cycle that feeds back on itself.
Slow travel is great for adding scope to a world, but it's something that has to be accounted for in the overall design of the game.
If your game has frequent / unavoidable deaths then slow travel from respawn point is BAD. If your game allows you to generally minimize deaths through skill and good choices or provides good getaway mechanisms then slow travel from respawn can be GOOD.
If your game has critical resources only available in few / far away spots then slow travel is BAD. For example a far-away AH / trainer / vendor / bank that the player must visit often will make slow-travel tedious. If players can 'live' in an area of the world for days at a time then slow travel is GOOD as it enhances the feeling of size of the world.
If your game has a progression that leads you to moving through multiple zones in a single session of play then slow travel is BAD. If progression naturally lets you roam an area for several days then slow travel can be GOOD.
If your players have to travel to an instance for a quick 30 min group slow travel is BAD. If dungeons and groups are meant to last for hours, supporting the idea of replacements for any leavers then slow travel can be GOOD.
Also, slow travel should either have limited fast travel alternatives OR afk-slow-travel alternatives. For example EVE travel is slow but we have a (slower) auto-pilot (with the added risk of ganks). In UO travel was slow but skills and reagents could provide teleportation (further at risk through rune theft); mounts could speed movemenet but could also easily die resulting in a gold loss and a slow walk to the vendor. In EQ travel was slow but items / spells could speed it up and limited teleportation locations could speed up travel with the help of certain classes.
A Minecraft mmo?