Just came up with this question in my head its friday night and I have a glass of wine, yes this is how geeks party.
In daoc I did not follow quest paths, from a low level it was about finding a group and grinding up mobs at various patches with people. You could build your own house and RvR was an open ended pvp situation.
Let me know what you think.
It was mainly a themepark, but it had some virtual worlds influences.
Wrong
DAoC was a Sandbox
THE ONLY criteria to determine if a game is a sandbox or themepark is does the game guide you on rails or are you free to level as you like. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE . Love how people thorw these small paradigms on top of the abbreviation of the words.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Despite their name, many open world games still enforce restrictions at some points in the game environment, either due to absolute game design limitations or temporary in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Just came up with this question in my head its friday night and I have a glass of wine, yes this is how geeks party.
In daoc I did not follow quest paths, from a low level it was about finding a group and grinding up mobs at various patches with people. You could build your own house and RvR was an open ended pvp situation.
Let me know what you think.
It was mainly a themepark, but it had some virtual worlds influences.
Wrong
DAoC was a Sandbox
THE ONLY criteria to determine if a game is a sandbox or themepark is does the game guide you on rails or are you free to level as you like. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE . Love how people thorw these small paradigms on top of the abbreviation of the words.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Despite their name, many open world games still enforce restrictions at some points in the game environment, either due to absolute game design limitations or temporary in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
I don't really agree with this at all. When you take a true sandbox game (say Ultima Online) and have a fresh server you will literally see next to nothing in the world except for random mobs and terrain. Now if you add 100 players to that server they will eventually start killing mobs, or sheering sheep (that's what I did) to make clothing to sell to npcs or people to make gold to have their friend (or themselves) craft them some armor and a weapon so they can go kill bigger mobs and get some gold to buy a house to place. This is just one example. Another player might choose to go to a mountain and mine ore and become a full time blacksmith. Another player might decide to start fishing and eventually buy a boat to get bigger and better fish. He may never even kill a monster on that character. There are no classes. You are free to build your character however you decide to. No restrictions. It's not just about wether a world is linear or open. It's a whole lot more than that. You just wont see it hardly ever. In fact the only game that is coming close to something like that is Archeage.
Just came up with this question in my head its friday night and I have a glass of wine, yes this is how geeks party.
In daoc I did not follow quest paths, from a low level it was about finding a group and grinding up mobs at various patches with people. You could build your own house and RvR was an open ended pvp situation.
Let me know what you think.
It was mainly a themepark, but it had some virtual worlds influences.
Wrong
DAoC was a Sandbox
THE ONLY criteria to determine if a game is a sandbox or themepark is does the game guide you on rails or are you free to level as you like. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE . Love how people thorw these small paradigms on top of the abbreviation of the words.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Despite their name, many open world games still enforce restrictions at some points in the game environment, either due to absolute game design limitations or temporary in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
I don't really agree with this at all. When you take a true sandbox game (say Ultima Online) and have a fresh server you will literally see next to nothing in the world except for random mobs and terrain. Now if you add 100 players to that server they will eventually start killing mobs, or sheering sheep (that's what I did) to make clothing to sell to npcs or people to make gold to have their friend (or themselves) craft them some armor and a weapon so they can go kill bigger mobs and get some gold to buy a house to place. This is just one example. Another player might choose to go to a mountain and mine ore and become a full time blacksmith. Another player might decide to start fishing and eventually buy a boat to get bigger and better fish. He may never even kill a monster on that character. There are no classes. You are free to build your character however you decide to. No restrictions. It's not just about wether a world is linear or open. It's a whole lot more than that. You just wont see it hardly ever. In fact the only game that is coming close to something like that is Archeage.
Doesnt matter if you agree or disagree. I could say soemthing like " I Think the Moon is made of Gouda Cheese" Doesnt make it right even if I believe.
Its fine to have your own narrow definition within the strata of the game, thats cool but it doesnt change the overall defintion.
Its a very simple and straight forward defintion defined by one term. Linearity!
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Doesnt matter if you agree or disagree. I could say soemthing like " I Think the Moon is made of Gouda Cheese" Doesnt make it right even if I believe.
Its fine to have your own narrow definition within the strata of the game, thats cool but it doesnt change the overall defintion.
Its a very simple and straight forward defintion defined by one term. Linearity!
Well, it matters in the sense whether you pose a statement and definition that the majority of MMO gamers and the industry agree with, or one that they find themselves disagreeing with. A claim has little value if it's about a definition or classification that most people think is wrong.
I can see how UO and EVE are sandbox MMORPG's and WoW and LotrO are themepark MMORPG's, something that the majority of people in the MMO know also will agree with. Problem is that sandbox and themepark are merely inofficial classifications and that things usually are less black and white, with a lot of grey inbetween.
I find it hard to determine what former pre-WoW MMORPG's actually are, because with WoW and afterwards quest based leveling became a core feature, and that's one of the defining traits of a themepark MMORPG.
I can't recall the term 'themepark' being used before WoW. People did discuss MMO designs that were either 'game focused' design, where the devs provided all the content and you as a player played their game with little impact on the world, and 'world focused' design, where the devs provided the players tools to affect the ingame world, and because of it there's emergent gameplay with players affecting the state of the world.
EQ, DAoC, CoH were MMO's that had a 'game focused' design, where as MMO's like UO, EVE and SWG had a 'world focused' or sandbox design.
I see themepark design as a branch of 'game focused' design, one of the paths that such a design can take as a next step.
EQ's corpse runs, XP penalty with dying, no hand holding right from the start and overall challenging difficulty I don't particularly see as classic themepark design, but I do see EQ and DAoC as game focused design, where as UO and SWG were more 'world focused' or sandboxy.
Just came up with this question in my head its friday night and I have a glass of wine, yes this is how geeks party.
In daoc I did not follow quest paths, from a low level it was about finding a group and grinding up mobs at various patches with people. You could build your own house and RvR was an open ended pvp situation.
Let me know what you think.
It was mainly a themepark, but it had some virtual worlds influences.
Wrong
DAoC was a Sandbox
THE ONLY criteria to determine if a game is a sandbox or themepark is does the game guide you on rails or are you free to level as you like. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE . Love how people thorw these small paradigms on top of the abbreviation of the words.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Despite their name, many open world games still enforce restrictions at some points in the game environment, either due to absolute game design limitations or temporary in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
I don't really agree with this at all. When you take a true sandbox game (say Ultima Online) and have a fresh server you will literally see next to nothing in the world except for random mobs and terrain. Now if you add 100 players to that server they will eventually start killing mobs, or sheering sheep (that's what I did) to make clothing to sell to npcs or people to make gold to have their friend (or themselves) craft them some armor and a weapon so they can go kill bigger mobs and get some gold to buy a house to place. This is just one example. Another player might choose to go to a mountain and mine ore and become a full time blacksmith. Another player might decide to start fishing and eventually buy a boat to get bigger and better fish. He may never even kill a monster on that character. There are no classes. You are free to build your character however you decide to. No restrictions. It's not just about wether a world is linear or open. It's a whole lot more than that. You just wont see it hardly ever. In fact the only game that is coming close to something like that is Archeage.
Doesnt matter if you agree or disagree. I could say soemthing like " I Think the Moon is made of Gouda Cheese" Doesnt make it right even if I believe.
Its fine to have your own narrow definition within the strata of the game, thats cool but it doesnt change the overall defintion.
Its a very simple and straight forward defintion defined by one term. Linearity!
Let's address your last point, regardless what you say, DAOC was very linear in its design (when compared to a real sandbox title such as EVE)
You started out at level one, and could really only go hunt in the new player areas. Head out deep into the hinterlands and you would have found every NPC for 500 yards closing in on your rapidly (unless you could stealth) and sending you back to the zone you belonged in.
Speaking of starting out, you had to pick a class, and it frequently defined the role you were going to play. Sure, there were hybrids, but the pure classes such as Tank, Healer, DD mage really were limited to their specific role. It was actually almost impossible to solo a healer to 50, doubt anyone actually ever tried. (as opposed to Necromancers who were soloing monsters)
As you progressed, the game guided you from one zone to the next, with each zone have progressively higher level monsters. In fact, what quests it did have were tied to your level and frequently would guide you to the next zone when it was appropriate to do so.
It's true, there were no quest hubs like WOW introduced to the genre, but that doesn't make it any less theme parky, even if the term really wasn't defined until WOW.
Let's look at crafting. In UO one could craft to maximum prowess and never actually pick up a sword. Not true in DAOC, at launch some items couldn't be crafted unless you were out in the fontier keeps, and you'd never reach those unless your character was high enough in level to survive the passage out there. (they later reduced the difficulty but even then I seem to recall certain crafting levels required you to be a certain character level, but perhaps I'm confusing that with WOW now)
So don't think there wasn't any linearity in DAOC, there clearly was a progression path that the Developers intended you to follow, (even though you might have been able to stray from it) and by any comparison to real sandboxes (UO, Ryzom, EVE etc) you can't call it a sandbox.
A good virtual world yes, (which many people confuse for a sandbox) but still a guided game in many respects.
See, the problem is, you don't get to define what a sandbox is, (nor do I), but the market place overall will judge what is really a sandbox and what isn't. By common acceptance some titles are considered so, and others not. You are the outlier in this case.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'd have to agree with the people saying it was a hybrid. The PVE realms were themeparks, although they were less restrictive than current MMO themeparks, but essentially themeparks regardless.
Then at 50 you got to devote your time to RvR. Mythic gave you 3 border territories with keeps to siege/defend and 2 other realms full of people to smack in the face with a big stick. At this point it acquired a much more sandbox feel. The landscape was there, the castles were there, you just had to go and play in it, organise your sieges, defend your keeps etc.
So yeah, a hybrid. 1-50 themepark and RvR more sandboxy. Without doubt my best MMO experience so far until the fucked it up with ToA and the redesign of the border territories.
THE ONLY criteria to determine if a game is a sandbox or themepark is does the game guide you on rails or are you free to level as you like. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE . Love how people thorw these small paradigms on top of the abbreviation of the words.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Despite their name, many open world games still enforce restrictions at some points in the game environment, either due to absolute game design limitations or temporary in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
That would also make Lineage and plenty other of the old games sandboxes. . And it would make Guildwars 2 a sandbox as well, you are free to do what you like there as well.
You could call these games hybrids or something, but while they not might be themeparks that does not automatically make them sandboxes. What makes a game a sandbox is that the majority of the content is made by the players, not if it have linear quest chains or not.
It really looks like this:
Sandbox
Railroded personal freedom
Themepark
While it is hard you can actually make a railroaded sandbox. In the beginning you would do linear quests to learn you the tools to create player made content. After that a few "kings" or whatever gives tells the other players what to do all the time. It would still be a sandbox but not very free for most of the players.
No more Sandbox than WoW in my opinion. Remember, DAOC invented the battlegrounds which almost define what a Themepark game is these days.
Ya, it was open world, but so is WoW. And DAOC actually restricts your movement more than WoW. You can't even goto the other factions areas in DAOC, PvP is restricted to the frontier.
I'd have to agree with the people saying it was a hybrid. The PVE realms were themeparks, although they were less restrictive than current MMO themeparks, but essentially themeparks regardless.
Then at 50 you got to devote your time to RvR. Mythic gave you 3 border territories with keeps to siege/defend and 2 other realms full of people to smack in the face with a big stick. At this point it acquired a much more sandbox feel. The landscape was there, the castles were there, you just had to go and play in it, organise your sieges, defend your keeps etc.
So yeah, a hybrid. 1-50 themepark and RvR more sandboxy. Without doubt my best MMO experience so far until the fucked it up with ToA and the redesign of the border territories.
Edited: Spelling
How can you call RvR sandboxy? It was all restricted to a specific area. Ya it wasn't match based pvp but it was still a ride you went on. You weren't free to figure out what you wanted to be in DAOC it was all about the RvR and thats a themepark with one ride even.
Daoc battlegrounds are VERY different to wow battlegrounds, they are persistent not matches, they are basicly there to train you for rvr while leveling.
Please don't lay the blame for crappy tupperware pvp at the door of daoc, that started with coh/wow/gw
I'd have to agree with the people saying it was a hybrid. The PVE realms were themeparks, although they were less restrictive than current MMO themeparks, but essentially themeparks regardless.
Then at 50 you got to devote your time to RvR. Mythic gave you 3 border territories with keeps to siege/defend and 2 other realms full of people to smack in the face with a big stick. At this point it acquired a much more sandbox feel. The landscape was there, the castles were there, you just had to go and play in it, organise your sieges, defend your keeps etc.
So yeah, a hybrid. 1-50 themepark and RvR more sandboxy. Without doubt my best MMO experience so far until the fucked it up with ToA and the redesign of the border territories.
Edited: Spelling
How can you call RvR sandboxy? It was all restricted to a specific area. Ya it wasn't match based pvp but it was still a ride you went on. You weren't free to figure out what you wanted to be in DAOC it was all about the RvR and thats a themepark with one ride even.
I didn't say it was definitively sandbox, but that it acquired a more sandbox feel. There were no specific tasks set for the RvR. There were just the borderlands and keeps. What you then did was up to you. Essentially that's player generated content, in the area provided. Isn't that like a sandbox? Yes, it was restricted to the borderlands, but that was part of the game design so the game would appeal to a larger audience that didn't want FFA PvP everywhere all the time like in UO.
There's no doubt that the game was essentially a PvE themepark, but the way they designed the RvR gave it more of a sandbox feel at endgame. You say it was one ride and all about RvR. Yeah it was, and getting there was very much a themepark. But once you got there you were free to decide what you would do, within the confines of the RvR territories. I don't see that confining it to the border territories makes any difference.
I'm not saying it was a sandbox in RvR, but it felt more like a sandbox than a themepark. At least it did to me. Feel free to disagree if you want to apply strict rules to what constitutes a sandbox. Personally I think Mythic did a good job of taking a themepark game and then very cleverly making it feel a little bit more like a sandbox in RvR.
THE ONLY criteria to determine if a game is a sandbox or themepark is does the game guide you on rails or are you free to level as you like. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE . Love how people thorw these small paradigms on top of the abbreviation of the words.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Despite their name, many open world games still enforce restrictions at some points in the game environment, either due to absolute game design limitations or temporary in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
That would also make Lineage and plenty other of the old games sandboxes. . And it would make Guildwars 2 a sandbox as well, you are free to do what you like there as well.
You could call these games hybrids or something, but while they not might be themeparks that does not automatically make them sandboxes. What makes a game a sandbox is that the majority of the content is made by the players, not if it have linear quest chains or not.
It really looks like this:
Sandbox
Railroded personal freedom
Themepark
While it is hard you can actually make a railroaded sandbox. In the beginning you would do linear quests to learn you the tools to create player made content. After that a few "kings" or whatever gives tells the other players what to do all the time. It would still be a sandbox but not very free for most of the players.
A themepark can also be rather free, like GW2.
By the very definition I think games like Lineage, DAoC and GW2 sandboxes.
In the most basic defintion of the word it comes down to linearity. Does a game guide you or do you have freedom. All other defintions are personal opinion the whole idea for themeparks is that they guide you.
Sure in DAoC I could only level in certain areas pursuant to my level but that is because it was a level based system. You still had freedom to move about in the zone killing whatever you wanted without need of questing. SO in essence if a game is set up where leveling via questing is on a set path then it becomes linear, hence thempark. If on the other hand you could level via exploration while killing then the game is a sandbox.
I know alot, if not most will agree with me but I deal in absolutes and truths not personal preferences contrived to fit in with some vague term.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Taking wikipedia articles and linking them does not make an iron clad argument.
If you noticed when you looked up said terms, it linked you to "open world" not "sand box" because wikipedia isn't regulated by MMO gamers. Its article is vague and loosely descriptive intentionally.
You can claim a sandbox is a game that merely doesn't have a guided tour of the place, however, we as gamers recognize there are more elements to it than that.
There have been many many threads debating this issue, This is not the first nor the last time we have this debate.
In short, DAoC is a Themepark with some sandbox elements, which frankly most people have already said this.
Well, besides standing around in a drum circle and beating the last remanents of this dead horse to a bloody, unrecognizable pulp, it seems that everyone that's posted has given you a pretty good idea of what kind of game DAoC was.
In any case, it was an awesome game, whatever label it falls under.
All I know is that when I first played DAoC, there was no in-game map, no digital download, the boxed version came with a physical map of the game that you used to help you get around. I miss those days.
Thankfully, DAoC came out at a time when people weren't busy labelling and pigeonholing every game and just played it based on its own merits. Did it get compared to EQ and UO? Definitely, but it was on features and graphics, not on arbitrary personal checklists to assign it to a particular side of a fence.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The general feel I get from reading boards about every game coming out (or that has come out in teh last year) is that it's either a WoW-killer, or it's going to flop, with no one thinking anything but one of the extremes is the correct answer. I keep hearing the word flop in conjunction with SWTOR for example and it's making money. If 1 million plus subs isn't success, what will change minds? 5 million?
The general feel I get from reading boards about every game coming out (or that has come out in teh last year) is that it's either a WoW-killer, or it's going to flop, with no one thinking anything but one of the extremes is the correct answer. I keep hearing the word flop in conjunction with SWTOR for example and it's making money. If 1 million plus subs isn't success, what will change minds? 5 million?
It's crazy what people expect nowadays.
Technically EA says 1.7 million but I think its more like a couple hundred thousand. On top of this most people consider it a flop because over half the player base has left within the first 2 months of release. I dont care where you come from but that is a pretty damn good defenition of a flop in my book.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Thankfully, DAoC came out at a time when people weren't busy labelling and pigeonholing every game and just played it based on its own merits. Did it get compared to EQ and UO? Definitely, but it was on features and graphics, not on arbitrary personal checklists to assign it to a particular side of a fence.
for me was the awesome archery system ! , was just amazing
To me DAoC was a damn fun game... but it is more to teh end of Theme Park since (again in my opinion) any game that gives you 'return 10 rat tail' types of quests is a Theme Park no matter how much paint you put on it.
Comments
Wrong
DAoC was a Sandbox
THE ONLY criteria to determine if a game is a sandbox or themepark is does the game guide you on rails or are you free to level as you like. THATS IT, NOTHING ELSE . Love how people thorw these small paradigms on top of the abbreviation of the words.
An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.
Despite their name, many open world games still enforce restrictions at some points in the game environment, either due to absolute game design limitations or temporary in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
A video game with nonlinear gameplay presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences. Each player sees only some of the challenges possible, and the same challenges may be played in a different order. A video game with linear gameplay will confront a player with a fixed sequence of challenges. Every player sees every challenge and sees them in the same order.
A nonlinear game will allow greater player freedom than a linear game. For example, a nonlinear game may permit multiple sequences to finish the game, a choice between paths to victory, or optional side-quests and subplots. Some games feature both linear and nonlinear elements, and some games offer a sandbox mode that allows players to explore an open world game environment independently from the game's main objectives, if any objectives are provided at all.
A game that is significantly nonlinear is sometimes described as being open-ended or a sandbox,[1][2][3][4] and is characterized by there being no "right way" of playing the game.[5] A common consequence (intentional or unintentional) of open-ended gameplay is emergent gameplay.[4]
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I don't really agree with this at all. When you take a true sandbox game (say Ultima Online) and have a fresh server you will literally see next to nothing in the world except for random mobs and terrain. Now if you add 100 players to that server they will eventually start killing mobs, or sheering sheep (that's what I did) to make clothing to sell to npcs or people to make gold to have their friend (or themselves) craft them some armor and a weapon so they can go kill bigger mobs and get some gold to buy a house to place. This is just one example. Another player might choose to go to a mountain and mine ore and become a full time blacksmith. Another player might decide to start fishing and eventually buy a boat to get bigger and better fish. He may never even kill a monster on that character. There are no classes. You are free to build your character however you decide to. No restrictions. It's not just about wether a world is linear or open. It's a whole lot more than that. You just wont see it hardly ever. In fact the only game that is coming close to something like that is Archeage.
Doesnt matter if you agree or disagree. I could say soemthing like " I Think the Moon is made of Gouda Cheese" Doesnt make it right even if I believe.
Its fine to have your own narrow definition within the strata of the game, thats cool but it doesnt change the overall defintion.
Its a very simple and straight forward defintion defined by one term. Linearity!
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Well, it matters in the sense whether you pose a statement and definition that the majority of MMO gamers and the industry agree with, or one that they find themselves disagreeing with. A claim has little value if it's about a definition or classification that most people think is wrong.
I can see how UO and EVE are sandbox MMORPG's and WoW and LotrO are themepark MMORPG's, something that the majority of people in the MMO know also will agree with. Problem is that sandbox and themepark are merely inofficial classifications and that things usually are less black and white, with a lot of grey inbetween.
I find it hard to determine what former pre-WoW MMORPG's actually are, because with WoW and afterwards quest based leveling became a core feature, and that's one of the defining traits of a themepark MMORPG.
I can't recall the term 'themepark' being used before WoW. People did discuss MMO designs that were either 'game focused' design, where the devs provided all the content and you as a player played their game with little impact on the world, and 'world focused' design, where the devs provided the players tools to affect the ingame world, and because of it there's emergent gameplay with players affecting the state of the world.
EQ, DAoC, CoH were MMO's that had a 'game focused' design, where as MMO's like UO, EVE and SWG had a 'world focused' or sandbox design.
I see themepark design as a branch of 'game focused' design, one of the paths that such a design can take as a next step.
EQ's corpse runs, XP penalty with dying, no hand holding right from the start and overall challenging difficulty I don't particularly see as classic themepark design, but I do see EQ and DAoC as game focused design, where as UO and SWG were more 'world focused' or sandboxy.
It was a hybrid, like 99.9% of MMORPGs.
People need to get their heads around the fact that true sandboxes are incredibly rare and there is more to these games then two absolute definitions.
Folks get way too tied up with labels imo.
Let's address your last point, regardless what you say, DAOC was very linear in its design (when compared to a real sandbox title such as EVE)
You started out at level one, and could really only go hunt in the new player areas. Head out deep into the hinterlands and you would have found every NPC for 500 yards closing in on your rapidly (unless you could stealth) and sending you back to the zone you belonged in.
Speaking of starting out, you had to pick a class, and it frequently defined the role you were going to play. Sure, there were hybrids, but the pure classes such as Tank, Healer, DD mage really were limited to their specific role. It was actually almost impossible to solo a healer to 50, doubt anyone actually ever tried. (as opposed to Necromancers who were soloing monsters)
As you progressed, the game guided you from one zone to the next, with each zone have progressively higher level monsters. In fact, what quests it did have were tied to your level and frequently would guide you to the next zone when it was appropriate to do so.
It's true, there were no quest hubs like WOW introduced to the genre, but that doesn't make it any less theme parky, even if the term really wasn't defined until WOW.
Let's look at crafting. In UO one could craft to maximum prowess and never actually pick up a sword. Not true in DAOC, at launch some items couldn't be crafted unless you were out in the fontier keeps, and you'd never reach those unless your character was high enough in level to survive the passage out there. (they later reduced the difficulty but even then I seem to recall certain crafting levels required you to be a certain character level, but perhaps I'm confusing that with WOW now)
So don't think there wasn't any linearity in DAOC, there clearly was a progression path that the Developers intended you to follow, (even though you might have been able to stray from it) and by any comparison to real sandboxes (UO, Ryzom, EVE etc) you can't call it a sandbox.
A good virtual world yes, (which many people confuse for a sandbox) but still a guided game in many respects.
See, the problem is, you don't get to define what a sandbox is, (nor do I), but the market place overall will judge what is really a sandbox and what isn't. By common acceptance some titles are considered so, and others not. You are the outlier in this case.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'd have to agree with the people saying it was a hybrid. The PVE realms were themeparks, although they were less restrictive than current MMO themeparks, but essentially themeparks regardless.
Then at 50 you got to devote your time to RvR. Mythic gave you 3 border territories with keeps to siege/defend and 2 other realms full of people to smack in the face with a big stick. At this point it acquired a much more sandbox feel. The landscape was there, the castles were there, you just had to go and play in it, organise your sieges, defend your keeps etc.
So yeah, a hybrid. 1-50 themepark and RvR more sandboxy. Without doubt my best MMO experience so far until the fucked it up with ToA and the redesign of the border territories.
Edited: Spelling
That would also make Lineage and plenty other of the old games sandboxes. . And it would make Guildwars 2 a sandbox as well, you are free to do what you like there as well.
You could call these games hybrids or something, but while they not might be themeparks that does not automatically make them sandboxes. What makes a game a sandbox is that the majority of the content is made by the players, not if it have linear quest chains or not.
It really looks like this:
Sandbox
Railroded personal freedom
Themepark
While it is hard you can actually make a railroaded sandbox. In the beginning you would do linear quests to learn you the tools to create player made content. After that a few "kings" or whatever gives tells the other players what to do all the time. It would still be a sandbox but not very free for most of the players.
A themepark can also be rather free, like GW2.
No more Sandbox than WoW in my opinion. Remember, DAOC invented the battlegrounds which almost define what a Themepark game is these days.
Ya, it was open world, but so is WoW. And DAOC actually restricts your movement more than WoW. You can't even goto the other factions areas in DAOC, PvP is restricted to the frontier.
How can you call RvR sandboxy? It was all restricted to a specific area. Ya it wasn't match based pvp but it was still a ride you went on. You weren't free to figure out what you wanted to be in DAOC it was all about the RvR and thats a themepark with one ride even.
Please don't lay the blame for crappy tupperware pvp at the door of daoc, that started with coh/wow/gw
I didn't say it was definitively sandbox, but that it acquired a more sandbox feel. There were no specific tasks set for the RvR. There were just the borderlands and keeps. What you then did was up to you. Essentially that's player generated content, in the area provided. Isn't that like a sandbox? Yes, it was restricted to the borderlands, but that was part of the game design so the game would appeal to a larger audience that didn't want FFA PvP everywhere all the time like in UO.
There's no doubt that the game was essentially a PvE themepark, but the way they designed the RvR gave it more of a sandbox feel at endgame. You say it was one ride and all about RvR. Yeah it was, and getting there was very much a themepark. But once you got there you were free to decide what you would do, within the confines of the RvR territories. I don't see that confining it to the border territories makes any difference.
I'm not saying it was a sandbox in RvR, but it felt more like a sandbox than a themepark. At least it did to me. Feel free to disagree if you want to apply strict rules to what constitutes a sandbox. Personally I think Mythic did a good job of taking a themepark game and then very cleverly making it feel a little bit more like a sandbox in RvR.
i dont know why people say daoc had barely a quest to be found - it seemed to have more quests than everquest
i played daoc on launch day and for 2 months after
DAOC had mail quests sending you off to dfferent areas (which also had quests), quests for dungeons
and there were "class specific" quests at level 10, 20 etc
its all context in the end, but when DAOC launched
Everquest was more like EverGrind compared to DAOC
EQ2 fan sites
By the very definition I think games like Lineage, DAoC and GW2 sandboxes.
In the most basic defintion of the word it comes down to linearity. Does a game guide you or do you have freedom. All other defintions are personal opinion the whole idea for themeparks is that they guide you.
Sure in DAoC I could only level in certain areas pursuant to my level but that is because it was a level based system. You still had freedom to move about in the zone killing whatever you wanted without need of questing. SO in essence if a game is set up where leveling via questing is on a set path then it becomes linear, hence thempark. If on the other hand you could level via exploration while killing then the game is a sandbox.
I know alot, if not most will agree with me but I deal in absolutes and truths not personal preferences contrived to fit in with some vague term.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Taking wikipedia articles and linking them does not make an iron clad argument.
If you noticed when you looked up said terms, it linked you to "open world" not "sand box" because wikipedia isn't regulated by MMO gamers. Its article is vague and loosely descriptive intentionally.
You can claim a sandbox is a game that merely doesn't have a guided tour of the place, however, we as gamers recognize there are more elements to it than that.
There have been many many threads debating this issue, This is not the first nor the last time we have this debate.
In short, DAoC is a Themepark with some sandbox elements, which frankly most people have already said this.
Well, besides standing around in a drum circle and beating the last remanents of this dead horse to a bloody, unrecognizable pulp, it seems that everyone that's posted has given you a pretty good idea of what kind of game DAoC was.
In any case, it was an awesome game, whatever label it falls under.
All I know is that when I first played DAoC, there was no in-game map, no digital download, the boxed version came with a physical map of the game that you used to help you get around. I miss those days.
I still have the old Prima guide for Shrouded Isles sitting around....
Playing: MWO
Waiting For: Star Citizen
Thankfully, DAoC came out at a time when people weren't busy labelling and pigeonholing every game and just played it based on its own merits. Did it get compared to EQ and UO? Definitely, but it was on features and graphics, not on arbitrary personal checklists to assign it to a particular side of a fence.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The general feel I get from reading boards about every game coming out (or that has come out in teh last year) is that it's either a WoW-killer, or it's going to flop, with no one thinking anything but one of the extremes is the correct answer. I keep hearing the word flop in conjunction with SWTOR for example and it's making money. If 1 million plus subs isn't success, what will change minds? 5 million?
It's crazy what people expect nowadays.
Playing: MWO
Waiting For: Star Citizen
Technically EA says 1.7 million but I think its more like a couple hundred thousand. On top of this most people consider it a flop because over half the player base has left within the first 2 months of release. I dont care where you come from but that is a pretty damn good defenition of a flop in my book.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
for me was the awesome archery system ! , was just amazing
To me DAoC was a damn fun game... but it is more to teh end of Theme Park since (again in my opinion) any game that gives you 'return 10 rat tail' types of quests is a Theme Park no matter how much paint you put on it.
Um, UO was nothing like Meridian 59. lol.
Themepark, obviously. It was all about combat, but it was before themeparks had so much to do with questing.
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.