I do not think you need to make a sandbox game strictly open pvp, or flagged, or non-pvp....I think with rulesets, and also good systems in place, you could strike a good balance. Some of the alternative UO runners have done that, and while not perfect, they are creative, and with some tweaking probably could hit that balance.
Well, apparently in order to be a sandbox you have to be able to build.. and destroy.. but it doesn't matter if you can destroy other people's things as long as you can destroy the stuff you place...
It's a sandbox?
I think a sandbox is a lot more than that.
The building and destroying of things is only but a small part, a small part of a much bigger picture.
I do not buy into the destroy things, because UO wouldn't be one then, but I do think you need a very good crafting/harvesting/housing system.
edit: I am not a person of strict definition, so if thats your point, then we don't have a lot to argue about...I would rather play a game I deem fun, than label it.
There are NO true sandbox games, because they have some themepark in them.
But, most themepark games have NO sandbox elements.
Wrap your head around that one...hehe..
This is more the point than most understand - nice post Adalwulff.
I would agree - most Themepark games have no sandbox elements to them. No emergant game play, no creation, no world building, no freedom.
To get back to the original point I was trying to make when I started this crusade against narrowly defining anything as others have done...
There is a particular themepark MMO releasing sometime in 2012 with some sandbox-esque features.
This is a good thing, as narrowly defined games tend to fail horribly.
Why do we get clone after clone? Even UO clones like DF/MO and such?
Because people narrowly define what makes a sub genre what it is - instead of thinking and having some prospective and challenging conventions.
Unless you think outside the box and challenge conventions - you are doomed to failure because what else are you bringing to the table but a copy?
This is the same for the ORIGINAL original point about FFA PvP and the Sandbox MMO -
The two don't have to be tied together.
I don't want to completely derail this thread any further, but I could even argue that the very nature of RPG like progression in a MMO and PvP are opposed to one another on a very fundamental level to begin with.
There are NO true sandbox games, because they have some themepark in them.
But, most themepark games have NO sandbox elements.
Wrap your head around that one...hehe..
This is more the point than most understand - nice post Adalwulff.
I would agree - most Themepark games have no sandbox elements to them. No emergant game play, no creation, no world building, no freedom.
To get back to the original point I was trying to make when I started this crusade against narrowly defining anything as others have done...
There is a particular themepark MMO releasing sometime in 2012 with some sandbox-esque features.
This is a good thing, as narrowly defined games tend to fail horribly.
Why do we get clone after clone? Even UO clones like DF/MO and such?
Because people narrowly define what makes a sub genre what it is - instead of thinking and having some prospective and challenging conventions.
Unless you think outside the box and challenge conventions - you are doomed to failure because what else are you bringing to the table but a copy?
This is the same for the ORIGINAL original point about FFA PvP and the Sandbox MMO -
The two don't have to be tied together.
I don't want to completely derail this thread any further, but I could even argue that the very nature of RPG like progression in a MMO and PvP are opposed to one another on a very fundamental level to begin with.
But I digress...
We could just give up on the sandbox term completely because you can apply anything you want to the term. This makes it lose it's meaning as it is
Hell if Rift lets me shoot birds in the sky whos only function is to create atmosphere then hot damn. We have a sandbox-esque game
To bring all that back to FFA PvP. There is a huge group of players who loves sandbox games but have no interest in any forms of PvP. That's the group I would call mainstream. the FFA PvPers are quantifiable when it comes to monthly subscription MMOs just by looking at past titles. Since the genre lacks any real quantifiable examples of a sandbox MMO minus the FFA pvp it's hard convince investors there's a market willing to pay 15 a month for one.
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
You can disagree all you want but it doesnt make it any less true. By your defenition I could have a WoW modeled game where I create a character and follow a linear quest progression from 1 to 85 with no deviation and as long as I can build stuff or blow shit up, or can kill my friends and loot their gear then I am playing a sandbox? Or I could play a Skyrim based MMO but couldnt kill the quest NPC's or kill opposing players who were douchebags and all of a sudden I a themepark, even though I could go anywhere in the world and into any dungeon I wanted? You have funny defenitions for totally incompatable philosophies.
At no time will a Sandbox be required to contain player driven content or creation/destruction mechanisms like FFA looting and on the same token a themepark must always contain hand-holding and artificial road bocks put in place by the developer to limit the freedom of the player. Seriously the only choice is freedom or not and by its very definition defines the 2 sub-genres.
from wiki:
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 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.
and
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]
As you see by my very strict and summary of the defenition I am right and you are wrong. Its all about freedom and nonlinear gameplay.
Since were talking about an MMO here those 3 games you posted arnt even MMO's.
So in conclusion I point you to my sig that I have had for years, I am looking forward to the first true open world sandbox PvE world!!!!!!!!
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.
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by Starpower
Originally posted by Adalwulff Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.
I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy. Skyrim doesn't have any building or destroying and it isn't even multiplayer... Yet it's widely regarded as an excellent sandbox RPG. So what makes Skyrim a sandbox? Freedom. Freedom to make your character how you want to make them - no restrictions on "this race can't use that skill or be this class" Freedom to level the skills you want to level instead of being pigeon holed into a specific class. Freedom to follow the dev crafted story, or simply wander the world doing whatever the hell you want. GW2 is best described, I think, not as a sandbox or a sandpark but as a Themebox. It's a themepark, but it is not on rails - you have a lot more freedom than many/any other Themepark games, and as such, has elements that are certainly sandboxy.
Yeh your explanation is about right, thats how these games can be called.
Only thing maybe that Skyrim have over many other games is it have the SUPERB CREATION KIT and will have zillions of mods for it endless changes you make in the game that most games won't have, even mmo's.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
You can disagree all you want but it doesnt make it any less true. By your defenition I could have a WoW modeled game where I create a character and follow a linear quest progression from 1 to 85 with no deviation and as long as I can build stuff or blow shit up, or can kill my friends and loot their gear then I am playing a sandbox? Or I could play a Skyrim based MMO but couldnt kill the quest NPC's or kill opposing players who were douchebags and all of a sudden I a themepark, even though I could go anywhere in the world and into any dungeon I wanted? You have funny defenitions for totally incompatable philosophies.
At no time will a Sandbox be required to contain player driven content or creation/destruction mechanisms like FFA looting and on the same token a themepark must always contain hand-holding and artificial road bocks put in place by the developer to limit the freedom of the player. Seriously the only choice is freedom or not and by its very definition defines the 2 sub-genres.
from wiki:
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 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.
and
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]
As you see by my very strict and summary of the defenition I am right and you are wrong. Its all about freedom and nonlinear gameplay.
Since were talking about an MMO here those 3 games you posted arnt even MMO's.
So in conclusion I point you to my sig that I have had for years, I am looking forward to the first true open world sandbox PvE world!!!!!!!!
The simplest way I can put it is this
Everything that adds to freedom in a game supports and compliments the sandbox. Everything that restricts you is detrimental to a sandbox. Restriction doesn't cancel the term sandbox. Even a sandbox can have rules and restrictions. It doesn't make it less of a sandbox but the less restricted you are the more you are going to "feel" you are playing in a good sandbox game
If you created a WoW clone with everything WoW has. Then added the option of creating buildings, castles, strongholds then you would have a hybrid of a themepark and a sandbox. The more freedom you have to create things the more sandboxy it will be. If you take something from two genres and merge them then you have a hybrid
The term "sandbox" comes from an actual sandbox. In a sandbox you build and create things. You can use molds to help you and a shovel. You can even piss in it to create a moat. That is where the term comes from. If you want to evolve the term to include a whole host of other things I'm not stopping you. We simply just won't agree and that's that.
Think about it. You have sandbox games outside of MMOs that goes agaisnt your examples.
This is where the circle comes around to FFA PvP. It doesn't define a sandbox and isn't needed. FFA PvP however lends to freedom to do what you want so it compliments the freedom part of a sandbox. It just isn't a very desired form of freedom
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
You can disagree all you want but it doesnt make it any less true. By your defenition I could have a WoW modeled game where I create a character and follow a linear quest progression from 1 to 85 with no deviation and as long as I can build stuff or blow shit up, or can kill my friends and loot their gear then I am playing a sandbox? Or I could play a Skyrim based MMO but couldnt kill the quest NPC's or kill opposing players who were douchebags and all of a sudden I a themepark, even though I could go anywhere in the world and into any dungeon I wanted? You have funny defenitions for totally incompatable philosophies.
At no time will a Sandbox be required to contain player driven content or creation/destruction mechanisms like FFA looting and on the same token a themepark must always contain hand-holding and artificial road bocks put in place by the developer to limit the freedom of the player. Seriously the only choice is freedom or not and by its very definition defines the 2 sub-genres.
from wiki:
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 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.
and
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]
As you see by my very strict and summary of the defenition I am right and you are wrong. Its all about freedom and nonlinear gameplay.
Since were talking about an MMO here those 3 games you posted arnt even MMO's.
So in conclusion I point you to my sig that I have had for years, I am looking forward to the first true open world sandbox PvE world!!!!!!!!
The simplest way I can put it is this
Everything that adds to freedom in a game supports and compliments the sandbox. Everything that restricts you is detrimental to a sandbox. Restriction doesn't cancel the term sandbox. Even a sandbox can have rules and restrictions. It doesn't make it less of a sandbox but the less restricted you are the more you are going to "feel" you are playing in a good sandbox game
If you created a WoW clone with everything WoW has. Then added the option of creating buildings, castles, strongholds then you would have a hybrid of a themepark and a sandbox. The more freedom you have to create things the more sandboxy it will be. If you take something from two genres and merge them then you have a hybrid
The term "sandbox" comes from an actual sandbox. In a sandbox you build and create things. You can use molds to help you and a shovel. You can even piss in it to create a moat.
I agree with you on it being hybrid but question the author of this post asks is FFA PvP required and by either a strict or a loose definition of the term it does not.
As for a post you made earlier Skyrim is a sandbox even before the development toolset regardless how you may think otherwise. Even Todd Howard called Skyrim a sandbox world back before the game was released which is way before the toolkit patch a few weeks ago. As BadSpock stated your narrow minded defenition is bad but moreover completely false.
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.
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
You can disagree all you want but it doesnt make it any less true. By your defenition I could have a WoW modeled game where I create a character and follow a linear quest progression from 1 to 85 with no deviation and as long as I can build stuff or blow shit up, or can kill my friends and loot their gear then I am playing a sandbox? Or I could play a Skyrim based MMO but couldnt kill the quest NPC's or kill opposing players who were douchebags and all of a sudden I a themepark, even though I could go anywhere in the world and into any dungeon I wanted? You have funny defenitions for totally incompatable philosophies.
At no time will a Sandbox be required to contain player driven content or creation/destruction mechanisms like FFA looting and on the same token a themepark must always contain hand-holding and artificial road bocks put in place by the developer to limit the freedom of the player. Seriously the only choice is freedom or not and by its very definition defines the 2 sub-genres.
from wiki:
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 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.
and
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]
As you see by my very strict and summary of the defenition I am right and you are wrong. Its all about freedom and nonlinear gameplay.
Since were talking about an MMO here those 3 games you posted arnt even MMO's.
So in conclusion I point you to my sig that I have had for years, I am looking forward to the first true open world sandbox PvE world!!!!!!!!
The simplest way I can put it is this
Everything that adds to freedom in a game supports and compliments the sandbox. Everything that restricts you is detrimental to a sandbox. Restriction doesn't cancel the term sandbox. Even a sandbox can have rules and restrictions. It doesn't make it less of a sandbox but the less restricted you are the more you are going to "feel" you are playing in a good sandbox game
If you created a WoW clone with everything WoW has. Then added the option of creating buildings, castles, strongholds then you would have a hybrid of a themepark and a sandbox. The more freedom you have to create things the more sandboxy it will be. If you take something from two genres and merge them then you have a hybrid
The term "sandbox" comes from an actual sandbox. In a sandbox you build and create things. You can use molds to help you and a shovel. You can even piss in it to create a moat.
I agree with you on it being hybrid but question the author of this post asks is FFA PvP required and by either a strict or a loose definition of the term it does not.
As for a post you made earlier Skyrim is a sandbox even before the development toolset regardless how you may think otherwise. Even Todd Howard called Skyrim a sandbox world back before the game was released which is way before the toolkit patch a few weeks ago. As BadSpock stated your narrow minded defenition is bad but moreover completely false.
Yes he did but do you know for sure if he called it a sandbox because he knew all during development it was going to be released with the toolset? No and I'm personally not going to assume one way or another either.
Somebody earlier described GW2 to have sandbox features because an arrow could change to a flaming arrow passing through a firewall. In Rift when a rift opens all the creatures around that Rift morphs into whatever the element the Rift is. If a fire rift then the animals become fiery. I guess RIft is sandbox-esque too then If we are to go with completely open definitions
I'm also pretty sure Badspock said narrow definition and not narrowminded. It didn't take you long to start slinging insults did it. if you get that frustrated during a debate then maybe you should opt out on it. It's been pretty civil so far
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
You can disagree all you want but it doesnt make it any less true. By your defenition I could have a WoW modeled game where I create a character and follow a linear quest progression from 1 to 85 with no deviation and as long as I can build stuff or blow shit up, or can kill my friends and loot their gear then I am playing a sandbox? Or I could play a Skyrim based MMO but couldnt kill the quest NPC's or kill opposing players who were douchebags and all of a sudden I a themepark, even though I could go anywhere in the world and into any dungeon I wanted? You have funny defenitions for totally incompatable philosophies.
At no time will a Sandbox be required to contain player driven content or creation/destruction mechanisms like FFA looting and on the same token a themepark must always contain hand-holding and artificial road bocks put in place by the developer to limit the freedom of the player. Seriously the only choice is freedom or not and by its very definition defines the 2 sub-genres.
from wiki:
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 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.
and
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]
As you see by my very strict and summary of the defenition I am right and you are wrong. Its all about freedom and nonlinear gameplay.
Since were talking about an MMO here those 3 games you posted arnt even MMO's.
So in conclusion I point you to my sig that I have had for years, I am looking forward to the first true open world sandbox PvE world!!!!!!!!
The simplest way I can put it is this
Everything that adds to freedom in a game supports and compliments the sandbox. Everything that restricts you is detrimental to a sandbox. Restriction doesn't cancel the term sandbox. Even a sandbox can have rules and restrictions. It doesn't make it less of a sandbox but the less restricted you are the more you are going to "feel" you are playing in a good sandbox game
If you created a WoW clone with everything WoW has. Then added the option of creating buildings, castles, strongholds then you would have a hybrid of a themepark and a sandbox. The more freedom you have to create things the more sandboxy it will be. If you take something from two genres and merge them then you have a hybrid
The term "sandbox" comes from an actual sandbox. In a sandbox you build and create things. You can use molds to help you and a shovel. You can even piss in it to create a moat.
I agree with you on it being hybrid but question the author of this post asks is FFA PvP required and by either a strict or a loose definition of the term it does not.
As for a post you made earlier Skyrim is a sandbox even before the development toolset regardless how you may think otherwise. Even Todd Howard called Skyrim a sandbox world back before the game was released which is way before the toolkit patch a few weeks ago. As BadSpock stated your narrow minded defenition is bad but moreover completely false.
Yes he did but do you know for sure if he called it a sandbox because he knew all during development it was going to be released with the toolset? No and I'm personally not going to assume one way or another either.
Somebody earlier described GW2 to have sandbox features because an arrow could change to a flaming arrow passing through a firewall. In Rift when a rift opens all the creatures around that Rift morphs into whatever the element the Rift is. If a fire rift then the animals become fiery. I guess RIft is sandbox-esque too then If we are to go with completely open definitions
I'm also pretty sure Badspock said narrow definition and not narrowminded. It didn't take you long to start slinging insults did it. if you get that frustrated during a debate then maybe you should opt out on it. It's been pretty civil so far
Didnt intend it to be an insult.
As for the definition Rift may have "some" sandbox features it still is by definition a themepark because it is a linear based game. As for GW2 it has "some" themepark features and "more then some" sandbox features so by definition its more of a sandbox but it has enough linearity to qualify it as a themebox or a hybrid in my eyes.
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 see a sandbox game as a game where your decisions have an impact, minor or major, on the world, on your friends and your character. I also strongly believe that the game should leave the decision making to the player and not try to correct things with game mechanics.
Simplest decision is for example: what role would my character have. Crafter? Warrior? Hybrid? I will pick crafter. It will result in having some lesser combat skills compared with a soldier character. But doesn't the soldier need some equipment? Maybe I can buy protection from him in exchange for some gear I have crafted. Or I spend a little less time in crafting and use some of my crafted goods to buy training from the soldier.
FFA PvP is an excellent way to show other players that certain decisions they made, was not the smartest thing to do. I mean decision made which affect social aspect of the community. For example scamming a certain guild. Pillaging a certain village. Or simply being rude in a bar. FFA PvP looses it shine when it is the core feature of a game. Several people already mentioned, without other features FFA PvP is a meaningless concept.
Everything that adds to freedom in a game supports and compliments the sandbox. Everything that restricts you is detrimental to a sandbox. Restriction doesn't cancel the term sandbox. Even a sandbox can have rules and restrictions. It doesn't make it less of a sandbox but the less restricted you are the more you are going to "feel" you are playing in a good sandbox game
I agree with this definition. I would also assert that in any game restrictions are necessary in order to preserve a degree of playability and protect the playing environment.
I played Xsyon for almost a year and there was often a real problem with lack of trees because players, given the freedom to chop then down, did exactly that and must of the time there were none at all. Furthermore, I would say that if you had the freedom to burn down a forest there are players who would do just that for no reason other than to spite other players.
Games will never be real life. In real life there are perfectly good reasons why a person cannot (at least for long) chop down all the trees in a forest; mindlessly kill everyone they meet; talk telepathically to guild members all over the world; attack a town when players are off-line.
Like it or not a full-sandbox game would self destruct in hours.
So the choice is what restrictions do you place. SWG was a superb sandbox game with a great deal of freedom but game designers decided that full-loot PvP was not possible, people could not destroy your houses, people could not pillage your harvesters. I have no fixed aversion to FFA PvP but I still feel it is very difficult to implement without creating a game world that is no longer realistic. I've never played Darkfall but I gather players would go naked in order to risk losing stuff. I doubt this was in the thoughts of the designers when they first considered the virtues of full loot PvP.
Finally, It seems to me that FFA PvP will encourage players to push with additional vigour for a competitive advantage. Inevitably the players prepared to use exploits, hacks or bots will be rewarded. Is this is a desireable thing?
"Already powerful players cannot be toppled and just become more powerful"
how is this exclusive to ffa full loot???
infact in my experience full loot sandboxes (df/mo) newish players can beat max lvl players if they are good whereas in your typical themepark (wow) it is 100% impossible to kill someone who has lvls/gear above you. the full loot/ffa part is irrelevant.
There are NO true sandbox games, because they have some themepark in them.
But, most themepark games have NO sandbox elements.
Wrap your head around that one...hehe..
This is more the point than most understand - nice post Adalwulff.
I would agree - most Themepark games have no sandbox elements to them. No emergant game play, no creation, no world building, no freedom.
To get back to the original point I was trying to make when I started this crusade against narrowly defining anything as others have done...
There is a particular themepark MMO releasing sometime in 2012 with some sandbox-esque features.
This is a good thing, as narrowly defined games tend to fail horribly.
Why do we get clone after clone? Even UO clones like DF/MO and such?
Because people narrowly define what makes a sub genre what it is - instead of thinking and having some prospective and challenging conventions.
Unless you think outside the box and challenge conventions - you are doomed to failure because what else are you bringing to the table but a copy?
This is the same for the ORIGINAL original point about FFA PvP and the Sandbox MMO -
The two don't have to be tied together.
I don't want to completely derail this thread any further, but I could even argue that the very nature of RPG like progression in a MMO and PvP are opposed to one another on a very fundamental level to begin with.
But I digress...
We could just give up on the sandbox term completely because you can apply anything you want to the term. This makes it lose it's meaning as it is
Hell if Rift lets me shoot birds in the sky whos only function is to create atmosphere then hot damn. We have a sandbox-esque game
To bring all that back to FFA PvP. There is a huge group of players who loves sandbox games but have no interest in any forms of PvP. That's the group I would call mainstream. the FFA PvPers are quantifiable when it comes to monthly subscription MMOs just by looking at past titles. Since the genre lacks any real quantifiable examples of a sandbox MMO minus the FFA pvp it's hard convince investors there's a market willing to pay 15 a month for one.
Dude, your just not getting it.
Besides that, you are still lumping PvPers with FFA full loot PvPers, and then lumping them with Sandbox games.
Your definitions couldnt be more narrow. Then you use that definition, to create your strawman arguement, about people who will never invest in a FFA full loot PvP game,
And that bird example, come on man, how does that equate to the example I gave about skill trees and all the 1000's of combinations. This WILL have an impact, in the WvWvW world.
And yes, WvWvW resests in 2 weeks, so you cant really say its persistant, but even the NPC stuff in EVE, down in low sec space resets, and that is sandbox territory, where players can BUILD almost anything they want.
Take away all of the bickering over definitions and other tangents and it just comes down to risk versus reward.
In the hundreds of these full loot sandbox threads on mmorpg.com I am yet to see one ffa supporter clearly and logically address the basic contention that ffa full loot devalues all other activities. No one is going to spend weeks grinding or crafting an item that can be stolen in a few seconds. No one is going to spend their life savings on a house that some zerg can just burn for the lulz. There is no incentive to explore as any treasures discovered will be stolen. By necessity all progression is focussed on pvp survival.
There is no punishment that can be metted to criminals equal to real life, the player will only reroll at worst. In current games the consequences are zero.
We could just give up on the sandbox term completely because you can apply anything you want to the term. This makes it lose it's meaning as it is
Hell if Rift lets me shoot birds in the sky whos only function is to create atmosphere then hot damn. We have a sandbox-esque game
To bring all that back to FFA PvP. There is a huge group of players who loves sandbox games but have no interest in any forms of PvP. That's the group I would call mainstream. the FFA PvPers are quantifiable when it comes to monthly subscription MMOs just by looking at past titles. Since the genre lacks any real quantifiable examples of a sandbox MMO minus the FFA pvp it's hard convince investors there's a market willing to pay 15 a month for one.
Dude, your just not getting it.
Look who's talking
Besides that, you are still lumping PvPers with FFA full loot PvPers, and then lumping them with Sandbox games.
Where am I doing that? When I write FFA PvPers it's just me being lazy not writing the full title of' FFA full loot PvP'. I essentially mean the same thing. If you feel like I'm lumping all that with sandbox games, it's because that's what the article is about. Even if you tried real hard, you wouldn't be able to find a quote of me saying it belongs in one
Your definitions couldnt be more narrow. Then you use that definition, to create your strawman arguement, about people who will never invest in a FFA full loot PvP game,
And your definitions couldn't be more wide. Your problem is you are taking a few features seen in sandbox games and equate that with defining the genre. As for my so called strawman argument. It's right in line with the article. Just as with your first example this is not just about replying back to you but to get this conversation back on track at the same time before I get a warning for derailing the thread. If you want to interpret that as a strawman argument then go ahead. I don't care
And that bird example, come on man, how does that equate to the example I gave about skill trees and all the 1000's of combinations. This WILL have an impact, in the WvWvW world.
It doesn't. That comment wasn't meant to match your example. It's to give an example of the frankly rediculous statements I've seen so far of what is sandbox-ish features. The one with the fire arrow takes the cake. Freedom of skill trees as you describe compliments a sandbox it doesn't define it. A rigid class system can also exist in a sandbox game
And yes, WvWvW resests in 2 weeks, so you cant really say its persistant, but even the NPC stuff in EVE, down in low sec space resets, and that is sandbox territory, where players can BUILD almost anything they want.
What are you arguing against here. EvE is a sandbox
I feel your definitions need some expanding.
I don't. You see sandbox doesn't just belong to the MMO genre. You have sandbox games in other corners of the gaming universe. They all have some core features in common that makes them sandboxes. If you want to expand it to make, whatever you can come up with, sandbox features I'm not stopping you. You just won't have me agreeing with and lets be honest. Is that really important to you? It shouldn't be. You are more than welcome to think I'm wrong just like I believe you are
For the sake of this thread, you and I will just have to agree to disagree and stop derailing this thread arguing about definitions. I disagree with you, live with it. I don't mind you disagreeing with me.
When you consider that one of the best sandbox games ever, SWG pre NGE, did not have ffa full loot pvp, that pretty much proves your theory. IMO UO became a much better game with the addition of trammel. Those that did not want the pvp aspect could avoid or lessen their exposure to it. Even in Eve you can somewhat avoid the pvp aspect of the game if you so desire.
That is what has basically doomed the current crop of full loot ffa pvp games like Darkfall, Mortal Online and killed Shadowbane. Populations are small because most people don't want to constantly deal with some of the asshats that always gravitate to such games.
The Sandbox definition has never required a ffa pvp aspect ever. It was present in some of the early sandbox games, but those developers had to make changes to the game's pvp to keep them popular.
I believe you can have a successful sandbox MMO with or without FFA PvP and full loot.
Age of Conan has FFA PvP and was successful.
Ultima Online(even before trammel) and EVE Online has FFA PvP and are successful.
Mortal Online and Darkfall Online are failures due to their development teams, among other things. These teams believed that a wildly popular 3rd person view isn't as good. Horrible UI and graphic design, even when using good engines. Hard to learn and hard to master mentality. Their bias towards murderers and PvP. Their design killed them, because a real sandbox must be a virtual world where all playtypes are possible.
If you are going to allow FFA PvP and full loot, you must make the murdering of others a very risky business. You need to make it near impossible to live as a murderer. No MMO to this date has made a harsh enough penalty to allow for the playstyle, but make it incredibly unattractive to most players. If this were to be done right, 98% of your playerbase wouldn't even notice that there are evil d-bags running around. As it would be so rare, that some players may not encounter it at all. The world must be designed to push guild wars and open world encounters away from your casual PvE player. A similar design, such as Archages design would suffice. AoC had some really fun territory/mob spawn fights that really added to the gameplay. Politics become a mini-game. The gear should be fairly easily obtainable like in UO, but should take a little time, so as to make fights mean something. Fights that force a tangible loss are some of the most heart-pounding battles that you'll ever have in an online setting. Players and guilds will police themselves. Real RP'ing can actually happen in a game like this. It just has to be made right, and so far, these companies have fallen on their face due to not understanding what is needed for a virtual world to work. They instead, decided to make design flaws that push players away. These companies give a bad name to sandboxes, as most new gamers see it and laugh.
Imagine how much better a sandbox could be if a company such as Blizzard were to take on the challenge. Assume for a second that Titan is going to be a sandbox. Assume that Blizzard has 300 million dollars or more to pur into it, which all the time in the world to design it the right way. To be able to hire the most talented designers, artists and developers in the world. To be able to build one of the most powerful and efficient graphics engines to power it. Do any of you honestly believe that it's not possible? Do you think that it would still be niche when Blizzard can bring in millions to the genre? It's only niche because developers just haven't been able to do it right, and make it look right. These indie companies do not have the funds, time, or talent. Let one AAA developer with the means to do so, and we'll be talking about sandbox clones in the very near future.
Also, I wanted to touch on another sandbox function a bit more.
I feel that FFA PvP is over-dramatized. Think about it for a moment, what is the difference between that and your typical faction PvP? Let's take WoW for example, Horde versus Alliance. You can attack, in theory, half of the playerbase on the server. Obviously, this is assuming that you are in a contested area. Could we not add safe and contested areas into a sandbox? I don't see why we couldn't. How many times have you been trying to clear a mob spawn out for a chest that you're trying to get to, and at the last moment, some other player of the same faction ninja loots your chest that you've been working for. You couldn't do a darn thing about it either, could you? You probably want to smash their face in, right? With FFA PvP, you can at least get around that hardcoded restraint. There is plenty of unwanted PvP that happens in WoW, yet I don't see it talked about very much. You are pushed into contested areas in WoW, you are forced to risk being killed to progress.
The article did hit on some real good points, even though I thought it was a pretty uninspired read. Sandbox and theme-park must come together and marry some of these features in order to get new players interested in the genre. Quests? Why not? Some instanced content? Why not? 3rd person? Why not? Easy to learn, hard to master? Please! How about a partial loot system? A system where you can loot a players inventory, but not their equipped items? Would this be a happy medium for players? Compromises can be made, while still holding true to most of the sandbox core concepts. You just need a development team that can use their brain.
I could write a book. I won't. It can work. Sandbox developers just need to evolve like the rest of the gaming community has.
Also, I wanted to touch on another sandbox function a bit more.
I feel that FFA PvP is over-dramatized. Think about it for a moment, what is the difference between that and your typical faction PvP? Let's take WoW for example, Horde versus Alliance. You can attack, in theory, half of the playerbase on the server. Obviously, this is assuming that you are in a contested area. Could we not add safe and contested areas into a sandbox? I don't see why we couldn't. How many times have you been trying to clear a mob spawn out for a chest that you're trying to get to, and at the last moment, some other player of the same faction ninja loots your chest that you've been working for. You couldn't do a darn thing about it either, could you? You probably want to smash their face in, right? With FFA PvP, you can at least get around that hardcoded restraint.
The article did hit on some real good points, even though I thought it was a pretty uninspired read. Sandbox and theme-park must come together and marry some of these features in order to get new players interested in the genre. Quests? Why not? Some instanced content? Why not? 3rd person? Why not? Easy to learn, hard to master? Please!
I could write a book. I won't. It can work. Sandbox developers just need to evolve like the rest of the gaming community has.
I think EQ did it best with its FFA PvP servers. You could only attack people two levels higher or two levels lower. It prevents a max level character steamrolling a newbie area. You can still have your unfair fights if thats your thing. Just make a gank squad and go nuts. It just won't be levels or higher skill numbers that determines the outcome. Plus it allows the new players to organize themselves against such attacks. Partial looting would work too if you can insure an item or two. I can see those limitations draw a bigger crowd than the current options
This post is stupid and obviously that author has no clue. There have only been a handful of sandboxes that have been released and half of those arent open for all pvp or even based on pvp, heck even some have no combat at all in them.
The basic misconception that sandbox = full loot gankfest killem all type game is what hurts sandboxes. Sandboxes are about freedom and player content, not about pvp. People that associate pvp as a key aspect of sandboxes just look foolish.
We could just give up on the sandbox term completely because you can apply anything you want to the term. This makes it lose it's meaning as it is
Hell if Rift lets me shoot birds in the sky whos only function is to create atmosphere then hot damn. We have a sandbox-esque game
To bring all that back to FFA PvP. There is a huge group of players who loves sandbox games but have no interest in any forms of PvP. That's the group I would call mainstream. the FFA PvPers are quantifiable when it comes to monthly subscription MMOs just by looking at past titles. Since the genre lacks any real quantifiable examples of a sandbox MMO minus the FFA pvp it's hard convince investors there's a market willing to pay 15 a month for one.
Dude, your just not getting it.
Look who's talking
Besides that, you are still lumping PvPers with FFA full loot PvPers, and then lumping them with Sandbox games.
Where am I doing that? When I write FFA PvPers it's just me being lazy not writing the full title of' FFA full loot PvP'. I essentially mean the same thing. If you feel like I'm lumping all that with sandbox games, it's because that's what the article is about. Even if you tried real hard, you wouldn't be able to find a quote of me saying it belongs in one
Your definitions couldnt be more narrow. Then you use that definition, to create your strawman arguement, about people who will never invest in a FFA full loot PvP game,
And your definitions couldn't be more wide. Your problem is you are taking a few features seen in sandbox games and equate that with defining the genre. As for my so called strawman argument. It's right in line with the article. Just as with your first example this is not just about replying back to you but to get this conversation back on track at the same time before I get a warning for derailing the thread. If you want to interpret that as a strawman argument then go ahead. I don't care
And that bird example, come on man, how does that equate to the example I gave about skill trees and all the 1000's of combinations. This WILL have an impact, in the WvWvW world.
It doesn't. That comment wasn't meant to match your example. It's to give an example of the frankly rediculous statements I've seen so far of what is sandbox-ish features. The one with the fire arrow takes the cake. Freedom of skill trees as you describe compliments a sandbox it doesn't define it. A rigid class system can also exist in a sandbox game
And yes, WvWvW resests in 2 weeks, so you cant really say its persistant, but even the NPC stuff in EVE, down in low sec space resets, and that is sandbox territory, where players can BUILD almost anything they want.
What are you arguing against here. EvE is a sandbox
I feel your definitions need some expanding.
I don't. You see sandbox doesn't just belong to the MMO genre. You have sandbox games in other corners of the gaming universe. They all have some core features in common that makes them sandboxes. If you want to expand it to make, whatever you can come up with, sandbox features I'm not stopping you. You just won't have me agreeing with and lets be honest. Is that really important to you? It shouldn't be. You are more than welcome to think I'm wrong just like I believe you are
For the sake of this thread, you and I will just have to agree to disagree and stop derailing this thread arguing about definitions. I disagree with you, live with it. I don't mind you disagreeing with me.
Then your missing the whole point, because the definition of sandbox and themepark are at the very heart of this thread.
How can you argue that FFA full loot PvP is or isnt a part of sandbox, if you dont know what the definition of sandbox is?
I think everyone here has agreed on one thing, you dont need FFA full loot PvP, in order to call the game sandbox. No matter what your definition of sandbox is.
But, when players like you who narrowly define sandbox, it gets much tougher to answer the question, get it?
This post is stupid and obviously that author has no clue. There have only been a handful of sandboxes that have been released and half of those arent open for all pvp or even based on pvp, heck even some have no combat at all in them.
The basic misconception that sandbox = full loot gankfest killem all type game is what hurts sandboxes. Sandboxes are about freedom and player content, not about pvp. People that associate pvp as a key aspect of sandboxes just look foolish.
The question you need to ask yourself then, is why do most gamers associate sandbox with FFA PvP and full loot? It is because in the post WoW era, most fantasy sandboxes have been designed for PvP'ers. Murderers. Wolves. Hardcores.
Before the gamer boom that WoW created, most people had experience with EQ1, UO, SWG, AC and games with similar systems. They understood that sandboxes offer more than just PvP. They offered social content. They offered personal ownership, such as houses and boats. They offered mini-games. Weddings. An ability to be a master crafter, without fighting a single person or creature. Treasure hunting. Exploring. Vast PvE options. The ability to create and affect the players and world that you inhabit. And so much more.
Modern gamers just do not generally comprehend that there is something more to games than phat epic loots and being max level. They don't understand that the journey is more than just quest grinding and following the proverbial carrot. It's a shame too.
Then your missing the whole point, because the definition of sandbox and themepark are at the very heart of this thread.
How can you argue that FFA full loot PvP is or isnt a part of sandbox, if you dont know what the definition of sandbox is?
I think everyone here has agreed on one thing, you dont need FFA full loot PvP, in order to call the game sandbox. No matter what your definition of sandbox is.
But, when players like you who narrowly define sandbox, it gets much tougher to answer the question, get it?
I don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?
Guys, name a single feature that can only be termed as sandbox or thempark. Yes, there are features that are generally found in a sandbox, or generally found in a themepark MMO. The point of the article however, is that these features that you are arguing about, don't necessarily have to be locked into either game type. Either game type can have any of these systems and still work.
This post is stupid and obviously that author has no clue. There have only been a handful of sandboxes that have been released and half of those arent open for all pvp or even based on pvp, heck even some have no combat at all in them.
The basic misconception that sandbox = full loot gankfest killem all type game is what hurts sandboxes. Sandboxes are about freedom and player content, not about pvp. People that associate pvp as a key aspect of sandboxes just look foolish.
The question you need to ask yourself then, is why do most gamers associate sandbox with FFA PvP and full loot? It is because in the post WoW era, most fantasy sandboxes have been designed for PvP'ers. Murderers. Wolves. Hardcores.
Before the gamer boom that WoW created, most people had experience with EQ1, UO, SWG, AC and games with similar systems. They understood that sandboxes offer more than just PvP. They offered social content. They offered personal ownership, such as houses and boats. They offered mini-games. Weddings. An ability to be a master crafter, without fighting a single person or creature. Treasure hunting. Exploring. Vast PvE options. The ability to create and affect the players and world that you inhabit. And so much more.
Modern gamers just do not generally comprehend that there is something more to games than phat epic loots and being max level. They don't understand that the journey is more than just quest grinding and following the proverbial carrot. It's a shame too.
And this is why we need more games like that, as an older gamer i was blessed to be apart of those epic mmo's. The ones today just make my stomache turn and i cant sit down and play such limited single player games that they have become. Seems like they turned true mmorpg's into console style rpgs and thats what everyone thinks mmo's should be like.
Why anyone would fight, whine, cry, moan, etc about hundreds of features in a game, fully open world for you to do what you want whenever you want and rather have limitationsm no social features, no exploration, and sit there and rerun dailies, warzones, and raids over and over is beyond me. I think our society has lost all creativity and needs it fed to them these days
And themepark games have open pvp as well, so its kinda pointless to plasture sandboxes as the ruthless gankfest game when themeparks do it as well .
Comments
I do not buy into the destroy things, because UO wouldn't be one then, but I do think you need a very good crafting/harvesting/housing system.
edit: I am not a person of strict definition, so if thats your point, then we don't have a lot to argue about...I would rather play a game I deem fun, than label it.
This is more the point than most understand - nice post Adalwulff.
I would agree - most Themepark games have no sandbox elements to them. No emergant game play, no creation, no world building, no freedom.
To get back to the original point I was trying to make when I started this crusade against narrowly defining anything as others have done...
There is a particular themepark MMO releasing sometime in 2012 with some sandbox-esque features.
This is a good thing, as narrowly defined games tend to fail horribly.
Why do we get clone after clone? Even UO clones like DF/MO and such?
Because people narrowly define what makes a sub genre what it is - instead of thinking and having some prospective and challenging conventions.
Unless you think outside the box and challenge conventions - you are doomed to failure because what else are you bringing to the table but a copy?
This is the same for the ORIGINAL original point about FFA PvP and the Sandbox MMO -
The two don't have to be tied together.
I don't want to completely derail this thread any further, but I could even argue that the very nature of RPG like progression in a MMO and PvP are opposed to one another on a very fundamental level to begin with.
But I digress...
We could just give up on the sandbox term completely because you can apply anything you want to the term. This makes it lose it's meaning as it is
Hell if Rift lets me shoot birds in the sky whos only function is to create atmosphere then hot damn. We have a sandbox-esque game
To bring all that back to FFA PvP. There is a huge group of players who loves sandbox games but have no interest in any forms of PvP. That's the group I would call mainstream. the FFA PvPers are quantifiable when it comes to monthly subscription MMOs just by looking at past titles. Since the genre lacks any real quantifiable examples of a sandbox MMO minus the FFA pvp it's hard convince investors there's a market willing to pay 15 a month for one.
You can disagree all you want but it doesnt make it any less true. By your defenition I could have a WoW modeled game where I create a character and follow a linear quest progression from 1 to 85 with no deviation and as long as I can build stuff or blow shit up, or can kill my friends and loot their gear then I am playing a sandbox? Or I could play a Skyrim based MMO but couldnt kill the quest NPC's or kill opposing players who were douchebags and all of a sudden I a themepark, even though I could go anywhere in the world and into any dungeon I wanted? You have funny defenitions for totally incompatable philosophies.
At no time will a Sandbox be required to contain player driven content or creation/destruction mechanisms like FFA looting and on the same token a themepark must always contain hand-holding and artificial road bocks put in place by the developer to limit the freedom of the player. Seriously the only choice is freedom or not and by its very definition defines the 2 sub-genres.
from wiki:
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 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.
and
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]
As you see by my very strict and summary of the defenition I am right and you are wrong. Its all about freedom and nonlinear gameplay.
Since were talking about an MMO here those 3 games you posted arnt even MMO's.
So in conclusion I point you to my sig that I have had for years, I am looking forward to the first true open world sandbox PvE world!!!!!!!!
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.
Skyrim doesn't have any building or destroying and it isn't even multiplayer...
Yet it's widely regarded as an excellent sandbox RPG.
So what makes Skyrim a sandbox?
Freedom.
Freedom to make your character how you want to make them - no restrictions on "this race can't use that skill or be this class"
Freedom to level the skills you want to level instead of being pigeon holed into a specific class.
Freedom to follow the dev crafted story, or simply wander the world doing whatever the hell you want.
GW2 is best described, I think, not as a sandbox or a sandpark but as a Themebox.
It's a themepark, but it is not on rails - you have a lot more freedom than many/any other Themepark games, and as such, has elements that are certainly sandboxy.
Yeh your explanation is about right, thats how these games can be called.
Only thing maybe that Skyrim have over many other games is it have the SUPERB CREATION KIT and will have zillions of mods for it endless changes you make in the game that most games won't have, even mmo's.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
The simplest way I can put it is this
Everything that adds to freedom in a game supports and compliments the sandbox. Everything that restricts you is detrimental to a sandbox. Restriction doesn't cancel the term sandbox. Even a sandbox can have rules and restrictions. It doesn't make it less of a sandbox but the less restricted you are the more you are going to "feel" you are playing in a good sandbox game
If you created a WoW clone with everything WoW has. Then added the option of creating buildings, castles, strongholds then you would have a hybrid of a themepark and a sandbox. The more freedom you have to create things the more sandboxy it will be. If you take something from two genres and merge them then you have a hybrid
The term "sandbox" comes from an actual sandbox. In a sandbox you build and create things. You can use molds to help you and a shovel. You can even piss in it to create a moat. That is where the term comes from. If you want to evolve the term to include a whole host of other things I'm not stopping you. We simply just won't agree and that's that.
Think about it. You have sandbox games outside of MMOs that goes agaisnt your examples.
This is where the circle comes around to FFA PvP. It doesn't define a sandbox and isn't needed. FFA PvP however lends to freedom to do what you want so it compliments the freedom part of a sandbox. It just isn't a very desired form of freedom
I agree with you on it being hybrid but question the author of this post asks is FFA PvP required and by either a strict or a loose definition of the term it does not.
As for a post you made earlier Skyrim is a sandbox even before the development toolset regardless how you may think otherwise. Even Todd Howard called Skyrim a sandbox world back before the game was released which is way before the toolkit patch a few weeks ago. As BadSpock stated your narrow minded defenition is bad but moreover completely false.
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.
Yes he did but do you know for sure if he called it a sandbox because he knew all during development it was going to be released with the toolset? No and I'm personally not going to assume one way or another either.
Somebody earlier described GW2 to have sandbox features because an arrow could change to a flaming arrow passing through a firewall. In Rift when a rift opens all the creatures around that Rift morphs into whatever the element the Rift is. If a fire rift then the animals become fiery. I guess RIft is sandbox-esque too then If we are to go with completely open definitions
I'm also pretty sure Badspock said narrow definition and not narrowminded. It didn't take you long to start slinging insults did it. if you get that frustrated during a debate then maybe you should opt out on it. It's been pretty civil so far
Didnt intend it to be an insult.
As for the definition Rift may have "some" sandbox features it still is by definition a themepark because it is a linear based game. As for GW2 it has "some" themepark features and "more then some" sandbox features so by definition its more of a sandbox but it has enough linearity to qualify it as a themebox or a hybrid in my eyes.
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 see a sandbox game as a game where your decisions have an impact, minor or major, on the world, on your friends and your character. I also strongly believe that the game should leave the decision making to the player and not try to correct things with game mechanics.
Simplest decision is for example: what role would my character have. Crafter? Warrior? Hybrid? I will pick crafter. It will result in having some lesser combat skills compared with a soldier character. But doesn't the soldier need some equipment? Maybe I can buy protection from him in exchange for some gear I have crafted. Or I spend a little less time in crafting and use some of my crafted goods to buy training from the soldier.
FFA PvP is an excellent way to show other players that certain decisions they made, was not the smartest thing to do. I mean decision made which affect social aspect of the community. For example scamming a certain guild. Pillaging a certain village. Or simply being rude in a bar. FFA PvP looses it shine when it is the core feature of a game. Several people already mentioned, without other features FFA PvP is a meaningless concept.
I agree with this definition. I would also assert that in any game restrictions are necessary in order to preserve a degree of playability and protect the playing environment.
I played Xsyon for almost a year and there was often a real problem with lack of trees because players, given the freedom to chop then down, did exactly that and must of the time there were none at all. Furthermore, I would say that if you had the freedom to burn down a forest there are players who would do just that for no reason other than to spite other players.
Games will never be real life. In real life there are perfectly good reasons why a person cannot (at least for long) chop down all the trees in a forest; mindlessly kill everyone they meet; talk telepathically to guild members all over the world; attack a town when players are off-line.
Like it or not a full-sandbox game would self destruct in hours.
So the choice is what restrictions do you place. SWG was a superb sandbox game with a great deal of freedom but game designers decided that full-loot PvP was not possible, people could not destroy your houses, people could not pillage your harvesters. I have no fixed aversion to FFA PvP but I still feel it is very difficult to implement without creating a game world that is no longer realistic. I've never played Darkfall but I gather players would go naked in order to risk losing stuff. I doubt this was in the thoughts of the designers when they first considered the virtues of full loot PvP.
Finally, It seems to me that FFA PvP will encourage players to push with additional vigour for a competitive advantage. Inevitably the players prepared to use exploits, hacks or bots will be rewarded. Is this is a desireable thing?
"Already powerful players cannot be toppled and just become more powerful"
how is this exclusive to ffa full loot???
infact in my experience full loot sandboxes (df/mo) newish players can beat max lvl players if they are good whereas in your typical themepark (wow) it is 100% impossible to kill someone who has lvls/gear above you. the full loot/ffa part is irrelevant.
My blog:
Dude, your just not getting it.
Besides that, you are still lumping PvPers with FFA full loot PvPers, and then lumping them with Sandbox games.
Your definitions couldnt be more narrow. Then you use that definition, to create your strawman arguement, about people who will never invest in a FFA full loot PvP game,
And that bird example, come on man, how does that equate to the example I gave about skill trees and all the 1000's of combinations. This WILL have an impact, in the WvWvW world.
And yes, WvWvW resests in 2 weeks, so you cant really say its persistant, but even the NPC stuff in EVE, down in low sec space resets, and that is sandbox territory, where players can BUILD almost anything they want.
I feel your definitions need some expanding.
Take away all of the bickering over definitions and other tangents and it just comes down to risk versus reward.
In the hundreds of these full loot sandbox threads on mmorpg.com I am yet to see one ffa supporter clearly and logically address the basic contention that ffa full loot devalues all other activities. No one is going to spend weeks grinding or crafting an item that can be stolen in a few seconds. No one is going to spend their life savings on a house that some zerg can just burn for the lulz. There is no incentive to explore as any treasures discovered will be stolen. By necessity all progression is focussed on pvp survival.
There is no punishment that can be metted to criminals equal to real life, the player will only reroll at worst. In current games the consequences are zero.
Considering playing Eve is like doing spreadsheets, you probably could literally play Eve and Rift at the exact same time.
Never trust a screenshot or a youtube video without a version stamp!
For the sake of this thread, you and I will just have to agree to disagree and stop derailing this thread arguing about definitions. I disagree with you, live with it. I don't mind you disagreeing with me.
I believe you can have a successful sandbox MMO with or without FFA PvP and full loot.
Age of Conan has FFA PvP and was successful.
Ultima Online(even before trammel) and EVE Online has FFA PvP and are successful.
Mortal Online and Darkfall Online are failures due to their development teams, among other things. These teams believed that a wildly popular 3rd person view isn't as good. Horrible UI and graphic design, even when using good engines. Hard to learn and hard to master mentality. Their bias towards murderers and PvP. Their design killed them, because a real sandbox must be a virtual world where all playtypes are possible.
If you are going to allow FFA PvP and full loot, you must make the murdering of others a very risky business. You need to make it near impossible to live as a murderer. No MMO to this date has made a harsh enough penalty to allow for the playstyle, but make it incredibly unattractive to most players. If this were to be done right, 98% of your playerbase wouldn't even notice that there are evil d-bags running around. As it would be so rare, that some players may not encounter it at all. The world must be designed to push guild wars and open world encounters away from your casual PvE player. A similar design, such as Archages design would suffice. AoC had some really fun territory/mob spawn fights that really added to the gameplay. Politics become a mini-game. The gear should be fairly easily obtainable like in UO, but should take a little time, so as to make fights mean something. Fights that force a tangible loss are some of the most heart-pounding battles that you'll ever have in an online setting. Players and guilds will police themselves. Real RP'ing can actually happen in a game like this. It just has to be made right, and so far, these companies have fallen on their face due to not understanding what is needed for a virtual world to work. They instead, decided to make design flaws that push players away. These companies give a bad name to sandboxes, as most new gamers see it and laugh.
Imagine how much better a sandbox could be if a company such as Blizzard were to take on the challenge. Assume for a second that Titan is going to be a sandbox. Assume that Blizzard has 300 million dollars or more to pur into it, which all the time in the world to design it the right way. To be able to hire the most talented designers, artists and developers in the world. To be able to build one of the most powerful and efficient graphics engines to power it. Do any of you honestly believe that it's not possible? Do you think that it would still be niche when Blizzard can bring in millions to the genre? It's only niche because developers just haven't been able to do it right, and make it look right. These indie companies do not have the funds, time, or talent. Let one AAA developer with the means to do so, and we'll be talking about sandbox clones in the very near future.
Also, I wanted to touch on another sandbox function a bit more.
I feel that FFA PvP is over-dramatized. Think about it for a moment, what is the difference between that and your typical faction PvP? Let's take WoW for example, Horde versus Alliance. You can attack, in theory, half of the playerbase on the server. Obviously, this is assuming that you are in a contested area. Could we not add safe and contested areas into a sandbox? I don't see why we couldn't. How many times have you been trying to clear a mob spawn out for a chest that you're trying to get to, and at the last moment, some other player of the same faction ninja loots your chest that you've been working for. You couldn't do a darn thing about it either, could you? You probably want to smash their face in, right? With FFA PvP, you can at least get around that hardcoded restraint. There is plenty of unwanted PvP that happens in WoW, yet I don't see it talked about very much. You are pushed into contested areas in WoW, you are forced to risk being killed to progress.
The article did hit on some real good points, even though I thought it was a pretty uninspired read. Sandbox and theme-park must come together and marry some of these features in order to get new players interested in the genre. Quests? Why not? Some instanced content? Why not? 3rd person? Why not? Easy to learn, hard to master? Please! How about a partial loot system? A system where you can loot a players inventory, but not their equipped items? Would this be a happy medium for players? Compromises can be made, while still holding true to most of the sandbox core concepts. You just need a development team that can use their brain.
I could write a book. I won't. It can work. Sandbox developers just need to evolve like the rest of the gaming community has.
I think EQ did it best with its FFA PvP servers. You could only attack people two levels higher or two levels lower. It prevents a max level character steamrolling a newbie area. You can still have your unfair fights if thats your thing. Just make a gank squad and go nuts. It just won't be levels or higher skill numbers that determines the outcome. Plus it allows the new players to organize themselves against such attacks. Partial looting would work too if you can insure an item or two. I can see those limitations draw a bigger crowd than the current options
This post is stupid and obviously that author has no clue. There have only been a handful of sandboxes that have been released and half of those arent open for all pvp or even based on pvp, heck even some have no combat at all in them.
The basic misconception that sandbox = full loot gankfest killem all type game is what hurts sandboxes. Sandboxes are about freedom and player content, not about pvp. People that associate pvp as a key aspect of sandboxes just look foolish.
Then your missing the whole point, because the definition of sandbox and themepark are at the very heart of this thread.
How can you argue that FFA full loot PvP is or isnt a part of sandbox, if you dont know what the definition of sandbox is?
I think everyone here has agreed on one thing, you dont need FFA full loot PvP, in order to call the game sandbox. No matter what your definition of sandbox is.
But, when players like you who narrowly define sandbox, it gets much tougher to answer the question, get it?
The question you need to ask yourself then, is why do most gamers associate sandbox with FFA PvP and full loot? It is because in the post WoW era, most fantasy sandboxes have been designed for PvP'ers. Murderers. Wolves. Hardcores.
Before the gamer boom that WoW created, most people had experience with EQ1, UO, SWG, AC and games with similar systems. They understood that sandboxes offer more than just PvP. They offered social content. They offered personal ownership, such as houses and boats. They offered mini-games. Weddings. An ability to be a master crafter, without fighting a single person or creature. Treasure hunting. Exploring. Vast PvE options. The ability to create and affect the players and world that you inhabit. And so much more.
Modern gamers just do not generally comprehend that there is something more to games than phat epic loots and being max level. They don't understand that the journey is more than just quest grinding and following the proverbial carrot. It's a shame too.
I don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?
Guys, name a single feature that can only be termed as sandbox or thempark. Yes, there are features that are generally found in a sandbox, or generally found in a themepark MMO. The point of the article however, is that these features that you are arguing about, don't necessarily have to be locked into either game type. Either game type can have any of these systems and still work.
And this is why we need more games like that, as an older gamer i was blessed to be apart of those epic mmo's. The ones today just make my stomache turn and i cant sit down and play such limited single player games that they have become. Seems like they turned true mmorpg's into console style rpgs and thats what everyone thinks mmo's should be like.
Why anyone would fight, whine, cry, moan, etc about hundreds of features in a game, fully open world for you to do what you want whenever you want and rather have limitationsm no social features, no exploration, and sit there and rerun dailies, warzones, and raids over and over is beyond me. I think our society has lost all creativity and needs it fed to them these days
And themepark games have open pvp as well, so its kinda pointless to plasture sandboxes as the ruthless gankfest game when themeparks do it as well
.