I dont get this sandbox, themepark discussions... for me a sandbox is simply an overall feeling of freedom while a themepark set me on a straight course.
I think Jake described AA as a themepark with sandbox elements and not the other way around however it seems more sandbox than themepark to me currently...
I dont get this sandbox, themepark discussions... for me a sandbox is simply an overall feeling of freedom while a themepark set me on a straight course.
I think Jake described AA as a themepark with sandbox elements and not the other way around however it seems more sandbox than themepark to me currently...
This is all i have been saying,it's how Jake discribes his own game and see it as.Yeah,AA has some great sandbox features and offers great freedom but so does Vanguard and would any of the people calling AA a true sandbox game describe Vanguard as such,nope they would not.
Jake calls HIS game a themepark with sandbox features as does everyone over a source,only the mmorpg.com fanatics want to turn the game into Darkfall 2 lol.
Ill take Jakes word over any of the blind anytime.
Quibbling over meaningless definitions is largely pointless. Most people cannot provide a decent definition fro the terms they throw around, and even when one person does have a good solid definition, another persons will be different. So Themebox, Sandpark, Steaming Dish of Ramen Noodles, what ever you want to call it.
The game will be what the game will be. It looks to have enough structured content to keep that crowd happy, and enough free-form content to keep the other crowd happy. Will the game be perfect? Not possible. Will the game be good enough and content rich enough to keep lots of people busy for quite some time to come? Hell yeah, sure looks to be!
What type of "HYBRID" is going to be ArcheAge, not a "ThemePark" with Sandbox features, may be a "Sand""Park"". But that ArcheAge is more "sandbox" than "themepark" cant be doubt.
This video is for the last year, when Tencent announced that will be the publisher in China, and explains what type of mmo they wanna make.
Quibbling over meaningless definitions is largely pointless. Most people cannot provide a decent definition fro the terms they throw around, and even when one person does have a good solid definition, another persons will be different. So Themebox, Sandpark, Steaming Dish of Ramen Noodles, what ever you want to call it.
The game will be what the game will be. It looks to have enough structured content to keep that crowd happy, and enough free-form content to keep the other crowd happy. Will the game be perfect? Not possible. Will the game be good enough and content rich enough to keep lots of people busy for quite some time to come? Hell yeah, sure looks to be!
I am just happy a game like AA is coming and hopefully to Europe.
First stop Russia then ext stop Europe.
Have a read of this and see what you think.
Part 1
Words are hard. Here I am, a person who communicates continuously via the written word and is paid to craft words for others, and I know that despite my “expertise,” most of what I’ve written in my lifetime, if not all of it, can be misunderstood or interpreted from angles I did not imagine while writing. Jargon is both a boon and a bane: although it allows people from the same fields to quickly communicate complicated ideas, people from different fields may use the same word to mean different things. But the worst jargon comes in young fields, such as gaming criticism, where it seems assumed that “everyone knows” what it means without any discussion.
So have I justified talking about the meaning of the word “sandbox” in gaming and in the growing lexicon of mmo jargon? Since I’m already writing this, I’ll go with the answer most convenient for me: yes. So how do we define sandbox? How is it being used out there?
Searching google for “define sandbox mmo,” the first relevant hit I come across is this hub page. The author, Tahamtan, equates sandbox games with freedom of choice. He goes on to more details, including the claim that the players make the rules rather than developers, and specifics such as classless skill systems and customizable appearances, some of which I agree with and some seem optional at best and otherwise completely arbitrary. I strongly agree with the freedom of choice bit, but I don’t think that’s enough detail to eliminate games that are commonly called theme parks. I found a second blog post attempting to explain a personal definition of sandbox, but he focuses even more on the details than this first author. And most of those details are lifted straight from UO. UO is certainly a sandbox, at least everyone who has played it seems to think so, but I’m more interested in creating a definition of sandbox that includes any MMO generally agreed to be a sandbox (Ultima Online, SWG pre-NGE, Eve, Darkfall, Wurm Online, and such) while excluding any games generally agreed to be theme parks (WoW, Rift, Warhammer, etc.)
Sandbox games can certainly be said to depend on freedom of choice, but to what extent is freedom of choice limited in a theme park? There’s a common argument about WoW that claims WoW offers choice despite generally being considered a theme park by most mmo bloggers and reviewers. And it is certainly true that there are options available in WoW. Although the most common path is to follow quests, players can choose to ignore the quests and grind mobs. Players could also put together a regular group to crawl instances or exclusively use the dungeon finder and complete instances with PUGs. At a certain point, though I cannot recall when, PvP becomes another viable option.
Similarly, WoW does allow for players to choose the zones they visit. Once getting out of your racial start zone, there are frequently multiple options about where to go next. There is not a single clear path that forces everyone to be in the same zone for the same level like there is in Forsaken World. So with all these choices, why does the general consensus firmly place WoW in the theme park column?
Because all of these choices come with obvious limitations. Although there are options about how to play, all of those options reach the same end: leveling your character and acquiring better equipment. No matter how someone plays WoW, the goal remains the same. Even when I imagine a player that gets joy primarily from exploration, visiting every in-game location still requires leveling up and getting new equipment. Locations are designed for certain level ranges, and while there may not be something stopping a player from visiting higher level zones, players are not able to explore and survive unless they are in the right range for that zone. The choice of where and how to level is governed by the character’s level throughout the game. No matter what a player focuses on, leveling and new equipment will either be the end result or a necessary step along the way.
When I look at a sandbox, I find it more difficult to generalize all the goals with a single end as I have with WoW. Although I have heard it said that the goal is still more power, the difference is in the definition of power. In WoW, power will nearly always refer to character level and gearscore. Some might describe power as the amount of gold they possess, but again this goal is governed by character level (higher levels acquire more gold and more valuable crafting materials) and just like character level, there is even a cap that forces players to cease pursuing gold as a game goal.
So far the difference between a sandbox and a theme park MMO seems related to choice, the nature of those choices, and the limitations placed on those choices. This is far from the complete definition I’m searching for that clearly defines sandbox while excluding theme parks. But this blog is the longest I’ve written so far, and if anyone is still reading I’m amazed and impressed. Next, I will take a closer look at how “gaining power” is not a sufficient generalization for goals in a sandbox, or at the very least, how many different ways one can define “gaining power,” all while continuing to work toward a meaningful definition of sandbox.
Part 2
When I last left off exploring this commonly used bit of mmo jargon, I had decided that “the difference between a sandbox and a theme park MMO seems related to choice, the nature of those choices, and the limitations placed on those choices.” I had also implicated that it is not just any choice that distinguishes between these types of games but more the ends of those choices. In theme parks, any choice in how and where to play inevitably leads to the same end: increasing character level and acquiring new gear. On the other hand, sandbox goals could possibly all lead to progressing character power, but that a sandbox allows variability in the definition of character power, rather than defining the power of all players, regardless of play style, by their character’s level and gear.
In order to be perceived as a sandbox, MMOs must leave a lot of what defines success and power up to the player community. This leads to another misunderstanding regarding the meaning of sandbox: I’ve seen it written in many comment sections, likely by players who have not enjoyed current or past sandbox offerings, that “sandbox is just another word for no content.” While I can, and certainly will before this series is over, debate what counts as content, I believe most people making this statement refer to quests and other such content that provides story. While many games thought of as sandboxes have lacked any dev-driven story-based missions, I do not believe this lack actually is necessary to remain a sandbox. However, for the game to feel like a sandbox, this content should be at most of equal importance to player-driven content.
Of course, I’m left with the burden of explaining player-driven content in such a way that does not specify exactly what that type of content might be. I’m going to tentatively claim that player-driven content that enables players to personally define what is meant by power progression generally consists of game mechanics that allow players to permanently affect the game world for all players. This can be anything from player built towns to war over territory to obtaining and monopolizing a resource. Other players should be able to see what you have done and be affected by it.
However, and this is a big however, player actions that have an effect on others does not, does not, does not require traditional combat PvP. I simply mean that the passage of player A through the game world has the potential to change what player B will find or do when she wanders through the same areas later. The world is not static, nor is it phased — whatever I see, you see, he sees, and she sees. Coming back to the metaphor of theme park versus sandbox, in an actual theme park I am free to enjoy the rides, but if I were to attempt to change or modify them in some way, I’m sure I’d be arrested for some sort of crime. On the other hand, when we give our children sandboxes, we encourage them to change its initial state, a smooth plane of sand, into whatever catches their fancy. When the streetlights come on, we will tell the child it is time to come inside, but otherwise, there is no point in which we say to the child “You’re done. You’ve won the sandbox. You’ve created all the castles you can create.” Children outgrow sandboxes, but they do not “finish the sandbox.” There is no defined end — success is defined by the child. And such is also true of character power in a sandbox. It will be defined differently by every individual depending on what segment of the game’s mechanics most interest the player. It might be traditional combat power, but it can also be social, political, or financial.
There’s quite a bit for me to chew on here, never mind anyone reading along, so again I will stop and let it stew. Apparently, I am locking down my thoughts on the topic as I write them, so I will likely put all of these posts together in a more refined, united article with its own tab, eventually. Next time I will go back to freedom of choice and oppose it to another ill-defined bit of gaming jargon: “linearity.” That next entry will likely spend more time defining “linear” games than sandboxes.
But someday I will get to a final definition of some kind, I swear.
Part 3
As I mentioned elsewhere, Part 3 was intended to pick up right where Part 2 left off, but in the meantime, I’ve stumbled onto some of the same misconceptions repeatedly. I will come back to where that argument left off the next time I return to this idea. Instead, I’m going to do a quick bullet list.
A sandbox is not a game where everything is possible and players can do anything. It’s still a game. Sandboxes will provide a lot of options and freedom to choose between those options, but those options still exist in a frame built by the game designers. There are a lot of choices a player can make in Eve, a lot of ways to increase income or power, but there are still limits. Players can camp a gate, but they can’t destroy it, can’t disable it, can’t redirect it to make it useless or send people to a dangerous area they didn’t expect.
Following from that, a sandbox does not require open PvP. For one, there are sandboxes without combat of any sort (A Tale in the Desert, Glitch). However, I can understand thinking that if there is combat players should be able to attack anyone they want or they do not have real freedom. But it is still a fictional world created by the developer. If the developers want their world to be one in which crime is non-existent and intelligent creatures have never attacked other intelligent creatures, then fair enough. Create some explanation in the game world’s lore and the problem is solved.
A sandbox is not a game with only player-driven content. Glitch has quests and plans to include more that reveal the lore of their world. Skyrim, while not an MMO, is full of stories and direction wherever someone turns. While true that most sandbox MMOs lack story-driven content, such is a characteristic of those particular games and not virtual worlds in general.
A sandbox is not more work than fun. Grind is a rather subjective descriptor for MMOs: the less one enjoys the mechanics that are required to advance in a game, the more grindy it will feel. A sandbox could easily be created in which tasks that currently feel monotonous in current offerings require more active participation and are more entertaining. Again, the idea that a sandbox is work and not play might be a valid descriptor for some current sandbox offerings, but it is a characteristic of those games and not a necessary characteristic of the genre.
A sandbox is not a game with no direction. Even professional MMO writers seem to get this wrong. Once again, just because current games offer little to no direction, does not make that a characteristic of a sandbox. One has to look no farther than single player sandboxes to see that this is not true, just true of MMO sandboxes at this time.
I wanted a few more bullets, but these seem to be the most common objections to the idea of sandboxes that I see around the internet. When I read these objections, I hear in my head: “I played a sandbox MMO or two where [insert misconception from above is true] and I am incapable of understanding that what has been done is not all that can be done.”
Once again, “anything is possible except staying static” is not an ending to the conversation, it’s the beginning. The inability to understand that is an unfortunate flaw of many gamers, most of whom will likely jump on an innovative game that does things they claimed would never happen without ever becoming aware they’ve been proved wrong.
I especially enjoyed the part : " Coming back to the metaphor of theme park versus sandbox, in an actual theme park I am free to enjoy the rides, but if I were to attempt to change or modify them in some way, I’m sure I’d be arrested for some sort of crime. On the other hand, when we give our children sandboxes, we encourage them to change its initial state, a smooth plane of sand, into whatever catches their fancy. When the streetlights come on, we will tell the child it is time to come inside, but otherwise, there is no point in which we say to the child “You’re done. You’ve won the sandbox. You’ve created all the castles you can create.” Children outgrow sandboxes, but they do not “finish the sandbox.” "
...as that neatly sums up what I feel is the core difference. Thank you.
There is no hard, set in stone, ruleset stating 'this shall be Sandbox and no other!' and that is probably why so many people argue the terms.
Again thank you. (That could almost be a degree dissertation, lol )
What we need is some news that says this game is officially coming to the states sometime soon. If this game waits until 2013 to get here, it's going to have a lot more competition.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
From what ive seen in Korea CBT and some really nice articles, the game is already MIND BLOWING, and to me its SCARY in some points.
Just think about the differences between servers with all these awesome sandbox tools, imagine you manage to create such a large woodcraft corporation you monopolite all the woods and the rest of the server cant do shit about this.
Or just a huge pirate float you manage to control the seven seas of Archeage, and the rest of the server fear you and try to join you desperately :P.
I guess you see my point, maybe in another server there arent such things and people take it easier, the possibilites within this are amazing.
It is kinda both good and bad. When a guild controls a certain percentage of the game and more or less own it the game gets really boring fast.That is both for the guild who suddenly have no opposition and the rest of the server that can´t do Jack S*** (and Jack left the building) without the approval of the dominating guild.
It is kinda like what EA and Activision does for computer games...
While some smuggling and resistance fighting still can be fun most of it gets boring. That means you at that point needs a reset unless you have some mechanics that wont allow a guild to own most of the server.
All the points up to being the dominating guild is fun though but after that it is like playing after you already won, not fun anymore.
In order to be able to declare war and participate in a siege you must obtain a special drop from the raid boss on the third continent. Sieges only take place on the weekends and last for two hours. You can only have one attacking and one defending expeditionary force (guilds). Each side can currently have only 50 players participating (there are some rumors that if things go well that they will boost it to at least 100 vs. 100). If you're not signed up for the siege or if the player limit goes above the allotted amount you will simply be teleported back to the nearest resurrection shrine if you try to enter the siege area. (these are the rules/limitations in current CBT, but might change somewhat)
-some might call it carebear, but i call it equity as we all know how giant guilds and alliances can ruin the game for others, this way more than few select zerg-guild will have an equal chance of gaining, owning and holding areas on the 3rd continent.
Thus eliminating faceroll zerg-guilds, 4am ninjacapping etc.
What we need is some news that says this game is officially coming to the states sometime soon. If this game waits until 2013 to get here, it's going to have a lot more competition.
Like what? Only MMOs on my radar are The Repopulation, Planetside 2 , and this game. Don't really see any other competition getting my money when the rest are WoW clones on the horizon...
Staying on the topic of trees... My guild will raid any guild's city and attempt asset destruction if that guild has less than 20 trees or more than 200.
*insert mad laughter here*
Fanrabbit in my vent currently over various pycho druidic based guild names, good times.
note to self. "Maintain 21 trees at all times". got it.
What we need is some news that says this game is officially coming to the states sometime soon. If this game waits until 2013 to get here, it's going to have a lot more competition.
Like what? Only MMOs on my radar are The Repopulation, Planetside 2 , and this game. Don't really see any other competition getting my money when the rest are WoW clones on the horizon...
That depends. I love and prefer sandbox games, but I also only have time for one major MMO. If I get sucked into GW2 or TSW because they turn out to be great games, I won't care much about ArchAge coming on in 2013, and I doubt I'm alone in that position. That's to say nothing of the other sandbox games in development, including Pathfinder, or the other AAA games coming down the road next year.
To each their own, but I've alreeady lost of alot of interest in it because it is no where even close to being released in the states yet. I'm sure there are people who will play it next year if it shows up. More power to them.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
I especially enjoyed the part : " Coming back to the metaphor of theme park versus sandbox, in an actual theme park I am free to enjoy the rides, but if I were to attempt to change or modify them in some way, I’m sure I’d be arrested for some sort of crime. On the other hand, when we give our children sandboxes, we encourage them to change its initial state, a smooth plane of sand, into whatever catches their fancy. When the streetlights come on, we will tell the child it is time to come inside, but otherwise, there is no point in which we say to the child “You’re done. You’ve won the sandbox. You’ve created all the castles you can create.” Children outgrow sandboxes, but they do not “finish the sandbox.” "
...as that neatly sums up what I feel is the core difference. Thank you.
There is no hard, set in stone, ruleset stating 'this shall be Sandbox and no other!' and that is probably why so many people argue the terms.
Again thank you. (That could almost be a degree dissertation, lol )
Yeah it's a great write up and read.To be honest it kind of flys in the face of what i have been saying makes a sandbox game,you learn something everyday i guess.
One thing we can all agree on is AA can't come quick enough.
Comments
I dont get this sandbox, themepark discussions... for me a sandbox is simply an overall feeling of freedom while a themepark set me on a straight course.
I think Jake described AA as a themepark with sandbox elements and not the other way around however it seems more sandbox than themepark to me currently...
This is all i have been saying,it's how Jake discribes his own game and see it as.Yeah,AA has some great sandbox features and offers great freedom but so does Vanguard and would any of the people calling AA a true sandbox game describe Vanguard as such,nope they would not.
Jake calls HIS game a themepark with sandbox features as does everyone over a source,only the mmorpg.com fanatics want to turn the game into Darkfall 2 lol.
Ill take Jakes word over any of the blind anytime.
Quibbling over meaningless definitions is largely pointless. Most people cannot provide a decent definition fro the terms they throw around, and even when one person does have a good solid definition, another persons will be different. So Themebox, Sandpark, Steaming Dish of Ramen Noodles, what ever you want to call it.
The game will be what the game will be. It looks to have enough structured content to keep that crowd happy, and enough free-form content to keep the other crowd happy. Will the game be perfect? Not possible. Will the game be good enough and content rich enough to keep lots of people busy for quite some time to come? Hell yeah, sure looks to be!
What type of "HYBRID" is going to be ArcheAge, not a "ThemePark" with Sandbox features, may be a "Sand""Park"". But that ArcheAge is more "sandbox" than "themepark" cant be doubt.
This video is for the last year, when Tencent announced that will be the publisher in China, and explains what type of mmo they wanna make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRa39ykyZgE
I am just happy a game like AA is coming and hopefully to Europe.
First stop Russia then ext stop Europe.
Have a read of this and see what you think.
Part 1
Words are hard. Here I am, a person who communicates continuously via the written word and is paid to craft words for others, and I know that despite my “expertise,” most of what I’ve written in my lifetime, if not all of it, can be misunderstood or interpreted from angles I did not imagine while writing. Jargon is both a boon and a bane: although it allows people from the same fields to quickly communicate complicated ideas, people from different fields may use the same word to mean different things. But the worst jargon comes in young fields, such as gaming criticism, where it seems assumed that “everyone knows” what it means without any discussion.
So have I justified talking about the meaning of the word “sandbox” in gaming and in the growing lexicon of mmo jargon? Since I’m already writing this, I’ll go with the answer most convenient for me: yes. So how do we define sandbox? How is it being used out there?
Searching google for “define sandbox mmo,” the first relevant hit I come across is this hub page. The author, Tahamtan, equates sandbox games with freedom of choice. He goes on to more details, including the claim that the players make the rules rather than developers, and specifics such as classless skill systems and customizable appearances, some of which I agree with and some seem optional at best and otherwise completely arbitrary. I strongly agree with the freedom of choice bit, but I don’t think that’s enough detail to eliminate games that are commonly called theme parks. I found a second blog post attempting to explain a personal definition of sandbox, but he focuses even more on the details than this first author. And most of those details are lifted straight from UO. UO is certainly a sandbox, at least everyone who has played it seems to think so, but I’m more interested in creating a definition of sandbox that includes any MMO generally agreed to be a sandbox (Ultima Online, SWG pre-NGE, Eve, Darkfall, Wurm Online, and such) while excluding any games generally agreed to be theme parks (WoW, Rift, Warhammer, etc.)
Sandbox games can certainly be said to depend on freedom of choice, but to what extent is freedom of choice limited in a theme park? There’s a common argument about WoW that claims WoW offers choice despite generally being considered a theme park by most mmo bloggers and reviewers. And it is certainly true that there are options available in WoW. Although the most common path is to follow quests, players can choose to ignore the quests and grind mobs. Players could also put together a regular group to crawl instances or exclusively use the dungeon finder and complete instances with PUGs. At a certain point, though I cannot recall when, PvP becomes another viable option.
Similarly, WoW does allow for players to choose the zones they visit. Once getting out of your racial start zone, there are frequently multiple options about where to go next. There is not a single clear path that forces everyone to be in the same zone for the same level like there is in Forsaken World. So with all these choices, why does the general consensus firmly place WoW in the theme park column?
Because all of these choices come with obvious limitations. Although there are options about how to play, all of those options reach the same end: leveling your character and acquiring better equipment. No matter how someone plays WoW, the goal remains the same. Even when I imagine a player that gets joy primarily from exploration, visiting every in-game location still requires leveling up and getting new equipment. Locations are designed for certain level ranges, and while there may not be something stopping a player from visiting higher level zones, players are not able to explore and survive unless they are in the right range for that zone. The choice of where and how to level is governed by the character’s level throughout the game. No matter what a player focuses on, leveling and new equipment will either be the end result or a necessary step along the way.
When I look at a sandbox, I find it more difficult to generalize all the goals with a single end as I have with WoW. Although I have heard it said that the goal is still more power, the difference is in the definition of power. In WoW, power will nearly always refer to character level and gearscore. Some might describe power as the amount of gold they possess, but again this goal is governed by character level (higher levels acquire more gold and more valuable crafting materials) and just like character level, there is even a cap that forces players to cease pursuing gold as a game goal.
So far the difference between a sandbox and a theme park MMO seems related to choice, the nature of those choices, and the limitations placed on those choices. This is far from the complete definition I’m searching for that clearly defines sandbox while excluding theme parks. But this blog is the longest I’ve written so far, and if anyone is still reading I’m amazed and impressed. Next, I will take a closer look at how “gaining power” is not a sufficient generalization for goals in a sandbox, or at the very least, how many different ways one can define “gaining power,” all while continuing to work toward a meaningful definition of sandbox.
Part 2
When I last left off exploring this commonly used bit of mmo jargon, I had decided that “the difference between a sandbox and a theme park MMO seems related to choice, the nature of those choices, and the limitations placed on those choices.” I had also implicated that it is not just any choice that distinguishes between these types of games but more the ends of those choices. In theme parks, any choice in how and where to play inevitably leads to the same end: increasing character level and acquiring new gear. On the other hand, sandbox goals could possibly all lead to progressing character power, but that a sandbox allows variability in the definition of character power, rather than defining the power of all players, regardless of play style, by their character’s level and gear.
In order to be perceived as a sandbox, MMOs must leave a lot of what defines success and power up to the player community. This leads to another misunderstanding regarding the meaning of sandbox: I’ve seen it written in many comment sections, likely by players who have not enjoyed current or past sandbox offerings, that “sandbox is just another word for no content.” While I can, and certainly will before this series is over, debate what counts as content, I believe most people making this statement refer to quests and other such content that provides story. While many games thought of as sandboxes have lacked any dev-driven story-based missions, I do not believe this lack actually is necessary to remain a sandbox. However, for the game to feel like a sandbox, this content should be at most of equal importance to player-driven content.
Of course, I’m left with the burden of explaining player-driven content in such a way that does not specify exactly what that type of content might be. I’m going to tentatively claim that player-driven content that enables players to personally define what is meant by power progression generally consists of game mechanics that allow players to permanently affect the game world for all players. This can be anything from player built towns to war over territory to obtaining and monopolizing a resource. Other players should be able to see what you have done and be affected by it.
However, and this is a big however, player actions that have an effect on others does not, does not, does not require traditional combat PvP. I simply mean that the passage of player A through the game world has the potential to change what player B will find or do when she wanders through the same areas later. The world is not static, nor is it phased — whatever I see, you see, he sees, and she sees. Coming back to the metaphor of theme park versus sandbox, in an actual theme park I am free to enjoy the rides, but if I were to attempt to change or modify them in some way, I’m sure I’d be arrested for some sort of crime. On the other hand, when we give our children sandboxes, we encourage them to change its initial state, a smooth plane of sand, into whatever catches their fancy. When the streetlights come on, we will tell the child it is time to come inside, but otherwise, there is no point in which we say to the child “You’re done. You’ve won the sandbox. You’ve created all the castles you can create.” Children outgrow sandboxes, but they do not “finish the sandbox.” There is no defined end — success is defined by the child. And such is also true of character power in a sandbox. It will be defined differently by every individual depending on what segment of the game’s mechanics most interest the player. It might be traditional combat power, but it can also be social, political, or financial.
There’s quite a bit for me to chew on here, never mind anyone reading along, so again I will stop and let it stew. Apparently, I am locking down my thoughts on the topic as I write them, so I will likely put all of these posts together in a more refined, united article with its own tab, eventually. Next time I will go back to freedom of choice and oppose it to another ill-defined bit of gaming jargon: “linearity.” That next entry will likely spend more time defining “linear” games than sandboxes.
But someday I will get to a final definition of some kind, I swear.
Part 3
As I mentioned elsewhere, Part 3 was intended to pick up right where Part 2 left off, but in the meantime, I’ve stumbled onto some of the same misconceptions repeatedly. I will come back to where that argument left off the next time I return to this idea. Instead, I’m going to do a quick bullet list.
A sandbox is not a game where everything is possible and players can do anything. It’s still a game. Sandboxes will provide a lot of options and freedom to choose between those options, but those options still exist in a frame built by the game designers. There are a lot of choices a player can make in Eve, a lot of ways to increase income or power, but there are still limits. Players can camp a gate, but they can’t destroy it, can’t disable it, can’t redirect it to make it useless or send people to a dangerous area they didn’t expect.
Following from that, a sandbox does not require open PvP. For one, there are sandboxes without combat of any sort (A Tale in the Desert, Glitch). However, I can understand thinking that if there is combat players should be able to attack anyone they want or they do not have real freedom. But it is still a fictional world created by the developer. If the developers want their world to be one in which crime is non-existent and intelligent creatures have never attacked other intelligent creatures, then fair enough. Create some explanation in the game world’s lore and the problem is solved.
A sandbox is not a game with only player-driven content. Glitch has quests and plans to include more that reveal the lore of their world. Skyrim, while not an MMO, is full of stories and direction wherever someone turns. While true that most sandbox MMOs lack story-driven content, such is a characteristic of those particular games and not virtual worlds in general.
A sandbox is not more work than fun. Grind is a rather subjective descriptor for MMOs: the less one enjoys the mechanics that are required to advance in a game, the more grindy it will feel. A sandbox could easily be created in which tasks that currently feel monotonous in current offerings require more active participation and are more entertaining. Again, the idea that a sandbox is work and not play might be a valid descriptor for some current sandbox offerings, but it is a characteristic of those games and not a necessary characteristic of the genre.
A sandbox is not a game with no direction. Even professional MMO writers seem to get this wrong. Once again, just because current games offer little to no direction, does not make that a characteristic of a sandbox. One has to look no farther than single player sandboxes to see that this is not true, just true of MMO sandboxes at this time.
I wanted a few more bullets, but these seem to be the most common objections to the idea of sandboxes that I see around the internet. When I read these objections, I hear in my head: “I played a sandbox MMO or two where [insert misconception from above is true] and I am incapable of understanding that what has been done is not all that can be done.”
Once again, “anything is possible except staying static” is not an ending to the conversation, it’s the beginning. The inability to understand that is an unfortunate flaw of many gamers, most of whom will likely jump on an innovative game that does things they claimed would never happen without ever becoming aware they’ve been proved wrong.
Whew! Quite the read, but well worth it.
I especially enjoyed the part : " Coming back to the metaphor of theme park versus sandbox, in an actual theme park I am free to enjoy the rides, but if I were to attempt to change or modify them in some way, I’m sure I’d be arrested for some sort of crime. On the other hand, when we give our children sandboxes, we encourage them to change its initial state, a smooth plane of sand, into whatever catches their fancy. When the streetlights come on, we will tell the child it is time to come inside, but otherwise, there is no point in which we say to the child “You’re done. You’ve won the sandbox. You’ve created all the castles you can create.” Children outgrow sandboxes, but they do not “finish the sandbox.” "
...as that neatly sums up what I feel is the core difference. Thank you.
There is no hard, set in stone, ruleset stating 'this shall be Sandbox and no other!' and that is probably why so many people argue the terms.
Again thank you. (That could almost be a degree dissertation, lol )
What we need is some news that says this game is officially coming to the states sometime soon. If this game waits until 2013 to get here, it's going to have a lot more competition.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Pretty clever setup in my opinion ...
Like what? Only MMOs on my radar are The Repopulation, Planetside 2 , and this game. Don't really see any other competition getting my money when the rest are WoW clones on the horizon...
note to self. "Maintain 21 trees at all times". got it.
That depends. I love and prefer sandbox games, but I also only have time for one major MMO. If I get sucked into GW2 or TSW because they turn out to be great games, I won't care much about ArchAge coming on in 2013, and I doubt I'm alone in that position. That's to say nothing of the other sandbox games in development, including Pathfinder, or the other AAA games coming down the road next year.
To each their own, but I've alreeady lost of alot of interest in it because it is no where even close to being released in the states yet. I'm sure there are people who will play it next year if it shows up. More power to them.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Yeah it's a great write up and read.To be honest it kind of flys in the face of what i have been saying makes a sandbox game,you learn something everyday i guess.
One thing we can all agree on is AA can't come quick enough.
I hear you there!XLGames might be intending to self publish in the west if I understand an interview with China Joy, fine by me if they do.