The sandbox crowd is not a myth. Them agreeing on what sandbox means, is.
Yes I really like this explanation
This!
(and I would consider myself a "sandboxer", but even I don't know what the exact deffenition is)
Its a very Broad and Open definition. Like a Sandbox.
Not so clearly Directed and Defined. Like a Themepark
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
only true popular, modern sandbox games i can think of are terraria, minecraft, gary's mod, the sims and second life.
if there is even one npc hinting of story content to follow then can it really be considered an open world? (ie skyrim, etc) i would consider those non-linear not sandbox.
Obviously people like different kinds of games, and since Skyrim is a sandbox, and people bought it... obviously a massive amount of people would play an MMORPG sandbox that was developed well. period.
You're not getting it.
Skyrim isn't a sandbox. The "rides" are fixed. The player doesn't manipulate them (they're not "sand".) The quests and dungeons are purely determined by the devs. They're rides, not sand.
Skyrim as a MMORPG would be an open world themepark, if done true to the game's original design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Skyrim is a sandbox... lol. wow... really? open world themepark? last I checked Skyrim gameplay is not solely linear. it IS a sandbox. The option to do as you please and complete missions/quests however you want, or hell don't even do that go fight whatever you what or whatevers... The facts don't lie... I'm not sure about the debate you speak of but if the conclusion was that Skyrim is an open world theme park I'd say you guys missed the point of the game.
Linearity has nothing to do with a game being sandbox or themepark.
The root of the "themepark" analogy doesn't even include linearity, lol! When's the last time you visited a linear themepark in real life?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So now anything that has quests is a themepark? Is that it?
/mind buggles
Not on topic I kown. That was my last reply about this issue...
Questing is a themepark mechanic and a really bad one. Themeparks in general are horrible games that somehow make money through use of Pavlovian principles. Gamers become addicted to their content and pay for it despite it not being fun. Why do they kill 10 rats? To get to max level so they can have fun and don't have to grind anymore. However, once they reach max level, they quit and find another mmorpg. Then they kill 10 rats until the level cap again, only to quit. They never actually have fun. Stop the crazyiness!11!! Wake up!!!!!
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
I dont know how this thread got redirected to one about Skyrim and if its sandbox or themepark.
Wasnt the OP about if the sandbox crowd is a myth? or was the OP disproven and we've moved on to something else?
Exactly. The conversation is about whether or not there is really a crowd of customers or players that are really awaiting a true sandbox MMO. In fact I think someone used Eve as an example crowed but was rebuffed by someone else saying that that particular crowd is the exception not the rule.
But...I will add...Skyrim is a sandbox game. It might have some themepark aspects here and there but its far more sandbox. Stop tagging it with this "Open world themepark" crap just to make it fit. It's sandbox...perhaps not "true" but sandbox nonetheless. But that's another topic.
But to use Skyrim as an example and how successful it was/is speaks to the fact that there is in fact a crowd (and a very large one at that) that wants to experience this kind of world and game play. The question becomes how do you capture that in an MMO?
1) You can call it whatever you want. But i have as much, if not MORE, freedom and choices in WOW, compared to SKYRIM. I can queue up for a wide range of dungeons & pvp BGs. I can follow or skip quests. I can go to any part of the world. If skyrim is a sandbox, so is WOW.
2) There is little to gain, gameplay-wise, to make skyrim a MMO. It is about adventures and dungeoning, not huge wars. So making it MP will be sufficient. In fact, it is better to work out the stories in a multi-player game, than a MMO.
3) Regarding the issue of whether there is a massive market for a true sandbox mmo .. i haven't seen any evidence yet. Skyrim is not a MMO. Popular SP open world games (heck, you can count Prototype and similar games too) are not evidence that MMO sandbox will be popular.
I really want to respond...but I just can't. WoW a sandbox? And more so than Skyrim??? This just proves my point about todays gaming generation...jeez.
So now anything that has quests is a themepark? Is that it?
/mind buggles
Not on topic I kown. That was my last reply about this issue...
If the devs create the content, it's a themepark.
In Skyrim:
Houses are fixed locations, determined by devs.
Quests are fixed, determined by devs.
Monsters are fixed, determined by devs.
The types of mobs that spawn are dynamic, the rules of that dynamic determined by devs.
Virtually the entire game is one dev-created ride after another. The player manipulates the TINIEST little piece of customization in terms of how they choose to decorate their home (if they even engage in that feature), and that is a single sandbox feature in a sea of themepark content.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"In March 2012, EVE Online reached over 400,000 subscribers.[9]"
There you go.
I was also looking for a post on the official forums where one of the devs recently said they were nearing the 450k mark. So EVE is around 450k now and growing. If I can find his post I'll put a link to it.
LOL... so some random dev, and some random article says Eve (made by CCP, a non-public company) has 450k subs and it's "true"...
But EA, a publicly traded company that would be committing securities fraud by lying says they have 1.2m subs, and you say they're lying...
So now anything that has quests is a themepark? Is that it?
/mind buggles
Not on topic I kown. That was my last reply about this issue...
If the devs create the content, it's a themepark.
In Skyrim:
Houses are fixed locations, determined by devs.
Quests are fixed, determined by devs.
Monsters are fixed, determined by devs.
The types of mobs that spawn are dynamic, the rules of that dynamic determined by devs.
Virtually the entire game is one dev-created ride after another. The player manipulates the TINIEST little piece of customization in terms of how they choose to decorate their home (if they even engage in that feature), and that is a single sandbox feature in a sea of themepark content.
WRONG. First of all houses doesn't even factor in or at least so little it makes no difference in the definition of a "Sandbox" game. Secondly quests are always fixed, the difference is whether the player can run into said quests through adventuring on their own and it falls into their laps rather than being led in a linear fashion from one place to the next along the story line. Monsters fixed? Aren't they always? Now if you mean location wise I'd say that made more sense but in Skyrim it's pretty much random or at least based on the climate as it should be. Spawn dynamic based on rules...um you're in some sort of RP fantasy world where the player just make believes he is wherever they want to be whenver they want to be...Sure I'd love to morph into a dragon too and fly around on a whim but that's just plain unrealistic and dumb.
Themebox does not equate to anything that is created by devs...sorry. No more than complete and total freedom equates to sandbox. You're being ridiculously extreme.
So now anything that has quests is a themepark? Is that it?
/mind buggles
Not on topic I kown. That was my last reply about this issue...
If the devs create the content, it's a themepark.
In Skyrim:
Houses are fixed locations, determined by devs.
Quests are fixed, determined by devs.
Monsters are fixed, determined by devs.
The types of mobs that spawn are dynamic, the rules of that dynamic determined by devs.
Virtually the entire game is one dev-created ride after another. The player manipulates the TINIEST little piece of customization in terms of how they choose to decorate their home (if they even engage in that feature), and that is a single sandbox feature in a sea of themepark content.
Demogorgon, Axehilt is a game developer. Although he has denied having a "personal stake in Themepark MMOs".
I and others have explained to him what we, the players, mean by "Sandbox" and "Themepark" many times on these forums. Just last week I went around with him on this exact same issue. Yet he insists on the meaning that the gaming developers have put on the terms. Especially "Sandbox". Meanings that are beyond reasonable and paint the worst possible image of what a Sandbox game is about. This has been going on for well over a year, maybe over 2 years.
I'll leave it to you to speculate on why he does this, and in such plenty, and so consistently.
WRONG. First of all houses doesn't even factor in or at least so little it makes no difference in the definition of a "Sandbox" game. Secondly quests are always fixed, the difference is whether the player can run into said quests through adventuring on their own and it falls into their laps rather than being led in a linear fashion from one place to the next along the story line. Monsters fixed? Aren't they always? Now if you mean location wise I'd say that made more sense but in Skyrim it's pretty much random or at least based on the climate as it should be. Spawn dynamic based on rules...um you're in some sort of RP fantasy world where the player just make believes he is wherever they want to be whenver they want to be...Sure I'd love to morph into a dragon too and fly around on a whim but that's just plain unrealistic and dumb.
Themebox does not equate to anything that is created by devs...sorry. No more than complete and total freedom equates to sandbox. You're being ridiculously extreme.
1. I never said houses are a requirement for a game to be sandbox. I said that customizable housing is a sandbox feature. It's sand for you to play in and customize.
2. Quest are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed with player-created quests. In those games, quests were a sandbox feature.
3. Monsters are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed where players can program their own mob behavior and/or attributes. In those games, monsters were a sandbox feature.
4. When you consider the features that make up typical gameplay in a game, that's what type of game a game is. For Skyrim since house-customization isn't the #1 thing done and the rest of the features are themepark rides, the game is obviously a themepark.
Themeparks have rides. Dev-created content players ride.
Sandboxes have sand. Content that players create or manipulate.
This is the simple truth of what created these two terms.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Demogorgon, Axehilt is a game developer. Although he has denied having a "personal stake in Themepark MMOs".
I and others have explained to him what we, the players, mean by "Sandbox" and "Themepark" many times on these forums. Just last week I went around with him on this exact same issue. Yet he insists on the meaning that the gaming developers have put on the terms. Especially "Sandbox". Meanings that are beyond reasonable and paint the worst possible image of what a Sandbox game is about. This has been going on for well over a year, maybe over 2 years.
I'll leave it to you to speculate on why he does this, and in such plenty, and so consistently.
How does "player-created content" paint sandboxes in a bad light?
I've said a hundred times that a well-made sandbox which focuses on being a game first (and a world second) could do incredibly well.
You're hopelessly stuck on painting me as some bad person, and you really need to get over it.
For the 10th time in this thread:
Sandboxes = sand = player-created content
Themeparks = rides = developer-created content
This should seem obvious to anyone encountering these terms in relation to videogames, and is totally agnostic of how fun either concept can be. There are tons of sandboxes players love outside of the MMORPG industry (the MMORPG industry insists on making the worst possible kind of sandboxes which, unsurprisingly, don't do well.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
WRONG. First of all houses doesn't even factor in or at least so little it makes no difference in the definition of a "Sandbox" game. Secondly quests are always fixed, the difference is whether the player can run into said quests through adventuring on their own and it falls into their laps rather than being led in a linear fashion from one place to the next along the story line. Monsters fixed? Aren't they always? Now if you mean location wise I'd say that made more sense but in Skyrim it's pretty much random or at least based on the climate as it should be. Spawn dynamic based on rules...um you're in some sort of RP fantasy world where the player just make believes he is wherever they want to be whenver they want to be...Sure I'd love to morph into a dragon too and fly around on a whim but that's just plain unrealistic and dumb.
Themebox does not equate to anything that is created by devs...sorry. No more than complete and total freedom equates to sandbox. You're being ridiculously extreme.
1. I never said houses are a requirement for a game to be sandbox. I said that customizable housing is a sandbox feature. It's sand for you to play in and customize.
2. Quest are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed with player-created quests. In those games, quests were a sandbox feature.
3. Monsters are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed where players can program their own mob behavior and/or attributes. In those games, monsters were a sandbox feature.
4. When you consider the features that make up typical gameplay in a game, that's what type of game a game is. For Skyrim since house-customization isn't the #1 thing done and the rest of the features are themepark rides, the game is obviously a themepark.
Themeparks have rides. Dev-created content players ride.
Sandboxes have sand. Content that players create or manipulate.
This is the simple truth of what created these two terms.
Never thought of it this way (or perhpas more accurately, never so succinctly), and I have to say I tend to like/agree with this definitions. Makes sense.
Curious - based upon this definition, which of the current "main stream" MMORPG's (if any) would you consider to offer primarily sandbox features? EvE? Any others?
Demogorgon, Axehilt is a game developer. Although he has denied having a "personal stake in Themepark MMOs".
I and others have explained to him what we, the players, mean by "Sandbox" and "Themepark" many times on these forums. Just last week I went around with him on this exact same issue. Yet he insists on the meaning that the gaming developers have put on the terms. Especially "Sandbox". Meanings that are beyond reasonable and paint the worst possible image of what a Sandbox game is about. This has been going on for well over a year, maybe over 2 years.
I'll leave it to you to speculate on why he does this, and in such plenty, and so consistently.
How does "player-created content" paint sandboxes in a bad light?
I've said a hundred times that a well-made sandbox which focuses on being a game first (and a world second) could do incredibly well.
You're hopelessly stuck on painting me as some bad person, and you really need to get over it.
For the 10th time in this thread:
Sandboxes = sand = player-created content
Themeparks = rides = developer-created content
This should seem obvious to anyone encountering these terms in relation to videogames, and is totally agnostic of how fun either concept can be. There are tons of sandboxes players love outside of the MMORPG industry (the MMORPG industry insists on making the worst possible kind of sandboxes which, unsurprisingly, don't do well.)
And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...
Well I did not play Skyrim, i simply am too in to MMO's to bother with Single Player games at this time.
But....
Traditionally, in Single Player Games there is another term to express Freedom, and that is "open Ended" is it possible that Skyrim is actually an Open Ended game and it gets misinterpreted as a Sandbox?
In my view, a Sanbox Game is a Step further up the Freedom ladder, and contains the ability to change the world as well as Open Ended Style Gameplay.
For thos ethat may have experienced Both...
What would be your comparison of Skyrim and Mount & Blade?
I see Mount & Blade more as a Sandbox, because you can actually change the world Conquer Castles Devellop Villages Build Armies and Alter the Geo-Political Landscape of the game as you want...it is Open Ended Gameplay meaning that you can go any direction you want and are not guided by a Story or by quests, but it is Sanbox because of the capacity to make changes to the world.
So which statement actually describes Skyrim? Can you do both? Explore and Roam Freeely as well as Change the world, or can you do only the Free exploring and adventuring?
if you can only do one then it is an Open Ended Gameplay approach, but not a Sandbox.
Cheers!
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...
Sandbox = freedom
Themepark = directed game play
Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?
In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
WRONG. First of all houses doesn't even factor in or at least so little it makes no difference in the definition of a "Sandbox" game. Secondly quests are always fixed, the difference is whether the player can run into said quests through adventuring on their own and it falls into their laps rather than being led in a linear fashion from one place to the next along the story line. Monsters fixed? Aren't they always? Now if you mean location wise I'd say that made more sense but in Skyrim it's pretty much random or at least based on the climate as it should be. Spawn dynamic based on rules...um you're in some sort of RP fantasy world where the player just make believes he is wherever they want to be whenver they want to be...Sure I'd love to morph into a dragon too and fly around on a whim but that's just plain unrealistic and dumb.
Themebox does not equate to anything that is created by devs...sorry. No more than complete and total freedom equates to sandbox. You're being ridiculously extreme.
1. I never said houses are a requirement for a game to be sandbox. I said that customizable housing is a sandbox feature. It's sand for you to play in and customize.
2. Quest are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed with player-created quests. In those games, quests were a sandbox feature.
3. Monsters are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed where players can program their own mob behavior and/or attributes. In those games, monsters were a sandbox feature.
4. When you consider the features that make up typical gameplay in a game, that's what type of game a game is. For Skyrim since house-customization isn't the #1 thing done and the rest of the features are themepark rides, the game is obviously a themepark.
Themeparks have rides. Dev-created content players ride.
Sandboxes have sand. Content that players create or manipulate.
This is the simple truth of what created these two terms.
Still wrong. That is not the difference between Sandboxes and Themeparks. In it's simplest form Themebox are linear and Sandboxes aren't. But you can't use the extremes of either and say it has to follow those to a tee to fit one or the other which is what you are doing.
In Skyrim I can be any class I want, I can raise any skill I want, I can go where I want and do what I want within the boundaries of the world and even if I didn't follow any sort of order it still fits the lore and purpose of the world and it's people. The story line does not set limits upon my character. This is a sandbox. Also placed into this category are games like Red Dead Redemption, Assasins Creed II, Fallout, GTA, etc. And those aren't my picks those are picks by the industry of games that are considered 'sandbox' games.
In a Theme park my character is limited to whatever class I choose generally, my skill sets are confined to whatever tree generally, I usually have to complete x quests on whatever planet or area etc. to move to the next place. I usually can't just explore random x place and have quests fall into my lap and still make sense to the overall purpose of the world and it's people or the lore or general story line...which I can do in Skyrim.
Demogorgon, Axehilt is a game developer. Although he has denied having a "personal stake in Themepark MMOs".
I and others have explained to him what we, the players, mean by "Sandbox" and "Themepark" many times on these forums. Just last week I went around with him on this exact same issue. Yet he insists on the meaning that the gaming developers have put on the terms. Especially "Sandbox". Meanings that are beyond reasonable and paint the worst possible image of what a Sandbox game is about. This has been going on for well over a year, maybe over 2 years.
I'll leave it to you to speculate on why he does this, and in such plenty, and so consistently.
How does "player-created content" paint sandboxes in a bad light?
I've said a hundred times that a well-made sandbox which focuses on being a game first (and a world second) could do incredibly well.
You're hopelessly stuck on painting me as some bad person, and you really need to get over it.
For the 10th time in this thread:
Sandboxes = sand = player-created content
Themeparks = rides = developer-created content
This should seem obvious to anyone encountering these terms in relation to videogames, and is totally agnostic of how fun either concept can be. There are tons of sandboxes players love outside of the MMORPG industry (the MMORPG industry insists on making the worst possible kind of sandboxes which, unsurprisingly, don't do well.)
And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...
Sandbox = freedom
Themepark = directed game play
I agree with axe. Sandbox is about what I can build/shape/make in the world whether it's quests, mobs, houses...
Themepark is about rides.
You can't just say freedom vs directed because many themepark have more freedom in how someone plays vs sandbox. E.G. ryzom is a very limited game, no impact to the game world, instanced housing, all magic is essentially the same, as is combat, and only a dozen or so templates for crafting (not talking stats, just graphics). WoW has more freedome than Ryzom, yet Ryzom is a sandbox and WoW is a themepark.
So again, simply saying freedome isn't enough.
In a sandbox we the players are expected and and can impact the game world through things we create. Just like, you know, an actual sandbox.
edit - linear vs not doesn't cut it either. I can play wow very linearly going from one zone to another following the quest hubs. Or I can go in whatever zone I want, trying to fight whatever mob I can. I can do get to max by grinding, questing, dungeons, pvp, or even gathering. Because WoW has so many options for leveling and how/where I choose to play it is less linear than many other games.
Sandbox is about impact to the world.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Well I did not play Skyrim, i simply am too in to MMO's to bother with Single Player games at this time.
But....
Traditionally, in Single Player Games there is another term to express Freedom, and that is "open Ended" is it possible that Skyrim is actually an Open Ended game and it gets misinterpreted as a Sandbox?
In my view, a Sanbox Game is a Step further up the Freedom ladder, and contains the ability to change the world as well as Open Ended Style Gameplay.
For thos ethat may have experienced Both...
What would be your comparison of Skyrim and Mount & Blade?
I see Mount & Blade more as a Sandbox, because you can actually change the world Conquer Castles Devellop Villages Build Armies and Alter the Geo-Political Landscape of the game as you want...it is Open Ended Gameplay meaning that you can go any direction you want and are not guided by a Story or by quests, but it is Sanbox because of the capacity to make changes to the world.
So which statement actually describes Skyrim? Can you do both? Explore and Roam Freeely as well as Change the world, or can you do only the Free exploring and adventuring?
if you can only do one then it is an Open Ended Gameplay approach, but not a Sandbox.
Cheers!
No that is something else entirely. It might fall under "True sandbox" but what the industry and most consider as a "sandbox" game which is one that primarily has a sandbox feel and features is not to the exteme as you explained above. This is probably why there is such a debate about sandbox is that some people are defining freedom to the extreme. Now I can understand why as in a sandbox you can "build" things as you see fit. Perhaps the games currently put into the category of sandbox should be more like an infinity pool in which the world and quests and things you can do seem limitless but you can't actually change the dimensions or boundaries of the world itself.
These games however do not fall under themepark. If we used theme to the extreme every game would fall under this umbrella. What is defined as theme park games today have many more limits than the games mentioned above. Theme parks are linear and while not completely on rails...far closer to that effect than those above that are far closer to real freedom than theme park games.
There is not going to be a consensus on the Skyrim's sandbox status in this thread or any other. So the ultimate question of whether Skyrim's success means there is or is not a large sandbox MMORPG crowd isn't going to be answered that way.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...
Sandbox = freedom
Themepark = directed game play
Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?
In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)
The terms, when taken in the way we mean, are opposites. Freedom to go where you want, like in Skyrim. Directed game play to have to go where the devs direct you, like in WoW zones.
I'm not going through all this again. We've done this so many times before and I don't care anymore. The subs are speaking much louder than anyone here.
Skyrim is a sandbox... lol. wow... really? open world themepark? last I checked Skyrim gameplay is not solely linear. it IS a sandbox. The option to do as you please and complete missions/quests however you want, or hell don't even do that go fight whatever you what or whatevers... The facts don't lie... I'm not sure about the debate you speak of but if the conclusion was that Skyrim is an open world theme park I'd say you guys missed the point of the game.
The same can be said about WOW. You can do dungeons, raids, collect pets, and follow any or no quests.
If Skyrim is a sandbox, wow is also one.
No. WoW is a linear game. Huge difference.
You can do those raids, etc, but you can't do them at any time. You can't waltz into Burning Crusade content before you have done the content before it. There is no reason to go back to Elwynn Forest when you are past the quests there. There is no reason to go to any of these locations, at all, unless you are leveling a new character, or leveling a skill such as mining, which was designed to be leveled as you leveled, and therefore the content at those levels is pointless once you're past it. i.e. linear, pointless to go back.
No. WoW is not a sandbox.
Skyrim, you go back to Whiterun or any of the towns to pursue more quests, new quests, or any quest... The content in the game scales with your level giving you the option to choose. if you revisited a cave of bandits many levels later in Skyrim their level would scale up. You can revisit caves and dungeons in WoW, but the content and reasons are the same. The enemies the same strength, etc.. I'm not against WoW, however, the difference is WoW gives you the illusion of choice while forcing you down a linear path... Skyrim gives you the illusion of choice, but supports that choice by providing many options.
And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...
Sandbox = freedom
Themepark = directed game play
Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?
In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)
The terms, when taken in the way we mean, are opposites. Freedom to go where you want, like in Skyrim. Directed game play to have to go where the devs direct you, like in WoW zones.
I'm not going through all this again. We've done this so many times before and I don't care anymore. The subs are speaking much louder than anyone here.
Open ended = Non-directed gameplay
Themepark = Directed gameplay + Non Customizable World (Preset Rides)
Sandbox = Non directed gameplay + Customizable World
This may satisfy Axehilt's issue with terminology?
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Skyrim is a sandbox... lol. wow... really? open world themepark? last I checked Skyrim gameplay is not solely linear. it IS a sandbox. The option to do as you please and complete missions/quests however you want, or hell don't even do that go fight whatever you what or whatevers... The facts don't lie... I'm not sure about the debate you speak of but if the conclusion was that Skyrim is an open world theme park I'd say you guys missed the point of the game.
The same can be said about WOW. You can do dungeons, raids, collect pets, and follow any or no quests.
If Skyrim is a sandbox, wow is also one.
No. WoW is a linear game. Huge difference.
You can do those raids, etc, but you can't do them at any time. You can't waltz into Burning Crusade content before you have done the content before it. There is no reason to go back to Elwynn Forest when you are past the quests there. There is no reason to go to any of these locations, at all, unless you are leveling a new character, or leveling a skill such as mining, which was designed to be leveled as you leveled, and therefore the content at those levels is pointless once you're past it. i.e. linear, pointless to go back.
No. WoW is not a sandbox.
Skyrim, you go back to Whiterun or any of the towns to pursue more quests, new quests, or any quest... The content in the game scales with your level giving you the option to choose. if you revisited a cave of bandits many levels later in Skyrim their level would scale up. You can revisit caves and dungeons in WoW, but the content and reasons are the same. The enemies the same strength, etc.. I'm not against WoW, however, the difference is WoW gives you the illusion of choice while forcing you down a linear path... Skyrim gives you the illusion of choice, but supports that choice by providing many options.
One could very easily make the same arguments about many parts of skyrim though. Wow does have a many areas/cities I can go to to qeusts within a particular level range.
Skyrim I can't do any quest I want, I'm following the story, I don't have to follow the story, however I cannot get to many of the plots in the story without first completing the tasks before. (mind you I have not finisehd the game yet, got bored at about lvl 40, all three times actually). Just like in WoW I can't get to BC without being the appropriate level, I can't accomplish/do/kill certain npcs without being at the right stage in skyrims story.
Skyrims story is completely linear. However I can skip the story and do my own thing.
If I follow the quests and events in WoW it is completely linear. However I can skip the quests and just do my own thing. As creslin stated WoW is one more the least linear games out there right now.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Its a very Broad and Open definition. Like a Sandbox.
Not so clearly Directed and Defined. Like a Themepark
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
only true popular, modern sandbox games i can think of are terraria, minecraft, gary's mod, the sims and second life.
if there is even one npc hinting of story content to follow then can it really be considered an open world? (ie skyrim, etc) i would consider those non-linear not sandbox.
You're not getting it.
Skyrim isn't a sandbox. The "rides" are fixed. The player doesn't manipulate them (they're not "sand".) The quests and dungeons are purely determined by the devs. They're rides, not sand.
Skyrim as a MMORPG would be an open world themepark, if done true to the game's original design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Linearity has nothing to do with a game being sandbox or themepark.
The root of the "themepark" analogy doesn't even include linearity, lol! When's the last time you visited a linear themepark in real life?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Questing is a themepark mechanic and a really bad one. Themeparks in general are horrible games that somehow make money through use of Pavlovian principles. Gamers become addicted to their content and pay for it despite it not being fun. Why do they kill 10 rats? To get to max level so they can have fun and don't have to grind anymore. However, once they reach max level, they quit and find another mmorpg. Then they kill 10 rats until the level cap again, only to quit. They never actually have fun. Stop the crazyiness!11!! Wake up!!!!!
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
I really want to respond...but I just can't. WoW a sandbox? And more so than Skyrim??? This just proves my point about todays gaming generation...jeez.
If the devs create the content, it's a themepark.
In Skyrim:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
LOL... so some random dev, and some random article says Eve (made by CCP, a non-public company) has 450k subs and it's "true"...
But EA, a publicly traded company that would be committing securities fraud by lying says they have 1.2m subs, and you say they're lying...
WRONG. First of all houses doesn't even factor in or at least so little it makes no difference in the definition of a "Sandbox" game. Secondly quests are always fixed, the difference is whether the player can run into said quests through adventuring on their own and it falls into their laps rather than being led in a linear fashion from one place to the next along the story line. Monsters fixed? Aren't they always? Now if you mean location wise I'd say that made more sense but in Skyrim it's pretty much random or at least based on the climate as it should be. Spawn dynamic based on rules...um you're in some sort of RP fantasy world where the player just make believes he is wherever they want to be whenver they want to be...Sure I'd love to morph into a dragon too and fly around on a whim but that's just plain unrealistic and dumb.
Themebox does not equate to anything that is created by devs...sorry. No more than complete and total freedom equates to sandbox. You're being ridiculously extreme.
Demogorgon, Axehilt is a game developer. Although he has denied having a "personal stake in Themepark MMOs".
I and others have explained to him what we, the players, mean by "Sandbox" and "Themepark" many times on these forums. Just last week I went around with him on this exact same issue. Yet he insists on the meaning that the gaming developers have put on the terms. Especially "Sandbox". Meanings that are beyond reasonable and paint the worst possible image of what a Sandbox game is about. This has been going on for well over a year, maybe over 2 years.
I'll leave it to you to speculate on why he does this, and in such plenty, and so consistently.
Once upon a time....
1. I never said houses are a requirement for a game to be sandbox. I said that customizable housing is a sandbox feature. It's sand for you to play in and customize.
2. Quest are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed with player-created quests. In those games, quests were a sandbox feature.
3. Monsters are predominantly fixed, but not always. Games have existed where players can program their own mob behavior and/or attributes. In those games, monsters were a sandbox feature.
4. When you consider the features that make up typical gameplay in a game, that's what type of game a game is. For Skyrim since house-customization isn't the #1 thing done and the rest of the features are themepark rides, the game is obviously a themepark.
Themeparks have rides. Dev-created content players ride.
Sandboxes have sand. Content that players create or manipulate.
This is the simple truth of what created these two terms.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How does "player-created content" paint sandboxes in a bad light?
I've said a hundred times that a well-made sandbox which focuses on being a game first (and a world second) could do incredibly well.
You're hopelessly stuck on painting me as some bad person, and you really need to get over it.
For the 10th time in this thread:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Never thought of it this way (or perhpas more accurately, never so succinctly), and I have to say I tend to like/agree with this definitions. Makes sense.
Curious - based upon this definition, which of the current "main stream" MMORPG's (if any) would you consider to offer primarily sandbox features? EvE? Any others?
And for about the 1,000 time on these forums, with you...
Once upon a time....
Well I did not play Skyrim, i simply am too in to MMO's to bother with Single Player games at this time.
But....
Traditionally, in Single Player Games there is another term to express Freedom, and that is "open Ended" is it possible that Skyrim is actually an Open Ended game and it gets misinterpreted as a Sandbox?
In my view, a Sanbox Game is a Step further up the Freedom ladder, and contains the ability to change the world as well as Open Ended Style Gameplay.
For thos ethat may have experienced Both...
What would be your comparison of Skyrim and Mount & Blade?
I see Mount & Blade more as a Sandbox, because you can actually change the world Conquer Castles Devellop Villages Build Armies and Alter the Geo-Political Landscape of the game as you want...it is Open Ended Gameplay meaning that you can go any direction you want and are not guided by a Story or by quests, but it is Sanbox because of the capacity to make changes to the world.
So which statement actually describes Skyrim? Can you do both? Explore and Roam Freeely as well as Change the world, or can you do only the Free exploring and adventuring?
if you can only do one then it is an Open Ended Gameplay approach, but not a Sandbox.
Cheers!
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Doesn't it concern you that your terms and definitions have nothing to do with one another?
In a real-world themepark there is no direction enforced upon visitors, and in fact you're totally free to ride whatever rides you want (exactly like Skyrim.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Still wrong. That is not the difference between Sandboxes and Themeparks. In it's simplest form Themebox are linear and Sandboxes aren't. But you can't use the extremes of either and say it has to follow those to a tee to fit one or the other which is what you are doing.
In Skyrim I can be any class I want, I can raise any skill I want, I can go where I want and do what I want within the boundaries of the world and even if I didn't follow any sort of order it still fits the lore and purpose of the world and it's people. The story line does not set limits upon my character. This is a sandbox. Also placed into this category are games like Red Dead Redemption, Assasins Creed II, Fallout, GTA, etc. And those aren't my picks those are picks by the industry of games that are considered 'sandbox' games.
In a Theme park my character is limited to whatever class I choose generally, my skill sets are confined to whatever tree generally, I usually have to complete x quests on whatever planet or area etc. to move to the next place. I usually can't just explore random x place and have quests fall into my lap and still make sense to the overall purpose of the world and it's people or the lore or general story line...which I can do in Skyrim.
I agree with axe. Sandbox is about what I can build/shape/make in the world whether it's quests, mobs, houses...
Themepark is about rides.
You can't just say freedom vs directed because many themepark have more freedom in how someone plays vs sandbox. E.G. ryzom is a very limited game, no impact to the game world, instanced housing, all magic is essentially the same, as is combat, and only a dozen or so templates for crafting (not talking stats, just graphics). WoW has more freedome than Ryzom, yet Ryzom is a sandbox and WoW is a themepark.
So again, simply saying freedome isn't enough.
In a sandbox we the players are expected and and can impact the game world through things we create. Just like, you know, an actual sandbox.
edit - linear vs not doesn't cut it either. I can play wow very linearly going from one zone to another following the quest hubs. Or I can go in whatever zone I want, trying to fight whatever mob I can. I can do get to max by grinding, questing, dungeons, pvp, or even gathering. Because WoW has so many options for leveling and how/where I choose to play it is less linear than many other games.
Sandbox is about impact to the world.
No that is something else entirely. It might fall under "True sandbox" but what the industry and most consider as a "sandbox" game which is one that primarily has a sandbox feel and features is not to the exteme as you explained above. This is probably why there is such a debate about sandbox is that some people are defining freedom to the extreme. Now I can understand why as in a sandbox you can "build" things as you see fit. Perhaps the games currently put into the category of sandbox should be more like an infinity pool in which the world and quests and things you can do seem limitless but you can't actually change the dimensions or boundaries of the world itself.
These games however do not fall under themepark. If we used theme to the extreme every game would fall under this umbrella. What is defined as theme park games today have many more limits than the games mentioned above. Theme parks are linear and while not completely on rails...far closer to that effect than those above that are far closer to real freedom than theme park games.
There is not going to be a consensus on the Skyrim's sandbox status in this thread or any other. So the ultimate question of whether Skyrim's success means there is or is not a large sandbox MMORPG crowd isn't going to be answered that way.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The terms, when taken in the way we mean, are opposites. Freedom to go where you want, like in Skyrim. Directed game play to have to go where the devs direct you, like in WoW zones.
I'm not going through all this again. We've done this so many times before and I don't care anymore. The subs are speaking much louder than anyone here.
Once upon a time....
No. WoW is a linear game. Huge difference.
You can do those raids, etc, but you can't do them at any time. You can't waltz into Burning Crusade content before you have done the content before it. There is no reason to go back to Elwynn Forest when you are past the quests there. There is no reason to go to any of these locations, at all, unless you are leveling a new character, or leveling a skill such as mining, which was designed to be leveled as you leveled, and therefore the content at those levels is pointless once you're past it. i.e. linear, pointless to go back.
No. WoW is not a sandbox.
Skyrim, you go back to Whiterun or any of the towns to pursue more quests, new quests, or any quest... The content in the game scales with your level giving you the option to choose. if you revisited a cave of bandits many levels later in Skyrim their level would scale up. You can revisit caves and dungeons in WoW, but the content and reasons are the same. The enemies the same strength, etc.. I'm not against WoW, however, the difference is WoW gives you the illusion of choice while forcing you down a linear path... Skyrim gives you the illusion of choice, but supports that choice by providing many options.
Open ended = Non-directed gameplay
Themepark = Directed gameplay + Non Customizable World (Preset Rides)
Sandbox = Non directed gameplay + Customizable World
This may satisfy Axehilt's issue with terminology?
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
One could very easily make the same arguments about many parts of skyrim though. Wow does have a many areas/cities I can go to to qeusts within a particular level range.
Skyrim I can't do any quest I want, I'm following the story, I don't have to follow the story, however I cannot get to many of the plots in the story without first completing the tasks before. (mind you I have not finisehd the game yet, got bored at about lvl 40, all three times actually). Just like in WoW I can't get to BC without being the appropriate level, I can't accomplish/do/kill certain npcs without being at the right stage in skyrims story.
Skyrims story is completely linear. However I can skip the story and do my own thing.
If I follow the quests and events in WoW it is completely linear. However I can skip the quests and just do my own thing. As creslin stated WoW is one more the least linear games out there right now.
I have trouble fittign games with class systems into the sandbox genre. I think fully customizable characters is a big part of what makes a sandbox.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"