why play a game that you can only do "x" if you can play a game where u can do "x,y.z etc" ?
For the ppl who dont know yet,archeage have graphs,dynamics of the best tm out there plus all sb contents,moreover XL is going beyond and developing its own original contents and features
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys FH1942 best tanker for 4years Playing WWII OL for some years untill now many other for some months
Communicate with words please like a human being, so we can understand eachother.
You dismiss peoples examples, like mine with WoW and the Excibit A, without giving any valid reasons, solelly based on your convictions, and now you are accusing me of turning this in to a religion?
Projection much?
You dismissed my point solely because I gave one exemple and you gave several Game names (without even explaining their core gameplay btw), and without even commenting on the content and perspectiove of the described gameplay in my example, at least countering or arguing part of the example even.
Well, you may add to my same example as wow also, AoC, WAR, LOTRO, Allods, Runes of Magic, SW:TOR, Lineage II, AION...all prime examples of Directed, Linear and very Themepark gameplay...
So there are your examples..any isight to the actual content of the argument or are we going to argue about the exact number of Examples given now in order to validate or refute the points made?
My convictions are based on the strongest logical evidence to enter the discussion. Science, not religion.
Exhibit A was proof that open-world gameplay is often described as "sandbox". (Evidence that A = Y.)
It doesn't deal with the fact that some themeparks are also open world (SkyrIm, GTA, early WOW.) So it doesn't disprove the fact that some themeparks can be open world (that B can also be Y.)
You can list any number of themeparks which are linear (Bs which are Z) and that won't change the fact that some themeparks are open world and/or non-linear.
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
Communicate with words please like a human being, so we can understand eachother.
You dismiss peoples examples, like mine with WoW and the Excibit A, without giving any valid reasons, solelly based on your convictions, and now you are accusing me of turning this in to a religion?
Projection much?
You dismissed my point solely because I gave one exemple and you gave several Game names (without even explaining their core gameplay btw), and without even commenting on the content and perspectiove of the described gameplay in my example, at least countering or arguing part of the example even.
Well, you may add to my same example as wow also, AoC, WAR, LOTRO, Allods, Runes of Magic, SW:TOR, Lineage II, AION...all prime examples of Directed, Linear and very Themepark gameplay...
So there are your examples..any isight to the actual content of the argument or are we going to argue about the exact number of Examples given now in order to validate or refute the points made?
My convictions are based on the strongest logical evidence to enter the discussion. Science, not religion.
Exhibit A was proof that open-world gameplay is often described as "sandbox". (Evidence that A = Y.)
It doesn't deal with the fact that some themeparks are also open world (SkyrIm, GTA, early WOW.) So it doesn't disprove the fact that some themeparks can be open world (that B can also be Y.)
You can list any number of themeparks which are linear (Bs which are Z) and that won't change the fact that some themeparks are open world and/or non-linear.
FYI, you are preaching to the choir with your comment about Religion and Science. Just so you know
Nevertheless, I too agree with Creslin in my perception of your style of Argumentation. Because you come off as Dogmatic.
Even if you try to use scientific approach with Logic, you dismiss the value and content of the arguments of people, scientifically speaking you dismiss new evidence brought forth and the Scientific method is not a close minded one, it is an open minded one, where every Hypothesis is tested and retested with new evidence to verify its validity, most importantly realising that a given hypothethis is wrong is equally exciting and important as one being proven right, in Science. Because it permits to learn something new take it under account and then go forth with a reformulated Hypothesis and start the validation testing again, and progress in understanding and accomplishment.
And that is something you do not do, you have your mind set to one way and one way only and try to use Logical tools to dismiss anything else with language games.
So lets put the language games on the side and actually have an open discussion taking under account eachother's point considering them evaluating them within eachother's frameworks of thought and if these prove us wrong be equally elated about it.
Cheers!
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
What he is saying is that non-linear or non-directed is a meaningless term because both themepark and sandbox have non-linear and linear elements.
WoW lets you chose how to level up, yet it's a themepark.
Skyrim has scripted, content and a linear storyline, yet many consider sandbox.
So becausee they are in both games, the linearity cannot be the determining factor.
Which I agree with.
The key points in Creslin's arguments are that a sandbox allows creativity. Thats it. You can create things.
Well, I can accept that both Types can have linear and non-lenear elements the same as both typoes can have Housing elements and features, Full Loot Free for All PvP, crafting and an economy.
Yet, we are not talking about elements, at least I am not looking at it from that angle, I am talking about Core Gameplay which stays consistent thruout the Game.
Like for instance WoW (and all the other examples I stated previously, just don't want to get a reply about the fact that I mention only one example again :P ), it may have some non linear elements, yet it also has a Linear Core gameplay which does not change from start to end from level 1 to level 85 it is there...
So that defines its type.
If we accept that definition than at it's core skyrim is a themepark.
Your right I can't do certain dungeons and things in WoW until I reach a certain level.
In Skyrim I cannot fight certain bosses, get to certain areas until I complete some parts of the story. That is the game at it's core. Same with GTA and most of those other "sandbox" spgs. Everything else is a side game. And yet we still argue about whether it's a sandbox or not. This is why I assert that it can't be the definiting characteristic.
The defining characteristing is how much creativity the game gives you. If you get to create, it is sandbox, or at least more sandboxy.
edit - as soon as one makes the argument that you are not required to do those story paths in Skyrim, well one is not required to do those dungeon's or any dungeons in WoW so again it is the same argument.
At it's heart a game that gives more creativity to the player will in inherently be less linear, by the less linearity is a byproduct of the creativity. A sandbox has you create things, therefore a sandbox game has to be about creativity.
Then maybe at its Core Skyrim is a themepark after all. is that a possibility? As I stated in an earlier reply I have not played it, so i cannot comment in an authoritative way as a player, observer or experimentator.
I only form opinions based on the available accounts and descriptions of that game from the players that post about it.
In your third paragraph you do say that in Skyrim, however, you cannot complete some parts of the story. That as per my previous reply and yours would mean that Skyrim while A sandbox at its core, does have some Linear elements, like in this instance its Story. That is fine, I think I agreed that both types can harbor linear and non linear elements, and also as per Axehilt's argument.
Yet, and I posit is that having some elements of the other type still does not define the game itself if the core gameplay is non linear and not directed.
The question becomes then, can a player fully progress in whatever means Skyrim offers, without completing the story. Is the story paramount to progression in it? Is it essential in relation to progression or can a player progress without it?
In WoW, while yes you have the option to opt out of the Instances and raids of the agme, your progression is hindered, and since in WoW progression is not only defined by one's level but also by one;'s gear, and also progression is the focus of the game itself.
Opting out means that your character stops progressing. The game has a Linear Directed progression from begining to what is considered the end, meaning the Top Raid which drops the top Gear. If you choose to stop before that , it is a choice, but the game at that point does not offer you other means to attain the same level as thos ethat do complete the raids, because the direction is towards the top raid nevertheless.
So, it is a Themepark, because it has a direction and linear gameplay, which has a begining and an end, even if this end gets pushed further away with every expansion, it is still a linear progression.
While in a Sandbox game, you would be able to opt out completelly from any element of the game and still attain Progression levels according to your own desired and chosen path equally to other players. This is what Freedom and non directed gameplay or non linear gameplay implies, there is not only "one way" or a "best way" or "one direction" to attain success. While in a themepark there is only one direction, even if it has sub-branches for variety.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Themepark gameplay is developer rewarded gameplay, along with normal rewards. It creates a best way to play. Like questing over mob grinding. What makes one themepark is the extra rewards.
Calling skyrim a themepark at its core is saying it is reward based at it's core is it not?
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
The only games with no player created content which are considered sandboxes are the ones which are actually themeparks.
Like Skyrim, which so closely reflects a real-world themepark in design (lots of rides (dungeons) to explore at your leisure) that it's nonsense that it could be called a sandbox.
As for definitions:
The first definition you cited was of open world, not sandbox.
The second definition would include WOW as a sandbox. If we want to pretend virtually all MMORPGs are sandboxes, I'm fine with that because admittedly WOW does have sandbox-like properties. But I think you'd struggle to find players who'd agree with this second definition, because you definitely won't find many who consider WOW a themepark.
My definitions of the terms come from the root words they clearly originated from (themepark and sandbox). They didn't pick these terms arbitrarily. They picked them because themeparks have fixed dev-created rides and sandboxes are about player manipulation (or creation.) Themeparks have rides. Sandboxes have sand.
I don't pretend like UO or EVE defines sandbox game. I pretend like the more sandbox a game is, the more readily it can be called a sandbox. And out of all the MMORPGs, these two games are pretty damn sandbox.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
The only games with no player created content which are considered sandboxes are the ones which are actually themeparks.
Like Skyrim, which so closely reflects a real-world themepark in design (lots of rides (dungeons) to explore at your leisure) that it's nonsense that it could be called a sandbox.
As for definitions:
The first definition you cited was of open world, not sandbox.
The second definition would include WOW as a sandbox. If we want to pretend virtually all MMORPGs are sandboxes, I'm fine with that because admittedly WOW does have sandbox-like properties. But I think you'd struggle to find players who'd agree with this second definition, because you definitely won't find many who consider WOW a themepark.
My definitions of the terms come from the root words they clearly originated from (themepark and sandbox). They didn't pick these terms arbitrarily. They picked them because themeparks have fixed dev-created rides and sandboxes are about player manipulation (or creation.) Themeparks have rides. Sandboxes have sand.
I don't pretend like UO or EVE defines sandbox game. I pretend like the more sandbox a game is, the more readily it can be called a sandbox. And out of all the MMORPGs, these two games are pretty damn sandbox.
That's nice. My definitions come from what everyone else actually believes.
If you ask ANY GAMER outside of this little MMORPG bubble what a sandbox game is, they will probably describe Skyrim, GTA, Minecraft, Burnout: Paradise, etc.
Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world. And you know what? It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game. And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR. Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.
The term (open world) 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.
This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world. The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.
And honestly, I find it annoying. Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.
So you know what? How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.
And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine. But you need to use a different term. Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.
See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what? We all agreed back then. So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
The only games with no player created content which are considered sandboxes are the ones which are actually themeparks.
Like Skyrim, which so closely reflects a real-world themepark in design (lots of rides (dungeons) to explore at your leisure) that it's nonsense that it could be called a sandbox.
As for definitions:
The first definition you cited was of open world, not sandbox.
The second definition would include WOW as a sandbox. If we want to pretend virtually all MMORPGs are sandboxes, I'm fine with that because admittedly WOW does have sandbox-like properties. But I think you'd struggle to find players who'd agree with this second definition, because you definitely won't find many who consider WOW a themepark.
My definitions of the terms come from the root words they clearly originated from (themepark and sandbox). They didn't pick these terms arbitrarily. They picked them because themeparks have fixed dev-created rides and sandboxes are about player manipulation (or creation.) Themeparks have rides. Sandboxes have sand.
I don't pretend like UO or EVE defines sandbox game. I pretend like the more sandbox a game is, the more readily it can be called a sandbox. And out of all the MMORPGs, these two games are pretty damn sandbox.
That's nice. My definitions come from what everyone else actually believes.
If you ask ANY GAMER outside of this little MMORPG bubble what a sandbox game is, they will probably describe Skyrim, GTA, Minecraft, Burnout: Paradise, etc.
Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world. And you know what? It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game. And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR. Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.
The term (open world) 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.
This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world. The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.
And honestly, I find it annoying. Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.
So you know what? How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.
And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine. But you need to use a different term. Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.
See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what? We all agreed back then. So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
The only games with no player created content which are considered sandboxes are the ones which are actually themeparks.
Like Skyrim, which so closely reflects a real-world themepark in design (lots of rides (dungeons) to explore at your leisure) that it's nonsense that it could be called a sandbox.
As for definitions:
The first definition you cited was of open world, not sandbox.
The second definition would include WOW as a sandbox. If we want to pretend virtually all MMORPGs are sandboxes, I'm fine with that because admittedly WOW does have sandbox-like properties. But I think you'd struggle to find players who'd agree with this second definition, because you definitely won't find many who consider WOW a themepark.
My definitions of the terms come from the root words they clearly originated from (themepark and sandbox). They didn't pick these terms arbitrarily. They picked them because themeparks have fixed dev-created rides and sandboxes are about player manipulation (or creation.) Themeparks have rides. Sandboxes have sand.
I don't pretend like UO or EVE defines sandbox game. I pretend like the more sandbox a game is, the more readily it can be called a sandbox. And out of all the MMORPGs, these two games are pretty damn sandbox.
That's nice. My definitions come from what everyone else actually believes.
If you ask ANY GAMER outside of this little MMORPG bubble what a sandbox game is, they will probably describe Skyrim, GTA, Minecraft, Burnout: Paradise, etc.
Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world. And you know what? It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game. And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR. Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.
The term (open world) 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.
This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world. The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.
And honestly, I find it annoying. Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.
So you know what? How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.
And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine. But you need to use a different term. Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.
See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what? We all agreed back then. So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE
Agreed.
As well, well said.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Communicate with words please like a human being, so we can understand eachother.
You dismiss peoples examples, like mine with WoW and the Excibit A, without giving any valid reasons, solelly based on your convictions, and now you are accusing me of turning this in to a religion?
Projection much?
You dismissed my point solely because I gave one exemple and you gave several Game names (without even explaining their core gameplay btw), and without even commenting on the content and perspectiove of the described gameplay in my example, at least countering or arguing part of the example even.
Well, you may add to my same example as wow also, AoC, WAR, LOTRO, Allods, Runes of Magic, SW:TOR, Lineage II, AION...all prime examples of Directed, Linear and very Themepark gameplay...
So there are your examples..any isight to the actual content of the argument or are we going to argue about the exact number of Examples given now in order to validate or refute the points made?
My convictions are based on the strongest logical evidence to enter the discussion. Science, not religion.
Exhibit A was proof that open-world gameplay is often described as "sandbox". (Evidence that A = Y.)
It doesn't deal with the fact that some themeparks are also open world (SkyrIm, GTA, early WOW.) So it doesn't disprove the fact that some themeparks can be open world (that B can also be Y.)
You can list any number of themeparks which are linear (Bs which are Z) and that won't change the fact that some themeparks are open world and/or non-linear.
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
Sandboxes do involve player created content. From producing houses/towns to actual PVE tools, or simply FFA PVP/forced dependencies ala SWG....the players are making their own content.
The themepark doesnt allow for it. It doesnt leave the world for the players to craft. Instead the space is used for dev created encounters, or whatever landmarks they wish to place.
Folks wanna chime in about SP sandboxes.....yet they are not the same as the MMO sandbox. Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout Vegas, GTA4.......I own all these games, and they pretty much play exactly like Everquest. You do not have tools to create your own PVE content(like say an in game editor), nor are you placing your own buildings. YOu are running thru the content the devs have created for you. Just like a MMO themepark.
Now folks might comment about mods being added to skyrim, or oblivion.....yet on console none of this is available. Lego Indy 2 though had one, which makes it a hell of a bunch more MMO sandbox than skyrim.
I dont ever see sadbox taking over, despite the claims that they indeed will. I have been on this site 5 yrs listening to the claims, and until sandbox MMOs get anywhere near the numbers of themepark games, I will continue to view it as wishful thinking from sandboxers.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Communicate with words please like a human being, so we can understand eachother.
You dismiss peoples examples, like mine with WoW and the Excibit A, without giving any valid reasons, solelly based on your convictions, and now you are accusing me of turning this in to a religion?
Projection much?
You dismissed my point solely because I gave one exemple and you gave several Game names (without even explaining their core gameplay btw), and without even commenting on the content and perspectiove of the described gameplay in my example, at least countering or arguing part of the example even.
Well, you may add to my same example as wow also, AoC, WAR, LOTRO, Allods, Runes of Magic, SW:TOR, Lineage II, AION...all prime examples of Directed, Linear and very Themepark gameplay...
So there are your examples..any isight to the actual content of the argument or are we going to argue about the exact number of Examples given now in order to validate or refute the points made?
My convictions are based on the strongest logical evidence to enter the discussion. Science, not religion.
Exhibit A was proof that open-world gameplay is often described as "sandbox". (Evidence that A = Y.)
It doesn't deal with the fact that some themeparks are also open world (SkyrIm, GTA, early WOW.) So it doesn't disprove the fact that some themeparks can be open world (that B can also be Y.)
You can list any number of themeparks which are linear (Bs which are Z) and that won't change the fact that some themeparks are open world and/or non-linear.
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
Sandboxes do involve player created content. From producing houses/towns to actual PVE tools, or simply FFA PVP/forced dependencies ala SWG....the players are making their own content.
The themepark doesnt allow for it. It doesnt leave the world for the players to craft. Instead the space is used for dev created encounters, or whatever landmarks they wish to place.
Folks wanna chime in about SP sandboxes.....yet they are not the same as the MMO sandbox. Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout Vegas, GTA4.......I own all these games, and they pretty much play exactly like Everquest. You do not have tools to create your own PVE content(like say an in game editor), nor are you placing your own buildings. YOu are running thru the content the devs have created for you. Just like a MMO themepark.
Now folks might comment about mods being added to skyrim, or oblivion.....yet on console none of this is available. Lego Indy 2 though had one, which makes it a hell of a bunch more MMO sandbox than skyrim.
I dont ever see sadbox taking over, despite the claims that they indeed will. I have been on this site 5 yrs listening to the claims, and until sandbox MMOs get anywhere near the numbers of themepark games, I will continue to view it as wishful thinking from sandboxers.
Out of game ability to modify game files has nothing to do with a game being a sandbox game whether you insist that it does or not. It means its a moddable game. Sandbox / Themepark refers to and always has referred to the way the game plays when its running.
Of course sandbox games won't take over, nor wil themepark games (of which there are zero pure of each) and its likely that the numbers of casuals (mostly themepark gamers) will always be higher than semi-casual and hardcore gamers (mostly themepark/sandbox or sandbox).
Communicate with words please like a human being, so we can understand eachother.
You dismiss peoples examples, like mine with WoW and the Excibit A, without giving any valid reasons, solelly based on your convictions, and now you are accusing me of turning this in to a religion?
Projection much?
You dismissed my point solely because I gave one exemple and you gave several Game names (without even explaining their core gameplay btw), and without even commenting on the content and perspectiove of the described gameplay in my example, at least countering or arguing part of the example even.
Well, you may add to my same example as wow also, AoC, WAR, LOTRO, Allods, Runes of Magic, SW:TOR, Lineage II, AION...all prime examples of Directed, Linear and very Themepark gameplay...
So there are your examples..any isight to the actual content of the argument or are we going to argue about the exact number of Examples given now in order to validate or refute the points made?
My convictions are based on the strongest logical evidence to enter the discussion. Science, not religion.
Exhibit A was proof that open-world gameplay is often described as "sandbox". (Evidence that A = Y.)
It doesn't deal with the fact that some themeparks are also open world (SkyrIm, GTA, early WOW.) So it doesn't disprove the fact that some themeparks can be open world (that B can also be Y.)
You can list any number of themeparks which are linear (Bs which are Z) and that won't change the fact that some themeparks are open world and/or non-linear.
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
Sandboxes do involve player created content. From producing houses/towns to actual PVE tools, or simply FFA PVP/forced dependencies ala SWG....the players are making their own content.
The themepark doesnt allow for it. It doesnt leave the world for the players to craft. Instead the space is used for dev created encounters, or whatever landmarks they wish to place.
Folks wanna chime in about SP sandboxes.....yet they are not the same as the MMO sandbox. Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout Vegas, GTA4.......I own all these games, and they pretty much play exactly like Everquest. You do not have tools to create your own PVE content(like say an in game editor), nor are you placing your own buildings. YOu are running thru the content the devs have created for you. Just like a MMO themepark.
Now folks might comment about mods being added to skyrim, or oblivion.....yet on console none of this is available. Lego Indy 2 though had one, which makes it a hell of a bunch more MMO sandbox than skyrim.
I dont ever see sadbox taking over, despite the claims that they indeed will. I have been on this site 5 yrs listening to the claims, and until sandbox MMOs get anywhere near the numbers of themepark games, I will continue to view it as wishful thinking from sandboxers.
Out of game ability to modify game files has nothing to do with a game being a sandbox game whether you insist that it does or not. It means its a moddable game. Sandbox / Themepark refers to and always has referred to the way the game plays when its running.
Of course sandbox games won't take over, nor wil themepark games (of which there are zero pure of each) and its likely that the numbers of casuals (mostly themepark gamers) will always be higher than semi-casual and hardcore gamers (mostly themepark/sandbox or sandbox).
I am not so convinced about that second statement. Since there has not been a good Sandbox as of later, we simply cannot know with certainty what will happen. All opinions making predictions is simple speculation in my view based on available data and observation, yet the point is that the data is biased because there are only themepark MMO's being produced. And a conclusion made based on biased data, is bound to be biased as well.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Folks wanna chime in about SP sandboxes.....yet they are not the same as the MMO sandbox. Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout Vegas, GTA4.......I own all these games, and they pretty much play exactly like Everquest. You do not have tools to create your own PVE content(like say an in game editor), nor are you placing your own buildings. YOu are running thru the content the devs have created for you. Just like a MMO themepark.
Creslins last post has pretty much nailed what sandbox is and it has nothing to do with player made content but how the games are playd. Free roam games. What you can do is start to argue what the best sandbox game is, or create a sub catogory that will exclude games like eq2 and startrek as they have player created content but they are nowere near a sandbox game.
This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world. The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.
And honestly, I find it annoying. Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.
So you know what? How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.
And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine. But you need to use a different term. Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.
See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what? We all agreed back then. So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE
GTA, Elder Scrolls and Burnout Paradise are not sandboxes. If you think that driving around a city and completing races/objectives in the order you want makes a sandbox? -You've got a pretty bad definition of a sandbox if you do. They are non-linear, but not sandboxes. Yes, sandboxes pretty much imply non-linearity, but themeparks do not imply linearity.
Minecraft is a sandbox. A good example of a sandbox RPG would be Mount & Blade. Sims is a sandbox.
Lemme throw a few games at you to see if you think they are sandboxes or no: Sid Meier's Pirates!, Baldur's Gate series - If Skyrim is sandbox, shouldn't BG be that too? Diablo seres, are those sandboxes? What about Nethack, Adom, Dungeon Crawler etc. Is Civilization, Total War "sandbox RTS"s compared to the Command & Conquer style campaign? If so, wouldn't that make the Skirmish mode in many RTSs then the "sandbox mode"?
This is why I don't think it is smart to grade every game one-dimensionally between themepark and sandbox. In the end it tells very little about the game, and there's a ton of ambiguous examples out there which may be themepark one day and sandboxes the next. Its stupid.
But you can call whatever you want a sandbox, makes no difference to me. Being a sandbox or no does not bring further value to the game in my eyes. No label does since people always have their own definitions about them. Some are good/useful, some are bad/useless.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Folks wanna chime in about SP sandboxes.....yet they are not the same as the MMO sandbox. Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout Vegas, GTA4.......I own all these games, and they pretty much play exactly like Everquest. You do not have tools to create your own PVE content(like say an in game editor), nor are you placing your own buildings. YOu are running thru the content the devs have created for you. Just like a MMO themepark.
Creslins last post has pretty much nailed what sandbox is and it has nothing to do with player made content but how the games are playd. Free roam games. What you can do is start to argue what the best sandbox game is, or create a sub catogory that will exclude games like eq2 and startrek as they have player created content but they are nowere near a sandbox game.
Player created content has everything to do with deeming a game as a sandbox. It is a defining feature for MMOs.
From generating their own PVE, or simply having the land reserved to build housing upon. A sandbox allows the player to affect the world. The themepark doesnt allow the user to modify the landscape.
EVE,,,,build space stations
SWG.....build towns
UO....build houses, which according to posts were once lootable by other players
No themepark offers its players the chance to make drastic changes to the landscape. Asking if the game is free roam or not has nothing to do with the distinction in MMOs. Whether I went to Unrest, in EQ, at lvl 5 or 20 it made no difference....the PVE content is not going to be changed by me permenantly. I might spawn the ghost in the basement, but it is part of the pre existing system.
Same for a game like Red Dead or Skyrim....whenever I decide to go do the content doesnt change the fact I am not changing the game to my tastes. I cant plop down a home, nor do the games allow me to create my own PVE content outside of what systems have been provided. The one thing Bethesda did allow was players to kill off NPCs permenantly. In the MMO sphere, this wont happen.
So like I said, there are 2 definitions of sandbox at work. The one for SP games simply means you arent tied into a linear narrative, and are free to move at your own pace. MMO sandboxes however encompass folks being able to make permenant changes to the world, or to affect other players.
I happen to enjoy some SP sandboxes. They give me a shit load of Dev generated content like EQ used to, and TOR is doing presently. The MMO version of sandboxes blow. Building houses, being forced to buy from Owen, lack of a deep PVE experience, dependancy upon certain classes like docs, and forced PVP is akin to being forced to endure a root canal. No thanks.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Bastards: Ryzom - player driven, freeform level+skill hybrid, mostly static. Vanguard - player driven/Q/L, levelbased, mostly static.
Have Fun!
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
Bastards: Ryzom - player driven, freeform level+skill hybrid, mostly static. Vanguard - player driven/Q/L, levelbased, mostly static.
Have Fun!
Skill based or levels has dick to do with the 2 formats.
You list both GTA, and Skyrim as "sandboxes", yet they play just like EQ. The lone difference with Skyrim is that if you kill an NPC it stays dead, and EQ used this mechanic for the Sleeper in Velious....yet both are themeparks in the MMO sense.
If a SP "sandbox" was the same as the MMO version, then what about Red Dead Redemption? It is also labeled "SP sandbox", yet once again it isnt in the vein of UO, SWG, or EVE....it is EQ/WoW/whatever themepark you wanna throw in. Same for GTA, and same for Skyrim.
Fallout 3 allows folks to blow up that nuke in the starter city. It is dev created content. Folks didnt create that themselves, they simply made a choice provided by devs.
City of Heroes provided that mission maker mod. That is sandbox. Users are creating their own PVE content. The majority of CoH is still themepark, yet it provides sandbox mechanics as well. SWG/UO/DF/EVE all allowed folks to build permanent things to add to the game world.....sandbox. The majority of gameplay revolves around it, and a loot system focused on players etc etc.
BTW Vanguard is also a themepark. It is sandboxy like EQ was, yet the main feature is still the PVE content. That content was generated by the Devs.
I really dont understand why folks have such a hard time distinguishing between the 2. Heck I think it is pretty easy to see if a game is focused on PVE content provided by the devs, or if the game focus is whatever the player decides since they have the ability to alter the game world.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Its no longer about the size of the crowd but the definition of Sandbox/Themepark.
Meaning--sandbox is defined too broadly, and we need better sub categories.
Would certainly help with the biggest division in the audience (FFA PVP Full Loot games vs non-) to give them two different titles, because the seperate audiences don't seem to get along very well.
Would also work functionally for developers--"we asked for another BrandX sandbox, not another Full Loot BrandY"--defining exactly what's being requested.
Adding another three or four definition labels would help with the inevitable thread breakdown where the authors discuss (late in the thread, exactly what they mean when they innocently say "sandbox" and other people routinely disagree with their hairsplitting definitions).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
If sandbox fans are a myth then how did Minecraft become so popular?
No, you don't get to enter a thread 25 pages in and ask for a restart. You'll have to actually read it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
TLDR...same ole beating a dead horse discussion. I was just pointing out that he is dead wrong.
50 pages later? Sure you're not just tro...never mind.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
TLDR...same ole beating a dead horse discussion. I was just pointing out that he is dead wrong.
50 pages later? Sure you're not just tro...never mind.
No, actually I just haven't been on this site in over a week. Now, can anyone actually explain why Minecraft is so popular if "the massive sandbox crowd is a myth" ?
Comments
why play a game that you can only do "x" if you can play a game where u can do "x,y.z etc" ?
For the ppl who dont know yet,archeage have graphs,dynamics of the best tm out there plus all sb contents,moreover XL is going beyond and developing its own original contents and features
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months
MMO's I spent the most time playing were Sandbox. Jumpgate, Lineage, Star Wars Galaxies.... 'No fate but what we make'
Funny that you talk about following science, not religiion when you seem to have an almost blind faith in your convictions and are completely closed-minded to anything different regardless of its validity.
You stated earlier that a sandbox involves primarily player-created content, and a themepark involves developer created content. I, and others, have brought forth MANY examples of games that are considered sandboxes and yet have NO player created content at all. In addition, we've shown you definitions of "sandbox" from different sources that all paint sandboxes as being a primarily open, non-linear experience. NEVER in these definitions do they list anything about player-created content.
And yet...you persist. Except now, you're focusing on themeparks instead of sandboxes because I really don't think there's that many concrete definitions of themepark for us to find and argue against you with...so it's easier to hang onto. After all, sandbox games exist both in the single player and MMO world, but themepark is used to describe MMO's exclusively.
I will grant you that there is a large ASSOCIATION between sandboxes and player-created or player-driven content because of games like UO and Eve. So I understand where you get your ideas...I do. That said though...UO and Eve do NOT define "sandbox game." It's a much broader term, and almost universally, it describes a game that is open and non-linear.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
FYI, you are preaching to the choir with your comment about Religion and Science. Just so you know
Nevertheless, I too agree with Creslin in my perception of your style of Argumentation. Because you come off as Dogmatic.
Even if you try to use scientific approach with Logic, you dismiss the value and content of the arguments of people, scientifically speaking you dismiss new evidence brought forth and the Scientific method is not a close minded one, it is an open minded one, where every Hypothesis is tested and retested with new evidence to verify its validity, most importantly realising that a given hypothethis is wrong is equally exciting and important as one being proven right, in Science. Because it permits to learn something new take it under account and then go forth with a reformulated Hypothesis and start the validation testing again, and progress in understanding and accomplishment.
And that is something you do not do, you have your mind set to one way and one way only and try to use Logical tools to dismiss anything else with language games.
So lets put the language games on the side and actually have an open discussion taking under account eachother's point considering them evaluating them within eachother's frameworks of thought and if these prove us wrong be equally elated about it.
Cheers!
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Then maybe at its Core Skyrim is a themepark after all. is that a possibility? As I stated in an earlier reply I have not played it, so i cannot comment in an authoritative way as a player, observer or experimentator.
I only form opinions based on the available accounts and descriptions of that game from the players that post about it.
In your third paragraph you do say that in Skyrim, however, you cannot complete some parts of the story. That as per my previous reply and yours would mean that Skyrim while A sandbox at its core, does have some Linear elements, like in this instance its Story. That is fine, I think I agreed that both types can harbor linear and non linear elements, and also as per Axehilt's argument.
Yet, and I posit is that having some elements of the other type still does not define the game itself if the core gameplay is non linear and not directed.
The question becomes then, can a player fully progress in whatever means Skyrim offers, without completing the story. Is the story paramount to progression in it? Is it essential in relation to progression or can a player progress without it?
In WoW, while yes you have the option to opt out of the Instances and raids of the agme, your progression is hindered, and since in WoW progression is not only defined by one's level but also by one;'s gear, and also progression is the focus of the game itself.
Opting out means that your character stops progressing. The game has a Linear Directed progression from begining to what is considered the end, meaning the Top Raid which drops the top Gear. If you choose to stop before that , it is a choice, but the game at that point does not offer you other means to attain the same level as thos ethat do complete the raids, because the direction is towards the top raid nevertheless.
So, it is a Themepark, because it has a direction and linear gameplay, which has a begining and an end, even if this end gets pushed further away with every expansion, it is still a linear progression.
While in a Sandbox game, you would be able to opt out completelly from any element of the game and still attain Progression levels according to your own desired and chosen path equally to other players. This is what Freedom and non directed gameplay or non linear gameplay implies, there is not only "one way" or a "best way" or "one direction" to attain success. While in a themepark there is only one direction, even if it has sub-branches for variety.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Themepark gameplay is developer rewarded gameplay, along with normal rewards. It creates a best way to play. Like questing over mob grinding. What makes one themepark is the extra rewards.
Calling skyrim a themepark at its core is saying it is reward based at it's core is it not?
The only games with no player created content which are considered sandboxes are the ones which are actually themeparks.
Like Skyrim, which so closely reflects a real-world themepark in design (lots of rides (dungeons) to explore at your leisure) that it's nonsense that it could be called a sandbox.
As for definitions:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's nice. My definitions come from what everyone else actually believes.
If you ask ANY GAMER outside of this little MMORPG bubble what a sandbox game is, they will probably describe Skyrim, GTA, Minecraft, Burnout: Paradise, etc.
Also, about the first defintion...yeah it's a page for open world. And you know what? It basically states that sandbox is an ESSENTIAL PART of an open world game. And goes so far as to say that the "sandbox" portion of an open world game is what makes it NON-LINEAR. Here you go, here's the complete paragraph that I quoted from.
The term (open world) 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.
This crazy sandbox / themepark dichotomy where people think that themeparks are all developer generated content and sandboxes are all player driven content only exists in MMO world. The rest of the world uses the term sandbox to mean basically "non-linear," or a specific aspect of non-linear that means you can play creatively.
And honestly, I find it annoying. Because you get a bunch of people spouting off that games like Elder Scrolls and GTA that EVERYONE ELSE considers sandboxes, aren't sandboxes because they don't fit their super-narrow, personal definition of the term.
So you know what? How about instead of trying to "revoke the sandbox" card of games that ARE and HAVE BEEN sandboxes for like over a decade because they don't fit your definition; you instead try to shift your definition to fit the reality of how people use and have been using the term for years now.
And if you want to describe a game sub-genre that deals with player-driven content, then that's fine. But you need to use a different term. Sandbox is taken...virtual world could work though.
See, I remember when GTA3 came out in 2001 and everyone said, "it's a sandbox game" and you know what? We all agreed back then. So how about, instead of trying to apply your definition of sandbox to existing games that are KNOWN TO BE
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Agreed.
As well, well said.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Sandboxes do involve player created content. From producing houses/towns to actual PVE tools, or simply FFA PVP/forced dependencies ala SWG....the players are making their own content.
The themepark doesnt allow for it. It doesnt leave the world for the players to craft. Instead the space is used for dev created encounters, or whatever landmarks they wish to place.
Folks wanna chime in about SP sandboxes.....yet they are not the same as the MMO sandbox. Red Dead Redemption, Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout Vegas, GTA4.......I own all these games, and they pretty much play exactly like Everquest. You do not have tools to create your own PVE content(like say an in game editor), nor are you placing your own buildings. YOu are running thru the content the devs have created for you. Just like a MMO themepark.
Now folks might comment about mods being added to skyrim, or oblivion.....yet on console none of this is available. Lego Indy 2 though had one, which makes it a hell of a bunch more MMO sandbox than skyrim.
I dont ever see sadbox taking over, despite the claims that they indeed will. I have been on this site 5 yrs listening to the claims, and until sandbox MMOs get anywhere near the numbers of themepark games, I will continue to view it as wishful thinking from sandboxers.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Out of game ability to modify game files has nothing to do with a game being a sandbox game whether you insist that it does or not. It means its a moddable game. Sandbox / Themepark refers to and always has referred to the way the game plays when its running.
Of course sandbox games won't take over, nor wil themepark games (of which there are zero pure of each) and its likely that the numbers of casuals (mostly themepark gamers) will always be higher than semi-casual and hardcore gamers (mostly themepark/sandbox or sandbox).
I am not so convinced about that second statement. Since there has not been a good Sandbox as of later, we simply cannot know with certainty what will happen. All opinions making predictions is simple speculation in my view based on available data and observation, yet the point is that the data is biased because there are only themepark MMO's being produced. And a conclusion made based on biased data, is bound to be biased as well.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Creslins last post has pretty much nailed what sandbox is and it has nothing to do with player made content but how the games are playd. Free roam games. What you can do is start to argue what the best sandbox game is, or create a sub catogory that will exclude games like eq2 and startrek as they have player created content but they are nowere near a sandbox game.
GTA, Elder Scrolls and Burnout Paradise are not sandboxes. If you think that driving around a city and completing races/objectives in the order you want makes a sandbox? -You've got a pretty bad definition of a sandbox if you do. They are non-linear, but not sandboxes. Yes, sandboxes pretty much imply non-linearity, but themeparks do not imply linearity.
Minecraft is a sandbox. A good example of a sandbox RPG would be Mount & Blade. Sims is a sandbox.
Lemme throw a few games at you to see if you think they are sandboxes or no: Sid Meier's Pirates!, Baldur's Gate series - If Skyrim is sandbox, shouldn't BG be that too? Diablo seres, are those sandboxes? What about Nethack, Adom, Dungeon Crawler etc. Is Civilization, Total War "sandbox RTS"s compared to the Command & Conquer style campaign? If so, wouldn't that make the Skirmish mode in many RTSs then the "sandbox mode"?
This is why I don't think it is smart to grade every game one-dimensionally between themepark and sandbox. In the end it tells very little about the game, and there's a ton of ambiguous examples out there which may be themepark one day and sandboxes the next. Its stupid.
But you can call whatever you want a sandbox, makes no difference to me. Being a sandbox or no does not bring further value to the game in my eyes. No label does since people always have their own definitions about them. Some are good/useful, some are bad/useless.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Player created content has everything to do with deeming a game as a sandbox. It is a defining feature for MMOs.
From generating their own PVE, or simply having the land reserved to build housing upon. A sandbox allows the player to affect the world. The themepark doesnt allow the user to modify the landscape.
EVE,,,,build space stations
SWG.....build towns
UO....build houses, which according to posts were once lootable by other players
No themepark offers its players the chance to make drastic changes to the landscape. Asking if the game is free roam or not has nothing to do with the distinction in MMOs. Whether I went to Unrest, in EQ, at lvl 5 or 20 it made no difference....the PVE content is not going to be changed by me permenantly. I might spawn the ghost in the basement, but it is part of the pre existing system.
Same for a game like Red Dead or Skyrim....whenever I decide to go do the content doesnt change the fact I am not changing the game to my tastes. I cant plop down a home, nor do the games allow me to create my own PVE content outside of what systems have been provided. The one thing Bethesda did allow was players to kill off NPCs permenantly. In the MMO sphere, this wont happen.
So like I said, there are 2 definitions of sandbox at work. The one for SP games simply means you arent tied into a linear narrative, and are free to move at your own pace. MMO sandboxes however encompass folks being able to make permenant changes to the world, or to affect other players.
I happen to enjoy some SP sandboxes. They give me a shit load of Dev generated content like EQ used to, and TOR is doing presently. The MMO version of sandboxes blow. Building houses, being forced to buy from Owen, lack of a deep PVE experience, dependancy upon certain classes like docs, and forced PVP is akin to being forced to endure a root canal. No thanks.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Its no longer about the size of the crowd but the definition of Sandbox/Themepark.
Sandbox:
Player driven economy, freeform gameplay, skillbased, player actions reflect in the persistent, dynamic gameworld.
Themepark:
Quest/Loot driven economy, directed gameplay, levelbased, static world with no reaction to player actions.
Sandboxes:
TES - freeform gameplay, skillbased, dynamic world, actions reflect inworld.
GTA - freefrom gameplay, skillbased, dynamic world, partly reflecting.
EVE - player driven, freeform, dynamic, refelcting.
UO - player driven, freeform, dynamic, reflecting.
SWG - player driven, freeform, dynamic, reflecting.
Themeparks:
DAO - Quest/Loot driven, levelbased, static world.
WOW - Q/L, levelbased, static.
EQ - Q/L, levelbased, static.
Daoc - Q/L, levelbased, mostly static.
AoC - Q/L, levelbased, static.
Bastards:
Ryzom - player driven, freeform level+skill hybrid, mostly static.
Vanguard - player driven/Q/L, levelbased, mostly static.
Have Fun!
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
Skill based or levels has dick to do with the 2 formats.
You list both GTA, and Skyrim as "sandboxes", yet they play just like EQ. The lone difference with Skyrim is that if you kill an NPC it stays dead, and EQ used this mechanic for the Sleeper in Velious....yet both are themeparks in the MMO sense.
If a SP "sandbox" was the same as the MMO version, then what about Red Dead Redemption? It is also labeled "SP sandbox", yet once again it isnt in the vein of UO, SWG, or EVE....it is EQ/WoW/whatever themepark you wanna throw in. Same for GTA, and same for Skyrim.
Fallout 3 allows folks to blow up that nuke in the starter city. It is dev created content. Folks didnt create that themselves, they simply made a choice provided by devs.
City of Heroes provided that mission maker mod. That is sandbox. Users are creating their own PVE content. The majority of CoH is still themepark, yet it provides sandbox mechanics as well. SWG/UO/DF/EVE all allowed folks to build permanent things to add to the game world.....sandbox. The majority of gameplay revolves around it, and a loot system focused on players etc etc.
BTW Vanguard is also a themepark. It is sandboxy like EQ was, yet the main feature is still the PVE content. That content was generated by the Devs.
I really dont understand why folks have such a hard time distinguishing between the 2. Heck I think it is pretty easy to see if a game is focused on PVE content provided by the devs, or if the game focus is whatever the player decides since they have the ability to alter the game world.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Skinner box Red Dead lol. Purple epic cowboys hats!!
Love it!
Meaning--sandbox is defined too broadly, and we need better sub categories.
Would certainly help with the biggest division in the audience (FFA PVP Full Loot games vs non-) to give them two different titles, because the seperate audiences don't seem to get along very well.
Would also work functionally for developers--"we asked for another BrandX sandbox, not another Full Loot BrandY"--defining exactly what's being requested.
Adding another three or four definition labels would help with the inevitable thread breakdown where the authors discuss (late in the thread, exactly what they mean when they innocently say "sandbox" and other people routinely disagree with their hairsplitting definitions).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
If sandbox fans are a myth then how did Minecraft become so popular?
No, you don't get to enter a thread 25 pages in and ask for a restart. You'll have to actually read it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
TLDR...same ole beating a dead horse discussion. I was just pointing out that he is dead wrong.
50 pages later? Sure you're not just tro...never mind.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
No, actually I just haven't been on this site in over a week. Now, can anyone actually explain why Minecraft is so popular if "the massive sandbox crowd is a myth" ?