I heard a different, later article about sandboxes from a developer and picked up the term from there.
Sandbox = sand = malleable game elements.
Themepark = rides = static (dev-built) elements.
Which is really the only definition that makes any sense, because any other definition doesn't have any right to be called "sandbox". Literally. The other definitions share almost no similarities to the term.
If you're talking about open world games, why would you liken them to sandboxes, which are closed freeform environments?
If you're talking about open world PVP, why would you like them to playful spaces which weren't about territorial dominance?
We should all be disappointed that some game journalists have no clue what the term means and so they toss it around haphazardly, sure. But one mistaken journalist doesn't get to re-write the term, and certainly can't re-write the underlying logic behind the original true definition.
Fun fact: last time I checked, the search words "sandbox" and "open world" directs to the same article in Wikipedia = People get confused.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I heard a different, later article about sandboxes from a developer and picked up the term from there.
Sandbox = sand = malleable game elements.
Themepark = rides = static (dev-built) elements.
Which is really the only definition that makes any sense, because any other definition doesn't have any right to be called "sandbox". Literally. The other definitions share almost no similarities to the term.
If you're talking about open world games, why would you liken them to sandboxes, which are closed freeform environments?
If you're talking about open world PVP, why would you like them to playful spaces which weren't about territorial dominance?
We should all be disappointed that some game journalists have no clue what the term means and so they toss it around haphazardly, sure. But one mistaken journalist doesn't get to re-write the term, and certainly can't re-write the underlying logic behind the original true definition.
That's your definition, it's not the one true definition, and the author of the article is not incorrect.
I heard a different, later article about sandboxes from a developer and picked up the term from there.
Sandbox = sand = malleable game elements.
Themepark = rides = static (dev-built) elements.
Which is really the only definition that makes any sense, because any other definition doesn't have any right to be called "sandbox". Literally. The other definitions share almost no similarities to the term.
If you're talking about open world games, why would you liken them to sandboxes, which are closed freeform environments?
If you're talking about open world PVP, why would you like them to playful spaces which weren't about territorial dominance?
We should all be disappointed that some game journalists have no clue what the term means and so they toss it around haphazardly, sure. But one mistaken journalist doesn't get to re-write the term, and certainly can't re-write the underlying logic behind the original true definition.
That's your definition, it's not the one true definition, and the author of the article is not incorrect.
LOL .. "one true definition" for a group of games?
Sandbox - a game that doesn't force the players to take a predefined path, but instead lets them choose their own goals and create their own stories in an open environment. Sandboxes let players interact with their surroundings in many logically possible ways, including free combat, structure building, gathering and in-depth crafting. As a result of this increased freedom, players often come up with their own content and creative solutions for dealing with challenges in the game world, for example setting up a guild castle, an equipment shop, or offering bodyguard services, even though these specific features weren't added to the game by the developers. Sandbox games generally lack artificial restrictions such as bound items or faction-specific areas. The economy is largely player-driven, with the majority of equipment and items coming from player crafting, as opposed to other sources such as dungeons or NPC shops. A sandbox game offers players lots of choices, most of which are possible only because the developers have added support for such choices. For example, to make the choice 'I want to start an animal farm', this feature needs to be present in the game, because you can't make that choice in a game which doesn't let you interact with the gameworld.
Second Life is the most sandboxy game I can think of at the moment. Most people log on, maybe play around with the free stuff, put on a new set of clothes, look around a bit and log off, never to return.
But Second Life is so much more.
There are communities in SL that exist only to help newcomers get the idea of what SL is.
Not really, I been playing pen and paper since mid 80s and the choices there are far greater than in any sandbox.
People just needs to get used to not being told exactly what to do all the time and think for themselves, it might take a little time to get used to but it is not that hard.
The main problem with most sandboxes have always been low budgets and not so good programming, not really too many choices.
I think the author's hypothesis has been pretty much debunked by now. She needs to go and look for other excuses why people don't enjoy sandboxes.
Here's my thoughts: There's really nothing to "get" in sandboxes. Its a relatively small niche. And it doesn't help that overwhelming majority of sandbox MMOs are crap.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Loke666 Not really, I been playing pen and paper since mid 80s and the choices there are far greater than in any sandbox.People just needs to get used to not being told exactly what to do all the time and think for themselves, it might take a little time to get used to but it is not that hard.The main problem with most sandboxes have always been low budgets and not so good programming, not really too many choices.
If players don't like the choices or the types of choices available, then why should they bother spending the time to get used to a game when they could be playing another game and having fun?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What about the types of choices available in the games themselves? There are choices that are provided by the developer, through the game and choices that originate with the player.
For instance, in WoW the choice of progression path, type of character and type of combat the player wants to engage in are all options provided by the game itself. The player is choosing amongst the choices laid out by the game.
In Eve, the progression path is also provided by the game itself. The player can choose what direction to take with their progression, combat style and type of character, but the available choices are provided by the game.
The difference is in the choice of activities. While nearly all the available activities in Eve are provided by the developer, the choice of 'what to do' is up to the player and the option to engage in game play outside of the choices provided by the developer exists. If I'm not mistaken, some of the choices added by the developer came directly from what players were doing.
Compare this to WoW where the choices of what to do outside of developer provided activities are limited to role playing. Any other activity in the game is something provided by Blizzard. They have built a company on being able to provide enough activity and choices of millions of people in one game.
So, comparing the sandbox example to the theme park example, when the choices must come from the player, even if they are not overwhelming, could it just be that many players are not provided enough game play choices? They aren't overwhelmed so much as not entertained, so to speak.
Right, and since it's a dev-created thing it's a themepark element. But since the game involves a lot of sandbox elements, then the overall feel is closer to that side of the spectrum and we call it a sandbox (even though in the grand scheme of sandboxes, it's actually not particularly sandboxy.)
Choice of activity isn't really a factor, except in terms of the specific choices.
For example at a high level both games offer the activity of engaging with the economy.
But EVE specifically allows a much greater degree of granularity and involves several factors like product location which cause players to have a much greater degree of control over what the economy looks like. So while I can indeed corner the market on Netherweave in WOW (sandbox element), in EVE that product may not even exist at a location without someone (like me) selling it, so I have a greater impact on the look of the "economic fabric" (if you will) of the game. So it'll be the specific decision not only to corner the market on product X but to do it at location Y, and those extra factors make it even more of a sandbox.
But at a high level, the number of non-dev-authored activities isn't really that much different and so there's really not a huge difference in the choice between them or how "guilded" you are. Simplying WOW's non-dev activities to "only RP" is pretty inaccurate as there is the nearly same wealth of non-dev activities (guild socialization, public socialization, running a 'university' guild, role-playing, costume contests, etc)
But as we've covered, the number of non-dev-authored activities isn't what matters. What matters is the amount of and the depth to which players can author the experience. You could have a themepark with a hundred different activities the player barely controls, or a sandbox with one core activity (Minecraft is close to this, actually.
Saying sandbox players aren't overwhelmed is definitely accurate, and I suppose the root of the "underwhelmed" experience comes from the infrequency of choices (due to EVE's excessive timesinks spreading out decisions so far that it feels like you barely ever make any.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
LOL .. "one true definition" for a group of games?
You take games too seriously.
Some of us believe that if you're going to make 6000+ posts about something on a forum, you should do so with intelligence.
Knowing the original, logic-backed definition of a gaming term so that we can reduce its misuse and discuss things in a more rational, intelligent manner, is part of that.
"One true" anything typically is a joke, but in this case we're not arguing about Scotsmen, but rather a simple, more logical definition with precedence.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
LOL .. "one true definition" for a group of games?
You take games too seriously.
Some of us believe that if you're going to make 6000+ posts about something on a forum, you should do so with intelligence.
Knowing the original, logic-backed definition of a gaming term so that we can reduce its misuse and discuss things in a more rational, intelligent manner, is part of that.
"One true" anything typically is a joke, but in this case we're not arguing about Scotsmen, but rather a simple, more logical definition with precedence.
There is no logic to definitions. They are just definitions .. which are meanings agreed upon.
And you believe forums are about rational, intelligent discussions?
Choices? Don't most people just follow the guide someone posted on the game's forum or fansite? It's probably even a sticky so it's easy for everyone to find...
There is no logic to definitions. They are just definitions .. which are meanings agreed upon.
And you believe forums are about rational, intelligent discussions?
They are when I'm around. I guess some posters are just here to troll.
And the logical definition in this case is the right one. The word wouldn't have been "sandbox" unless it was related to the sand in the box -- and it certainly was never intended to mean open world (what part of an enclosed sandbox makes you think open world?)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Shadowguy64 Choices? Don't most people just follow the guide someone posted on the game's forum or fansite? It's probably even a sticky so it's easy for everyone to find...
More choice is always better, there's no situation I can think of where less choice is better for me, unless you suffer from an indecisive disorder of course, hehe.
More choice is always better, there's no situation I can think of where less choice is better for me, unless you suffer from an indecisive disorder of course, hehe.
That depends on what you consider to be a 'choice'
eg.
game A let's you choose between red and blue as a color for your characters hat
game B let's you choose between a hundred shades of red as a color for your hat
Which game is offering more choices if you cannot stand the color red?
How would you feel if you went into that bar to buy a drink from the bartender and for a tip, he will tell you rumors then you get a chance to choose one or more items from that list?
I would feel annoyed .. more text to read? I would much rather there are more dungeons to choose from on my LFD.
So would you prefer a lobby based LFD game? Why would you need a world other to feel you aren't playing a lobby game?
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
That's your definition, it's not the one true definition, and the author of the article is not incorrect.
The article's author is actually incorrect on several accounts:
Incorrect use of the term "sandbox" relating to a game which is nonlinear, rather than a game which is about player authorship over the game world.
Assuming the problem with sandboxes is choice overload, when the problem is a lack of choices.
The definition of sandbox I use:
Is the historic origin of the term as applied to games.
Makes the most sense logically.
What the hell more do we need than that?
I reject the historic origin that you claim. Furthermore, whether it used to mean that, it should be enough to point out that a.) many people use a variety of definitions for the word "sandbox" (this is hardly the first time people have disagreed over what it means and whether or not a particular game is one) and b.) the article is based around a different definition than yours. If you want to speak of logic, this is what you'd call an etymological fallacy.
I think that the reason we call nonlinear or undirected games sandbox games is apparent, but rather than continuing to nitpick over whether a correct definition exists, why not keep the thread on track and accept that this discussion is about being overwhelmed by choice in games that are open and undirected, rather than games with malleable game elements? There are plenty of other threads to have that discussion. Lizardbones has been trying to keep this one on topic.
Usually what gets me turned off however is how they are implemented.Too many menu clicks and i am not happy.If something is done as a spam fest not happy.If choices are fake ,meaning you really only have one legit choice but games gives you impression of many.
FFXI simply blows the doors off every game for choice but then i have seen the efforts wasted for the most part.Gamers are still playing extremely superficial ,no matter how many choices they are given all they want is to level.You could spend every single day doing something other than level in FFXI and still be very busy.
As far as leveling,no game offers a realistic choice.They offer you linear questing,so you are not experiencing your own game,you are followng a laid out path the developer wants you to play.Sometimes games give you free xp for just walking around,i find it extremely lame and it is not a choice ,they simply bind the location to your quests anyhow.
The normal game offers you three choices,linear questing,crafting and Instance Boss and that is about it.With so lttle choice from games people are calling Sandbox you can see why i lol@the comparison.A game like Rift offered a couple more choices RIfts and Invasions somewhat similar to what FFXI does with Campaign.However no game has offered the choice of FFXI's Beseiged and imo it is simply fun. the fact so many still enjoy it and show up for every one,tells youi it is a great choice.I might add it offers no rewards aside from experience yet people still show up in drones to do it.
There adds another question,do you think players would play the common third choice of raiding if not for loot?I don't think so.So that pulls those game back to two real choices,crafting and linear questing.Then another question,if no xp reward or loot for those quests,do you think they would do the quests?I think not,so leads back to what i said earlier,players are playing to do nothing more than level.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
How would you feel if you went into that bar to buy a drink from the bartender and for a tip, he will tell you rumors then you get a chance to choose one or more items from that list?
I would feel annoyed .. more text to read? I would much rather there are more dungeons to choose from on my LFD.
So would you prefer a lobby based LFD game? Why would you need a world other to feel you aren't playing a lobby game?
Yes, i would prefer a lobby-based LFD game. I don't need a virtual world. There is nothing wrong with playing a lobby game when it is fun for me.
More choice is always better, there's no situation I can think of where less choice is better for me, unless you suffer from an indecisive disorder of course, hehe.
I can think of many situations where less choice is better for me. particularly those when the choice is not interesting, but have to waste time to make them.
Extreme example, you have to click through the choose 100 choice, each consist of do you want to raise your dps by 5% or 10%. The choice is trivial, boring, and i don't want to waste time to make them.
In this case, i would much rather have the obvious bad choice eliminated, don't waste my time and let on with killing stuff.
Choices are only fun when they provide an interesting decision (like do i use the time bubble skill or the teleport escape spell).
I reject the historic origin that you claim. Furthermore, whether it used to mean that, it should be enough to point out that a.) many people use a variety of definitions for the word "sandbox" (this is hardly the first time people have disagreed over what it means and whether or not a particular game is one) and b.) the article is based around a different definition than yours. If you want to speak of logic, this is what you'd call an etymological fallacy.
I think that the reason we call nonlinear or undirected games sandbox games is apparent, but rather than continuing to nitpick over whether a correct definition exists, why not keep the thread on track and accept that this discussion is about being overwhelmed by choice in games that are open and undirected, rather than games with malleable game elements? There are plenty of other threads to have that discussion. Lizardbones has been trying to keep this one on topic.
The problem with rejecting history post-internet is I can do this and suddenly the truth is super clear. It's hard to reject cold hard fact.
If someone writes an article about how their best friend was on a bicycle and hit by an airplane driver who was under the influence of alchohol, am I allowed to point out it's not an airplane at all? Or is that etymological fallacy too and we just have to accept the freshly-minted definition of the author (who was probably also drunk?)
No, the reason you call them sandbox isn't apparent. I pointed that out earlier in the thread! That lack of logic (compared with the abundance of logic of the definition I'm using) are the fundamental reasons the mis-use of the term should be called out.
Related to the thread, the author's mistake of assuming Glitch failed because there was too much to do (when there was not enough to do) is further evidence that we shouldn't take them seriously (and they were possibly also drunk.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How would you feel if you went into that bar to buy a drink from the bartender and for a tip, he will tell you rumors then you get a chance to choose one or more items from that list?
I would feel annoyed .. more text to read? I would much rather there are more dungeons to choose from on my LFD.
So would you prefer a lobby based LFD game? Why would you need a world other to feel you aren't playing a lobby game?
Yes, i would prefer a lobby-based LFD game. I don't need a virtual world. There is nothing wrong with playing a lobby game when it is fun for me.
There is nothing wrong with what people prefer. Lobby based LFD makes sense from a business end as well. The cost to build virtual worlds and fill them with content is expensive.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Comments
Fun fact: last time I checked, the search words "sandbox" and "open world" directs to the same article in Wikipedia = People get confused.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That's your definition, it's not the one true definition, and the author of the article is not incorrect.
LOL .. "one true definition" for a group of games?
You take games too seriously.
The article's author is actually incorrect on several accounts:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My definition of sandbox is something like this:
Sandbox - a game that doesn't force the players to take a predefined path, but instead lets them choose their own goals and create their own stories in an open environment. Sandboxes let players interact with their surroundings in many logically possible ways, including free combat, structure building, gathering and in-depth crafting. As a result of this increased freedom, players often come up with their own content and creative solutions for dealing with challenges in the game world, for example setting up a guild castle, an equipment shop, or offering bodyguard services, even though these specific features weren't added to the game by the developers. Sandbox games generally lack artificial restrictions such as bound items or faction-specific areas. The economy is largely player-driven, with the majority of equipment and items coming from player crafting, as opposed to other sources such as dungeons or NPC shops. A sandbox game offers players lots of choices, most of which are possible only because the developers have added support for such choices. For example, to make the choice 'I want to start an animal farm', this feature needs to be present in the game, because you can't make that choice in a game which doesn't let you interact with the gameworld.
Second Life is the most sandboxy game I can think of at the moment. Most people log on, maybe play around with the free stuff, put on a new set of clothes, look around a bit and log off, never to return.
But Second Life is so much more.
There are communities in SL that exist only to help newcomers get the idea of what SL is.
Not really, I been playing pen and paper since mid 80s and the choices there are far greater than in any sandbox.
People just needs to get used to not being told exactly what to do all the time and think for themselves, it might take a little time to get used to but it is not that hard.
The main problem with most sandboxes have always been low budgets and not so good programming, not really too many choices.
I think the author's hypothesis has been pretty much debunked by now. She needs to go and look for other excuses why people don't enjoy sandboxes.
Here's my thoughts: There's really nothing to "get" in sandboxes. Its a relatively small niche. And it doesn't help that overwhelming majority of sandbox MMOs are crap.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
If players don't like the choices or the types of choices available, then why should they bother spending the time to get used to a game when they could be playing another game and having fun?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Right, and since it's a dev-created thing it's a themepark element. But since the game involves a lot of sandbox elements, then the overall feel is closer to that side of the spectrum and we call it a sandbox (even though in the grand scheme of sandboxes, it's actually not particularly sandboxy.)
Choice of activity isn't really a factor, except in terms of the specific choices.
For example at a high level both games offer the activity of engaging with the economy.
But EVE specifically allows a much greater degree of granularity and involves several factors like product location which cause players to have a much greater degree of control over what the economy looks like. So while I can indeed corner the market on Netherweave in WOW (sandbox element), in EVE that product may not even exist at a location without someone (like me) selling it, so I have a greater impact on the look of the "economic fabric" (if you will) of the game. So it'll be the specific decision not only to corner the market on product X but to do it at location Y, and those extra factors make it even more of a sandbox.
But at a high level, the number of non-dev-authored activities isn't really that much different and so there's really not a huge difference in the choice between them or how "guilded" you are. Simplying WOW's non-dev activities to "only RP" is pretty inaccurate as there is the nearly same wealth of non-dev activities (guild socialization, public socialization, running a 'university' guild, role-playing, costume contests, etc)
But as we've covered, the number of non-dev-authored activities isn't what matters. What matters is the amount of and the depth to which players can author the experience. You could have a themepark with a hundred different activities the player barely controls, or a sandbox with one core activity (Minecraft is close to this, actually.
Saying sandbox players aren't overwhelmed is definitely accurate, and I suppose the root of the "underwhelmed" experience comes from the infrequency of choices (due to EVE's excessive timesinks spreading out decisions so far that it feels like you barely ever make any.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Some of us believe that if you're going to make 6000+ posts about something on a forum, you should do so with intelligence.
Knowing the original, logic-backed definition of a gaming term so that we can reduce its misuse and discuss things in a more rational, intelligent manner, is part of that.
"One true" anything typically is a joke, but in this case we're not arguing about Scotsmen, but rather a simple, more logical definition with precedence.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is no logic to definitions. They are just definitions .. which are meanings agreed upon.
And you believe forums are about rational, intelligent discussions?
They are when I'm around. I guess some posters are just here to troll.
And the logical definition in this case is the right one. The word wouldn't have been "sandbox" unless it was related to the sand in the box -- and it certainly was never intended to mean open world (what part of an enclosed sandbox makes you think open world?)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Someone has to make those guides.
More choice is always better, there's no situation I can think of where less choice is better for me, unless you suffer from an indecisive disorder of course, hehe.
That depends on what you consider to be a 'choice'
eg.
game A let's you choose between red and blue as a color for your characters hat
game B let's you choose between a hundred shades of red as a color for your hat
Which game is offering more choices if you cannot stand the color red?
So would you prefer a lobby based LFD game? Why would you need a world other to feel you aren't playing a lobby game?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I reject the historic origin that you claim. Furthermore, whether it used to mean that, it should be enough to point out that a.) many people use a variety of definitions for the word "sandbox" (this is hardly the first time people have disagreed over what it means and whether or not a particular game is one) and b.) the article is based around a different definition than yours. If you want to speak of logic, this is what you'd call an etymological fallacy.
I think that the reason we call nonlinear or undirected games sandbox games is apparent, but rather than continuing to nitpick over whether a correct definition exists, why not keep the thread on track and accept that this discussion is about being overwhelmed by choice in games that are open and undirected, rather than games with malleable game elements? There are plenty of other threads to have that discussion. Lizardbones has been trying to keep this one on topic.
Choice/depth/options i like them all.
Usually what gets me turned off however is how they are implemented.Too many menu clicks and i am not happy.If something is done as a spam fest not happy.If choices are fake ,meaning you really only have one legit choice but games gives you impression of many.
FFXI simply blows the doors off every game for choice but then i have seen the efforts wasted for the most part.Gamers are still playing extremely superficial ,no matter how many choices they are given all they want is to level.You could spend every single day doing something other than level in FFXI and still be very busy.
As far as leveling,no game offers a realistic choice.They offer you linear questing,so you are not experiencing your own game,you are followng a laid out path the developer wants you to play.Sometimes games give you free xp for just walking around,i find it extremely lame and it is not a choice ,they simply bind the location to your quests anyhow.
The normal game offers you three choices,linear questing,crafting and Instance Boss and that is about it.With so lttle choice from games people are calling Sandbox you can see why i lol@the comparison.A game like Rift offered a couple more choices RIfts and Invasions somewhat similar to what FFXI does with Campaign.However no game has offered the choice of FFXI's Beseiged and imo it is simply fun. the fact so many still enjoy it and show up for every one,tells youi it is a great choice.I might add it offers no rewards aside from experience yet people still show up in drones to do it.
There adds another question,do you think players would play the common third choice of raiding if not for loot?I don't think so.So that pulls those game back to two real choices,crafting and linear questing.Then another question,if no xp reward or loot for those quests,do you think they would do the quests?I think not,so leads back to what i said earlier,players are playing to do nothing more than level.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Yes, i would prefer a lobby-based LFD game. I don't need a virtual world. There is nothing wrong with playing a lobby game when it is fun for me.
I can think of many situations where less choice is better for me. particularly those when the choice is not interesting, but have to waste time to make them.
Extreme example, you have to click through the choose 100 choice, each consist of do you want to raise your dps by 5% or 10%. The choice is trivial, boring, and i don't want to waste time to make them.
In this case, i would much rather have the obvious bad choice eliminated, don't waste my time and let on with killing stuff.
Choices are only fun when they provide an interesting decision (like do i use the time bubble skill or the teleport escape spell).
Simply....No.
Never been overwhelmed by a sandbox giving me choices.
Not having enough meaningful choice will make me quit a mmo.
The problem with rejecting history post-internet is I can do this and suddenly the truth is super clear. It's hard to reject cold hard fact.
If someone writes an article about how their best friend was on a bicycle and hit by an airplane driver who was under the influence of alchohol, am I allowed to point out it's not an airplane at all? Or is that etymological fallacy too and we just have to accept the freshly-minted definition of the author (who was probably also drunk?)
No, the reason you call them sandbox isn't apparent. I pointed that out earlier in the thread! That lack of logic (compared with the abundance of logic of the definition I'm using) are the fundamental reasons the mis-use of the term should be called out.
Related to the thread, the author's mistake of assuming Glitch failed because there was too much to do (when there was not enough to do) is further evidence that we shouldn't take them seriously (and they were possibly also drunk.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is nothing wrong with what people prefer. Lobby based LFD makes sense from a business end as well. The cost to build virtual worlds and fill them with content is expensive.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"