Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
Originally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
No I think you've got it wrong. You're free in that situation as well. You're free to defend yourself, you're free farm in a different place, you're free to hire mercenaries, you're free to bank often so if you do die you don't lose much. In a perfect sandbox game you'd be free to set up government which would dictate laws and hire guards to enforce those laws. But turning off pvp by having an invisible force field around your body making you immune to damage from other players is NOT freedom.
Originally posted by Arakazi What's wrong with having PVP servers and PVE servers?
Because us OW PVP advocates want a game that utilizes all features including pvp, pve, crafting, harvesting, city building, ship, building, notoriety, bounties, etc, etc, etc, etc. In a game like that you wouldn't simply be able to "turn off" any one of those features without disrupting the way the game is played.
Basically PVP and NON-PVP servers just means that the pvp isn't essential to the game, therefore it feels tacked down and insignificant.
Originally posted by Saxx0n Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Saxx0nOriginally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.I think we have a paradox here.
It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP.
If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not.
Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I still don't know what a 'sandbox' game is, except EVE. This also happens to be the only Sandbox game with equal or greater retention than Themeparks, albeit with significantly fewer players.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
The problem with having different servers means its a tacked on afterthought. People want the OWPvP to be integrated into other systems and the game as a whole.
Originally posted by Arakazi What's wrong with having PVP servers and PVE servers?
Because us OW PVP advocates want a game that utilizes all features including pvp, pve, crafting, harvesting, city building, ship, building, notoriety, bounties, etc, etc, etc, etc. In a game like that you wouldn't simply be able to "turn off" any one of those features without disrupting the way the game is played.
Basically PVP and NON-PVP servers just means that the pvp isn't essential to the game, therefore it feels tacked down and insignificant.
Sony has already said they would not be creating content that people are used to in themepark games and I agree the game would probably be broken for pure pve and without constant content creation pve crowd will get bored ,complain and leave. Since endgame these days takes about 3 weeks it looks rather grim for pve only crowd.
I still don't know what a 'sandbox' game is, except EVE. This also happens to be the only Sandbox game with equal or greater retention than Themeparks, albeit with significantly fewer players.
I'm mainly just replying to say how awesome your sig is.
But anyway I say sandbox means a game where players are given the tools to create content for themselves. Less restrictions, more freedom.
A full sandpark MMO? Yeah, OWPvP is needed because the PvE would probably be horrible.
Edit: Which is why full sandboxes will continue to be poorly funded. Sandparks won't though and because you actually have good PvE, full PvP is not needed to make playing worth it.
Originally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
I think we have a paradox here.
It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP.
If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not.
Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it.
Kind of takes sandbox out of the discussion and moves towards themepark with alot of fluff.
Originally posted by Arakazi What's wrong with having PVP servers and PVE servers?
Because us OW PVP advocates want a game that utilizes all features including pvp, pve, crafting, harvesting, city building, ship, building, notoriety, bounties, etc, etc, etc, etc. In a game like that you wouldn't simply be able to "turn off" any one of those features without disrupting the way the game is played.
Basically PVP and NON-PVP servers just means that the pvp isn't essential to the game, therefore it feels tacked down and insignificant.
Sony has already said they would not be creating content that people are used to in themepark games and I agree the game would probably be broken for pure pve and without constant content creation pve crowd will get bored ,complain and leave. Since endgame these days takes about 3 weeks it looks rather grim for pve only crowd.
I think that's the biggest killer to non-sandbox games - the amount of content you have to dish out. I mean my gosh a typical single player game could take years to create and people blow through those in like 30 hours. 30 hours is nothing in MMO time. They have to make it as grindy as possible so they have time to release more expansions.
I say let's for once spend some money on a full sandbox ow pvp fantasy game. You could probably make the best sandbox game to date on half the budget of a typical aaa mmo.
Originally posted by Saxx0n Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Saxx0nOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Saxx0nOriginally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.I think we have a paradox here. It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP. If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not. Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it. Kind of takes sandbox out of the discussion and moves towards themepark with alot of fluff.
If it got there, it got there using your definition of freedom. Congratulations.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
I think we have a paradox here.
It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP.
If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not.
Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it.
It obviously means freedom within the physical laws in place for the game. Typically those laws have some reasoning to them. Magic exists, monsters exist, etc.
By your definition nobody on the entire planet (in RL) has ever been free.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
None of those games are sandboxes.
They have sandbox elements but they are not sandboxes. They all revolve around a story and there is an end goal to each and every one of those games.
The whole point of a sandbox is there is no end goal in sight. The term Sandbox is exactly as it sounds its a box of sand, in this case code that allows a player to do just about anything he wants, just like a skilled person can build anything he wants out of sand.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Saxx0nOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Saxx0nOriginally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.I think we have a paradox here. It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP. If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not. Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it. It obviously means freedom within the physical laws in place for the game. Typically those laws have some reasoning to them. Magic exists, monsters exist, etc.
By your definition nobody on the entire planet (in RL) has ever been free.
So in other words, the laws within the game are arbitrary, decided on by the developer for game play reasons. The only reason OW/Always On PvP should exist in a game is game play reasons. It's not required. It may be wanted, but it's not necessary.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
I think we have a paradox here.
It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP. If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not. Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it.
It obviously means freedom within the physical laws in place for the game. Typically those laws have some reasoning to them. Magic exists, monsters exist, etc.
By your definition nobody on the entire planet (in RL) has ever been free.
So in other words, the laws within the game are arbitrary, decided on by the developer for game play reasons. The only reason OW/Always On PvP should exist in a game is game play reasons. It's not required. It may be wanted, but it's not necessary.
It's not arbitrary to make a fantasy game, not sure what you mean by that. The only reasoning behind turning off pvp is because they're too lazy or not creative enough to come up with a more organic, natural solution to rampant griefing, not pking. Just like how there is murder in the real world, but very little murder for just no reason.
But regardless of any of that, the point is ow pvp IS freedom. It's ok to not want that freedom in your game, but that is indeed making it less of a sandbox.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Do you guys realize how frickle the MMO market has become? Its also a wise thing in EQnext going f2P, as I just don't see Sandbox MMO getting bigger than Minecraft.
I just feel the next Big MMO will have more sandbox elements than past.. Going full Sandbox is MAJOR risky.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
Originally posted by azzamasinSandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
So if I cannot chop your head off it is not 100% freedom of choice. So pvp must be included to have complete total freedom of choice.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
No I think you've got it wrong. You're free in that situation as well. You're free to defend yourself, you're free farm in a different place, you're free to hire mercenaries, you're free to bank often so if you do die you don't lose much. In a perfect sandbox game you'd be free to set up government which would dictate laws and hire guards to enforce those laws. But turning off pvp by having an invisible force field around your body making you immune to damage from other players is NOT freedom.
Free not to play, have fun with your niche owpvp sandbox thingie, but I have serious doubts you're going to get it in EQN.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
Well, considering that sandboxes WITH open world PvP have done abysmal in regards to sub numbers, minus EVE, what exactly is the point? That sandboxes without that feature would be even more abysmal? Seems to me the consistent reason people give as to not wanting to play games like Darkfall or Mortal is because of the very feature that you are saying is what makes them successful (which they haven't been).
Comments
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
/salute
Life IS Feudal
No I think you've got it wrong. You're free in that situation as well. You're free to defend yourself, you're free farm in a different place, you're free to hire mercenaries, you're free to bank often so if you do die you don't lose much. In a perfect sandbox game you'd be free to set up government which would dictate laws and hire guards to enforce those laws. But turning off pvp by having an invisible force field around your body making you immune to damage from other players is NOT freedom.
Because us OW PVP advocates want a game that utilizes all features including pvp, pve, crafting, harvesting, city building, ship, building, notoriety, bounties, etc, etc, etc, etc. In a game like that you wouldn't simply be able to "turn off" any one of those features without disrupting the way the game is played.
Basically PVP and NON-PVP servers just means that the pvp isn't essential to the game, therefore it feels tacked down and insignificant.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
I think we have a paradox here.
It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP.
If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not.
Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I still don't know what a 'sandbox' game is, except EVE. This also happens to be the only Sandbox game with equal or greater retention than Themeparks, albeit with significantly fewer players.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Sony has already said they would not be creating content that people are used to in themepark games and I agree the game would probably be broken for pure pve and without constant content creation pve crowd will get bored ,complain and leave. Since endgame these days takes about 3 weeks it looks rather grim for pve only crowd.
Life IS Feudal
I'm mainly just replying to say how awesome your sig is.
But anyway I say sandbox means a game where players are given the tools to create content for themselves. Less restrictions, more freedom.
A full sandpark MMO? Yeah, OWPvP is needed because the PvE would probably be horrible.
Edit: Which is why full sandboxes will continue to be poorly funded. Sandparks won't though and because you actually have good PvE, full PvP is not needed to make playing worth it.
2cp
Kind of takes sandbox out of the discussion and moves towards themepark with alot of fluff.
Life IS Feudal
I think that's the biggest killer to non-sandbox games - the amount of content you have to dish out. I mean my gosh a typical single player game could take years to create and people blow through those in like 30 hours. 30 hours is nothing in MMO time. They have to make it as grindy as possible so they have time to release more expansions.
I say let's for once spend some money on a full sandbox ow pvp fantasy game. You could probably make the best sandbox game to date on half the budget of a typical aaa mmo.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
I think we have a paradox here.
It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP. If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not. Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it.
Kind of takes sandbox out of the discussion and moves towards themepark with alot of fluff.
If it got there, it got there using your definition of freedom. Congratulations.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It obviously means freedom within the physical laws in place for the game. Typically those laws have some reasoning to them. Magic exists, monsters exist, etc.
By your definition nobody on the entire planet (in RL) has ever been free.
None of those games are sandboxes.
They have sandbox elements but they are not sandboxes. They all revolve around a story and there is an end goal to each and every one of those games.
The whole point of a sandbox is there is no end goal in sight. The term Sandbox is exactly as it sounds its a box of sand, in this case code that allows a player to do just about anything he wants, just like a skilled person can build anything he wants out of sand.
Having freedom in choosing how you play doesn't mean you get to choose how other people play.
I think we have a paradox here.
It's not a paradox. One player's personal freedom is not contingent on another player giving up their personal freedom. Just because you choose to engage in PvP doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to give you PvP. If we were to continue with your definition of freedom used here, the system would be obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage, whether you had one or not because you chose to fight something as if you had a sword. You may choose to fight something as if you had a sword, but the system isn't obliged to allow you to do a sword's worth of damage unless you've made the effort to go out and get a sword. For that matter, the system would be obliged to allow you to use a sword, whether you had learned the sword skill or not. Just because you have the freedom to choose something doesn't mean the system or other players are obliged to let you do it.
It obviously means freedom within the physical laws in place for the game. Typically those laws have some reasoning to them. Magic exists, monsters exist, etc.
By your definition nobody on the entire planet (in RL) has ever been free.
So in other words, the laws within the game are arbitrary, decided on by the developer for game play reasons. The only reason OW/Always On PvP should exist in a game is game play reasons. It's not required. It may be wanted, but it's not necessary.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's not arbitrary to make a fantasy game, not sure what you mean by that. The only reasoning behind turning off pvp is because they're too lazy or not creative enough to come up with a more organic, natural solution to rampant griefing, not pking. Just like how there is murder in the real world, but very little murder for just no reason.
But regardless of any of that, the point is ow pvp IS freedom. It's ok to not want that freedom in your game, but that is indeed making it less of a sandbox.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
A bit off topic;
Do you guys realize how frickle the MMO market has become? Its also a wise thing in EQnext going f2P, as I just don't see Sandbox MMO getting bigger than Minecraft.
I just feel the next Big MMO will have more sandbox elements than past.. Going full Sandbox is MAJOR risky.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
Free not to play, have fun with your niche owpvp sandbox thingie, but I have serious doubts you're going to get it in EQN.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
DocBrody on the warpath once again......