That's a positive attitude. Nothing I have seen coming out of SOE makes me believe they can advance any genre of any game type at any time in the future. Their best 'recent game' is PS2. Most think that's not a great game - some thinks it good.
Thinking that they will produce useful procedural style content reminds me of the people that thought Dynamic events would actually make the game feel like an evolving world - instead of feeling like escort quests you can join at any time.. SOE has no track record of awesome anymore. That's the truth. The last awesome game they made was EQ - and those guys are gone or dead - or some combination of both.
The nice thing about Landmark and Next is that (once they are on to their release versions) we will all be able to try them for free to see whether SOE is finally delivering the goods. Landmark is off to a promising start, what little there is of it so far.
Originally posted by MMOExposed
All games do in fact start off as, Sandboxes. World of Warcraft has a game engine. thats the ultimate form of Sandbox. Thats one side of the scale.
No. A game engine by itself does not provide a sandbox. A game engine, plus in game tools the players can use to create their own content, that would be the ultimate sandbox. You require both the sand and the tools to have a sandbox, sand by itself is not sufficient.
Though if we want to get really technical about it, even in a game that provides the players with tools for creating content the only part of the game that is actually a sandbox is the content creation portion. To the extent that the content created by the tools is static, other players who then make use of that content are just riding themepark attractions created by players instead of ones created by devs.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
My point is this. All games are sandbox in some way. All games are theme park on some form or another.
There isnt really a either or situation going on.
Its just a scale of how ttheme park a game is compared to the next.
Minecraft is closer to thw sandbox end of the scale. World of warcraft is closer to the themepark side of the scale. But both at sandbox and themepark since both are two ends of the same scale.
Not all games are sandbox in some way. No tools which allow players to create some kind of content = no sandbox. Many games have not a single drop of sandbox in their design. It is accurate though that all games have some degree of themepark, because all games include static content created by the development team. All games do in fact start off as, Sandboxes. World of Warcraft has a game engine. thats the ultimate form of Sandbox. Thats one side of the scale.
With that engine Blizzard added layers upon layers of rules and restrictions.
For example, in WoW, the developers thought it would be good to have a world split into level ranges. And then make Questing the main form of progression. Then on top of that, add a Raid Dungeon/ Party Dungeon progression gating system that paths players from one dungeon to the next, without freedom to skip (aka Attunements), then I can limit the PvP to factions. And add Battleground instanced PvP with premade objectives on how to win. So many layers of rules. But think about it. At any time, Blizzard during development could have scrapped all those elements, because the sandbox under all the rules allow it. Blizzard could have switched out the rule of levels and replaced it with a skill system. Or taken out the Faction PvP and made the game FFA. Or took away the attunements.
Gamify cell block 4 to get a themepark prison.
Sandbox and themepark coexist in harmony in a virtual world. Split a virtual world into two and you'll get sandbox and themepark,
GTA and SKyrim are virtual worlds and are both sandbox and themepark.
I know very little about sandboxes and V worlds. I've only just recently heard of a sandbox so im no expert.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
That's a positive attitude. Nothing I have seen coming out of SOE makes me believe they can advance any genre of any game type at any time in the future. Their best 'recent game' is PS2. Most think that's not a great game - some thinks it good.
Thinking that they will produce useful procedural style content reminds me of the people that thought Dynamic events would actually make the game feel like an evolving world - instead of feeling like escort quests you can join at any time.. SOE has no track record of awesome anymore. That's the truth. The last awesome game they made was EQ - and those guys are gone or dead - or some combination of both.
The nice thing about Landmark and Next is that (once they are on to their release versions) we will all be able to try them for free to see whether SOE is finally delivering the goods. Landmark is off to a promising start, what little there is of it so far.
Originally posted by MMOExposed
All games do in fact start off as, Sandboxes. World of Warcraft has a game engine. thats the ultimate form of Sandbox. Thats one side of the scale.
No. A game engine by itself does not provide a sandbox. A game engine, plus in game tools the players can use to create their own content, that would be the ultimate sandbox. You require both the sand and the tools to have a sandbox, sand by itself is not sufficient.
Though if we want to get really technical about it, even in a game that provides the players with tools for creating content the only part of the game that is actually a sandbox is the content creation portion. To the extent that the content created by the tools is static, other players who then make use of that content are just riding themepark attractions created by players instead of ones created by devs.
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes we do. The word sandbox wad not chosen randomly. It was a weird that already had meaning. In a sandbox you could create something. The word wad chosen for games to reflect that this particular game, whatever game is being discussed, let you create something. Hence sandbox.
Lack of content has nothing to do with it. You could have lots or little.
Linear or not is harder. It may not be a defining trait but in my mind is critical simply because the more linear typically the more restricted their the less creative ability. But not always.
But you still have to create. Whether that means the ability to construct new things or strange then in New ways or make quests... arguably they could all be considered creation. It offs nit limited to building. Just creating.
Agreed, which is why the scale image above is ridiculous, as it assumes the creation content is low or zero rules/mechanics, and themepark is more rules/mechanics. It is actually the opposite. Scripted content often requires less rules to be defined, as the players options are far less. Sandbox is creation, meaningful choices and emergent gameplay. In order for that to happen there have to be mechanics that allow for it and support it.
Too many people confuse lack of content with sandbox content, and the two couldn't be further apart.
All games are about meaningful choices only sandboxes tend to have more meaningless choices in them.
And games, specifically, are about rules and objectives. For example, there's a difference between playing a game and playing with LEGO. The way I see it, themepark is geared more toward being a game whereas sandboxes generally try to lean towards the other.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes we do. The word sandbox wad not chosen randomly. It was a weird that already had meaning. In a sandbox you could create something. The word wad chosen for games to reflect that this particular game, whatever game is being discussed, let you create something. Hence sandbox.
Lack of content has nothing to do with it. You could have lots or little.
Linear or not is harder. It may not be a defining trait but in my mind is critical simply because the more linear typically the more restricted their the less creative ability. But not always.
But you still have to create. Whether that means the ability to construct new things or strange then in New ways or make quests... arguably they could all be considered creation. It offs nit limited to building. Just creating.
Agreed, which is why the scale image above is ridiculous, as it assumes the creation content is low or zero rules/mechanics, and themepark is more rules/mechanics. It is actually the opposite. Scripted content often requires less rules to be defined, as the players options are far less. Sandbox is creation, meaningful choices and emergent gameplay. In order for that to happen there have to be mechanics that allow for it and support it.
Too many people confuse lack of content with sandbox content, and the two couldn't be further apart.
All games are about meaningful choices only sandboxes tend to have more meaningless choices in them.
And games, specifically, are about rules and objectives. For example, there's a difference between playing a game and playing with LEGO. The way I see it, themepark is geared more toward being a game whereas sandboxes generally try to lean towards the other.
...and 2 or more entities playing legos together. (agreement of rules)
More like recess as opposed to PE class. Bullies and all.
Any choice that teaches you something can't be meaningless. Having no way to correct that choice would render it pointless.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think that this thread is full of misinformation, but that is just me personally. The poster who stated that there is no such thing as a sandbox MMORPG may be right, but there are certainly sandbox MMOs. It seems like very few people on these forums has ever played Second Life, despite the fact that it has been out for ages. If that game isn't a sandbox, I don't know what constitutes one. Admittedly, it may be more of an experiment than a game, much like the comparison of LEGOs to playing a game made above.
Players seem to be tired on the quest hub model, I sure am. Then again, I'm the type of player who will grind random mobs, especially if they might have low drop rate items. Overall, I think the quest hub model has reached its zenith, and while we won't see it going anywhere anytime soon, developers realize players like options apart from it.
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
You've established through this and other posts in the thread that you are confused about the implications of the sandbox analogy. Refer to previous posts for clarification, multiple posters have explained it clearly and accurately already.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I fear that the Golden Age for sandbox MMOs could be the downfall for that genre.
Sandbox MMOs just are not that popular than Themepark MMOs if they would be in high demand by enough we would have more of them.
If one good Sandbox would come out now i do not doubt that the number of players would be enough to be satisfying but if we have several good ones coming out the people will spread out and each of the games might not be counted as a success for the lag of a big playerbase.
So in the end it could really discourage Company's to release anymore sandbox games after that since they would see them as failed.
Of course its also possible that suddenly all the Themepark fans fall in love with Sandbox games but if we see how long players are now contempt with the same old over and over it would be quite a miracle to suddenly have a huge change like that.
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
You've established through this and other posts in the thread that you are confused about the implications of the sandbox analogy. Refer to previous posts for clarification, multiple posters have explained it clearly and accurately already.
Nope. I understand it.
I don't care what post you find more accurate. If there was a post I thought was accurate I would refer to that. I didn't. So.
Ill refer to people who play them and how and why they play them, and how that differs from other types and how it differs from my own experiences. Then ill see how they are similar. Then I will observe.
Then, I will make my own decision.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The easiest way to define a sandbox would probably be Eve online and WoW would be the best example of a themepark MMO. One feels like a virtual world and the other feels like a virtual lobby.
I can only hope the golden age of sandboxes is incoming, to me that's what the entire genre is about - creating virtual worlds.
That's a positive attitude. Nothing I have seen coming out of SOE makes me believe they can advance any genre of any game type at any time in the future. Their best 'recent game' is PS2. Most think that's not a great game - some thinks it good.
Thinking that they will produce useful procedural style content reminds me of the people that thought Dynamic events would actually make the game feel like an evolving world - instead of feeling like escort quests you can join at any time.. SOE has no track record of awesome anymore. That's the truth. The last awesome game they made was EQ - and those guys are gone or dead - or some combination of both.
The nice thing about Landmark and Next is that (once they are on to their release versions) we will all be able to try them for free to see whether SOE is finally delivering the goods. Landmark is off to a promising start, what little there is of it so far.
Originally posted by MMOExposed
All games do in fact start off as, Sandboxes. World of Warcraft has a game engine. thats the ultimate form of Sandbox. Thats one side of the scale.
No. A game engine by itself does not provide a sandbox. A game engine, plus in game tools the players can use to create their own content, that would be the ultimate sandbox. You require both the sand and the tools to have a sandbox, sand by itself is not sufficient.
Though if we want to get really technical about it, even in a game that provides the players with tools for creating content the only part of the game that is actually a sandbox is the content creation portion. To the extent that the content created by the tools is static, other players who then make use of that content are just riding themepark attractions created by players instead of ones created by devs.
that's not technical - just accurate. Landmark is the sandbox. SOE seems to be trying to save money on hiring developers and letting the players do it. If you make your MMORPG sandbox then you have permanent/semi permanent change in your game - and you might not like where that ends up. So we don't have sandbox MMORPGs.
This is the problem GW2 has and we don't see any real solution to it. When I played EQ you could kill certain mobs that would trigger the whole zone to change. It was cool - but it was not 'sandbox' - that's still scripted content. It will eventurally change back.
GW2 despite people hating on it is a small step forward because zones now usually have several states - with mulit-stage events being in various states. It's not permanent change but its better then the typical 'mob dead' or "mob alive" state settings you get in WoW. Events have up to 6 states and they can cycle in one direction or another.
I like the AI changes in EQ:N where mobs supposedly have a mind of their own. Cool. Could be exciting. but not sandbox.. Storybricks sounds exciting. Its too bad SOE is licensing the technology because even if it works they will mess it up, IMHO.
I don't care what post you find more accurate. If there was a post I thought was accurate I would refer to that. I didn't. So.
Ill refer to people who play them and how and why they play them, and how that differs from other types and how it differs from my own experiences. Then ill see how they are similar. Then I will observe.
Then, I will make my own decision.
You can call puppies pomegranates for all I care, I'm just trying to make sure you understand how the sandbox analogy actually works so that we're clear that you're choosing to use the word in an inaccurate manner, rather than accidentally doing so because you fail to understand the meaning.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by GuyClinch If you don't want to define it u can't argue that we are moving into an age of them. If you want to argue open world games like eso and wow are popular that' s fine with me. But don't use the word sandbox.
And this is the problem with "what a sandbox is to me" threads, especially when that's not where the thread starts. It's impossible to have an actual conversation with the "experts".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't care what post you find more accurate. If there was a post I thought was accurate I would refer to that. I didn't. So.
Ill refer to people who play them and how and why they play them, and how that differs from other types and how it differs from my own experiences. Then ill see how they are similar. Then I will observe.
Then, I will make my own decision.
You can call puppies pomegranates for all I care, I'm just trying to make sure you understand how the sandbox analogy actually works so that we're clear that you're choosing to use the word in an inaccurate manner, rather than accidentally doing so because you fail to understand the meaning.
I failed to understand the meaning? So you're sure it's me?
Ok how am I failing? Refer to earlier posts?
Just say what you mean.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think sandbox elements becoming more common is a combination of things.
One is the idea of sandbox game play becoming mainstream. GTA V's nonlinear story lines and open world sold so fast that it made national news. Skyrim's sales weren't exactly chump change either. These games aren't exactly sandboxes to many people, but they are open world games, and the player spends their time how they wish, rather than following a single path down a single corridor. Minecraft has broken sales records not only with their PC sales, but recently with their console sales. Minecraft is most definitely a sandbox in nearly every sense of the word.
Skyrim, Fallout 3, GTA V are all fun games. But they are not sandbox. They are not the least bit sandbox. On the sandbox sale of things those are 9.9 themepark - at least. The developers might give you the illusion that you are free - but its a trick. Its just scripted stuff that happens when you do other stuff. It branches a little more but its not fundamentally different then any themepark mmo. Minecraft is sandbox - and that's it.
Here is an analogy. Themepark is watching a movie. Sandbox is getting a video camera and making your own movie. The problem with actual sandbox play is that most people suck at making movies. If they were good they would be getting paid. Sandbox doesn't solve the lack of good content problem. It provides lots of lousy crappy content. Some people need that - the people that have a lot of time to kill and want to make a movie even though it might suck.
There is no golden age of sandbox on the horizon. Now if you think GTA V is a 'sandbox' yeah open world games are popular - but they always have been.
I didn't say they were sandboxes. It's right there in the text you quoted. They are non-linear, open world games. That is an important aspect of sandbox game play. It's significant that it's not just popular, it's part of the best selling game ever written.
Though, based on your response, it doesn't seem like you actually read the my post. You just picked out the words, "sandbox", "GTA V", "Skyrim" and "Fallout" and went from there.
I did read your post. Open world is not a part of sandbox gameplay. Its just part of the gameplay of games you like. Little Big Planet IS a sandbox. Its 2d and linear. But you have freedom to create levels - and all kinds of stuff.
The critical element of sandbox is player created content. Skyrim is the TINIEST bit sandbox because you can create addons for it and such. Sandbox means you build the castle - and the Knights and the moat etc etc. I think you KNOW this but you just want to imagine that somehow these always popular open world games are somehow related to sandbox games.
The critical element of sandbox isn't player created content.
Of course it is. Are you familiar with real life sandboxes?
Its not only critical its defining. It's both necessary and sufficient. That's why I pointed to Little Big Planet as a sandbox. The game play is 2d and linear but you can create an entire game with the included engine.
If we ignore this the word just becomes something for people who LIKE some games and don't like others. Its' not open world:
GTA V is open world - Skyrim is open world -but you know what - SO IS WOW!
Its not games with few quests - EQ had few quests - but it is entirely themepark.
It's not procedurally generated content: tetris is all procedurally generated - its not a sandbox. Much of Diablo III is procedurally generated.
It's not a lack of quests. Lots of older MMOs like EQ didn't have quests and they were still a themepark. Various scriped static monster enocunters and such. GW2 is not quest driven by any stretch.
It's not world PvP - again see world of Warcraft.
So if we define sandbox as 'games we like" and not sandbox as 'games we don't like" - then sure they are the future. Sandbox is already here by that standard. Why all the cool games have it.
By your standard, City of Heroes was a sandbox game. Hell, NEVERWINTER is. Player created content may be an important part of a sandbox game, but is certainly isn't the definitive.
The critical element of sandbox isn't player created content.
Of course it is. Are you familiar with real life sandboxes?
Its not only critical its defining. It's both necessary and sufficient. That's why I pointed to Little Big Planet as a sandbox. The game play is 2d and linear but you can create an entire game with the included engine.
If we ignore this the word just becomes something for people who LIKE some games and don't like others. Its' not open world:
GTA V is open world - Skyrim is open world -but you know what - SO IS WOW!
Its not games with few quests - EQ had few quests - but it is entirely themepark.
It's not procedurally generated content: tetris is all procedurally generated - its not a sandbox. Much of Diablo III is procedurally generated.
It's not a lack of quests. Lots of older MMOs like EQ didn't have quests and they were still a themepark. Various scriped static monster enocunters and such. GW2 is not quest driven by any stretch.
It's not world PvP - again see world of Warcraft.
So if we define sandbox as 'games we like" and not sandbox as 'games we don't like" - then sure they are the future. Sandbox is already here by that standard. Why all the cool games have it.
By your standard, City of Heroes was a sandbox game. Hell, NEVERWINTER is. Player created content may be an important part of a sandbox game, but is certainly isn't the definitive.
Here is the closest thing you guys are going to find to a 'definition' of sandbox.
The problem you guys are having, is that sandbox design is a made-up term. It doesn't have a strict definition, just a mutually accepted concept (to varying degrees). The 'purists' view sandboxes as nothing but the most completely unrestricted gameplay in the most extreme sense. However, the problem with this is most 'pure' sandboxes still have linear elements. Look at starbound for example, there is a linear progression of tools, armor, and sectors. It also has heavy zoning. However, I don't think anyone would consider that game a themepark.
Indeed the only unifying factor I can think of when it comes to 'pure' sandbox games, is player generated content as the core gameplay. This is why modding isn't accepted as a sandbox. It is player generated content, but it isn't the core gameplay.
- That said, this thread seems to be oriented with sandbox 'purists' in mind. In this regard I have to disagree. I think pure sandboxes will remain niche. And I think pure themeparks are becoming niche.
What we are actually seeing is a convergence of themepark and sandbox features. What we are seeing is the emergence of the 'themebox'. Games embracing elements of both design types, and trying to combine them to create superior games.
The problem w/ pure sandboxes is they force the game to be entirely about gathering & managing resources. Something most gamers get bored with.
The problem w/ pure themeparks is that pre-generated content can only be created at a limited pace. People are devouring the content faster than it can be produced, and thus makes it not sustainable. Furthermore, because of this rapid consumption of content, players are getting bored / desensitized to more and more types of content, making it nearly impossible to create more engaging content at the same pace.
Gamers still want structure, but they also want the freedom sandbox games provide. I think we're going to be seeing a lot more games that try to do just that.
I failed to understand the meaning? So you're sure it's me?
Ok how am I failing? Refer to earlier posts?
Just say what you mean.
It's hard to explain it any more clearly, it's an extremely simple analogy. What does a sandbox consist of? Sand, and tools for using the sand to make something. If there are no tools present that allow you to alter the form of the sand in some fashion, it isn't a sandbox. You, and many others, keep using the word sandbox to refer to game features that can in no way be interpreted to actually fit the analogy. If you want to talk about "open world" vs. "on rails," then use those terms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the themepark/sandbox distinction.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I failed to understand the meaning? So you're sure it's me?
Ok how am I failing? Refer to earlier posts?
Just say what you mean.
It's hard to explain it any more clearly, it's an extremely simple analogy. What does a sandbox consist of? Sand, and tools for using the sand to make something. If there are no tools present that allow you to alter the form of the sand in some fashion, it isn't a sandbox. You, and many others, keep using the word sandbox to refer to game features that can in no way be interpreted to actually fit the analogy. If you want to talk about "open world" vs. "on rails," then use those terms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the themepark/sandbox distinction.
Can you please identify my mistake so I can learn from it.
I say a lot of stuff, which of my ramblings did I confuse my own gameplay with impossible gameplay based on your criteria?
Obviously you are correct and I'm wrong.
I love being wrong, so no big deal.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Can you please identify my mistake so I can learn from it.
I say a lot of stuff, which of my ramblings did I confuse my own gameplay with impossible gameplay based on your criteria?
Obviously you are correct and I'm wrong.
I love being wrong, so no big deal.
One example.
Originally posted by FinalFikus
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
Unless you spent 99% of your time in LotRO decorating your instanced house, you weren't spending that much time playing sandbox elements, because house decoration is the only element which could even theoretically be framed as sandbox in that game. Unless others were added in the last couple years, haven't played in a while.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Sandboxes are niche games, always have been and always will be. Theme parks appeal the masses, like WoW does for example, and masses don't want sandboxes, they want cheap shallow entertainment.
People seem to miss the fact that hard core gamers are a minority in gaming world now. It is simple, over one billion people have access to computers now, a minority are gamers.
I love sandboxes, and those are the only games I play. Theme parks should not be made if I was to be asked, but I'm not. So that is fine.
I dont think they are niche at all. The concept has been so little explored in MMO's and the ones that have been made, have small development teams with 0 marketing and make dumb fucking choices ( cough darkfall ).
DayZ is a prime example of a hardcore sandbox that appeals to alot of PC gamers, its one of the most popular PC games out right now. Its one of the most brutal and unforgiving games, but since it delivers an experience like no other, gamers are starting to take notice. There gets to a point when people have played the same washed up shit over and over that they crave a different experience that only sandboxes can provide.
Again, sandbox MMO's have been little explored thanks to WoW ruining the genre, creating an almost endless offspring of clones. There are many ways to make a successful, accessible sandbox. It just takes a developer who has the brains and balls to develop it.
I dont think they are niche at all. The concept has been so little explored in MMO's and the ones that have been made, have small development teams with 0 marketing and make dumb fucking choices ( cough darkfall ).
DayZ is a prime example of a hardcore sandbox that appeals to alot of PC gamers, its one of the most popular PC games out right now. Its one of the most brutal and unforgiving games, but since it delivers an experience like no other, gamers are starting to take notice. There gets to a point when people have played the same washed up shit over and over that they crave a different experience that only sandboxes can provide.
Again, sandbox MMO's have been little explored thanks to WoW ruining the genre, creating an almost endless offspring of clones. There are many ways to make a successful, accessible sandbox. It just takes a developer who has the brains and balls to develop it.
You don't have to like WoW (I certainly don't) but it is ridiculous to say it ruined the genre. Without it's success, there is a strong possibility that there wouldn't be any AAA MMOs, because prior to WoW no MMO had been successful enough to justify dedicating a large budget to producing one. Add to that, many of the people who started with WoW had their tastes change over time and moved on to other MMOs, whereas without that initial entry point they may have never entered the MMO space at all.
As to there being many ways to make a successful sandbox, it's a nice theory, but until we actually see multiple successful sandboxes happen it's only a theory. One that Landmark (the most sandbox MMO ever developed to date) very well may prove correct if it lives up to it's early promise.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Can you please identify my mistake so I can learn from it.
I say a lot of stuff, which of my ramblings did I confuse my own gameplay with impossible gameplay based on your criteria?
Obviously you are correct and I'm wrong.
I love being wrong, so no big deal.
One example.
Originally posted by FinalFikus
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
Unless you spent 99% of your time in LotRO decorating your instanced house, you weren't spending that much time playing sandbox elements, because house decoration is the only element which could even theoretically be framed as sandbox in that game. Unless others were added in the last couple years, haven't played in a while.
At launch we made our own content and changed the absolute best parts of the world. We saved all the screenshots too. It was Middle Earth! 1% dealing with the themepark. It didn't last long. Theoretically.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I dont think they are niche at all. The concept has been so little explored in MMO's and the ones that have been made, have small development teams with 0 marketing and make dumb fucking choices ( cough darkfall ).
DayZ is a prime example of a hardcore sandbox that appeals to alot of PC gamers, its one of the most popular PC games out right now. Its one of the most brutal and unforgiving games, but since it delivers an experience like no other, gamers are starting to take notice. There gets to a point when people have played the same washed up shit over and over that they crave a different experience that only sandboxes can provide.
Again, sandbox MMO's have been little explored thanks to WoW ruining the genre, creating an almost endless offspring of clones. There are many ways to make a successful, accessible sandbox. It just takes a developer who has the brains and balls to develop it.
You don't have to like WoW (I certainly don't) but it is ridiculous to say it ruined the genre. Without it's success, there is a strong possibility that there wouldn't be any AAA MMOs, because prior to WoW no MMO had been successful enough to justify dedicating a large budget to producing one. Add to that, many of the people who started with WoW had their tastes change over time and moved on to other MMOs, whereas without that initial entry point they may have never entered the MMO space at all.
As to there being many ways to make a successful sandbox, it's a nice theory, but until we actually see multiple successful sandboxes happen it's only a theory. One that Landmark (the most sandbox MMO ever developed to date) very well may prove correct if it lives up to it's early promise.
No its not ridiculous that WoW ruined the genre, its common sense. Prior to WoW every MMO was unique in its own right, and also contained a lot more sandbox elements, even the term "sandbox" wasn't even coined until after WoW's many clones to describe a time before the market was saturated with themeparks. And there were triple A mmos before WoW, practically all of them. Swg, uo, eq, daoc, etc. They weren't exactly made by indie companies.
Literally every triple A MMO since WoW is a clone, from the standard quest hub centered gameplay, to the interface, to the battlegrounds and raiding at max level, with the 8 playable classes and the segmented PvP and the optional crafting and yadada. WoW was the first MMO to do this in a streamlined fashion, its its major success meant every other studio was going to emulate it to generate less risky shareholder profits. This is a fact if you have followed MMO's since their inception.
Also its a fact there are many ways to make a successful sandbox, there are multiplayer games out now (rust, dayz, minecraft, 7 days to die, etc) that are highly successful exploring this model. Its not hard to image an MMO format to these type of games, EvE is successful in spite of its incredibly large learning curve and mundane combat and exploration (in my opinion). If these things were corrected (not hard to fix honestly) then you could attract a much larger crowd to this form of gameplay.
Also Landmark is by no means a true sandbox. Just because it offers worldbuilding in claims doesn't grant it the title, although worldbuilding is a sandbox element. From my understanding, EQ Next is a standard questing/leveling/class based MMO with highly customizable plots. A sandbox in the true sense is a game like EvE or face of mankind that offers complete player freedom. Just giving people the ability to build shit and terra form doesn't mean they are free to do whatever they want. They are still guided through the game by developer made content and not player made content.
Also its a fact there are many ways to make a successful sandbox, there are multiplayer games out now (rust, dayz, minecraft, 7 days to die, etc) that are highly successful exploring this model. Its not hard to image an MMO format to these type of games, EvE is successful in spite of its incredibly large learning curve and mundane combat and exploration (in my opinion). If these things were corrected (not hard to fix honestly) then you could attract a much larger crowd to this form of gameplay.
Also Landmark is by no means a true sandbox. Just because it offers worldbuilding in claims doesn't grant it the title, although worldbuilding is a sandbox element. From my understanding, EQ Next is a standard questing/leveling/class based MMO with highly customizable plots. A sandbox in the true sense is a game like EvE or face of mankind that offers complete player freedom. Just giving people the ability to build shit and terra form doesn't mean they are free to do whatever they want. They are still guided through the game by developer made content and not player made content.
Landmark is likely to add more themepark elements over time, but currently it is the truest sandbox the MMO space has ever seen, because the entire point of the game is content creation using in game tools, which is what it means to play in a sandbox. If you aren't engaged in an activity that in some way alters the world, you aren't engaged in a sandbox element, because the shape of the sand isn't any different when you finish than it was before you started.
The Mission Architect in the CoX games was a sandbox element. The creation of player cities in SWG was a sandbox element. The Foundry in Neverwinter is a sandbox element. Playing through the content created by someone else is not sandbox, it's simply going on player created rides in the themepark instead of developer created rides.
FFA PvP, by itself, is not a sandbox element. RvR can be partially sandbox, depending on the degree to which player actions can impact the world in the RvR zone(s). Crafting is not inherently sandbox. Wide open worlds are not inherently sandbox. Public dungeons are not inherently sandbox. Only features which involve altering the world in some fashion are sandbox. It has nothing to do with "freedom" per se. It's not an "Anarchy Box" or a "Liberty Box," it's a sandbox. Sand, and tools for shaping sand.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Comments
No. A game engine by itself does not provide a sandbox. A game engine, plus in game tools the players can use to create their own content, that would be the ultimate sandbox. You require both the sand and the tools to have a sandbox, sand by itself is not sufficient.
Though if we want to get really technical about it, even in a game that provides the players with tools for creating content the only part of the game that is actually a sandbox is the content creation portion. To the extent that the content created by the tools is static, other players who then make use of that content are just riding themepark attractions created by players instead of ones created by devs.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Gamify cell block 4 to get a themepark prison.
Sandbox and themepark coexist in harmony in a virtual world. Split a virtual world into two and you'll get sandbox and themepark,
GTA and SKyrim are virtual worlds and are both sandbox and themepark.
I know very little about sandboxes and V worlds. I've only just recently heard of a sandbox so im no expert.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Wrong. My wife and I played lotro 99% as a sandbox. We had no tools but what was given.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
All games are about meaningful choices only sandboxes tend to have more meaningless choices in them.
And games, specifically, are about rules and objectives. For example, there's a difference between playing a game and playing with LEGO. The way I see it, themepark is geared more toward being a game whereas sandboxes generally try to lean towards the other.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
...and 2 or more entities playing legos together. (agreement of rules)
More like recess as opposed to PE class. Bullies and all.
Any choice that teaches you something can't be meaningless. Having no way to correct that choice would render it pointless.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think that this thread is full of misinformation, but that is just me personally. The poster who stated that there is no such thing as a sandbox MMORPG may be right, but there are certainly sandbox MMOs. It seems like very few people on these forums has ever played Second Life, despite the fact that it has been out for ages. If that game isn't a sandbox, I don't know what constitutes one. Admittedly, it may be more of an experiment than a game, much like the comparison of LEGOs to playing a game made above.
Players seem to be tired on the quest hub model, I sure am. Then again, I'm the type of player who will grind random mobs, especially if they might have low drop rate items. Overall, I think the quest hub model has reached its zenith, and while we won't see it going anywhere anytime soon, developers realize players like options apart from it.
You've established through this and other posts in the thread that you are confused about the implications of the sandbox analogy. Refer to previous posts for clarification, multiple posters have explained it clearly and accurately already.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I fear that the Golden Age for sandbox MMOs could be the downfall for that genre.
Sandbox MMOs just are not that popular than Themepark MMOs if they would be in high demand by enough we would have more of them.
If one good Sandbox would come out now i do not doubt that the number of players would be enough to be satisfying but if we have several good ones coming out the people will spread out and each of the games might not be counted as a success for the lag of a big playerbase.
So in the end it could really discourage Company's to release anymore sandbox games after that since they would see them as failed.
Of course its also possible that suddenly all the Themepark fans fall in love with Sandbox games but if we see how long players are now contempt with the same old over and over it would be quite a miracle to suddenly have a huge change like that.Nope. I understand it.
I don't care what post you find more accurate. If there was a post I thought was accurate I would refer to that. I didn't. So.
Ill refer to people who play them and how and why they play them, and how that differs from other types and how it differs from my own experiences. Then ill see how they are similar. Then I will observe.
Then, I will make my own decision.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The easiest way to define a sandbox would probably be Eve online and WoW would be the best example of a themepark MMO. One feels like a virtual world and the other feels like a virtual lobby.
I can only hope the golden age of sandboxes is incoming, to me that's what the entire genre is about - creating virtual worlds.
that's not technical - just accurate. Landmark is the sandbox. SOE seems to be trying to save money on hiring developers and letting the players do it. If you make your MMORPG sandbox then you have permanent/semi permanent change in your game - and you might not like where that ends up. So we don't have sandbox MMORPGs.
This is the problem GW2 has and we don't see any real solution to it. When I played EQ you could kill certain mobs that would trigger the whole zone to change. It was cool - but it was not 'sandbox' - that's still scripted content. It will eventurally change back.
GW2 despite people hating on it is a small step forward because zones now usually have several states - with mulit-stage events being in various states. It's not permanent change but its better then the typical 'mob dead' or "mob alive" state settings you get in WoW. Events have up to 6 states and they can cycle in one direction or another.
I like the AI changes in EQ:N where mobs supposedly have a mind of their own. Cool. Could be exciting. but not sandbox.. Storybricks sounds exciting. Its too bad SOE is licensing the technology because even if it works they will mess it up, IMHO.
You can call puppies pomegranates for all I care, I'm just trying to make sure you understand how the sandbox analogy actually works so that we're clear that you're choosing to use the word in an inaccurate manner, rather than accidentally doing so because you fail to understand the meaning.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
And this is the problem with "what a sandbox is to me" threads, especially when that's not where the thread starts. It's impossible to have an actual conversation with the "experts".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I failed to understand the meaning? So you're sure it's me?
Ok how am I failing? Refer to earlier posts?
Just say what you mean.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
By your standard, City of Heroes was a sandbox game. Hell, NEVERWINTER is. Player created content may be an important part of a sandbox game, but is certainly isn't the definitive.
Here is the closest thing you guys are going to find to a 'definition' of sandbox.
The problem you guys are having, is that sandbox design is a made-up term. It doesn't have a strict definition, just a mutually accepted concept (to varying degrees). The 'purists' view sandboxes as nothing but the most completely unrestricted gameplay in the most extreme sense. However, the problem with this is most 'pure' sandboxes still have linear elements. Look at starbound for example, there is a linear progression of tools, armor, and sectors. It also has heavy zoning. However, I don't think anyone would consider that game a themepark.
Indeed the only unifying factor I can think of when it comes to 'pure' sandbox games, is player generated content as the core gameplay. This is why modding isn't accepted as a sandbox. It is player generated content, but it isn't the core gameplay.
- That said, this thread seems to be oriented with sandbox 'purists' in mind. In this regard I have to disagree. I think pure sandboxes will remain niche. And I think pure themeparks are becoming niche.
What we are actually seeing is a convergence of themepark and sandbox features. What we are seeing is the emergence of the 'themebox'. Games embracing elements of both design types, and trying to combine them to create superior games.
The problem w/ pure sandboxes is they force the game to be entirely about gathering & managing resources. Something most gamers get bored with.
The problem w/ pure themeparks is that pre-generated content can only be created at a limited pace. People are devouring the content faster than it can be produced, and thus makes it not sustainable. Furthermore, because of this rapid consumption of content, players are getting bored / desensitized to more and more types of content, making it nearly impossible to create more engaging content at the same pace.
Gamers still want structure, but they also want the freedom sandbox games provide. I think we're going to be seeing a lot more games that try to do just that.
It's hard to explain it any more clearly, it's an extremely simple analogy. What does a sandbox consist of? Sand, and tools for using the sand to make something. If there are no tools present that allow you to alter the form of the sand in some fashion, it isn't a sandbox. You, and many others, keep using the word sandbox to refer to game features that can in no way be interpreted to actually fit the analogy. If you want to talk about "open world" vs. "on rails," then use those terms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the themepark/sandbox distinction.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Can you please identify my mistake so I can learn from it.
I say a lot of stuff, which of my ramblings did I confuse my own gameplay with impossible gameplay based on your criteria?
Obviously you are correct and I'm wrong.
I love being wrong, so no big deal.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Unless you spent 99% of your time in LotRO decorating your instanced house, you weren't spending that much time playing sandbox elements, because house decoration is the only element which could even theoretically be framed as sandbox in that game. Unless others were added in the last couple years, haven't played in a while.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I dont think they are niche at all. The concept has been so little explored in MMO's and the ones that have been made, have small development teams with 0 marketing and make dumb fucking choices ( cough darkfall ).
DayZ is a prime example of a hardcore sandbox that appeals to alot of PC gamers, its one of the most popular PC games out right now. Its one of the most brutal and unforgiving games, but since it delivers an experience like no other, gamers are starting to take notice. There gets to a point when people have played the same washed up shit over and over that they crave a different experience that only sandboxes can provide.
Again, sandbox MMO's have been little explored thanks to WoW ruining the genre, creating an almost endless offspring of clones. There are many ways to make a successful, accessible sandbox. It just takes a developer who has the brains and balls to develop it.
You don't have to like WoW (I certainly don't) but it is ridiculous to say it ruined the genre. Without it's success, there is a strong possibility that there wouldn't be any AAA MMOs, because prior to WoW no MMO had been successful enough to justify dedicating a large budget to producing one. Add to that, many of the people who started with WoW had their tastes change over time and moved on to other MMOs, whereas without that initial entry point they may have never entered the MMO space at all.
As to there being many ways to make a successful sandbox, it's a nice theory, but until we actually see multiple successful sandboxes happen it's only a theory. One that Landmark (the most sandbox MMO ever developed to date) very well may prove correct if it lives up to it's early promise.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
There is...and never has been... a "golden age of sandboxes"
Makes the discussion irreverent...
First you need a an age of sandboxes. When that happens...we'll talk.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
At launch we made our own content and changed the absolute best parts of the world. We saved all the screenshots too. It was Middle Earth! 1% dealing with the themepark. It didn't last long. Theoretically.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
No its not ridiculous that WoW ruined the genre, its common sense. Prior to WoW every MMO was unique in its own right, and also contained a lot more sandbox elements, even the term "sandbox" wasn't even coined until after WoW's many clones to describe a time before the market was saturated with themeparks. And there were triple A mmos before WoW, practically all of them. Swg, uo, eq, daoc, etc. They weren't exactly made by indie companies.
Literally every triple A MMO since WoW is a clone, from the standard quest hub centered gameplay, to the interface, to the battlegrounds and raiding at max level, with the 8 playable classes and the segmented PvP and the optional crafting and yadada. WoW was the first MMO to do this in a streamlined fashion, its its major success meant every other studio was going to emulate it to generate less risky shareholder profits. This is a fact if you have followed MMO's since their inception.
Also its a fact there are many ways to make a successful sandbox, there are multiplayer games out now (rust, dayz, minecraft, 7 days to die, etc) that are highly successful exploring this model. Its not hard to image an MMO format to these type of games, EvE is successful in spite of its incredibly large learning curve and mundane combat and exploration (in my opinion). If these things were corrected (not hard to fix honestly) then you could attract a much larger crowd to this form of gameplay.
Also Landmark is by no means a true sandbox. Just because it offers worldbuilding in claims doesn't grant it the title, although worldbuilding is a sandbox element. From my understanding, EQ Next is a standard questing/leveling/class based MMO with highly customizable plots. A sandbox in the true sense is a game like EvE or face of mankind that offers complete player freedom. Just giving people the ability to build shit and terra form doesn't mean they are free to do whatever they want. They are still guided through the game by developer made content and not player made content.
Landmark is likely to add more themepark elements over time, but currently it is the truest sandbox the MMO space has ever seen, because the entire point of the game is content creation using in game tools, which is what it means to play in a sandbox. If you aren't engaged in an activity that in some way alters the world, you aren't engaged in a sandbox element, because the shape of the sand isn't any different when you finish than it was before you started.
The Mission Architect in the CoX games was a sandbox element. The creation of player cities in SWG was a sandbox element. The Foundry in Neverwinter is a sandbox element. Playing through the content created by someone else is not sandbox, it's simply going on player created rides in the themepark instead of developer created rides.
FFA PvP, by itself, is not a sandbox element. RvR can be partially sandbox, depending on the degree to which player actions can impact the world in the RvR zone(s). Crafting is not inherently sandbox. Wide open worlds are not inherently sandbox. Public dungeons are not inherently sandbox. Only features which involve altering the world in some fashion are sandbox. It has nothing to do with "freedom" per se. It's not an "Anarchy Box" or a "Liberty Box," it's a sandbox. Sand, and tools for shaping sand.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.