That's the paradox of multiplayer sandboxes. People want to play them for the freedom but having to interact with other players automatically reduces that freedom in one form or another.
The simple solution is to provide pve freedom (like you can complete your mission in multiple ways as in many SP games like Dishonored) but no pvp freedom (have it turned off).
Originally posted by Kyleran As the definition of what makes a sandbox style game varies wildly between almost every player, yes making a good sandbox is very challenging.
Some people say they must have FFA PVP with full loot, others reject that idea entirely. What drives progression in a sandbox, for some, skills that advance through repetitive use, but EVE uses basically a time based progression system and there are other ways.
Does a sandbox style game have levels? To some folks, never, but then SWG, considered by many to be one of the classic sandbox games not only had levels, it had clearly defined classes and consensual PvP only as well.
So again, what really makes a good sandbox, which game or games from the past should they copy? The ones that were financially successful as WOW? Forget WOW, I doubt the revenues from all sandboxes ever made don't come close to what SWTOR currently makes, while most sandbox style games are financial train wrecks, EVE not withstanding. (And some folks claim EVE is not a proper sandbox.)
The task is definitely not easy, SOE appears to be willing to give it another go, but my guess when EQ Next finally arrives many will decry that it is not a proper sandbox because it lacks, or included one feature or another.
This is the starting point for the issue. There has to be a concise definition of what is and is not a sandbox as well as a consensus amongst the people. If you can't solve that "simple" problem, you can't go onto the next step.
When someone qualifies sandbox with "proper sandbox" or any other adjective, you know they are extremist in their position and can be ignored. Heck, there have been people who called wow a sandbox.
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
The simple solution is to provide pve freedom (like you can complete your mission in multiple ways as in many SP games like Dishonored) but no pvp freedom (have it turned off).
This is the starting point for the issue. There has to be a concise definition of what is and is not a sandbox as well as a consensus amongst the people. If you can't solve that "simple" problem, you can't go onto the next step.
When someone qualifies sandbox with "proper sandbox" or any other adjective, you know they are extremist in their position and can be ignored. Heck, there have been people who called wow a sandbox.
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?"