It was saved for the time the population went up but it did not remain saved so that's not dishonest.
Depends on what you mean by saved. A temporary boost (about a year) doesn't really say "saved" to me. If it does, then saying it's saved is meaningless.
Originally posted by DocBrody ..your definitions of open world / "game does not tell you what to do" fits for WOW or any other run off the mill themepark too.
You lost credibility with that statement. I'm pretty sure WoW invented the quest hub, where 99.9% of players went to 'be told what to do" on a daily basis.
Originally posted by Sovrath ...If you need to be literal about it then take a "real" sandbox, throw in some toys but don't allow, say "water" or the use of hexagonal pails, "whatever". It doesn't suddenly become "something else". It becomes a sandbox without water or certain pails.
And to make it a theme park, you'd need a vending machine next to it which tells you exactly what to do: 1. Fill a pail with sand: reward $100 2. Build a sand castle: reward $15,000 3. Walk to the other side of the sandbox: reward $50.
I don't think the average kid had to worry about some older kid coming over and punching him in the face and kicking in his sand castle.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I feel that Sandboxes don't require PVP to be a sandbox, but PVP is a core feature of a Sandbox. I don't think you need it, because how I view a sandbox, which may not be the conventional perspective, is that you can do whatever you want to progress your character. Craft, combat, politics are all viable options depending on the games systems that are implemented. However, freedom is the name of the game when it comes to sandboxes and PVP is, in essence, a form of pure freedom.
I agree that there should be systems that incentivizes not killing other players, but like others have said, they should still be allowed to do it.
Again, even though I view PVP as a core of a sandbox game, I don't think it is a requirement. I think you take PVP out and you can still progress your character by combat (mobs), crafting, politics (political system, ie Vanguard Diplomacy) again depending on the game. However I think PVP just adds to these systems rather than is a detriment.
I realize we have all dealt with gankers and have been frustrated out of our minds by these type of players. However I don't feel that a small section of the PVP populace should be blamed for the demonizing an entire game play style. I also agree that FTS and FPS have better systems to deal with PVP, however I wouldn't say that those games keeps everyone on even playing fields like another poster stated. Especially FPS, dunno bout you guys but I know in a lot of FPS these days you can purchase "better" guns or equipment/armor in one way or another, although they usually are better dependent on play style, not just RPM (rounds per minute) and dmg.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Adding the vending machine does not limit what the sandbox can do though or mean you have to use it. It just provided another option.
True, and no one is forcing you to get a job or pay your bills. Those are choices, too.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
The freedom sandbox is talking about is just freedom. The fact that "people" are only talking about a limited type of freedom, doesn't mean the term sandbox doesn't include other types of freedom, it means those players aren't interested in those sandbox elements. Pvp is a sandbox element.
And when a group of people don't recognize it as something of interest it becomes an sandbox element that is not needed.
That the real crux of the matter.
If a group of people don't want it then its omission is not an issue.
this "freedom" is not about players forcing themselves on others. It's about people playing games that have elements they are interested in.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by DocBrody
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
The freedom sandbox is talking about is just freedom. The fact that "people" are only talking about a limited type of freedom, doesn't mean the term sandbox doesn't include other types of freedom, it means those players aren't interested in those sandbox elements. Pvp is a sandbox element.
And when a group of people don't recognize it as something of interest it becomes an sandbox element that is not needed.
That the real crux of the matter.
If a group of people don't want it then its omission is not an issue.
this "freedom" is not about players forcing themselves on others. It's about people playing games that have elements they are interested in.
No you're changing the argument from "is pvp sandbox?" to "do people want sandbox?"
Pvp is a sandbox element. Whether or not people want it is a separate issue, not the crux of the issue.
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
The freedom sandbox is talking about is just freedom. The fact that "people" are only talking about a limited type of freedom, doesn't mean the term sandbox doesn't include other types of freedom, it means those players aren't interested in those sandbox elements. Pvp is a sandbox element.
And when a group of people don't recognize it as something of interest it becomes an sandbox element that is not needed.
That the real crux of the matter.
If a group of people don't want it then its omission is not an issue.
this "freedom" is not about players forcing themselves on others. It's about people playing games that have elements they are interested in.
No you're changing the argument from "is pvp sandbox?" to "do people want sandbox?" Pvp is a sandbox element. Whether or not people want it is a separate issue, not the crux of the issue.
The argument is whether or not a sandbox is a sandbox without pvp.
There are people who claim it is not. I say (and others) that all a sandbox without pvp becomes is "a sandbox without pvp". Not a themepark as others insist.
I suppose my statement is more about a group of people who recognize sandbox games as being a variety of things and if someone were to come along and make a "sandbox game without pvp" they would not question the validity of it being a sandbox.
It's not limiting freedom to take out an activity that no one in that particular group wants. They don't recognize it as required for a sandbox and are willing to play a game called "sandbox" without it.
No one has yet to prove that a sandbox without pvp becomes anything other than a sandbox without pvp.
Just like a literal sandbox without the allowance of star shaped pails is still a sandbox. Just without those pails.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by kitarad Isn't Tale in the Desert a sandbox game. That has no PvP.
It has no combat PvP. Most of the content is cooperative but there are still competitions. Certain trials and events require people to compete against each other. However, in the case of trials the winners are eliminated each weak so there is no power creep. For events, people get most of the benefit by just participating so winning one is just icing on the cake.
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
The freedom sandbox is talking about is just freedom. The fact that "people" are only talking about a limited type of freedom, doesn't mean the term sandbox doesn't include other types of freedom, it means those players aren't interested in those sandbox elements. Pvp is a sandbox element.
And when a group of people don't recognize it as something of interest it becomes an sandbox element that is not needed.
That the real crux of the matter.
If a group of people don't want it then its omission is not an issue.
this "freedom" is not about players forcing themselves on others. It's about people playing games that have elements they are interested in.
No you're changing the argument from "is pvp sandbox?" to "do people want sandbox?" Pvp is a sandbox element. Whether or not people want it is a separate issue, not the crux of the issue.
The argument is whether or not a sandbox is a sandbox without pvp.
There are people who claim it is not. I say (and others) that all a sandbox without pvp becomes is "a sandbox without pvp". Not a themepark as others insist.
I suppose my statement is more about a group of people who recognize sandbox games as being a variety of things and if someone were to come along and make a "sandbox game without pvp" they would not question the validity of it being a sandbox.
It's not limiting freedom to take out an activity that no one in that particular group wants. They don't recognize it as required for a sandbox and are willing to play a game called "sandbox" without it.
No one has yet to prove that a sandbox without pvp becomes anything other than a sandbox without pvp.
Just like a literal sandbox without the allowance of star shaped pails is still a sandbox. Just without those pails.
There is no pure sandbox in existence. Every single game has both sandbox elements and themepark elements. The question is whether or not pvp is a sandbox element.
Can you take out pvp and have the sandbox crowd still like it? Of course. But you could say that about any individual feature. Terra-forming is absolutely a sandbox element, yet it's rarely present in MMOs. See the problem here?
Themepark to Sandbox is a spectrum. No game has ever been a pure sandbox or a pure themepark. Taking OUT sandbox features makes your game that much less of a sandbox. To say "it's still considered a sandbox" is a meaningless statement.
I would say the question is pvp a sandbox element is to broad. There are many different implementations of pvp. Owpvp arena duels.
I would consider some forms of pvp sandbox because they do add or lead to player creation. Others I would say are not sandbox.
As with most things in this debate. The question is not really is this feature sandbox or not. The question is the way this feature is implemented sandbox or not.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by kitarad Isn't Tale in the Desert a sandbox game. That has no PvP.
It has no combat PvP. Most of the content is cooperative but there are still competitions. Certain trials and events require people to compete against each other. However, in the case of trials the winners are eliminated each weak so there is no power creep. For events, people get most of the benefit by just participating so winning one is just icing on the cake.
If the definition of PvP does not require combat, then there are no games with more than one player that do not have PvP. It makes this entire thread kind of pointless. More pointless.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by kitarad Isn't Tale in the Desert a sandbox game. That has no PvP.
It has no combat PvP. Most of the content is cooperative but there are still competitions. Certain trials and events require people to compete against each other. However, in the case of trials the winners are eliminated each weak so there is no power creep. For events, people get most of the benefit by just participating so winning one is just icing on the cake.
If the definition of PvP does not require combat, then there are no games with more than one player that do not have PvP. It makes this entire thread kind of pointless. More pointless.
Noone ever said that pvp is restricted just to combat.. and pvp does not require combat.. combat is just one way for pvp. PvP is player interaction, and more precisely competitive player interaction. Most just reduce it to combat, because it is the most used one.. but trading(within a competitive environment) is pvp.. hell most of what we do here is pvp.. just with words and arguements.
And EvE is famous for its PvP and in EvE combat is just a rather tiny piece what makes the pvp in EvE great. And most probably the weakest piece, when it comes down to EvE.
I could even go that far.. if you reduce pvp to combat in a MMO, it is most certainly a themepark.
And a lot of themepark actually try to reduce, or restrict pvp in almost any way.
e.g. GW2 and node spots... now every player got his own... to avoid pvp. Just as a simple example. Or looting. Now loot gets autoshared to avoid pvp.. and so on and so forth..
I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who use the term pvp, are using it to mean COMBAT. In this particular thread, it probably even means open world pvp.
No. Sandbox doesn't equate to crappy FFA PvP, it's just that some sandbox games have had FFA PvP. The minority of people who want FFA just grasp at anything in hopes of someone making them the game almost nobody wants or would play.
FFA PvP is pure garbage. MMORPG PvP is garbage.
To me.
To me, MMORPGs are a direct evolution from D&D. In D&D you do PVE in groups. You don't solo. You don't PvP. MMORPG is the perfect extension of D&D.
The grief-filled PvP adds zero and there are tons of games with PvP in them done way better than PvP can ever be done in an MMORPG. Griefers just like MMORPG PvP because they can grief easier (gear vs skill, uber builds vs clueless noobs, premades vs pugs = easy kills with zero challenge = dookie).
Solo adds nothing - you can solo in so many games you can't count them all.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
No. Sandbox doesn't equate to crappy FFA PvP, it's just that some sandbox games have had FFA PvP. The minority of people who want FFA just grasp at anything in hopes of someone making them the game almost nobody wants or would play.
FFA PvP is pure garbage. MMORPG PvP is garbage.
To me.
To me, MMORPGs are a direct evolution from D&D. In D&D you do PVE in groups. You don't solo. You don't PvP. MMORPG is the perfect extension of D&D.
The grief-filled PvP adds zero and there are tons of games with PvP in them done way better than PvP can ever be done in an MMORPG. Griefers just like MMORPG PvP because they can grief easier (gear vs skill, uber builds vs clueless noobs, premades vs pugs = easy kills with zero challenge = dookie).
Solo adds nothing - you can solo in so many games you can't count them all.
Nobody is asking if you like pvp. Most of this post is just some ill-informed, infantile rant about the kind of pvp you probably have very little experience in.
The question is whether or not sandbox and pvp are synonymous. Sandbox means freedom, turning off pvp in the world is restricting freedom. Maybe you don't like sandbox features, but pvp is one of them.
I've never gotten one the stupid polls to work. Wish me luck. If it doesn't work (again) then let's say: do you ever think PvE when you hear "sandbox" ?
None of the above.
A sandbox could involve PvP only, PvE only, or a mix.
Comments
Depends on what you mean by saved. A temporary boost (about a year) doesn't really say "saved" to me. If it does, then saying it's saved is meaningless.You lost credibility with that statement. I'm pretty sure WoW invented the quest hub, where 99.9% of players went to 'be told what to do" on a daily basis.
And to make it a theme park, you'd need a vending machine next to it which tells you exactly what to do:
1. Fill a pail with sand: reward $100
2. Build a sand castle: reward $15,000
3. Walk to the other side of the sandbox: reward $50.
I don't think the average kid had to worry about some older kid coming over and punching him in the face and kicking in his sand castle.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I feel that Sandboxes don't require PVP to be a sandbox, but PVP is a core feature of a Sandbox. I don't think you need it, because how I view a sandbox, which may not be the conventional perspective, is that you can do whatever you want to progress your character. Craft, combat, politics are all viable options depending on the games systems that are implemented. However, freedom is the name of the game when it comes to sandboxes and PVP is, in essence, a form of pure freedom.
I agree that there should be systems that incentivizes not killing other players, but like others have said, they should still be allowed to do it.
Again, even though I view PVP as a core of a sandbox game, I don't think it is a requirement. I think you take PVP out and you can still progress your character by combat (mobs), crafting, politics (political system, ie Vanguard Diplomacy) again depending on the game. However I think PVP just adds to these systems rather than is a detriment.
I realize we have all dealt with gankers and have been frustrated out of our minds by these type of players. However I don't feel that a small section of the PVP populace should be blamed for the demonizing an entire game play style. I also agree that FTS and FPS have better systems to deal with PVP, however I wouldn't say that those games keeps everyone on even playing fields like another poster stated. Especially FPS, dunno bout you guys but I know in a lot of FPS these days you can purchase "better" guns or equipment/armor in one way or another, although they usually are better dependent on play style, not just RPM (rounds per minute) and dmg.
*Edit* - Spelling and added a word or two
True, and no one is forcing you to get a job or pay your bills. Those are choices, too.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
And when a group of people don't recognize it as something of interest it becomes an sandbox element that is not needed.
That the real crux of the matter.
If a group of people don't want it then its omission is not an issue.
this "freedom" is not about players forcing themselves on others. It's about people playing games that have elements they are interested in.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
The freedom sandbox is talking about is just freedom. The fact that "people" are only talking about a limited type of freedom, doesn't mean the term sandbox doesn't include other types of freedom, it means those players aren't interested in those sandbox elements. Pvp is a sandbox element.
And when a group of people don't recognize it as something of interest it becomes an sandbox element that is not needed.
That the real crux of the matter.
If a group of people don't want it then its omission is not an issue.
this "freedom" is not about players forcing themselves on others. It's about people playing games that have elements they are interested in.
No you're changing the argument from "is pvp sandbox?" to "do people want sandbox?"Pvp is a sandbox element. Whether or not people want it is a separate issue, not the crux of the issue.
No.
See A Tale in the Desert
Not only does it not have PvP, it doesn't have any combat at all.
All die, so die well.
The argument is whether or not a sandbox is a sandbox without pvp.
There are people who claim it is not. I say (and others) that all a sandbox without pvp becomes is "a sandbox without pvp". Not a themepark as others insist.
I suppose my statement is more about a group of people who recognize sandbox games as being a variety of things and if someone were to come along and make a "sandbox game without pvp" they would not question the validity of it being a sandbox.
It's not limiting freedom to take out an activity that no one in that particular group wants. They don't recognize it as required for a sandbox and are willing to play a game called "sandbox" without it.
No one has yet to prove that a sandbox without pvp becomes anything other than a sandbox without pvp.
Just like a literal sandbox without the allowance of star shaped pails is still a sandbox. Just without those pails.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It has no combat PvP. Most of the content is cooperative but there are still competitions. Certain trials and events require people to compete against each other. However, in the case of trials the winners are eliminated each weak so there is no power creep. For events, people get most of the benefit by just participating so winning one is just icing on the cake.
There is no pure sandbox in existence. Every single game has both sandbox elements and themepark elements. The question is whether or not pvp is a sandbox element.
Can you take out pvp and have the sandbox crowd still like it? Of course. But you could say that about any individual feature. Terra-forming is absolutely a sandbox element, yet it's rarely present in MMOs. See the problem here?
Themepark to Sandbox is a spectrum. No game has ever been a pure sandbox or a pure themepark. Taking OUT sandbox features makes your game that much less of a sandbox. To say "it's still considered a sandbox" is a meaningless statement.
I would consider some forms of pvp sandbox because they do add or lead to player creation. Others I would say are not sandbox.
As with most things in this debate. The question is not really is this feature sandbox or not. The question is the way this feature is implemented sandbox or not.
game can be sandbox without pve or pvp, look at landmark.
people are just using sandbox as a custom label for 100 different types of games, there is no strong consensus beyond shaping the world.
non instanced pvp is just one of many ways a game can let you shape the world.
My blog:
If the definition of PvP does not require combat, then there are no games with more than one player that do not have PvP. It makes this entire thread kind of pointless. More pointless.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Noone ever said that pvp is restricted just to combat.. and pvp does not require combat.. combat is just one way for pvp. PvP is player interaction, and more precisely competitive player interaction. Most just reduce it to combat, because it is the most used one.. but trading(within a competitive environment) is pvp.. hell most of what we do here is pvp.. just with words and arguements.
And EvE is famous for its PvP and in EvE combat is just a rather tiny piece what makes the pvp in EvE great. And most probably the weakest piece, when it comes down to EvE.
I could even go that far.. if you reduce pvp to combat in a MMO, it is most certainly a themepark.
And a lot of themepark actually try to reduce, or restrict pvp in almost any way.
e.g. GW2 and node spots... now every player got his own... to avoid pvp. Just as a simple example. Or looting. Now loot gets autoshared to avoid pvp.. and so on and so forth..
Competition should be synonymous with sandbox.
Because every sandbox you play in is a struggle called attrition.
There's only so many shovels, so many corners, so much sand, and so much space to play in.
That's the definition of SANDBOX. There should be limits. And there should be contest for those limits.
But we can't have that. The devs get assaulted by everyone who want easy peasy wastes of time.
a yo ho ho
IRL you pvp every day.
You have to cut someone off while driving.
You have to gossip to get ahead at your Walmart job.
You have to stomp mice and bugs to seem heroic to the meeker ones around you.
It's life or death out here.
a yo ho ho
No. Sandbox doesn't equate to crappy FFA PvP, it's just that some sandbox games have had FFA PvP. The minority of people who want FFA just grasp at anything in hopes of someone making them the game almost nobody wants or would play.
FFA PvP is pure garbage. MMORPG PvP is garbage.
To me.
To me, MMORPGs are a direct evolution from D&D. In D&D you do PVE in groups. You don't solo. You don't PvP. MMORPG is the perfect extension of D&D.
The grief-filled PvP adds zero and there are tons of games with PvP in them done way better than PvP can ever be done in an MMORPG. Griefers just like MMORPG PvP because they can grief easier (gear vs skill, uber builds vs clueless noobs, premades vs pugs = easy kills with zero challenge = dookie).
Solo adds nothing - you can solo in so many games you can't count them all.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
a yo ho ho
Nobody is asking if you like pvp. Most of this post is just some ill-informed, infantile rant about the kind of pvp you probably have very little experience in.
The question is whether or not sandbox and pvp are synonymous. Sandbox means freedom, turning off pvp in the world is restricting freedom. Maybe you don't like sandbox features, but pvp is one of them.
None of the above.
A sandbox could involve PvP only, PvE only, or a mix.